Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/

shit just got real...

Any Yemen.

Protestors in Jordan as well.

state security forces are attacking journalists and the government is trying to impede web access in order to silence the spread of what is happening.. they may just be in over their heads on this one

Saw that all traffic to Egypt is null. Really shitty, that.

One of the contests for detecting Wi-Fi hit a barrier because we detected as far away as possible: the curvature of the Earth was the only thing impeding the Wi-Fi signals thaty were picking up. IT would be quite easy to setup a Wi-Fi network and "beam" out lots of information just using a home setup. Just "phone in", in coded speech, your coordinates, and, bam: ad-hoc network.

Why is that relevant? Because I call bullshit on no networking in and out of Egypt: there is someone in Egypt far smarter than I could ever hope to be, already doing it. There has to be. I just can't imagine an entire country going "dark."

Originally posted by dadudemon


Why is that relevant? Because I call bullshit on no networking in and out of Egypt: there is someone in Egypt far smarter than I could ever hope to be, already doing it. There has to be. I just can't imagine an entire country going "dark."

No, DDM. You are indeed smarter than everyone in Egypt.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-15749633/raw-video-man-shot-in-egypt-protest-23989401

Killing a protester for throwing rocks at the riot police.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, DDM. You are indeed smarter than everyone in Egypt.

I was referring to just the hacker community in Egypt. I'm a "hacker n00b." If I've thought of a way around it, the hypothetical hacker I spoke of thought of and implemented 100. That's how it works.

shit is heating up... curfew is apparently not going too smoothly

Originally posted by red g jacks
shit is heating up... curfew is apparently not going too smoothly

Yeah, most free-thinking adults do not like to be treated like small children. I can understand their frustration. However, I don't want us to kill each other (humans.)

It will be interesting to see how this plays out and how the rest of the world's governments react. Revolutions in the Middle East could define this entire decade.

I foresee more of this type of riots in the near future.

Hopefully, events like these will bring the downfall of Monarchy/Plutarchy and the rise of Democracy in the Arab world.

Major government buildings have been burned and some people have said that the army is clashing with police forces.

Nation wide curfew is, predictably, having no effect.

This is starting to remind me of the Revolutions of 1848

Originally posted by Omega Vision
This is starting to remind me of the Revolutions of 1848

I still remember that too, shit got intense.

That was a helluva freshman year.

Originally posted by dadudemon
. However, I don't want us to kill each other (humans.)

It's our nature to do so....just look at our history

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
.

Hopefully, events like these will bring the downfall of Monarchy/Plutarchy and the rise of Democracy in the Arab world.

>at that ever coming to pass. If anything we'll see Islamic caliphates in the middle east

^
While violence is part of nature, with 6.5 billion and growing, we're doing a pretty good job at not killing ourselves off.

I mostly blame S.E. Asia and Africa, those pricks just can't stop offing each other.

Originally posted by Robtard
^
While violence is part of nature, with 6.5 billion and growing, we're doing a pretty good job at not killing ourselves off.

I mostly blame S.E. Asia and Africa, those pricks just can't stop offing each other.

Nah, we're just better at ****ing.

The government has been dissolved. Looks like this shit actually works.

Originally posted by jaden101
The government has been dissolved. Looks like this shit actually works.


I'm unsure as Anub'arak (lol) asked the cabinet to resign.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/28/world/main7293753.shtml

The hated dictator fires everyone but himself and promises to appoint new people. I don't see that as real progress.

In other news America knew this was going to happen for years. Egypt says that the US govt was backing the protests but the document linked to just makes it seem like US officials met with one of the leaders.

The New York times had an article accusing Al Jazeera of deliberately fermenting this series of riots.

i wonder if the egyptian people will accept that though... tunisia got their guy to run away to mecca or something like that. ball is in your court, egypt.

The death toll is near 100.

AJE has a summary of the events in pictures:
http://english.aljazeera.net/photo_galleries/africa/2011125192646189116.html

Uh oh...




http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfr5n5U4WD1qc0cdco1_500.jpg


On a lighter note, things seem to be going decently well, Mumbarak isn't going to step down willingly obviously but I think from what's been seen in Tunisia he won't last very long.

This is exciting. I expect to see great changes in the world's political structure soon.

The US has really got to cut out this "backing hated dictators" thing.

This is not good. This is Iran, 32 years later. Muslim extremeists will take control of Egypt (and thus the Suez Canal) and possibly Jordan, and even Saudi Arabia. Oil will shoot to $250 a barrell. Any peace agreement that Egypt had signed with Israel will be moot. This could destablize the already fragile global economy and who knows, spark a major war.

This isn't good.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
This is not good. This is Iran, 32 years later. Muslim extremeists will take control of Egypt (and thus the Suez Canal) and possibly Jordan, and even Saudi Arabia. Oil will shoot to $250 a barrell. Any peace agreement that Egypt had signed with Israel will be moot. This could destablize the already fragile global economy and who knows, spark a major war.

