Views from an Egyptian

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1968394&cid=35025842

by rkwz • 15 years ago

197 71 15 years ago

csomar2• 15 years ago

I don't agree. It's not the whole population that will make the true revolution. They'll help, but are not the main stream of the revolution.

Read my comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2151468

Western Media has made false rumors that this is the Facebook revolution of young people. Yeah, Facebook played a major role, but wasn't the key.

There is torture in these countries. To break police torture, you MUST torture them. To torture them, you must have free people. People that don't have jobs, families, are not related to a school or university, have absolutely nothing that they can go to the streets and clash with the police.

There must be clashes with the police and blood. It's expensive to get your freedom. 30 Million protesters will not change Mubarak mind. He is a dictator. You need to get him out by force.

Will Egypt succeed? Too early to answer. The protests need to spread. I must mention that the protests in Tunisia spread to 100% of the country. Every meter square has protests of any kind. That thing drives police crazy and they give up.

Can Mubarak win? Absolutely. If the protests doesn't spread, a few thousands will be caught and tortured and the revolution will die. Fear will get back stronger to citizen. That's exactly what happened in Algeria.

jacquesm15• 15 years ago

> To break police torture, you MUST torture them.

I hope you meant that in a figurative sense and not in a literal one, if you meant that literally then I'm sorry, but that's absolutely not the case.

You break a bad regime by doing better, not by becoming like them.

I sincerely hope that El Baradei will get his way and will be allowed to lead a transition government he seems like a decent fellow and has done a lot of good by upholding a high standard of ethics at the IAEA (even when under considerable pressure to do otherwise) and I can not for one second imagine that he would condone torturing his former opponents.

Some blood may flow but less is better, not worse. It's possible for a revolution to happen almost without bloodshed, typically mass strikes and walk-outs as opposed to violent clashes with representatives of the government.

Gandhi: "Nonviolence is a weapon of the strong"

edited: tx tsycho.

tsycho2• 15 years ago

It's Gandhi, not Ghandi. Sorry for nitpicking, but I hate to see the name mangled of someone I respect a lot.

csomar2• 15 years ago

No. I think you didn't understand. You may want to visit the Arabic countries. People here can't rise their voices. They risk getting fired, getting sued... Also you can't get all people to agree to go on strike.

Get to the street, you'll find police waiting you. Fight, you don't have another choice.

There is another point too: These strikes are led mainly by jobless people that have nothing in life. (Desperate people). So they are always in strike, they need to get their voice to the street.

And if you have followed the Tunisian revolution, as it advances it gets more organised, that's because people began to gain power. And once they gain power, they consider that everything the state owns as their property too. In the past, they considered it as a property of the ancient regime.

yardie• 15 years ago

You must also realize that while Gandhi did not use direct violence he did use the threat of violence as a bargaining tool. The British realized the choice was to either work with him or end up confronting more radical fringe groups that weren't opposed to terrorism.

The antithesis to this was the battle of Algeria. The french ratcheted up the level of suppression to protests to such a degree that they won the battle and lost the country, violently.

patrickgzill• 15 years ago

It is entirely possible that should the Egyptian police escalate (as it appears they have done), actual physical violence against them, even to the point of killing some of them, may be necessary.

Dictators only lose when their underlings no longer do the dirty work for them.

paganel• 15 years ago

> You break a bad regime by doing better, not by becoming like them.

In theory, you're of course correct. In practice, think about the regicide of Charles I or about the French "Reign of Terror" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror), they were both meant to break bad regimes. How well they've succeeded in doing that it's debatable, the undecidable question is if terror/violence was really necessary.

ajays2• 15 years ago

>> Gandhi: "Nonviolence is a weapon of the strong"

Gandhi has a romantic allure to people in the west, but the reality is he won because the alternative was much worse.

It was the end of the WW. The British were tired. And there were 100s of 1000s of Indian soldiers, just returned from years of fighting, who were ripe to be recruited by the radical elements in India. This was enough for the Brits to throw in the towel.

>> You break a bad regime by doing better, not by becoming like them.

You must get out and experience the real world. I like how you think, and in an ideal world, this would be the way to go. But the reality is, dictators don't got away quietly; they are driven out by violence and threats of violence.

emit_time_n3rgy4• 15 years ago

Other interesting quote is "poverty is the worst form of violence."

sliverstorm• 15 years ago

Gandhi: "Nonviolence is a weapon of the strong"

I sure don't blame the Egyptian people if they aren't feeling very strong right about now.

presidentender• 15 years ago

I do not agree that torture is the solution to torture. Resistance to imprisonment need not take the form of imprisonment, and there's little value in torture.

adrianwaj• 15 years ago

Stratfor: Egyptian Unrest Continues http://youtu.be/tPX1qe8bH1s (2:58)

lkozma• 15 years ago

A quite interesting perspective: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/2011128...

stcredzero• 15 years ago

Reminds me of a Raymond Smullyan quip about a friend on road-trips with his girlfriend and her young daughter. When it came down to deciding where the three of them would eat, there was often a difference of opinion -- the daughter always wanted McDonald's while the adults wanted to sample the local cuisine. One time, he proposed to decide by voting. The daughter decried: "That's not fair! I'd lose!"

