Egyptian Protests

The idea is to placate most of those angry with the government enough to prevent them from joining the protesters. It isn't the protesters themselves the government fears, it is those of the general public who would support and/or join them.

True and good point.

Not everyone in Egypt wants him to step down and/or step down immediately.
 
The problem is that the protests are growing - they've already overflowed into the streets around the square and new protests have erupted in cities all around Egypt.

I don't think anything will satisfy the people at this point except his immediate resignation. The more he dicks around the more angry people become. If he had done this when the protests started it might have worked, but not now.
 
His head might do, but that is when the military will step in.
 
BBC News - Egypt army vow on emergency rule

A few minutes ago, the VP announced on state TV that Mubatrak had "resigned" and the Army Council was now in charge.

This is the BBC Breaking News Banner:
Egypt's Mubarak steps down

Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak is stepping down, vice president announces on state television


Quite frankly, I'm not sure if this is what it appears to be, especially after last night's speach.

Mubarak has left Cairo and is now in Sharm El Sheik, Red Sea resort.

:|

EDIT: The phrase "with immediate effect" was not included nor in the translated coverage.
 
Last edited:
I love that toung on the face of that boot.

I don't know. For those who were there, does this feel anywhere close to what the fall of the wall back in 89 felt? Or is it just another dictator falling?
 
This was a post I saw in Facebook, but it's probably too late now.

Egyptian rioters,

Please be considerate and not damage or destroy the pyramids. We will not build them again.

Thanks,

The Jews
Hellbus, oneway please.
 
and now we see who replaces him, hopefully we're not looking at a new Iran
 
The islamic brotherhood is a powerful force in Egypt. A force to be reconned with. But they are not the Ayatolah Khomeini that returned to Persia in 1979. The rebellion against the Shah was in many ways a revolt by the followers of Khomeini against the Shah regime.

The revolt in Egypt isn't that uniform. Far from it. And the brotherhood is nowhere near as powerful as Khomeini was in 1979.

That said, we can't know what'll happen. All we know is that Mubarak is out. And that there's probably a lot of scared old men in the Cabinet buildings in Tel Aviv tonight.
 
Or Burma, since Egypt is a military junta now.

Oh forget Burma, noone goes there. Thailand, now that's a military dictatorship people go to and generally no westerner cares one bit. As long as the military keeps religion out of the equation and keeps the Suez canal open, the same will apply to Egypt.
 
I am pleased for the protesters for suceeding in achieving their first goal and wish them luck in their peaceful march to real democracy.

The Army is part of the establishment too and the Minister of Defence is head of the military council now in charge. He is 79 years old and is called Tantawi, a contemporary of Mubarak since the old days.

The Army have been doing OK in the past couple of weeks, I hope they don't get any 1960's style ideas of a military Junta sounding like a good plan.

* * *

Anyway after Tunisia & Egypt, who will be the next dictatorship domino to fall to modern democracy in the Middle East?

Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran (sort of ongoing), Saudi or the Gulf States?
 
Well, at least it will probably not be Jordan. King Abdullah has a 100 000 strong almost all hashemite army that will follow him to the abyss. Revolt in Jordan will not work, and that's the reason. There is some tension in Jordan over queen Ranja, who's Palestinian, but I don't think it'll amount to that much. A lot of hashemite tribes in on the east bank want her to stop playing politics, especially abroad. But other than that, I doubt that king Abdullahs regime is in any danger as of now. The king has appointed an old general as PM recently, but that's probably more of a statement than anything else.

Now, Syria, that's a more interesting possibility. However, I don't think that'll happen either. When I was in Syria, Bashir al Assad seemed quite popular. While people not speaking up against a dictator doesn't prove affection, there is always the hints you can look at. Like the fact that most people, but not all, keep a portrait of him. If nothing else, it indicated that no one forces you to stick up a portrait of him, but that a lot of people choose to. Unlike Egypt (and Jordan for that matter), Syria has still not decleared peace with Israel, which also helps the regime.

Lebanon, well.. who is there to rebell against? Everybody other than yourself? Meeh, if there's to be anything in Lebanon, there would probably be a civil war of sorts. But no one wants it. A couple of years ago, Hezbollah took control over Beirut, in the traditional coup d'etat way. They took the parliament, the police stations, communications etc. But they left them after a day. It was a demonstration of power, showing that they are able to do so. They knew, as the rest of Lebanon also know, that the only factor in Lebanon that could possibly rival them is the army. And the army is so divided it would probably fall apart if they tried to stop the Hezbollah. There's reason to ask what the army is really for, it can't secure internal stability, and if Israel decides to invade again, they aren't even close to being able to stop such an invasion. It's as useful as a chocholate tea pot.

Who's going to overthrow the Saudi regime? Most of them (the men, at least) lead nice, soft lives and are quite rich. Pretty much all physical work is done by cheap foreign labour (many from Pakistan), and if there's someone who could revolt, it would be the women. But the women can't win such a revolt, the religious police won't think twice before chopping of limbs if they start any funny-business.

