9 ms·

From Leading the Egyptian Revolution to Making Minimum Wage in San Francisco

135 points by pmcpinto 11y ago

zeveb 11y ago
Interesting enough read, but why oh why does it break the PgUp button? Rather PgDn moving down a screen (like space should …) and PgUp moving up, PgDn moves down a screen and PgUp returns to the top, which is mighty inconvenient.
jacquesm 11y ago
Long read but very much worth it. "As the drums of war sounded in America, Egyptians believed that we could not accept a foreign invasion of another Arab country. We were furious that our government, which was allied with the United States, allowed American and British warships to sail through the Suez Canal toward Iraq. I had an intuition that if the United States attacked Iraq, Egyptians would take to the streets." There is so much irony in that paragraph combined with the title it is hard to know where to begin. And what became of Egypt is also really not quite what he intended.
- acqq 11y ago
  > There is so much irony in that paragraph combined with the title The irony is more apparent when you read further in the article that the author received support from the very same U.S. for his activity of making a democratic revolution. However he was just an "activist" and Muslim Brotherhood the "political force." Which developed exactly how it sounds, as he also describes. My other comment here contains some more interesting quotes.
  - Demiurge 11y ago
    It's unfortunate hyperbolic use of 'revolution' has kind of muddied and made the term less relevant. A revolution should mean a fundamental change of political system, not change of political power. Going from monarchy to socialism is a revolution. Going from feudalism to democracy is a revolution. Egypt experienced a coup, not a democratic revolution.
    - apalmer 11y ago
      what happened in Egypt was a revolution, you are attaching additional meaning to the word that it really doesnt hold.
      - Demiurge 11y ago
        Obviously I commented because I think otherwise, based on my interest in history and semantics of the subject, I explained why. Just telling me I'm wrong hasn't changed my opinion, but thanks.
    - marcosdumay 11y ago
      The French Revolution brought the country from a monarchy to an empire - what are just two names for the same thing. I doubt anybody would claim the word "revolution" isn't suitable for it.
      - Demiurge 11y ago
        The French Revolution fundamentally changed the government institution, from monarchy to republic. Being an empire, as in, containing heterogeneous cultures or states is besides the point. The point is that the states might gain some legal rights.
- justizin 11y ago
  > And what became of Egypt is also really not quite what he intended. An activist's job is to point out things that are wrong. It is true that often, removing an individual or a group from power does not necessarily result in a better leader, but it is something that leaders fear happening to them.
- civilian 11y ago
  Overall, I'm against the Iraq war. But... I feel like an egalitarian Arab should have supported the Iraq invasion. Saddam was cruel to his people, his sons would crash weddings and rape just about anyone. The new Iraq government still has problems, but at least it's some semblance of a democracy. Sam Harris says it best: > As I tried to make clear on Maher’s show, what we need is honest talk about the link between belief and behavior. And no one is suffering the consequences of what Muslim “extremists” believe more than other Muslims are. The civil war between Sunni and Shia, the murder of apostates, the oppression of women—these evils have nothing to do with U.S. bombs or Israeli settlements. Yes, the war in Iraq was a catastrophe—just as Affleck and Kristof suggest. But take a moment to appreciate how bleak it is to admit that the world would be better off if we had left Saddam Hussein in power. Here was one of the most evil men who ever lived, holding an entire country hostage. And yet his tyranny was also preventing a religious war between Shia and Sunni, the massacre of Christians, and other sectarian horrors. To say that we should have left Saddam Hussein alone says some very depressing things about the Muslim world. https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/can-liberalism-be-saved-from-itself https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/can-liberalism-be-saved-...
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    > I feel like an egalitarian Arab should have supported the Iraq invasion. But they didn't. There is a lot of stuff wrong - from my perspective - in the Arab world, and nobody with actual power from the Arab world seems to actually want to do much about it. So we end with these half-hearted revolutions which are more regime changes than actual fundamental changes and if they are fundamental changes they tend to be for the worse rather than for the better. It's a real pity. As for the Iraq war, Saddam and his sons - and all those supporting the regime - were complete assholes. And I would have supported regime change per-se for that reason alone, but that wasn't what was sold. Because if we did support regime change for those reasons then there would be a long waiting list of other regimes that would deserve to be 'fixed' long before we'd get to Saddam (in spite of all the crimes they were engaged in the world is full of such trash, they were not the exception, in spite of the media spotlight being very much on Iraq).
    - 11y ago
- whack 11y ago
  I can understand where the author is coming from, and it's sad that more people here don't seem to get it. There are few things that evoke people's primal instincts, the way foreign invasions do. Especially one involving a foreign occupier belonging to a completely different ethnicity, language and culture. We're literally talking about a Millenia long history where warring empires in both the Christian west and Islamic east would set aside their differences and launch crusades against one another. I'm sure many in the Arab world have no problems with engaging with America diplomatically, or economically. I'm sure activists like Ahmed welcome American efforts to facilitate and amplify the efforts of local activists. But they would react to a western invasion of Iraq the same way we would react to a Chinese invasion of America. With tribal defensiveness.
  - 001sky 11y ago
