Can Egypt hold it together? President's son, family flee to Britain

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Which is the exact same way that the Americans support "democracy".

I was about to agree with you but then. . .I think I should first ask for clarification. Are you suggesting that--as I believe is the case with radical Islam--if certain American political groups get ahold of political power they will then suspend the democratic process? Because I don't think that is true of any serious political ideology in this country. I do believe it's true of these radical groups though--their theocratic ideology is not compatible with democracy.

If on the other hand you were saying that everyone supports democracy in the hopes of getting what they want, then yes I agree with that. I would also agree that putting the power in the hands of the people runs the risk of the people making poor judgments.
 
I was about to agree with you but then. . .I think I should first ask for clarification.

I meant that the American government promotes democracy overseas only insofar as it furthers its own interests, and actually has a history of overthrowing democratic regimes when such regimes were not palatable to them.

Case in point - they were very excited about democracy in the Palestinian territories, until the Palestinians elected Hamas. Then democracy was a bad, bad thing. Salvador Allende in Chile is also a rather fantastic example of this.
 
The probable underlying cause of the Egyptian revolution hasn't even been mentioned in the thread.
 
I was about to agree with you but then. . .I think I should first ask for clarification. Are you suggesting that--as I believe is the case with radical Islam--if certain American political groups get ahold of political power they will then suspend the democratic process? Because I don't think that is true of any serious political ideology in this country. I do believe it's true of these radical groups though--their theocratic ideology is not compatible with democracy.

Muslim extremistst will seize the opportunity to gain power by legal elections. After that, they will indeed eliminatie all form of democracy to hold on to the position of power. I certainly hope that'll never happen and it sickens me to think about that, for my love of the country.

If on the other hand you were saying that everyone supports democracy in the hopes of getting what they want, then yes I agree with that. I would also agree that putting the power in the hands of the people runs the risk of the people making poor judgments.

What Anitram says is true. Through history the US is known for supporting dictators as long as they were not communists or religious fanatics, or to support their own interest. It is known that Saddam Hussein was helped by the US to gain power to form a buffer against Iran. In Afghanistan, the US helped the Taliban to gain power to help them fight against the Russians.

And here is Egypt with dictators Mubarak and his predecessor Sadat that forms a gateway to Israel and the rest of the Middle East. Too bad for the Egyptians...
 
Remember Clinton's old catchphrase, "It's the economy, stupid."

If food was cheap and the standard of living better they really wouldn't give a fuck if Mubarak built himself a thousand palaces.

US monetary policy has lead to hyperinflation in the Third World.

Egypt and Tunisia usher in the new era of global food revolutions - Telegraph

Absolutely true. Add the poor rate of freedom of speech and you'll get some really angry masses.

Can you imagine that I send Mubarak a fan letter when I was 14 saying how much I loved the country and how eager I was to study Egyptology :reject: (that's a good one for zoo confessionals or IO, right? :wink: )
 
I meant that the American government promotes democracy overseas only insofar as it furthers its own interests, and actually has a history of overthrowing democratic regimes when such regimes were not palatable to them.

Case in point - they were very excited about democracy in the Palestinian territories, until the Palestinians elected Hamas. Then democracy was a bad, bad thing. Salvador Allende in Chile is also a rather fantastic example of this.

Ah, America's attitude towards democracy OVERSEAS. In that case I agree with you completely.
 
pb-110201-egypt-shoes-birkett3.photoblog900.jpg


get out the jam
Hosni is toast

ShowImage.ashx
 
Looting attempts at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo and theft at other historic sites have underscored the vulnerability of "a cultural legacy that belongs to mankind." Can the country's antiquities and sites be protected?

Egypt Antiquities Damaged, at Risk During Unrest

:(

Can someone - possibly Bonoa - explain to me why would some Egyptians want to destroy their heritage? Is it because they want to sell the artifacts for food?
 
I meant that the American government promotes democracy overseas only insofar as it furthers its own interests, and actually has a history of overthrowing democratic regimes when such regimes were not palatable to them.

