19 ms·

Views from an Egyptian

197 points by rkwz 16y ago

csomar 16y 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 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.
- jacquesm 16y 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.
  - sliverstorm 16y 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.
  - tsycho 16y ago
    It's Gandhi, not Ghandi. Sorry for nitpicking, but I hate to see the name mangled of someone I respect a lot.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      Apologies, and it's not like I didn't know that, very sloppy of me. edited.
      - tsycho 16y ago
        No need to apologize since it was an honest mistake :) I have seen the wrong spelling used at many other places as well....not sure if they are always typos, or if some people are genuinely mistaken about the name.
  - csomar 16y 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.
    - hellrich 16y ago
      Peaceful revolutions are possible, and I hope you will succeed with as little bloodshed as possible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_revolution_(German) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_revolution_(German)
- presidentender 16y 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 16y ago
Stratfor: Egyptian Unrest Continues http://youtu.be/tPX1qe8bH1s http://youtu.be/tPX1qe8bH1s (2:58)
lkozma 16y ago
A quite interesting perspective: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/201112811331582261.html http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/2011128...
- stcredzero 16y 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 16y 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 16y 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.
russnewcomer 16y 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.
acqq 16y 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 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 16y 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.
  - acqq 16y 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.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
- yummyfajitas 16y 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."
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Much the same sentiment powers the Islamic hardliners in Turkey.
rms 16y 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-immolation
ck2 16y 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 16y 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 16y ago
Been watching live reports from the best source I can find: http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/ http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/ for about 30 minutes now.
yummyfajitas 16y 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-Biden-says-Egypt-s-Mubarak-no-dictator-he-shouldn-t-step-down 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-response-to-Egypt-s-protests 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.pdf 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 16y 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.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - jbooth 16y 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.
jordanb 16y 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.
- jbooth 16y 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.
  - jacquesm 16y 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.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      They were young then.. then they became old and just as corrupt as those they replaced. The Muslim Brotherhood is the same generation, but now they're 30 years older.
    - emit_time_n3rgy 16y ago
      Worth checking out: First Interactive Graphic Novel for iPad is about CIA’s involvement in Iran (1979) http://cognitocomics.com/operation-ajax/ http://cognitocomics.com/operation-ajax/
    - michaelchisari 16y ago
      The Iranian left also had no blueprint for moving forward. They were able to destabilize and oust the Shah, but they didn't know how to fill the power vacuum. The mosques did. They were not a marginalized fringe political wing, they were a cultural and religious force that quickly leveraged their position to move into the political sphere. Thirty years later, the situation in Egypt is different. The secular centrists and left-wing have a clear model of how to fill the vacuum. Even if they didn't before, Tunisia has provided one for them. There is little opportunity for the Muslim Brotherhood to step in as strongmen willing to make order out of chaos. 1979 Iran and 2011 Egypt are simply materially incomparable situations. There is a possibility that the MB will cause headaches for an emergent democracy, but their ability to seize control and establish a theocratic dictatorship is minuscule, at best.

197 points by rkwz 16y 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 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.

jacquesm 16y 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.
- sliverstorm 16y 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.
- tsycho 16y ago
  It's Gandhi, not Ghandi. Sorry for nitpicking, but I hate to see the name mangled of someone I respect a lot.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Apologies, and it's not like I didn't know that, very sloppy of me. edited.
    - tsycho 16y ago
      No need to apologize since it was an honest mistake :) I have seen the wrong spelling used at many other places as well....not sure if they are always typos, or if some people are genuinely mistaken about the name.
- csomar 16y 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.
  - hellrich 16y ago
    Peaceful revolutions are possible, and I hope you will succeed with as little bloodshed as possible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_revolution_(German) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_revolution_(German)
presidentender 16y 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 16y ago

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

lkozma 16y ago

A quite interesting perspective: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/201112811331582261.html http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/2011128...

stcredzero 16y 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 16y 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 16y 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.

russnewcomer 16y 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.

acqq 16y 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 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 16y 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.
- acqq 16y 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.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
yummyfajitas 16y 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."
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Much the same sentiment powers the Islamic hardliners in Turkey.

rms 16y 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-immolation

ck2 16y 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 16y 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 16y ago

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

yummyfajitas 16y 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-Biden-says-Egypt-s-Mubarak-no-dictator-he-shouldn-t-step-down 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-response-to-Egypt-s-protests 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.pdf 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 16y 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.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- jbooth 16y 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.

jordanb 16y 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.

jbooth 16y 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.
- jacquesm 16y 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.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    They were young then.. then they became old and just as corrupt as those they replaced. The Muslim Brotherhood is the same generation, but now they're 30 years older.
  - emit_time_n3rgy 16y ago
    Worth checking out: First Interactive Graphic Novel for iPad is about CIA’s involvement in Iran (1979) http://cognitocomics.com/operation-ajax/ http://cognitocomics.com/operation-ajax/
  - michaelchisari 16y ago
    The Iranian left also had no blueprint for moving forward. They were able to destabilize and oust the Shah, but they didn't know how to fill the power vacuum. The mosques did. They were not a marginalized fringe political wing, they were a cultural and religious force that quickly leveraged their position to move into the political sphere. Thirty years later, the situation in Egypt is different. The secular centrists and left-wing have a clear model of how to fill the vacuum. Even if they didn't before, Tunisia has provided one for them. There is little opportunity for the Muslim Brotherhood to step in as strongmen willing to make order out of chaos. 1979 Iran and 2011 Egypt are simply materially incomparable situations. There is a possibility that the MB will cause headaches for an emergent democracy, but their ability to seize control and establish a theocratic dictatorship is minuscule, at best.