    The point you're missing tho is that pandoras box is not a box of chocalates. You don't know what you're gonna get when you unleash a war--or a revolution. It says something about the ability perhaps to look at the actions of other objectively, but be blinded by either hubris or wishful thinking when evaluating our own actions. You're arguing that people don't see or agree with what is correct in the one view, but it the contrast not the correctness that is being highlighted.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    You can only start an avalanche, it has no 'stop' button if it goes to a place you'd rather not.
acqq 11y ago
Note that if you read carefully, the guy was actively supported by the U.S. at the time he prepared the "revolution." He claims he's disappointed by Muslim Brotherhood gaining power, but it was he who even helped them, he being then just "an activist" and they being a real "political group": "I negotiated agreements between activists and political groups like the Muslim Brotherhood." Note also that the Muslim Brotherhood was actively "the choice" of the U.S. at the time of the revolution. Now I'll quote the author once again as he describes the power struggle between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood: "The election represented Egyptian politics since the revolution: a power struggle between military dictators and religious fanatics. And the Muslim Brotherhood—whose religiosity, I believe, is a trojan horse for pure political ambition—treated activists just as harshly as the military." I personally don't believe the religion of Muslim Brotherhood is "a trojan horse," it's where they get the the goals of their political activity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood "The Brotherhood's English language website describes the principles of the Muslim Brotherhood as including firstly the introduction of the Islamic Sharia as "the basis for controlling the affairs of state and society" and secondly, work to unify "Islamic countries and states, mainly among the Arab states, and liberating them from foreign imperialism""
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- baltcode 11y ago
  In reality, it was the Mubarak and Sisi regimes that have killed and tortured civilians in the thousands. There's a bit in the article about how Morsi issued a presidential decree making his actions unaccountable to the judiciary. This is a judiciary stacked during the Mubarak era that has sentenced dead people and infants to death in these political cases. Sisi's justice minister said that only the elite should keep controling the Egyptian judiciary and in his words, "a cleaner's son" has no right to be a judge. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/africa/18564-denying-a-cleaners-son-the-right-to-become-a-judge https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/africa/18564-denying-... Activists and journalists should investigate and bring to light the misdeeds of everyone including Morsi and the MB, but it is incredulous at this point to believe that the real problem with Egypt is not the corrupt elite of the military, crony businesses and the state apparatus. It wasn't the Muslim brotherhood, the left, or the liberals who were firing on crowds from helicopters, killing thousands in the streets. It was the military.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
sharp11 11y ago
Really great read about what it's really like to be an activist. Constant running around hoping that 10 people show up and constant wondering if you're getting anywhere. Also, a brutal reminder about the devastating personal costs that we so often forget about. As a climate activist here in the US I had it easy, but still so much of this resonates.
- sydneysider 11y ago
  climate activist, lol.
sfnksjjrnnenne 11y ago
Egypt is the #1 example of the American empires malfeasance and incompetence. Completely abandoned revolution, we continue to financially support the military dictatorship. Go read Obama's Cairo speech and laugh at what a total crock of shit it is, and how by extension Obama is a bought and paid for clown. Meanwhile the Western press does what it can to demonize the muslin brotherhood while white washing the current junta. And why? Because Egypt is the most populous ME country, borders Israel, and has the Suez canal, it is deemed strategically too important by our elite to allow self rule. Fuck the American empire, responsible for the genocidal killings of millions since 2001
- zardo 11y ago
  >and how by extension Obama is a bought and paid for clown. That's not what's going on. >And why? Because Egypt...borders Israel, and has the Suez canal, it is deemed strategically too important This is. US uses Egypt to project military power in the region. >responsible for the genocidal killings of millions since 2001 The US did not apply the extreme repression required to keep the religious sects in the region from killing each other. That doesn't mean the US is genocidal, it means the Middle East is.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  > Egypt is the #1 example of the American empires malfeasance and incompetence. Libya, Syria are much better examples of mishandling a situation. Egypt is fine from geopolitical point of view.
- sremani 11y ago
  I will certainly laugh at Obama's Cairo speech, you know why? Never in the history of US did a president address people of One faith exclusively. I do not consider Obama a bad guy but you cannot charm your way out with certain groups. May be he hoped his Muslim father connection will give him cover, it made him look worse and gave credence to all sorts of rumors about his faith. The world is a better place with America Policing, its a thankless job. You are blamed for showing up (Iraq) and you are blamed for not showing up (Syria). edit: I actually agree with lot of Obama's foreign policy of his second term, where he pivoted to Asia and left the dumpster fire called Middle East to the real stake holders, Turks, Saudis, Iranians and Europeans.
Animats 11y ago
Revolutions devour their own children.
arbre 11y ago
I have a lot of respect for someone who went through so much. At a much smaller scale I think that one can be depressed when pursuing a strong goal comes to an end. It could be a project at work or a degree. I have been depressed in such situations. I think being able to let go the past and move on to a different life can help. In my case meditation helped me realize happiness is not so much about goals but more about being satisfied with simple things.
Nr7 11y ago
The "bad guys" will always win. Why? Because they don't play by the rules and therefore they'll always have the advantage.

