Egypt: from 2011 demonstrations to today (12 Viewers)
- Thread starter ReBeL
- Start date
Egypt protests: Mubarak shows his dark side
Hosni Mubarak launched his counter-revolution today, sending waves of armed thugs to do battle with pro-democracy demonstrators in Cairo and other cities. The attacks, reportedly involving plainclothes police and vigilantes as well as pro-regime citizens, appeared to be carefully co-ordinated and timed. And the army, which only days earlier had sworn to protect "legitimate" rights of protesters, stood back and watched as the blood flowed.
This ugly turn of events should come as no surprise. What is unusual is that the regime tolerated such levels of unrest for nearly a week.
Mubarak was never quite a dictator in the Saddam Hussein or Robert Mugabe mould. His rule was more akin to the semi-enlightened despotism of an 18th-century European monarch. But at bottom, it always depended on coercion and force. Today, the pretence of reasonableness was torn away. His dark side showed for all to see.
Mubarak's speech to the nation on Tuesday night was widely misinterpreted. The president was, by turns, angry, defiant and unrepentant. He offered no apologies, proposed no new initiatives, gave no promise that his son Gamal would not succeed him, and instead lectured Egyptians on the importance of order and stability (which he alone could assure).
He appeared not to have learned anything from the past week. And his one "concession" – that he would not seek re-election – was no concession at all. After all, he had never said he would.
This was not the performance of a defeated man. Mubarak may be down but he's not out. And judging by today's events in Tahrir Square, he and the military-dominated clique around him clearly feel they have done enough, for now, to get the Americans off their backs, flex their still considerable muscle, and reclaim the streets for the regime. All the talk about reform and elections and negotiations can wait, whatever Barack Obama says.
Today's immediate message to the people from an unvanquished, still vicious regime: it's over – go home, or else.
There's a good to middling chance the counter-revolution strategy will work, given time. "Imagine yourself as Hosni Mubarak, master of Egypt for nearly 30 years. You're old, unwell, detested and addicted to power," wrote Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens.
"You could have orchestrated a graceful exit by promising to preside over free and fair presidential elections later this year – elections in which the Mubarak name would not be on the ballot. Instead you gambled that you could ride out the protests and hold on. It's a pretty good gamble ..."
Reasons for believing Mubarak can not only survive the next eight months but also exert decisive, possibly fatally obstructive influence over Egypt's new direction are plentiful. As matters stand now, the regime is unreconstructed, the opposition is split, and the Americans are undecided. Despite his insistence on a swift, orderly transition, Obama has not withdrawn his personal support. In Brussels today, the EU also declined to demand Mubarak's immediate resignation. David Cameron said reforms must be implemented faster.
All of them got a dusty brush-off. In an official statement, the Egyptian foreign ministry, still led by an old Mubarak crony, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, rejected US and European calls for the transition to start now. Calls from "foreign parties" were "aimed to incite the internal situation," it said. In other words: get lost.
Mubarak and his close confidant and deputy, Omar Suleiman, have more cards to play as they foment a backlash and seek to regain control. As in the past, they can play on Israeli and American fears of an Islamist takeover. They can point out just how disastrous it might be if a new government tore up Egypt's peace treaty with Israel.
The opposition leader, Mohamed ElBaradei can easily be portrayed as untrustworthy. In fact, such a campaign is already under way. The Americans, for example, suspected him of pro-Iranian bias when he headed the UN's nuclear watchdog – and believe, too, that he is far too cosy with Turkey's neo-Islamist leaders.
As he tries to reassert his primacy, Mubarak can rely on the conservative Arab states of the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Algeria, and on any number of African governments that have no wish to encourage popular revolution. Even old enemy Iran is privately ambivalent on this score.
He can offer negotiations to the opposition and hope to gain advantage from their refusal, so far, to participate. And if all this fails, the regime can always let loose its thugs and hooligans, just to emphasise that without state-imposed order, only chaos, not democracy, reigns.
Mubarak's counter-revolution is still a long shot. Too much has changed in Egypt for it ever to go back the way things were. But today saw the beginning of a new stage in a complex internal struggle whose ultimate outcome remains deeply uncertain.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/02/egypt-protests-mubarak
Hosni Mubarak launched his counter-revolution today, sending waves of armed thugs to do battle with pro-democracy demonstrators in Cairo and other cities. The attacks, reportedly involving plainclothes police and vigilantes as well as pro-regime citizens, appeared to be carefully co-ordinated and timed. And the army, which only days earlier had sworn to protect "legitimate" rights of protesters, stood back and watched as the blood flowed.