This isn't good.

Actually it's different. The Shah, with the backing of the US wiped out all liberal, socialist, and communist opposition to his rule leaving only the extreme right wing to take power. In Egypt, it's kind of the opposite with certain right wing extremists also having tacit government support. This is why in the mix of all this rioting and confusion, the coptic christians are taking part while the Muslim Brotherhood makes generic statements and doesn't know what to do. Israel is just kind of standing back and commenting on the fact that the borders are all peaceful and Hamas is afraid to get involved. Most of dictators and terrorist groups are coming out in favor of Mubarak which isn't helping their cause at all and if any country is next, it's probably Iran. Hell, if the people weren't afraid of a US or Israeli attack, they could have had Ahmedinejad and the Mullahs hanging from the gallows 5 years ago. It seems like the destiny of many of these presidents is the same as Ceausescu and Mussolini. I'm more worried that if the democrats don't grow a spine and/or if the republicans get their way, this is going to be happening in New York and Washington with deputized minutemen and tea partiers working crowd control with fully automatic weapons.

Also, Saudi Arabia is already controlled by extremists and controls by proxy nearly all Sunni extremists on the planet to some degree. If protests broke out and the royal family ended up being wiped out, Al Qaida would solve the middle east's unemployment problems because they would need a lot of grant writers and financial planners.

Very informative! Watched the ongoings on the news with interest but without an awful lot of background knowlegde, thanks for a bigger picture.
With the defiance and rioting spreading this fast (and bringing down 2 governments already), the suppressed 'fertility' for great public unrest in many other nations and the currect election of the dictatorial president of Equatorial Guinea as chairman of the African Union combined, can we expect a large scale revolution that might have a global impact?

egyptian army trying to scare em off with fighter jets flying low over the crowd. they're not budging.

Wow, just what we needed, another problem.

For the moment, I'm really glad to be living in the Western Hemisphere. I bet that the United States' cop complex is going to kick in though.

Originally posted by jaden101
The government has been dissolved. Looks like this shit actually works.

Perhaps in flimsy Ay-rab countries. That shit wouldn't fly in China, the commie army would totally supress any "we want peace" demonstrators.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Perhaps in flimsy Ay-rab countries. That shit wouldn't fly in China, the commie army would totally supress any "we want peace" demonstrators.

These 'low profile uprisings', if I had to translate your perspective, still carry notable weight. Those people are standing up in protest while knowingly risking their lives. Can you imagine what it takes to go there and that it's real people we're talking about?
Although China has indeed made itself almost immune to such public rebellion, indirectly by international support I'm afraid, you cannot deny the possibility that this trend will spread over to more countries with questionable ethics and eventually hit nations among these that you might deem less 'flimsy'.

I wish it would happen in this country over corperate and financial practices

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
This is not good. This is Iran, 32 years later. Muslim extremeists will take control of Egypt (and thus the Suez Canal) and possibly Jordan, and even Saudi Arabia. Oil will shoot to $250 a barrell. Any peace agreement that Egypt had signed with Israel will be moot. This could destablize the already fragile global economy and who knows, spark a major war.

This isn't good.
For someone who complains so much about the establishment, i'd think you'd find it exciting to see things shaken up. Hey if gas goes up too high, maybe people will start paying attention to the bad foreign policy that led to these problems.

Originally posted by King Kandy
For someone who complains so much about the establishment, i'd think you'd find it exciting to see things shaken up.

I am looking at that part of the world's track record. The only majority muslim country on earth to ever have anything resembling democracy is Turkey and there are the rumblings of radical Islam there as well. I think Egypt is in real danger of becoming an Islamic theocracy and that should scare the hell out of everyone. As bad as Egypt's current regime is it would be better for both the world, and the people of Egypt, for it to stay in power than for a bunch of fire breathing Imans or Mullahs to come to power.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I wish it would happen in this country over corperate and financial practices Don't give up hope. I haven't.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I am looking at that part of the world's track record. The only majority muslim country on earth to ever have anything resembling democracy is Turkey and there are the rumblings of radical Islam there as well. I think Egypt is in real danger of becoming an Islamic theocracy and that should scare the hell out of everyone. As bad as Egypt's current regime is it would be better for both the world, and the people of Egypt, for it to stay in power than for a bunch of fire breathing Imans or Mullahs to come to power.

Are the rioters Muslim fundamentalists or is that just pessimism?