135 points by pmcpinto 11y ago

zeveb 11y ago

Interesting enough read, but why oh why does it break the PgUp button? Rather PgDn moving down a screen (like space should …) and PgUp moving up, PgDn moves down a screen and PgUp returns to the top, which is mighty inconvenient.

jacquesm 11y ago

Long read but very much worth it. "As the drums of war sounded in America, Egyptians believed that we could not accept a foreign invasion of another Arab country. We were furious that our government, which was allied with the United States, allowed American and British warships to sail through the Suez Canal toward Iraq. I had an intuition that if the United States attacked Iraq, Egyptians would take to the streets." There is so much irony in that paragraph combined with the title it is hard to know where to begin. And what became of Egypt is also really not quite what he intended.

acqq 11y ago
> There is so much irony in that paragraph combined with the title The irony is more apparent when you read further in the article that the author received support from the very same U.S. for his activity of making a democratic revolution. However he was just an "activist" and Muslim Brotherhood the "political force." Which developed exactly how it sounds, as he also describes. My other comment here contains some more interesting quotes.
- Demiurge 11y ago
  It's unfortunate hyperbolic use of 'revolution' has kind of muddied and made the term less relevant. A revolution should mean a fundamental change of political system, not change of political power. Going from monarchy to socialism is a revolution. Going from feudalism to democracy is a revolution. Egypt experienced a coup, not a democratic revolution.
  - apalmer 11y ago
    what happened in Egypt was a revolution, you are attaching additional meaning to the word that it really doesnt hold.
    - Demiurge 11y ago
      Obviously I commented because I think otherwise, based on my interest in history and semantics of the subject, I explained why. Just telling me I'm wrong hasn't changed my opinion, but thanks.
  - marcosdumay 11y ago
    The French Revolution brought the country from a monarchy to an empire - what are just two names for the same thing. I doubt anybody would claim the word "revolution" isn't suitable for it.
    - Demiurge 11y ago
      The French Revolution fundamentally changed the government institution, from monarchy to republic. Being an empire, as in, containing heterogeneous cultures or states is besides the point. The point is that the states might gain some legal rights.
justizin 11y ago
> And what became of Egypt is also really not quite what he intended. An activist's job is to point out things that are wrong. It is true that often, removing an individual or a group from power does not necessarily result in a better leader, but it is something that leaders fear happening to them.
civilian 11y ago
Overall, I'm against the Iraq war. But... I feel like an egalitarian Arab should have supported the Iraq invasion. Saddam was cruel to his people, his sons would crash weddings and rape just about anyone. The new Iraq government still has problems, but at least it's some semblance of a democracy. Sam Harris says it best: > As I tried to make clear on Maher’s show, what we need is honest talk about the link between belief and behavior. And no one is suffering the consequences of what Muslim “extremists” believe more than other Muslims are. The civil war between Sunni and Shia, the murder of apostates, the oppression of women—these evils have nothing to do with U.S. bombs or Israeli settlements. Yes, the war in Iraq was a catastrophe—just as Affleck and Kristof suggest. But take a moment to appreciate how bleak it is to admit that the world would be better off if we had left Saddam Hussein in power. Here was one of the most evil men who ever lived, holding an entire country hostage. And yet his tyranny was also preventing a religious war between Shia and Sunni, the massacre of Christians, and other sectarian horrors. To say that we should have left Saddam Hussein alone says some very depressing things about the Muslim world. https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/can-liberalism-be-saved-from-itself https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/can-liberalism-be-saved-...