Case in point - they were very excited about democracy in the Palestinian territories, until the Palestinians elected Hamas. Then democracy was a bad, bad thing. Salvador Allende in Chile is also a rather fantastic example of this.

Even though democracy does not always achieve the results some want, it's still preferable to dictatorship, oppression and starvation.
It's not a bad, bad thing. Otherwise there wouldn't be a huge amount of people risking their lives, worldwide, for it on a daily basis.
 
Mubarak knew the masses wouldn't be appeased by his statement. He's purposely pissing them off so they start doing something more drastic so then he can use that as an excuse to needing to remain in power. Seems like a final desperate bid for power to me. We'll see what happens.
 
Can someone - possibly Bonoa - explain to me why would some Egyptians want to destroy their heritage? Is it because they want to sell the artifacts for food?

They're not - it's generally thought to be the secret police doing it on behalf of Mubarak (although of course like anywhere, there would be some dickheads taking advantage.) This + looting + general violent mayhem is meant to create mass fear and a sense of anarchy, giving Mubarak a 'legitimate' excuse to crackdown.
 
The Guardian said:
What's going on Egypt is "incredible exciting," according deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, who still hasn't mastered the language of international diplomacy.

"It is incredibly exciting what is going on, it reminds me so much of the time when the Berlin Wall fell, the power of the people out on the streets, in a regime which two weeks ago everybody thought was one of the most stable regimes in the region," he told ITV Daybreak.

He then seem to remember he was deputy prime minister, adding: "I don't think it is really for me or anybody else to start dictating exactly when the transition should take place but clearly it is already taking place, and that holds out at least the exciting prospect of real democracy and real freedom and openness in Egypt for the first time ever."

Heh. For the non-UK'ers, Clegg as Deputy PM sometimes has a similar issue to Biden - goes "off script" a bit, but with Clegg it tends to be not embarrassing like Biden, and more just awkward for those also in power with him. Like the time he declared the Iraq War illegal from the floor of the House of Commons while he was in the role of Acting PM. Whoops!
 
where are you looking, Earnie? Guardian live updates?? *off to check*

eta: oh shit...
 
Watching Al-Jazeera. "Pro-Mubarak" supporters (read: police) in the hundreds have turned up and kicked off a rolling street fight against the thus far completely peaceful anti-Mubarak protesters. The military is not yet picking a side.
 
oh yeah, it's looking terrible...

i just read this too:

1.33pm (GMT): The CNN reporter, Anderson Cooper, has reportedly been attacked by pro-Mubarak posters.


George Hale, English editor of the Maan News Agency, tweeted:

Anderson Cooper punched 10 times in the head as pro-Mubarak mob surrounds him and his crew at Cairo rally - CNN manager
 
Egypt Antiquities Damaged, at Risk During Unrest

:(

Can someone - possibly Bonoa - explain to me why would some Egyptians want to destroy their heritage? Is it because they want to sell the artifacts for food?

They're not - it's generally thought to be the secret police doing it on behalf of Mubarak (although of course like anywhere, there would be some dickheads taking advantage.) This + looting + general violent mayhem is meant to create mass fear and a sense of anarchy, giving Mubarak a 'legitimate' excuse to crackdown.

The sight of the vandalism in the Egyptian Museum makes me sad. :sad:

It's not only the secret police who's doing it, it is also done because of mass hysteria. In the fire of the revolution there are always people who behave like anarchists and do things they've never done before. In a museum, you just don't touch things, let alone break it. A perpretrator could be a person who is normally very neat and serious, but in the atmosphere of revolution and he lets himself completely go (becasue of too much adrenalin I presume).

And there is a group of looters of course, who want to earn an extra penny on the antiques market.

