Weekend Sober Thread: Shit's Gettin' Real in Egypt

It's also harder for extremists to rally support for extra-legal remedies (ie: terrorism) if they have a seat in the government. People who feel marginalized and ignored are more likely to lash out. Being represented in Parliament, even if you rarely get your way, will let off a lot of steam.

Think back to the "No taxation without representation" rallying cry in the American Revolution. No chance the colonies would have enough seats in Parliament to reduce their taxes, but it's knowing that your voice is being heard, "getting your day in court," that helps to calm nerves and keep things civil.

 

Nevermind this, the internet has been back on. Don't know why I didn't see this in the recent news.

 

In case anyone didn't think Mubarak would pull a Tunisia and shift funds out of the country prior to stepping down, boy are you in for a surprise. Seems a big part of the delay was to move funds out of accounts where he might get prosecuted (re: Swiss) to safer locations (re: UAE). Though I'm not sure if I should be surprised that in 30 years he scrapped together somewhere between 3 and 40 billion pounds or disappointed he only managed to get together that little.

Source: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8320912/Egypt-Hosni-Mubarak-used-last-18-days-in-power-to-secure-his-fortune.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... rtune.html</a>

 

I haven't read the article from the AP, just the AJE synopsis, but the story that's coming out about that ridiculous speech Thursday night is that Mubarak's top aides told him he could ride things out.

It could be that they were all suffering from group think. Or, perhaps other people close to him wanted to make sure Mubarak concentrated as much criticism on himself. If he had been more reasonable in stepping down, maybe people would look more towards punishing other people in the administration. But, we don't have limitless attention, and now Mubarak is going to claim even more of it.

 

I'm hoping that the new Egypt, while less likely to kowtow to the US and it's demands will start a trend of regional self policing. The US diplomacy based in pay-for-favor really needs to go away. Supplying enough bribe/blood money to the pockets of dictators and leaders that the population are disenfranchised with is a waste.

The US needs to stop looking for problems to solve beyond it's own borders and start solving some of the ones within them.

 

The military has dissolved the parliament.

Also, they have removed the barricades and tents in Tahrir Square and forced protesters aside to allow traffic through. If they don't get on the horn soon and announce that they're lifting the emergency law and when the elections will be, shit could get bad there in a hurry.

 

How was there any question about our national stance on the protests and Mubarak's regime?

 

The Egyptian military has ordered journalists to stop filming in Tahrir Square.

This is off to a good start...

They say they'll be handing down a new Constitution within 10 days, and it will be put to a referendum within 60. Without a government in place, what choice do the people have? Approve the new constitution, or accept a military state. Of course, this is probably the best outcome the people could hope for, so long as a broad base of opposition representatives had a say in forming the new constitution.

 

Mubarak fell into a coma Saturday, after being toppled.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/02/14/137565.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/ ... 37565.html</a>

The report also says that he fainted twice while recording his final speech, which may explain why it was delayed. There were also some earlier reports saying that he had stopped taking whatever medication he's one. No meds = coma? Could be diabetes?

 

Interesting... Or in other words "'hey, 'sup Ayman? Cat got yer tongue?"
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/02/15/at_a_loss_for_words?page=0,0

 

Most of the news stories say she was "sexually assaulted", and so does CBS in an official statement. The only source for "not raped" was an unnamed source cited by the Wall Street Journal.

At any rate, I hope this tragic event shows people that there is no such thing as a "peaceful mob", and that just because you agree with their political views, that doesn't mean they won't tear you to shreds, regardless.

 

Apparently the mob was shouting, 'Jew! Jew!' as they raped her. And in a country where ~90% of the women have had their genitals mutilated, I'd say the incident says more about Egypt's backwards and misogynistic culture than human nature.

 

Until we've got some more details on what exactly happened to her, I'm not going to rush to opine... but it certainly seems that the story of a white blonde reporter getting beaten and sexually assaulted--what that means, in this case, nobody knows--is much easier to sell than a complex story of regime change with proper reporting. This way, the right can sperg about backwards Mooslims and the left can scream "Blaming the victim! Blaming the victim!"

 

The US government stance eon treatment of press was painfully retarded.

Consider we're talking about a country where the average citizen isn't allowed to protest, doesn't have a say in their government, and lacks any number of other basic democratic liberties. Is falsely imprisoning a reporter any worse than falsely imprisoning any other average joe?

Yes.

Attacking one reporter attacks there rights of the citizens at large. Freedom of press is both the freedom to report and the freedom to consume reporting. Reporters are a tiny number, but cutting off their rights impacts the rights of everyone who would have watched/read/listened to what they said.

Where the media and the government over here screwed up is our "hands off the media" stance. When a reporter in Egypt gets roughed up, we'd hear more about it than when an average citizen was attacked. Not because the rights of the nation were imperiled, but because reporters are special and punching Anderson Cooper in the head is simply worse than punching Ahmed the Plumber in the head. If Anderson Cooper had been involved in a robbery that was clearly not related to the protests, it still would have been news.

 

The two aren't mutually exclusive. It coulda been some old fashioned fingerbanging action. Pew pew pew.

 

Or even something a bit larger than a finger, considering the woman had to be treated in a hospital for several days after the incident.

Oh, but by no means are any people in the crowd anti-Semitic! They're all patriots who deposed the evil Mubarak!

 

The motivation, whether simply because she was a woman, because she was a Jew, because they were just a bit too horny, doesn't matter. Racism, bigotry, simple violence, all come back to human nature.

I think RCGT, while being a bit cynical, hit the nail on the head: The right and the left will both take their incredibly distorted positions on this matter and lob partisan bullshit at each other until the majority of the American public is focused on this incident, rather than the events in Egypt as a whole. Somewhere, as some in this topic have, someone will find a realistic view of what's going on and speak/write on it in an intelligent and thoughtful, not to mention reasonable manner, and no one will read or hear it, because intelligent discourse and rational thought don't sell very well to a nation that lives on pop music and Desperate Housewives.

For all the pundits and idiots who want to make this all about us, here you go. THIS is where we have some relevance to the situation, and it's a shame on us.

Sorry if I'm on a tangent here, but this stuff pisses me off to no end.

 

Al Jazeera incorrectly attributed "Moment of Zen" to Stephen Colbert instead of Jon Stewart.

Now, tell me they don't hate Jews.