- jacquesm 11y ago
  > I feel like an egalitarian Arab should have supported the Iraq invasion. But they didn't. There is a lot of stuff wrong - from my perspective - in the Arab world, and nobody with actual power from the Arab world seems to actually want to do much about it. So we end with these half-hearted revolutions which are more regime changes than actual fundamental changes and if they are fundamental changes they tend to be for the worse rather than for the better. It's a real pity. As for the Iraq war, Saddam and his sons - and all those supporting the regime - were complete assholes. And I would have supported regime change per-se for that reason alone, but that wasn't what was sold. Because if we did support regime change for those reasons then there would be a long waiting list of other regimes that would deserve to be 'fixed' long before we'd get to Saddam (in spite of all the crimes they were engaged in the world is full of such trash, they were not the exception, in spite of the media spotlight being very much on Iraq).
  - 11y ago
whack 11y ago
I can understand where the author is coming from, and it's sad that more people here don't seem to get it. There are few things that evoke people's primal instincts, the way foreign invasions do. Especially one involving a foreign occupier belonging to a completely different ethnicity, language and culture. We're literally talking about a Millenia long history where warring empires in both the Christian west and Islamic east would set aside their differences and launch crusades against one another. I'm sure many in the Arab world have no problems with engaging with America diplomatically, or economically. I'm sure activists like Ahmed welcome American efforts to facilitate and amplify the efforts of local activists. But they would react to a western invasion of Iraq the same way we would react to a Chinese invasion of America. With tribal defensiveness.
- 001sky 11y ago
  The point you're missing tho is that pandoras box is not a box of chocalates. You don't know what you're gonna get when you unleash a war--or a revolution. It says something about the ability perhaps to look at the actions of other objectively, but be blinded by either hubris or wishful thinking when evaluating our own actions. You're arguing that people don't see or agree with what is correct in the one view, but it the contrast not the correctness that is being highlighted.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  You can only start an avalanche, it has no 'stop' button if it goes to a place you'd rather not.

acqq 11y ago

Note that if you read carefully, the guy was actively supported by the U.S. at the time he prepared the "revolution." He claims he's disappointed by Muslim Brotherhood gaining power, but it was he who even helped them, he being then just "an activist" and they being a real "political group": "I negotiated agreements between activists and political groups like the Muslim Brotherhood." Note also that the Muslim Brotherhood was actively "the choice" of the U.S. at the time of the revolution. Now I'll quote the author once again as he describes the power struggle between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood: "The election represented Egyptian politics since the revolution: a power struggle between military dictators and religious fanatics. And the Muslim Brotherhood—whose religiosity, I believe, is a trojan horse for pure political ambition—treated activists just as harshly as the military." I personally don't believe the religion of Muslim Brotherhood is "a trojan horse," it's where they get the the goals of their political activity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood "The Brotherhood's English language website describes the principles of the Muslim Brotherhood as including firstly the introduction of the Islamic Sharia as "the basis for controlling the affairs of state and society" and secondly, work to unify "Islamic countries and states, mainly among the Arab states, and liberating them from foreign imperialism""