The Muslim Brotherhood may try to get in, and that would be bad.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I am looking at that part of the world's track record. The only majority muslim country on earth to ever have anything resembling democracy is Turkey and there are the rumblings of radical Islam there as well. I think Egypt is in real danger of becoming an Islamic theocracy and that should scare the hell out of everyone. As bad as Egypt's current regime is it would be better for both the world, and the people of Egypt, for it to stay in power than for a bunch of fire breathing Imans or Mullahs to come to power.
Indeed, and it would be even better for democratization to occur. The fact that all revolutions have gone sour just demonstrates that the revolutionaries must fight even harder to prevent the movement from being subverted.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Are the rioters Muslim fundamentalists or is that just pessimism?

The rioters are only the tool.

4 reasons why egpyt's revolution is not islamic:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/haroon-moghul/4-reasons-why-egypts-revo_b_815848.html

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
The rioters are only the tool. who's pulling the strings?

Originally posted by red g jacks
4 reasons why egpyt's revolution is not islamic:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/haroon-moghul/4-reasons-why-egypts-revo_b_815848.html



I hope you are right

Originally posted by red g jacks
4 reasons why egpyt's revolution is not islamic:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/haroon-moghul/4-reasons-why-egypts-revo_b_815848.html

who's pulling the strings?
Yeah, that sounds about right. There's really no reason to suspect islamic motives other than "well its in the middle east so that sounds about right". Not to mention the "middle east" shouldn't even include egypt to begin with....

http://twitter.com/arabist/status/30786981814341632


That made me lol.

So THAT'S why they were so angry.

Originally posted by red g jacks
4 reasons why egpyt's revolution is not islamic:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/haroon-moghul/4-reasons-why-egypts-revo_b_815848.html

who's pulling the strings?

Noone's claiming that the revolution is inspired or instigated by Islam but the fact remains that the largest and most powerful opposition party to Mubarak is the Muslim Brotherhood. Even if they are not hugely active in the revolution doesn't mean they couldn't gain power when the dust settles.

from what i've read they aren't a very potent force in this revolution... and even if they were they aren't the hard line 'islam will conquer' tyrants that they're depicted as.. the likelihood that sharia law or some form of theocracy will ensue seems to be unfounded. people are making demands, which seem largely based on the want for freedom. i think it's overly pessimistic to assume that all muslims are inherently bound for theocratic dictatorships when given any sense of self determination.

i don't know how this is going to end, but i'm willing to hear these people out and see what ensues. my main concern is not that they will erect an islamic theocracy but that if enough of these arab states revolt they could target israel either directly or politically, and they could (or probably would) subsequently be attacked by the united states.

I feel bad for the people who are trying to get out.I hope they do.

a2Ilvsu2nRs

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
This is Iran, 32 years later. Muslim extremeists will take control of Egypt (and thus the Suez Canal) and possibly Jordan, and even Saudi Arabia. Oil will shoot to $250 a barrell. Any peace agreement that Egypt had signed with Israel will be moot. This could destablize the already fragile global economy and who knows, spark a major war.

This isn't good.

I'm sorry, but the comparison between the Iranian revolution and the one in Egypt exists only in the fact there are brown people protesting in the streets

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I am looking at that part of the world's track record. The only majority muslim country on earth to ever have anything resembling democracy is Turkey and there are the rumblings of radical Islam there as well. I think Egypt is in real danger of becoming an Islamic theocracy and that should scare the hell out of everyone. As bad as Egypt's current regime is it would be better for both the world, and the people of Egypt, for it to stay in power than for a bunch of fire breathing Imans or Mullahs to come to power.

/facepalm

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sorry, but the comparison between the Iranian revolution and the one in Egypt exists only in the fact there are brown people protesting in the streets



/facepalm
Yeah seriously, I can't imagine what it would take to convince him there is positive change in the region. Since his perspective seems to be "any change will make extremists take over and attack Israel".

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yeah seriously, I can't imagine what it would take to convince him there is positive change in the region. Since his perspective seems to be "any change will make extremists take over and attack Israel".

well like, its true that a power vaccum can be filled by even worse extremists. And I guess there is a chance that the Muslim Brotherhood could come to power through... God... Some complete change in the way the protest is going...

But seriously? no, not going to happen. What might happen is the military might just install someone who is their man, but anything aside from the promise of free elections isn't going to get the people off the street at this point, same with what happened in Tunisia.

Will it happen? maybe... like I said in the Tunisia thread, if there was ever a time for the international community to stick its nose in somewhere, ensuring the transition from dictator to democracy seems a good one to me.

EDIT: and I am fairly sure every single fact he presented in his paragraph is actually false

Originally posted by inimalist
Will it happen? maybe... like I said in the Tunisia thread, if there was ever a time for the international community to stick its nose in somewhere, ensuring the transition from dictator to democracy seems a good one to me.

Likely not going to happen, given that the dictator survived by the support of the international community.

Like I said earlier, the US really needs to quit this "backing hated dictators" stuff. Its been our foreign policy for the last 100 years, and its getting old.