This ugly turn of events should come as no surprise. What is unusual is that the regime tolerated such levels of unrest for nearly a week.
Mubarak was never quite a dictator in the Saddam Hussein or Robert Mugabe mould. His rule was more akin to the semi-enlightened despotism of an 18th-century European monarch. But at bottom, it always depended on coercion and force. Today, the pretence of reasonableness was torn away. His dark side showed for all to see.
Mubarak's speech to the nation on Tuesday night was widely misinterpreted. The president was, by turns, angry, defiant and unrepentant. He offered no apologies, proposed no new initiatives, gave no promise that his son Gamal would not succeed him, and instead lectured Egyptians on the importance of order and stability (which he alone could assure).
He appeared not to have learned anything from the past week. And his one "concession" – that he would not seek re-election – was no concession at all. After all, he had never said he would.
This was not the performance of a defeated man. Mubarak may be down but he's not out. And judging by today's events in Tahrir Square, he and the military-dominated clique around him clearly feel they have done enough, for now, to get the Americans off their backs, flex their still considerable muscle, and reclaim the streets for the regime. All the talk about reform and elections and negotiations can wait, whatever Barack Obama says.
Today's immediate message to the people from an unvanquished, still vicious regime: it's over – go home, or else.
There's a good to middling chance the counter-revolution strategy will work, given time. "Imagine yourself as Hosni Mubarak, master of Egypt for nearly 30 years. You're old, unwell, detested and addicted to power," wrote Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens.
"You could have orchestrated a graceful exit by promising to preside over free and fair presidential elections later this year – elections in which the Mubarak name would not be on the ballot. Instead you gambled that you could ride out the protests and hold on. It's a pretty good gamble ..."
Reasons for believing Mubarak can not only survive the next eight months but also exert decisive, possibly fatally obstructive influence over Egypt's new direction are plentiful. As matters stand now, the regime is unreconstructed, the opposition is split, and the Americans are undecided. Despite his insistence on a swift, orderly transition, Obama has not withdrawn his personal support. In Brussels today, the EU also declined to demand Mubarak's immediate resignation. David Cameron said reforms must be implemented faster.
All of them got a dusty brush-off. In an official statement, the Egyptian foreign ministry, still led by an old Mubarak crony, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, rejected US and European calls for the transition to start now. Calls from "foreign parties" were "aimed to incite the internal situation," it said. In other words: get lost.
Mubarak and his close confidant and deputy, Omar Suleiman, have more cards to play as they foment a backlash and seek to regain control. As in the past, they can play on Israeli and American fears of an Islamist takeover. They can point out just how disastrous it might be if a new government tore up Egypt's peace treaty with Israel.
The opposition leader, Mohamed ElBaradei can easily be portrayed as untrustworthy. In fact, such a campaign is already under way. The Americans, for example, suspected him of pro-Iranian bias when he headed the UN's nuclear watchdog – and believe, too, that he is far too cosy with Turkey's neo-Islamist leaders.
As he tries to reassert his primacy, Mubarak can rely on the conservative Arab states of the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Algeria, and on any number of African governments that have no wish to encourage popular revolution. Even old enemy Iran is privately ambivalent on this score.
He can offer negotiations to the opposition and hope to gain advantage from their refusal, so far, to participate. And if all this fails, the regime can always let loose its thugs and hooligans, just to emphasise that without state-imposed order, only chaos, not democracy, reigns.
Mubarak's counter-revolution is still a long shot. Too much has changed in Egypt for it ever to go back the way things were. But today saw the beginning of a new stage in a complex internal struggle whose ultimate outcome remains deeply uncertain.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/02/egypt-protests-mubarak
Nice question.
I liked the sentence, then I knew he was the one who said it. I'm not condoning the whole acts of Kennedy because simply I do not have much knowledge about them. By mentioning this sentence I merely implicate that i like that exact sentence, nothing more.
In the meantime, I doubt Goorge has ever said a correct sentence that can be quoted in any place but a joke forum.
I liked the sentence, then I knew he was the one who said it. I'm not condoning the whole acts of Kennedy because simply I do not have much knowledge about them. By mentioning this sentence I merely implicate that i like that exact sentence, nothing more.