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
baltcode 11y ago
In reality, it was the Mubarak and Sisi regimes that have killed and tortured civilians in the thousands. There's a bit in the article about how Morsi issued a presidential decree making his actions unaccountable to the judiciary. This is a judiciary stacked during the Mubarak era that has sentenced dead people and infants to death in these political cases. Sisi's justice minister said that only the elite should keep controling the Egyptian judiciary and in his words, "a cleaner's son" has no right to be a judge. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/africa/18564-denying-a-cleaners-son-the-right-to-become-a-judge https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/africa/18564-denying-... Activists and journalists should investigate and bring to light the misdeeds of everyone including Morsi and the MB, but it is incredulous at this point to believe that the real problem with Egypt is not the corrupt elite of the military, crony businesses and the state apparatus. It wasn't the Muslim brotherhood, the left, or the liberals who were firing on crowds from helicopters, killing thousands in the streets. It was the military.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

sharp11 11y ago

Really great read about what it's really like to be an activist. Constant running around hoping that 10 people show up and constant wondering if you're getting anywhere. Also, a brutal reminder about the devastating personal costs that we so often forget about. As a climate activist here in the US I had it easy, but still so much of this resonates.

sydneysider 11y ago
climate activist, lol.

sfnksjjrnnenne 11y ago

Egypt is the #1 example of the American empires malfeasance and incompetence. Completely abandoned revolution, we continue to financially support the military dictatorship. Go read Obama's Cairo speech and laugh at what a total crock of shit it is, and how by extension Obama is a bought and paid for clown. Meanwhile the Western press does what it can to demonize the muslin brotherhood while white washing the current junta. And why? Because Egypt is the most populous ME country, borders Israel, and has the Suez canal, it is deemed strategically too important by our elite to allow self rule. Fuck the American empire, responsible for the genocidal killings of millions since 2001

zardo 11y ago
>and how by extension Obama is a bought and paid for clown. That's not what's going on. >And why? Because Egypt...borders Israel, and has the Suez canal, it is deemed strategically too important This is. US uses Egypt to project military power in the region. >responsible for the genocidal killings of millions since 2001 The US did not apply the extreme repression required to keep the religious sects in the region from killing each other. That doesn't mean the US is genocidal, it means the Middle East is.
venomsnake 11y ago
> Egypt is the #1 example of the American empires malfeasance and incompetence. Libya, Syria are much better examples of mishandling a situation. Egypt is fine from geopolitical point of view.
sremani 11y ago
I will certainly laugh at Obama's Cairo speech, you know why? Never in the history of US did a president address people of One faith exclusively. I do not consider Obama a bad guy but you cannot charm your way out with certain groups. May be he hoped his Muslim father connection will give him cover, it made him look worse and gave credence to all sorts of rumors about his faith. The world is a better place with America Policing, its a thankless job. You are blamed for showing up (Iraq) and you are blamed for not showing up (Syria). edit: I actually agree with lot of Obama's foreign policy of his second term, where he pivoted to Asia and left the dumpster fire called Middle East to the real stake holders, Turks, Saudis, Iranians and Europeans.

Animats 11y ago

Revolutions devour their own children.

arbre 11y ago

I have a lot of respect for someone who went through so much. At a much smaller scale I think that one can be depressed when pursuing a strong goal comes to an end. It could be a project at work or a degree. I have been depressed in such situations. I think being able to let go the past and move on to a different life can help. In my case meditation helped me realize happiness is not so much about goals but more about being satisfied with simple things.

Nr7 11y ago

The "bad guys" will always win. Why? Because they don't play by the rules and therefore they'll always have the advantage.