****, I just had to do this:

Nations with majority Muslim populations that are also democracies:

Nigeria
Burkina Faso
Lebanon
Malaysai (still a monarchy, elected parliment)
Sudan (iffy, 2010 elections saw al Bashir take a majority again, but with only 68%, indicating he didn't have total control of the mechanisms )
Sierra Leone
Albania
Bahrain (democratic monarchy)
Guinea (as of 2010)
Indonesia
Kosovo
Bangladesh
Mali
Kuwait (democratic monarchy)
The Gambia
Senegal
Pakistan
Turkey
Palestine
Algeria
Jordan (democratic monarchy)
Comoros
Maldives
Niger
Morocco (democratic monarchy)
Iraq
Yemen
Mauritania
Azerbaijan
Afghanistan

are there issues with political freedom in (many of) these nations? undoubtedly. Are they democracies, yes.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Likely not going to happen, given that the dictator survived by the support of the international community.

Like I said earlier, the US really needs to quit this "backing hated dictators" stuff. Its been our foreign policy for the last 100 years, and its getting old.

oh, no, I'm totally with you here

I don't think there will be an Islamist or even sectarian government in place in Egypt. I wouldn't count out another military leader, but I do think we will see politics open up tremendously.

oh, and about the US:

d5uwsq9aAsY

/facepalm

(if you follow TYT on youtube, they have some good videos on this)

Are you some kind of promotional person for TYT?

Originally posted by inimalist

Nations with majority Muslim populations that are also democracies:


Pakistan

Yemen

Afghanistan

are there issues with political freedom in (many of) these nations? undoubtedly. Are they democracies, yes.

Yeah...right. "Issues"? Any country where being gay is a capital crime, or where rape victims are punished shouldn't be called democracies. Those countries (including some of the other ones that were on your list, but these^ three especially) are "democracies" the same way North Korea is a "Democratic People's Republic". Ay guey, gimme a break...

actually, those nations hold elections, that being the definition of democracy.

the same way Gunatanamo doesn't make America any less of a democracy.

I'm not saying they don't have terrible human rights abuses, and I would definatly say human rights are much more important than is the ability to elect the people who are your abusers. There is a really interesting, if depressing, trend in many of these nations, especially in north africa, where voter turn out is like 35% for exactly the reasons you outlined, people have lost faith in the system, though of course, they still have the ability to elect people

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Those countries (including some of the other ones that were on your list, but these^ three especially) are "democracies" the same way North Korea is a "Democratic People's Republic". Ay guey, gimme a break...

s-seriously...

They're technically democracies, in that they barely squeeze by with the definition of the word. But let's be honest...

well, like, you are straight up wrong on Pakistan and Afghanistan, both held free elections in the past couple of years, the latter having some problems, but it is the endemic corruption in Afghanistan, rather than the inability of the people to vote, that causes problems, same with Nigeria and other nations I listed.

Yemen I think was a mistake on my part, yes

I never trust groups of people in foreign non-english speaking nations that carry around signs written in english that say things like "Game over Mubarak. You need to go!"

Originally posted by inimalist
****, I just had to do this:

Nations with majority Muslim populations that are also democracies:

Nigeria
Burkina Faso
Lebanon
Malaysai (still a monarchy, elected parliment)
Sudan (iffy, 2010 elections saw al Bashir take a majority again, but with only 68%, indicating he didn't have total control of the mechanisms )
Sierra Leone
Albania
Bahrain (democratic monarchy)
Guinea (as of 2010)
Indonesia
Kosovo
Bangladesh
Mali
Kuwait (democratic monarchy)
The Gambia
Senegal
Pakistan
Turkey
Palestine
Algeria
Jordan (democratic monarchy)
Comoros
Maldives
Niger
Morocco (democratic monarchy)
Iraq
Yemen
Mauritania
Azerbaijan
Afghanistan

are there issues with political freedom in (many of) these nations? undoubtedly. Are they democracies, yes.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sorry, but the comparison between the Iranian revolution and the one in Egypt exists only in the fact there are brown people protesting in the streets


Well, that's a nice politically correct statement, but the Iranians protesting the Shah wanted "freedom from a terrible and oppressive regime". The same applies in Egypt. It is indeed a real danger that an extremeist religious faction could take over in the aftermath. If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it.......when it happens.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud


QM was able to actually discuss some of those choices and prove me wrong...

you have no opinion?

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Well, that's a nice politically correct statement, but the Iranians protesting the Shah wanted "freedom from a terrible and oppressive regime". The same applies in Egypt. It is indeed a real danger that an extremeist religious faction could take over in the aftermath. If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it.......when it happens.

I'm interested, in your opinion, what happened in Iran in 1979?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yeah...right. "Issues"? Any country where being gay is a capital crime, or where rape victims are punished shouldn't be called democracies. Those countries (including some of the other ones that were on your list, but these^ three especially) are "democracies" the same way North Korea is a "Democratic People's Republic". Ay guey, gimme a break...