In the meantime, I doubt Goorge has ever said a correct sentence that can be quoted in any place but a joke forum.
To end the homosexuality discussion Martin,
If there is a muslim state and most of the people in it are against homosexuality,i cannot force the opinions of the minority upon the majority this is itself against Democracy.I mean if we make voting in that Islamic state and we said everyone should vote whether Homosexuality should be allowed or not,if most of the people voted for prohibiting it,then what is your problem then?!!!!! Do you still aftar that insist in forcing the opinions of the minority upon the majority?!!!
Every country has its own laws,in Arab countries the fine for driving with out license is not worth mentioning but in US for example it is high and even you would be thrown in jail,i can't go there drive with out a license and when they catch i tell them i'm Sudanese please punish me according to our laws and not yours.
Why you people don't want to understand that,i dont know.
Regarding the Education part,you are true Education here is not at all like the west,but who said these are true Islamic states.
And you said Rab "When you put religion in your sight you are not going to improve",who said that,can i give some examples?
Al Khwarizmi who put religion in his sight invented Algebra.
Jaber Ibn Hayan 'the father of chemistry' put religion in his sight.
Ibn Khaldun 'The founder of Sociology' put religion in his sight.
Alhazan 'father of optics' and the most one developed what is called now 'Scientific method' put religion in his sight.
Ibn Rushd one of the best philosophers of all time put religion in his sight.
I can mentioned hundreds but even thousands of names,
Rab,you said best here.You said 'religious fanatic man',we all are against fanatics.WALLAAAAAAHY ya Rab i understand you,you are right fanatics never improve anything,but all those legendary names i mentioned above were fanatics? the ans: No.
If G.W.Bush was idiot,that doesn't mean all the republicans are,you can't ignore Abraham Lincoln.
As for the last paragraph,you are agian right,but all these regimes in Gulf are just hypocratic,Sex is never a taboo in Islam,it's completely their problem not Islam's,cos you know very well that Sex is a taboo in the middle eastern cultures not in the Islamic culture,here in Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive,but that has nothing to do with Islam,when i was in school they didn't allow me to grow my hair saying that it's against the Islamic teachings,though prophet Muhammad himself had a shoulder length hair
.In Iran Khomeini has invented an Ideology that makes anyone unable to discuss him,though Ali himself didn't mention anything like that.They are just hypocrites,believe me.And just because Iran is called an Islamic country that doesn't make them so,you know Mubarak's party is 'National Democratic party' does that name only makes him a Democratic leader.My country is 'Republic of Sudan',do you see any thing that tells you it's a republic?
If there is a muslim state and most of the people in it are against homosexuality,i cannot force the opinions of the minority upon the majority this is itself against Democracy.I mean if we make voting in that Islamic state and we said everyone should vote whether Homosexuality should be allowed or not,if most of the people voted for prohibiting it,then what is your problem then?!!!!! Do you still aftar that insist in forcing the opinions of the minority upon the majority?!!!
Every country has its own laws,in Arab countries the fine for driving with out license is not worth mentioning but in US for example it is high and even you would be thrown in jail,i can't go there drive with out a license and when they catch i tell them i'm Sudanese please punish me according to our laws and not yours.
Why you people don't want to understand that,i dont know.
Regarding the Education part,you are true Education here is not at all like the west,but who said these are true Islamic states.
And you said Rab "When you put religion in your sight you are not going to improve",who said that,can i give some examples?
Al Khwarizmi who put religion in his sight invented Algebra.
Jaber Ibn Hayan 'the father of chemistry' put religion in his sight.
Ibn Khaldun 'The founder of Sociology' put religion in his sight.
Alhazan 'father of optics' and the most one developed what is called now 'Scientific method' put religion in his sight.
Ibn Rushd one of the best philosophers of all time put religion in his sight.
I can mentioned hundreds but even thousands of names,
Rab,you said best here.You said 'religious fanatic man',we all are against fanatics.WALLAAAAAAHY ya Rab i understand you,you are right fanatics never improve anything,but all those legendary names i mentioned above were fanatics? the ans: No.
If G.W.Bush was idiot,that doesn't mean all the republicans are,you can't ignore Abraham Lincoln.