I suspect the US government is afraid of the results of fair elections in Egypt.

barrkel• 15 years ago

I don't think it shows hypocrisy. To my mind, the US foreign policy is more predictable assuming that the US is self-interested and relatively unprincipled. If the opposition in any foreign dispute shows more likelihood of being friendly to US interests than the incumbent, then the US will support them - perhaps even use "democracy" as an excuse; but if the opposition may not be as friendly, then the US will oppose it, publicly (e.g. Venezuela) or more obliquely (Egyptian military aid).

dkarl• 15 years ago

I don't think words about democracy would have any bearing on protests in Egypt and elsewhere. Young people there are fed up with unemployment, corruption, and abuse of power. It may be obvious to us that the fix to those things is democracy, but not everybody agrees. It is not clear what the protesters want, even if those who speak for them speak of democracy. Do the protesters want a different form of government, or do they want to be ruled undemocratically by a decent, benevolent regime? Once again, it seems obvious to us that it is foolish to hope for such a thing, but people across the world have placed their faith in that hope for thousands of years, and even in the United States, more people are concerned with the need to elect "good" politicians who can be trusted than in pushing for transparency and accountability.

Edit: Actually I am completely baffled that the author of that article refers to these protests as "democracy movements." It seems like a very narcissistic assumption for Americans to make. These protests may be revolts against corrupt and repressive governments, but so was the revolution in Iran in 1979.

jordanb2• 15 years ago

What was Al Jazeera's take on potential American encouragement of the protests in Iran? Where they demanding that Obama use his bully pulpit to make a strong case for the protesters?

russnewcomer• 15 years ago

I am growing a little more encouraged that the Tunisian and Egyptian 'revolutions' are true revolutions, and not just western media events (Tehran's "Twitter Revolution"). Here's hoping that with the revolution comes actual governmental change, too, instead of just new faces on the same structure. That doesn't happen as often as people would hope.

acqq2• 15 years ago

The OP mentions Muslim Brotherhood as the worthy opposition, but they don't appear as anything democratic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood

"The Brotherhood's stated goal is to instill the Qur'an and Sunnah as the "sole reference point for ... ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community ... and state""

brown9-2• 15 years ago

I'm not sure the poster labels them as "worthy", just that they've been systematically excluded, used as puppets in sham elections, and are popular with the lower-classes.

acqq2• 15 years ago

The problem is if they can be considered to have party goals that are compatible with democratic society. If the goal of the opposition is to destruct the mechanisms by which they are to come to the power, should they be allowed to participate.

yummyfajitas6• 15 years ago

I don't know about the Muslim Brotherhood, but very often Islamic opposition parties are favored because they are perceived as less corrupt than the existing regime. I know at least one non-Muslim who has voted for Islamic parties on the grounds that "at least they don't get rich by sucking our blood."

jacquesm15• 15 years ago

Much the same sentiment powers the Islamic hardliners in Turkey.

rms• 15 years ago

My opinion: the crucial distinction between the revolution in Tunisia and the non-revolution in Egypt is that the Tunisian revolution was kicked off by a self-immolation. Burning yourself alive is perhaps the most powerful human form of expression against repression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-immolation

ck2• 15 years ago

This revolution as I understand it (barely) is a really tricky thing, here's why:

If only chaos is created and the people don't take complete control soon, there are a few opposing parties in Egypt, who could easily be classified as terrorists, who could take advantage of this and take control.

But they aren't at that point yet so these fears aren't discussed (yet). Government has not been dissolved. So if/when you hear that, everyone best be paying attention.

pnathan• 15 years ago

Consider the lessons of France, Russia 1917, and the former British Colonies. Also, the Athenian democracy.

One lesson is: wisdom must be found to bring a country out of a dictatorship into a just land. Another lesson is: untrammeled democracy is but mob rule and leads nowhere.

harry• 15 years ago

Been watching live reports from the best source I can find: http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/ for about 30 minutes now.

yummyfajitas6• 15 years ago

This is where I become ashamed of my government:

"“Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things. And he’s been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interest in the region, the Middle East peace efforts; the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with – with Israel. … I would not refer to him as a dictator.” - Joe Biden

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0127/Joe-Bi...

"The Egyptian government has an important opportunity to be responsive to the aspirations of the Egyptian people, and pursue political, economic and social reforms that can improve their lives and help Egypt prosper." - Hillary Clinton

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0126/The-US...