Well, in order to be a democracy, they only need to have public elections in some form. There are tons of different types of democracies. This could be only local officials are elected by popular vote. It could be a republican democracy. And so forth.



Here's a funny democracy: Elected Theocratic Monarchy. that's what the UK is. The head of State is the Crown which is something about God acting through the authority of The Crown and the corporation of The Crown, at the head, is the Queen. I thought that was the 'strangest' type of elected "official."


Man, I'm way off topic.

The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy.

How much political power/pull does Elizabeth II have though? I ask, cos I've heard conflicting statements in the past.

Not a great deal, though the safeguards she represents are significant.

But attaching the term 'theocratic' to the Monarchy is incorrect as power in the United Kingdom has had nothing to do with God since the Glorious Revolution in the 17th century. The monarch is the administrative head of the Church of England (but NOT of Scotland, Wales or Ireland, and this is the United Knightom we are talking about) but that's irrelevant- the Spiritual head of the Church is the Archbishop of Canterbury. If he ruled, or the Church had any significant political power, you could say it was theocratic, but neither of these things are true so it is no more correct than saying the US is a theocracy because of all the God talk in the Constitution and attached to the President. Which I know some say IS true, but not helpfully.

The official government type is Constitutional Monarchy- as in, we have a monarch, with all that comes with that, but their powers are entirely limited and contained by a constitutional democracy.

Using the term 'elected' to describe the monarchy is also misleading. Not really a monarchy if elected; it is parliament that is elected.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But attaching the term 'theocratic' to the Monarchy is incorrect


Sort of. It's there in name, but not there in function. She's still technically head of church.

Also, I kind of took us off topic. I just thought it was very intriguing that the queen was technically a theocratic monarch.

As I said, only administratively, and that doesn't really qualify. If she had the position of Archbishop, it might work. Even that would only be ceremonial. As it is, the Church very deliberately breaks that up- the ACTUAL heard of the Church is the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
As I said, only administratively, and that doesn't really qualify. If she had the position of Archbishop, it might work. Even that would only be ceremonial. As it is, the Church very deliberately breaks that up- the ACTUAL heard of the Church is the Archbishop of Canterbury.

You've never been wrong about this and I don't think you are. I agree with you. But it's there in title, still, which is what I was commenting on.

There are some people that want the "head of church" and "head of state" titles removed. They want one title to be given away to the Prime minister.
http://sheelanagigcomedienne.wordpress.com/britain-is-a-theocracy/



How does this apply to Egypt? If the dictator is replaced with a theocratic dictator, but is still "elected", we could have a similar setup but it would actually have substance. It's unlikely, though, in Egypt, due to the lack of religious homogeneity.

Originally posted by Robtard
How much political power/pull does Elizabeth II have though? I ask, cos I've heard conflicting statements in the past.

she shut down the canadian parliment at the behest of the Conservative party to prevent them being voted out in non-confidence

Originally posted by dadudemon
How does this apply to Egypt? If the dictator is replaced with a theocratic dictator, but is still "elected", we could have a similar setup but it would actually have substance. It's unlikely, though, in Egypt, due to the lack of religious homogeneity.

that, and the population of egypt is incredibly secular

also, Islam is not a force of "revolution" the same way it was in Iran. The Egyptian regieme didn't ban things like the veil. The reason the Iranian rev took an Islamic feel was that Islam itself was a statement of revolt

Originally posted by inimalist
****, I just had to do this:

Nations with majority Muslim populations that are also democracies:

Nigeria
Burkina Faso
Lebanon
Malaysai (still a monarchy, elected parliment)
Sudan (iffy, 2010 elections saw al Bashir take a majority again, but with only 68%, indicating he didn't have total control of the mechanisms )
Sierra Leone
Albania
Bahrain (democratic monarchy)
Guinea (as of 2010)
Indonesia
Kosovo
Bangladesh
Mali
Kuwait (democratic monarchy)
The Gambia
Senegal
Pakistan
Turkey
Palestine
Algeria
Jordan (democratic monarchy)
Comoros
Maldives
Niger
Morocco (democratic monarchy)
Iraq
Yemen
Mauritania
Azerbaijan
Afghanistan

are there issues with political freedom in (many of) these nations? undoubtedly. Are they democracies, yes.

And most of those countries are shining examples of freedoms and liberties for their citizens aren't they?


All of them stable democracies so they are.

Or maybe they're rife with poverty, torture, ethnic cleansing, genocide, religious fanaticism, terrorism, corruption and generally all round good stuff for their people.

Originally posted by jaden101
And most of those countries are shining examples of freedoms and liberties for their citizens aren't they?


All of them stable democracies so they are.

