6 ms·

> because a video like that can be like pouring gasoline on a fire. The question is who gave them the right to starve the fire? The internet is merely communic

> because a video like that can be like pouring gasoline on a fire. The question is who gave them the right to starve the fire? The internet is merely communication. If you can't deal with your populace communicating, even in a troubled time then you're already at your death-knell. The danger here is that if the government steps in to tell me I'm not allowed to show someone a video of an abuse of power, then I'm going to be 10-times as pissed and 10-times as loud in the streets.

nkassis 16y ago
That's how dictatorship work and why they often fail. You just can't keep this stuff working for ever. Egypt's dictatorship gov has managed to last this long which is impressive.
- locopati 16y ago
  It's amazing what US funding can do for a government, isn't it?
  - nkassis 16y ago
    That is true. Not many people know that after Israel, Egypt is the second largest beneficiary of US foreign aid money. But I find it hard to judge the decision of the US gov when that deal was cut considering it's been 40 years. And support for the Egyptian communist gov goes back to Eisenhower.
    - DevX101 16y ago
      Egypt gets $1.5 Billion per year. No pocket change.
    - rue 16y ago
      Egypt doesn't have a “communist government”, even in name.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
redthrowaway 16y ago
I'd say Iran managed to show that brutal repression can be pretty damned effective at propping up a regime that couldn't survive the free flow of ideas.
- danenania 16y ago
  For now.
- alexqgb 16y ago
  One big difference is that Iran's Revolutionary Guard isn't directly financed by the US State Department to the tune of $1.6 billion. That dollar amount is becoming increasingly public here in the US. If the Police in Egypt start running around with machetes and hunting down dissidents to murder them like they did in Iran, the American government is going to have a hard time maintaining the completely bullshit "Mubarak is our Partner in Peace" line. That's doubly true when you consider the obscene amount of blood and treasure poured into Iraq under the premise that the US is "investing in Arab democracy."
  - cturner 16y ago
    The partner in peace line is appropriate. Egypt is active in working towards regional peace. Consider how Egypt could instead by run. It could be led by religious group and be something like Iran. Or it could be led by the stereotype arab despot - constantly picking fights with Israel to create a distraction and channel the country's hatred at somebody outside the borders. Mubarak doesn't set a high bar, but if all the middle east leaders were merely as good as him, the region would be a much better place.
    - redthrowaway 16y ago
      >if all the middle east leaders were merely as good as him, the region would be a much better place. No it wouldn't. It might be a better place for Israel, but it would still be a terrible place for Arabs. Egyptians are rebelling for a reason: They have no jobs, and no food. They are kept under the heel of a brutal dictatorship. So are Saudis and Yemenis and everyone else the West likes. The US props up the Egyptian dictatorship because Mubarak is pro-west and willing to work with the international community re: Israel. That doesn't make him good. He's still a brutal dictator, in charge of a corrupt regime. It's no secret that Islamic fundamentalism originated in Egypt, and it's no wonder why. Now, that's not to say the Lebanese or Syrians or Palestinians have it any better. The Iranians do, but that's a separate issue. The point is, the US needs to pull its head out of its ass in regards to foreign policy and stop propping up brutal dictators who happen to have a convergence of short-term interests with the west. From Hussein to Pinochet to Suharto to the Shah to the Sauds to Noriega to Pap & Baby Doc to Trujillo to Batista to at least a dozen others, the United States has, for the better part of a century, installed or backed countless brutal dictators the world round. First in the name of the fight against communism, then drugs, then oil, the US has always found a way to ensure people are tortured and murdered if it furthers their aims. This might come across as an anti-American rant. It isn't. It is, however, a rant against the willful ignorance of those who think the United States acts in anything other than its own interests, or that it gives a rats ass about the suffering caused by its actions. The Arab world, and the world as a whole, would be far better served if the US and Iran let the arab people determine their own future. Unfortunately, that would mean the end to cheap oil, so it won't happen.

nkassis 16y ago

That's how dictatorship work and why they often fail. You just can't keep this stuff working for ever. Egypt's dictatorship gov has managed to last this long which is impressive.

locopati 16y ago
It's amazing what US funding can do for a government, isn't it?
- nkassis 16y ago
  That is true. Not many people know that after Israel, Egypt is the second largest beneficiary of US foreign aid money. But I find it hard to judge the decision of the US gov when that deal was cut considering it's been 40 years. And support for the Egyptian communist gov goes back to Eisenhower.
  - DevX101 16y ago
    Egypt gets $1.5 Billion per year. No pocket change.
  - rue 16y ago
    Egypt doesn't have a “communist government”, even in name.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

redthrowaway 16y ago

I'd say Iran managed to show that brutal repression can be pretty damned effective at propping up a regime that couldn't survive the free flow of ideas.

danenania 16y ago
For now.
alexqgb 16y ago
One big difference is that Iran's Revolutionary Guard isn't directly financed by the US State Department to the tune of $1.6 billion. That dollar amount is becoming increasingly public here in the US. If the Police in Egypt start running around with machetes and hunting down dissidents to murder them like they did in Iran, the American government is going to have a hard time maintaining the completely bullshit "Mubarak is our Partner in Peace" line. That's doubly true when you consider the obscene amount of blood and treasure poured into Iraq under the premise that the US is "investing in Arab democracy."
- cturner 16y ago
  The partner in peace line is appropriate. Egypt is active in working towards regional peace. Consider how Egypt could instead by run. It could be led by religious group and be something like Iran. Or it could be led by the stereotype arab despot - constantly picking fights with Israel to create a distraction and channel the country's hatred at somebody outside the borders. Mubarak doesn't set a high bar, but if all the middle east leaders were merely as good as him, the region would be a much better place.
  - redthrowaway 16y ago
    >if all the middle east leaders were merely as good as him, the region would be a much better place. No it wouldn't. It might be a better place for Israel, but it would still be a terrible place for Arabs. Egyptians are rebelling for a reason: They have no jobs, and no food. They are kept under the heel of a brutal dictatorship. So are Saudis and Yemenis and everyone else the West likes. The US props up the Egyptian dictatorship because Mubarak is pro-west and willing to work with the international community re: Israel. That doesn't make him good. He's still a brutal dictator, in charge of a corrupt regime. It's no secret that Islamic fundamentalism originated in Egypt, and it's no wonder why. Now, that's not to say the Lebanese or Syrians or Palestinians have it any better. The Iranians do, but that's a separate issue. The point is, the US needs to pull its head out of its ass in regards to foreign policy and stop propping up brutal dictators who happen to have a convergence of short-term interests with the west. From Hussein to Pinochet to Suharto to the Shah to the Sauds to Noriega to Pap & Baby Doc to Trujillo to Batista to at least a dozen others, the United States has, for the better part of a century, installed or backed countless brutal dictators the world round. First in the name of the fight against communism, then drugs, then oil, the US has always found a way to ensure people are tortured and murdered if it furthers their aims. This might come across as an anti-American rant. It isn't. It is, however, a rant against the willful ignorance of those who think the United States acts in anything other than its own interests, or that it gives a rats ass about the suffering caused by its actions. The Arab world, and the world as a whole, would be far better served if the US and Iran let the arab people determine their own future. Unfortunately, that would mean the end to cheap oil, so it won't happen.