As for the last paragraph,you are agian right,but all these regimes in Gulf are just hypocratic,Sex is never a taboo in Islam,it's completely their problem not Islam's,cos you know very well that Sex is a taboo in the middle eastern cultures not in the Islamic culture,here in Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive,but that has nothing to do with Islam,when i was in school they didn't allow me to grow my hair saying that it's against the Islamic teachings,though prophet Muhammad himself had a shoulder length hair
.In Iran Khomeini has invented an Ideology that makes anyone unable to discuss him,though Ali himself didn't mention anything like that.They are just hypocrites,believe me.And just because Iran is called an Islamic country that doesn't make them so,you know Mubarak's party is 'National Democratic party' does that name only makes him a Democratic leader.My country is 'Republic of Sudan',do you see any thing that tells you it's a republic?Please read what Naggar wrote before. He said that if you give the majority the right to vote on rights for the minorities, the minorities will never have any rights.
In other words, if Muslims in, let's say France, complain that they are a minority that is not being treated fairly, according to your logic, these people should shut up and never complain, because they are a minority. So would you tell them to shut up?
In other words, whoever makes up the majority can decide to treat the minorities just as badly as he (they) wants. Is this your idea of justice? You don't have to tell me that this is democracy, I know that it's democracy. It's precisely the single biggest problem with democracy.
Do you think it's a good world in which the only countries safe for you as a Muslim to visit are the Islamic ones? This is the final consequence of your logic.
Just because something is a law doesn't mean it is just. Otherwise the Egyptians would not be protesting. They would say "okay, Mubarak decides the law, we obey whatever he says".
In other words, if Muslims in, let's say France, complain that they are a minority that is not being treated fairly, according to your logic, these people should shut up and never complain, because they are a minority. So would you tell them to shut up?
In other words, whoever makes up the majority can decide to treat the minorities just as badly as he (they) wants. Is this your idea of justice? You don't have to tell me that this is democracy, I know that it's democracy. It's precisely the single biggest problem with democracy.
Do you think it's a good world in which the only countries safe for you as a Muslim to visit are the Islamic ones? This is the final consequence of your logic.
Just because something is a law doesn't mean it is just. Otherwise the Egyptians would not be protesting. They would say "okay, Mubarak decides the law, we obey whatever he says".
True, I can't disagree here. But I also understand Snoop's fear at the same time.
100% on everything but concerning the bold part, what you and me call will not happen. I don't even remember when was the last time I saw a real ideal Arab president. But then again maybe I could be wrong and we will really witness a qualified person with good ethics like you mentioned. A new era? who knows.
100% on everything but concerning the bold part, what you and me call will not happen. I don't even remember when was the last time I saw a real ideal Arab president. But then again maybe I could be wrong and we will really witness a qualified person with good ethics like you mentioned. A new era? who knows.
I agree with you and I'm proud of each of the names you mentioned above, hence why I said nowadays is not like before. Before people were not using religion to achieve their goals, nowadays it is the case. Also, maybe I didn't explain myself well but when I said fanatic I meant the real fanatic not like you and me or Tahir for example.
Spot on, I agree on everything. You said everything I wanted to share earlier.
Rab,you said best here.You said 'religious fanatic man',we all are against fanatics.WALLAAAAAAHY ya Rab i understand you,you are right fanatics never improve anything,but all those legendary names i mentioned above were fanatics? the ans: No.
If G.W.Bush was idiot,that doesn't mean all the republicans are,you can't ignore Abraham Lincoln.
As for the last paragraph,you are agian right,but all these regimes in Gulf are just hypocratic,Sex is never a taboo in Islam,it's completely their problem not Islam's,cos you know very well that Sex is a taboo in the middle eastern cultures not in the Islamic culture,here in Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive,but that has nothing to do with Islam,when i was in school they didn't allow me to grow my hair saying that it's against the Islamic teachings,though prophet Muhammad himself had a shoulder length hair.In Iran Khomeini has invented an Ideology that makes anyone unable to discuss him,though Ali himself didn't mention anything like that.They are just hypocrites,believe me.And just because Iran is called an Islamic country that doesn't make them so,you know Mubarak's party is 'National Democratic party' does that name only makes him a Democratic leader.My country is 'Republic of Sudan',do you see any thing that tells you it's a republic?
If G.W.Bush was idiot,that doesn't mean all the republicans are,you can't ignore Abraham Lincoln.