Or maybe they're rife with poverty, torture, ethnic cleansing, genocide, religious fanaticism, terrorism, corruption and generally all round good stuff for their people.

Rape, torture, starvation and sodomy isn't the issue, dude. It's whether they can democratically elect those that rape, torture, starve and sodomize them or not.

Originally posted by Robtard
How much political power/pull does Elizabeth II have though? I ask, cos I've heard conflicting statements in the past.

As I've mentioned before, the Queen does have one power which is useful and that a system like America doesn't have. Basically, the Queen and the monarchy is there and independently wealthy and actually is traditionally ingrained with a certain sense of social responsibility so you know, they aren't necessarily swayed by bankers and corporatists. The Queen also has the right to dissolve parliament and force new elections. So basically, if America had an institution similar to a monarchy, whenever government became as bought and corrupt as it is now, the queen or whatever royal would have the right to go up to any state legislature or the US congress and say "uh, uh. Not gonna work. You're all ****ing fired. New candidates, new elections, you have 60 days." So basically, I've been surprisingly turned around on the concept of monarchy when realizing it could act as a check on corporate power.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
As I've mentioned before, the Queen does have one power which is useful and that a system like America doesn't have. Basically, the Queen and the monarchy is there and independently wealthy and actually is traditionally ingrained with a certain sense of social responsibility so you know, they aren't necessarily swayed by bankers and corporatists. The Queen also has the right to dissolve parliament and force new elections. So basically, if America had an institution similar to a monarchy, whenever government became as bought and corrupt as it is now, the queen or whatever royal would have the right to go up to any state legislature or the US congress and say "uh, uh. Not gonna work. You're all ****ing fired. New candidates, new elections, you have 60 days." So basically, I've been surprisingly turned around on the concept of monarchy when realizing it could act as a check on corporate power.

What if said Queen is as corrupt and/or inept as the Government?

Originally posted by Robtard
Rape, torture, starvation and sodomy isn't the issue, dude. It's whether they can democratically elect those that rape, torture, starve and sodomize them or not.

That was funny to me.

Originally posted by inimalist
she shut down the canadian parliment at the behest of the Conservative party to prevent them being voted out in non-confidence

Yeah, but she did that because it is her ceremonial responsibility. The right to dissolve lay with the Canadian Prime Minister- the shocking thing would have been if she had BLOCKED the dissolution, as that would have been trying to take control of Canadian politics.

So nothing happened that would not have happened had she not been there.

And now the Mubarak supporters are on the streets. Huh.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
So nothing happened that would not have happened had she not been there.

I don't believe that is true

Originally posted by jaden101
And most of those countries are shining examples of freedoms and liberties for their citizens aren't they?


All of them stable democracies so they are.

Or maybe they're rife with poverty, torture, ethnic cleansing, genocide, religious fanaticism, terrorism, corruption and generally all round good stuff for their people.

Originally posted by inimalist
the same way Gunatanamo doesn't make America any less of a democracy.

I'm not saying they don't have terrible human rights abuses, and I would definatly say human rights are much more important than is the ability to elect the people who are your abusers. There is a really interesting, if depressing, trend in many of these nations, especially in north africa, where voter turn out is like 35% for exactly the reasons you outlined, people have lost faith in the system, though of course, they still have the ability to elect people

That's ridiculous. If the Prime Minister wants to dissolve parliament, he can. You not believing that is true only shows an ignorance for constitutional procedure. The Queen's involvement in such a thing is purely ceremonial and no monarch would ever deny such a thing.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That's ridiculous. If the Prime Minister wants to dissolve parliament, he can. You not believing that is true only shows an ignorance for constitutional procedure.

sounds good

Well if you want to rejoice in ignorance, that is your business.

I said I don't think thats true... I don't see why you are trying to argue a point I admit I don't know?

I am just pointing out why your post above was inaccurate.

and I said:

Originally posted by inimalist
sounds good

the opposite of saying you were wrong

Simply for the sake of the non-Commonwealthers here, I'd just like to point out that the prorogation of parliament is undertaken by the Governor General or lieutenant governors acting as the Monarch's representative at the behst of the Prime Minister or premier, respectively. The Queen's position and office is doing it, but she herself is not literally doing it.

Originally posted by inimalist
and I said:



the opposite of saying you were wrong

Not really, in context.

The situation is simple. The PM has the right to dissolve parliament. To do so, he obviously has to sign certain papers and what not. Part of that procedure- purely ceremonial- is that he asks the Queen, and the Queen automatically says yes and the process carries on.

Take the Queen out of that, and all that happens is that you shorten one piece of paperwork. The PM wants to dissolve; it still happens, Queen or no Queen. The power is with the PM, not the Queen.

-

Talking of monarchies- you will note the monarchies in the Middle East can see the writing on the wall. Jordan is already making concessions- but what might happen with Saudi Arabia? That's the big one.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Not really, in context.