Wow, that's a really proportionate criticism.

Fun fact: Egypt is our #3 recipient of foreign aid.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s1298.p...

It would be great if Biden, instead of saying Mubarak is not a dictator, said something like this:

"Dear Egyptian Police and Military. The US government gives Egypt $1.5 Billion every year. That's what is paying your salary. If you want to get paid, just get out of the way."

hvs• 15 years ago

Yeah, it's called Realpolitik and, for better or worse (usually worse), it's generally the basis of American foreign policy.

That said, "idealism" is also often a terrible basis for foreign policy as well.

jbooth5• 15 years ago

Eh.. realpolitik is short term and almost always misses the big picture. When things change, you wind up on the wrong side, like us with Mubarak right now. Or all that Taliban and Saddam funding once upon a time.

There's a balance of course.. but in a case like this, I'd elevate America the idea over America the set of short term interests, and I'm embarrassed by Biden's comments too.

jacquesm15• 15 years ago

Realpolitik got you Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bin Laden, 9/11, Noriega and a whole slew of other problems.

Makes you wonder if it is really worth it.

emit_time_n3rgy4• 15 years ago

Egypt is #4 recipient of US foreign aid after Afghan, Iraq, and Israel according to that pdf..

yummyfajitas6• 15 years ago

My mistake, my eyes glossed over Afghanistan.

michaelkeenan• 15 years ago

> Fun fact: Egypt is our #3 recipient of foreign aid...The US government gives Egypt $1.5 Billion every year.

The US government gives Egypt foreign aid because that is part of the agreement of the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty[1], when Egypt became the first Arab country to officially recognize Israel.

I don't know enough about the overall situation to have an opinion, but it does seem at least plausible to me that buying peace with foreign aid might be a good thing (albeit a distasteful moral-hazard-prone good thing).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt%E2%80%93Israel_Peace_Trea...

iujyhgftrgh• 15 years ago

>Dear Egyptian Police and Military. The US government gives Egypt $1.5 Billion every year. That's what is paying your salary. If you want to get paid, just get out of the way.

And replace him with who ?

We had a nice pet leader in Iran once, he used to buy weapons and nuclear reactors from us. He did torture people and his secret police weren't terribly nice. Then he got overthrown and for some reason the people that replaced him didn't like us very much ( although we did still sell them weapons ).

yummyfajitas6• 15 years ago

And replace him with who ?

That's really up to the Egyptian people, no?

baguasquirrel• 15 years ago

FWIW, we were in opposition to Libya and Cuba for how long, and it didn't get us anywhere.

We need a real poli-sci explanation for why certain leaders are sticky, and why certain regions seem to have more than their fair share of despots.

hugh32• 15 years ago

We need a real poli-sci explanation for why certain leaders are sticky

Some people are just better at being despots than others, just as some people are better at being actors, CEOs, basketball players or programmers.

Give me unquestioned power over some tin-pot little country and I'd probably be chased out of my palace within two weeks. But a really good (in the sense of efficacy, not morality) despot knows just how to crush dissent among the masses using just the right amount of force while keeping all his generals (and anyone else with the power to depose him directly) dependent on a drip-feed of favours and constantly afraid of a knife in the back. It's a delicate balancing act, I'm sure, and some folks are just really good at it.

jordanb2• 15 years ago

I'm very ambivalent on this uprising. Murbarak is a brutal, evil person but the Muslim Brotherhood will be no better for the people of Egypt than he is.

The Shah was a horrible person, but do you think the Ayatollah have brought peace, prosperity, and democracy to Iran?

One thing a radical Egypt will do is further destabilize the region. Particularly the situation with Israel will grow very tense. I am no flag-waver for Israel, but I can't see how a new enemy will do anything but further harden the worst impulses of all participants.

jbooth5• 15 years ago

The Muslim Brotherhood is very much not in the driver's seat here. They're old and irrelevant, this is a moment for the young.

jacquesm15• 15 years ago

the Iranian revolution was also powered by 'the young', and the Mullahs were not in the drivers seat there either.

Though the return of Khomeini was definitely very much the catalyst.

emit_time_n3rgy4• 15 years ago

Egypt: A spokesman for Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood announced that the group is making five urgent demands which the Egyptian government should comply with in order to avert several crises, according to a 19 January posting on the Muslim Brotherhood website.

Muhammad Mursi said the group wants Cairo to revoke the state of emergency, dissolve the People’s Assembly and hold free and fair elections, amend the constitutional articles that led to vote rigging in Egypt’s last elections, hold presidential elections according to those amendments, and fire the current government and form a national unity government responsive to the Egyptian people’s demands.

http://www.phibetaiota.net/2011/01/nightwatch-extract-egypt-...

Views from an Egyptian

Related Stories