As for the last paragraph,you are agian right,but all these regimes in Gulf are just hypocratic,Sex is never a taboo in Islam,it's completely their problem not Islam's,cos you know very well that Sex is a taboo in the middle eastern cultures not in the Islamic culture,here in Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive,but that has nothing to do with Islam,when i was in school they didn't allow me to grow my hair saying that it's against the Islamic teachings,though prophet Muhammad himself had a shoulder length hair
.In Iran Khomeini has invented an Ideology that makes anyone unable to discuss him,though Ali himself didn't mention anything like that.They are just hypocrites,believe me.And just because Iran is called an Islamic country that doesn't make them so,you know Mubarak's party is 'National Democratic party' does that name only makes him a Democratic leader.My country is 'Republic of Sudan',do you see any thing that tells you it's a republic?
Spot on, I agree on everything. You said everything I wanted to share earlier.
Yeah, I can understand that too. There are numerous things that can go wrong really, but if we are not from Egypt we should understand that this is not about us but about them. Whatever may come next it should not be made about us. If the people of Egypt rose up to their oppressor it is only their right to gamble on their own fate what will come next. It's up to them to decide and not some backstage politics or wishful thinking what will happen 1000km from them if that or that will happen it's not their right. If this is indeed a peoples revolt against elite, I say forza it!
1-Exactly you are right,muslims in France should stop protesting,its their own country so if the law bans Hijab in school muslim girls should remove it,and in fact most of the Muslim scholars said that but you maybe don't know,and Naggar mentioned the france example because he wanted to say if muslims should remove hijab in some non-muslim countries because it is a law,then non Muslims should also obbey the laws when they are in Muslim countries even if they didn't like it,and that's fair everyone has his own country.Now i said that Muslims in France should shut up,would you please tell the non-muslims here to shut up?
2-The term bad,differs from a person to a person,for you prohibiting Homosexuality is bad for us is not.In USA,public breastfeeding is not allowed in many places,for us Public breastfeeding is normal and no one will say a single word to a breastfeeding mom in public.Homosexuality for us is bad,you are free with you country.
3-I didn't say that's my logic,i lived in India 5 years.In fact it's Snoop's logic,he is the one who said he is safe everywhere exept in an Islamic state.
2-The term bad,differs from a person to a person,for you prohibiting Homosexuality is bad for us is not.In USA,public breastfeeding is not allowed in many places,for us Public breastfeeding is normal and no one will say a single word to a breastfeeding mom in public.Homosexuality for us is bad,you are free with you country.
3-I didn't say that's my logic,i lived in India 5 years.In fact it's Snoop's logic,he is the one who said he is safe everywhere exept in an Islamic state.
I couldn't disagree more. Let me try to make the problem clearer. Are you opposed to slavery? If the majority in a country votes to allow slavery, do you think there would be something wrong with that? Should the slaves protest or should they shut up just like the Muslims in France?
Is slavery on your list of "bad" things or do I need to think of something even more crazy to make a good example?
Is slavery on your list of "bad" things or do I need to think of something even more crazy to make a good example?
Well, Rab. We had great Arab leaders whose goal was just the properity for their people, but they were never given a chance by the other stupid regimes.
For example, if you ask any Yemeni guy about the best president they knew in their country, all of them will answer with one name: Ibrahim Al-Hamdi. I admit that I never heard of him before going to Yemen because our education never focused on him being a shining spot in the history of Yemen.
Just to give you some info, he led the country from 1974 to 1977, and during this short period, he made a very huge economic development. All the people there felt it. Even Yemeni people who were out of the country went back because their country became an attractive one for progress in all sectors.
Do you know how his reign ended? He was killed by the Saudi regime when he was 34 years old.
What I want to say briefly, we have nice characters, but we have to remove the idiots ruling us now, and make a good environment for the new era.
For example, if you ask any Yemeni guy about the best president they knew in their country, all of them will answer with one name: Ibrahim Al-Hamdi. I admit that I never heard of him before going to Yemen because our education never focused on him being a shining spot in the history of Yemen.
Just to give you some info, he led the country from 1974 to 1977, and during this short period, he made a very huge economic development. All the people there felt it. Even Yemeni people who were out of the country went back because their country became an attractive one for progress in all sectors.
Do you know how his reign ended? He was killed by the Saudi regime when he was 34 years old.
What I want to say briefly, we have nice characters, but we have to remove the idiots ruling us now, and make a good environment for the new era.