The situation is simple. The PM has the right to dissolve parliament. To do so, he obviously has to sign certain papers and what not. Part of that procedure- purely ceremonial- is that he asks the Queen, and the Queen automatically says yes and the process carries on.

Take the Queen out of that, and all that happens is that you shorten one piece of paperwork. The PM wants to dissolve; it still happens, Queen or no Queen. The power is with the PM, not the Queen.

-

Talking of monarchies- you will note the monarchies in the Middle East can see the writing on the wall. Jordan is already making concessions- but what might happen with Saudi Arabia? That's the big one.

Well if Saudi Arabia and the royal family crumbles, all of us recently laid off Americans with writing skills are going to have lots of new job opportunities considering how many grant writers Al Qaida's going to need.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Not really, in context.

The situation is simple. The PM has the right to dissolve parliament. To do so, he obviously has to sign certain papers and what not. Part of that procedure- purely ceremonial- is that he asks the Queen, and the Queen automatically says yes and the process carries on.

Take the Queen out of that, and all that happens is that you shorten one piece of paperwork. The PM wants to dissolve; it still happens, Queen or no Queen. The power is with the PM, not the Queen.

I didn't disagree with you. I don't know. I don't necessarily take your word as authoritative regarding Canadian parlimentary procedures, but it, quote, "sounds good". I'll be sure to look it up for sure the next time I go on an anti-monarchist rant, which are more common than you might expect. The main point being, I'm not arguing with you because I don't know. I'm sure its one of those things I've forgotten since highschool, and tbh, I'm far too alienated from and disinterested in my nations politics for it to be hugely relevant to me. (Not that I'm special, Canada has had major problems with voter turn out recently)

That being said, even if symbolic, "the Queen shut down parliment to protect the conservative PM" irks me on a patriotic level.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Talking of monarchies- you will note the monarchies in the Middle East can see the writing on the wall. Jordan is already making concessions

and I think Kuwait (iirc) just kicked out a group of Egyptians trying to spread the protests there. Its amazing, imho. Now, full disclosure, the monarchies I listed have far more control over politics than does the British monarchy. It will be interesting to see what happens in places like Jordan which are run by heredity rather than theocracy, if the revolutions spread there, whether the people would accept a monarch with reduced power as opposed to disposing of a king altogether.

Sort of like how England became a democracy through slow progressive change, and France chopped the royals' heads off.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
but what might happen with Saudi Arabia? That's the big one.

that is a huge question. SA's population does have some of the same qualities as those in these other states (unemployment, young male populations, etc), but the Mosque is also far more powerful there than it is in Jordan or Egypt or Tunisia (where autocratic leaders have to compete with the power of the mosque, the same way Stalin had to compete with the orthodox church). In SA, the state and the mosque are tied much closer, and this provides, at least imho (and I'm no expert on SA ), more cover for their leaders, because the people are very pious.

SA is also far more important for America's long term interests in the region, so international pressures would be very much against the revolt. Additionally, there are members of the royal family who are known as reformers and who do speak about opening the political system. It would probably be much easier for the royal family to placate to the masses by empowering one of these individuals, while still holding onto the reigns of power, than it is for the Egyptian leaders to hold power by appointing other military leaders.

ya, I think that would be my prediction. If anything, we might see a small opening of local or regional politics and democratization under the rule of a more progressive wing of the royal family, namely because I don't think the SA population is as anti-state as are the Egyptians or Tunisians, but this would be following a military crackdown against the protesters unlike what we have seen in Egypt or Tunisia.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Not really, in context.

The situation is simple. The PM has the right to dissolve parliament. To do so, he obviously has to sign certain papers and what not. Part of that procedure- purely ceremonial- is that he asks the Queen, and the Queen automatically says yes and the process carries on.

Take the Queen out of that, and all that happens is that you shorten one piece of paperwork. The PM wants to dissolve; it still happens, Queen or no Queen. The power is with the PM, not the Queen.

-

Talking of monarchies- you will note the monarchies in the Middle East can see the writing on the wall. Jordan is already making concessions- but what might happen with Saudi Arabia? That's the big one.

Off topic...Warning for you, boss.

This thread is now about women.

Rules be damned, let's keep that picture!

Originally posted by inimalist
a2Ilvsu2nRs

They only give a crap about democracy when its convinient. Such hypocracy.

The problem I've seen in the videos is the nagging question, where are all the women? They still do not have equal voice.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
As I've mentioned before, the Queen does have one power which is useful and that a system like America doesn't have. Basically, the Queen and the monarchy is there and independently wealthy and actually is traditionally ingrained with a certain sense of social responsibility so you know, they aren't necessarily swayed by bankers and corporatists. The Queen also has the right to dissolve parliament and force new elections. So basically, if America had an institution similar to a monarchy, whenever government became as bought and corrupt as it is now, the queen or whatever royal would have the right to go up to any state legislature or the US congress and say "uh, uh. Not gonna work. You're all ****ing fired. New candidates, new elections, you have 60 days." So basically, I've been surprisingly turned around on the concept of monarchy when realizing it could act as a check on corporate power. has that ever actually happened?