Egyptians are proud of their heritage. There was a discussion on this subject on some other forum and someone claimed that the monuments are destroyed by fundamentalist muslims to wipe out all pre islamic heritage. If that would be true, than the looters wouldn't have stolen stuff from the site storages in Saqqara and Abusir, they would have blown up the pyramids and valley temples at these sites, like the Taliban did with the Buddha statues.
 
From Christiane Amanpour's experience:


An angry mob surrounded us and chased us into the car shouting that they hate America. They kicked in the car doors and broke our windshield as we drove away.



For the first time today, we're seeing the biggest pro-Mubarak demonstrations, as his intentions begin to sink in. There have been clashes between them and the opposition demonstrators in Liberation Square.
I had an interview with the long-time president of the Arab League, the Egyptian Amr Moussa, here in Cairo today. He says the people have sent a clear message that democracy and change are coming to the Arab world.
But he also said that Egypt cannot be allowed to collapse. That, he worried, would send the wrong signal to the rest of the world, particularly to Egypt's allies.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/egyptian-protestors-fear-chaos-mubarak-steps/story?id=12820590
 
I'm afraid Obama's "transition" rhetoric, however feebly sharpened by clarifiers from Gibbs and Crowley, can only read from the protesters' end as the US giving the regime the green light to do whatever it takes to restore "stability" on its own preferred terms. And also afraid that the protesters may have made a serious mistake--in the short term, the long term, or both--by trusting so fully in the army's loyalty.

Obama should say clearly that the time has come for Mubarak to step aside. He won't be able to wash his hands of the outcome regardless; better a period of political uncertainty than "stability" at this price.
 
Admittedly, I haven't kept up closely with the Egypt situation (partly because it overwhelms me to read so much about it).

But when I was watching the news today, a thought came to mind.

I think, or I'm guessing, Mubarak is making a calculated move. Knowing the United States will be judged and watched for its actions by Arab nations, Murbarak is probably testing the WH to see what they would do... send in U.S. military forces to quell the Egypt unrest and violence, and thereby, occupying the land and/or police it.

If the U.S. doesn't do anything, the Arab nations might start to think that the U.S. doesn't have as much clout as people think.

But if the U.S. does do something as much as an active/aggressive move, then such actions might anger some Arab nations.

Either way, I think Mubarak is subtly trying to provoke a reaction from the U.S.

Dunno. It's just my speculation.

Are my speculations off base, anyone?
 
i don't know, solemole... i think Mubarak is just clinging onto power - he has used dirty tricks in the past (provocateurs/thugs/police thugs) to frighten the opposition... i don't think it's aimed at the White House really - he has a lot to lose by pissing off the US, so why would it be?

i personally feel that if US military forces were to attempt to go in and occupy/police Egypt it would be an absolute disaster! it is the people's battle against their regime - i don't think US intervention would be well received to be honest...

this is verging on civil war; Egypt has its own army - although they did nothing to intervene yesterday, there have been news reports that they will step in and protect the protesters...

08.32am: A retired Egyptian general told the BBC that the troops stand ready to fire at pro-Mubarak supporters, if they attack protesters today.

This seems to confirm what Peter Beaumont has been seeing on the ground. The general claimed the army could turn on Mubarak as early as tomorrow.

The general told the BBC's Jon Leyne that Mubarak "would be out of office tomorrow".

We'll post a link to the audio when it becomes available.

Update: Here's that link. The Egyptian army 'will fire on pro-Mubarak protesters'.


10.59am: More confirmation that the army appears to be intervening today, from AP.

Egyptian army tanks and soldiers moved to end violence between anti-government protesters and supporters of President Mubarak in Cairo's central square today after standing by for nearly a day as the two sides battled with rocks, sticks, bottles and firebombs.

Hours after automatic gunfire hit the anti-government protest camp at Tahrir Square, killing at least three protesters, soldiers carrying rifles could be seen lining up between the two sides around 11am (9am GMT). Several hundred other soldiers were moving toward the front line.

Four tanks cleared a highway overpass from where Mubarak supporters had hurled rocks and firebombs onto the protesters.
 
Back
Top Bottom