Same sort of goes for the Gulf states. I guess my money might be on Iran, but I wouldn't put money on it (see what I did there?).
 
There's reason to ask what the army is really for, it can't secure internal stability, and if Israel decides to invade again, they aren't even close to being able to stop such an invasion. It's as useful as a chocholate tea pot.

Well, here the defence forces say that every country has an army (followed by "it's our job to make sure it speaks Finnish"). Sure there are a few exceptions, but they are mostly made agreements with other countries that have one.

I think it's just one way to show that you're a real country. And I'm speaking about the most irrelevant subject in that post, but I'm slightly drunk.
 
Well, at least it will probably not be Jordan. King Abdullah has a 100 000 strong almost all hashemite army that will follow him to the abyss. Revolt in Jordan will not work, and that's the reason. There is some tension in Jordan over queen Ranja, who's Palestinian, but I don't think it'll amount to that much. A lot of hashemite tribes in on the east bank want her to stop playing politics, especially abroad. But other than that, I doubt that king Abdullahs regime is in any danger as of now. The king has appointed an old general as PM recently, but that's probably more of a statement than anything else.

Now, Syria, that's a more interesting possibility. However, I don't think that'll happen either. When I was in Syria, Bashir al Assad seemed quite popular. While people not speaking up against a dictator doesn't prove affection, there is always the hints you can look at. Like the fact that most people, but not all, keep a portrait of him. If nothing else, it indicated that no one forces you to stick up a portrait of him, but that a lot of people choose to. Unlike Egypt (and Jordan for that matter), Syria has still not decleared peace with Israel, which also helps the regime.

Lebanon, well.. who is there to rebell against? Everybody other than yourself? Meeh, if there's to be anything in Lebanon, there would probably be a civil war of sorts. But no one wants it. A couple of years ago, Hezbollah took control over Beirut, in the traditional coup d'etat way. They took the parliament, the police stations, communications etc. But they left them after a day. It was a demonstration of power, showing that they are able to do so. They knew, as the rest of Lebanon also know, that the only factor in Lebanon that could possibly rival them is the army. And the army is so divided it would probably fall apart if they tried to stop the Hezbollah. There's reason to ask what the army is really for, it can't secure internal stability, and if Israel decides to invade again, they aren't even close to being able to stop such an invasion. It's as useful as a chocholate tea pot.

Who's going to overthrow the Saudi regime? Most of them (the men, at least) lead nice, soft lives and are quite rich. Pretty much all physical work is done by cheap foreign labour (many from Pakistan), and if there's someone who could revolt, it would be the women. But the women can't win such a revolt, the religious police won't think twice before chopping of limbs if they start any funny-business.

Same sort of goes for the Gulf states. I guess my money might be on Iran, but I wouldn't put money on it (see what I did there?).

I think you forgot Yemen, which is the state I would put my money on. I am not so sure about Saudi, it is virtually shielded from the non-arab world, I know only five people who ever been inside and they all describe it has corrupt, bureaucratic and hypocritical (especially towards alcohol and other very bad things).
 
Well, here the defence forces say that every country has an army (followed by "it's our job to make sure it speaks Finnish"). Sure there are a few exceptions, but they are mostly made agreements with other countries that have one.

I think it's just one way to show that you're a real country. And I'm speaking about the most irrelevant subject in that post, but I'm slightly drunk.
Yeah. That is why most nations have armies. It was merely a joke from my side on the futility of having a Lebanese army. If Lebanon replaced their army with gendarmes, they'd save money and still have as good a defense. In fact, when the Germans invaded Luxemburg in 1940, they were met by several gendarmes who told them that "it is illegal to invade Luxemburg". But I digress.

I think you forgot Yemen, which is the state I would put my money on. I am not so sure about Saudi, it is virtually shielded from the non-arab world, I know only five people who ever been inside and they all describe it has corrupt, bureaucratic and hypocritical (especially towards alcohol and other very bad things).
Yemen, I don't know enough about Yemen to comment. But from what it looks like, it's possible. One silly idea I'll throw into the mix.. the Gaza strip.

As for Saudi, the House of Saud is thoroughly corrupt, their version of Islam is so extreme it makes the Iranians think of them as fucking nutters (and the Saudis think of the Iranians as Godless hounds and sinners), to be honest, Saudi Arabia makes Iran look like a symbol of democracy, peace, freedom and equality.
 
there are democracy demonstrations planned in Bahrain on the 14th, where autocratic regime of minority Shia rule over the majority Sunni muslims (or its the other way around, can't remember). Should be interesting to say the least.
 
I never can be bothered to remember either. Especially as the relative difference between Shia and Sunni Islam really aren't that big. They're different, and as long as you know they hate each other's guts (for whatever reason), that sums it up quite nicely.
 
Alger is bustling with protests too today. Lets hope they will achieve the same success as their Tunisian neighbours.
 
Top