Originally posted by Liberator
The problem I've seen in the videos is the nagging question, where are all the women? They still do not have equal voice.

I imagine among the pro democratic protesters they do, and they are probably there, however Egypt, like many other nations in North Africa/Middle East has a massive population of young, unemployed men who these revolutions are basically speaking to.

I can't be sure though. I could draw comparisons to the Iranian revolution, where women played a central part, but I just argued that the Iranian revolution wasn't a good model for this one

LOkaKSO-GZk

very informative

also, ya, few women in those crowds... not surprising in terms of the pro-Mubarak supporters, but I find it surprising they aren't there for the pro-democracy side. Maybe the conflict and escalating violence has driven them off? or maybe it is a male dominated thing...

EDIT: thinking about it, and I don't know how much this applies, but a lot of the protest is over anger about high unemployment. Given that female roles, even in a generally secular nation like Egypt, are in the home or in more "traditionally female" sectors, they might not face the same issues of unemployment that males do. I agree they are probably second class citizens and such, and would benefit from the democracy, but they might not share the same anger and humiliation men do from being unemployed... just off the top of my head really... Whereas in places like Iran, the revolution used female bodies as a billboard, here it seems like practical problems of employment have motivated men moreso than women... lol, maybe?

News says they're starting throwing rocks at each other. How long until guns replace stone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%80%932011_Arab_world_protests

WOW!

this is bigger than I could have imagined. to quote TYT, this is the revolution that the internet promised us

apparently it is beginning to spread beyond the Arab world into places like Albania also!

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/01/2011122134433502716.html

Arabs --> Albanias --> Americans?
The progressions is clear and obvious.

It's frightening how many of the protests started with "self immolation".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

It's frightening how many of the protests started with "self immolation".

Which the Arabs stole from the Tibetan monks. Really, they should get their own shtick, makes for a better protest/revolution.

Hard to come up with something even more impressive and attention-grabbing that would display the same apparent level of despair while maintaining the righteousness of the cause.
Self immolation works, especially in these times. The whole world sees the unselfish 'peaceful' sacrifice and the person in question knows a growing amount of accusing fingers will be pointing at his nemesis, and none of the fingers that matter will doubt and turn on his cause. Opossed to for example counter terrorism, coupes or civil wars.

IMO, the whole "I don't like 'insert object of displeasure' so I'm gonna burn myself to death in protest" is fail. Granted, I think people should be allowed to kill themselves, it's still pretty ****ing stupid.

Originally posted by Robtard
IMO, the whole "I don't like 'insert object of displeasure' so I'm gonna burn myself to death in protest" is fail. Granted, I think people should be allowed to kill themselves, it's still pretty ****ing stupid.
Well it sure seems like its working.

Anderson Cooper, well know CNN reporter, attacked in the streets by pro-Mubarak supporters. This was a trend seen all day as reporters were attacked all accross the country. The egyptian soldiers did nothing to help him (though, he did make it to safety, and they might have risked escalating the situation)

I couldn't find a longer clip, but the one on TYT (part of their 30 min episode) shows the beginning where he says he's been hit in the head something like 10 times

wgC0-6HOZrg

Cooper talking about the incident:

4JJHYYvC3m0

remember, many, if not the majority, of the pro-mubarak side are members of the interior ministry or plain clothes police officers...

terrifying

Hahaha. I love living in 'Murica.

I have a hard time believing Mubarak has many actual "supporters". Most of them are police or the equivalent of hired thugs i'd bet.

IIRC Mubarak did a very poor job of hiding it. I saw someone comparing it to a mob boss talking about how you have such nice shins and it would be a shame if something happened to them.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I have a hard time believing Mubarak has many actual "supporters". Most of them are police or the equivalent of hired thugs i'd bet.

AJE and TYT seem to take for granted that they are people who worked for the government who were essentially told "go protest or don't get paid" or actual security and police forces

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
IIRC Mubarak did a very poor job of hiding it. I saw someone comparing it to a mob boss talking about how you have such nice shins and it would be a shame if something happened to them.

LOL

ha, thats a good comparison

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Hahaha. I love living in 'Murica. well, you know, 'murica has fascist propaganda as news, microwave weapons, and the neutron bomb. so you know, we keep doing the same thing and states declare bankruptcy so every retiree loses their state pensions and healthcare and unemployment climbs to 30%. america turns into egypt, obama drops a few bombs, vaporises a few tens of millions, but the cities are left and will be livable soon enough. the republicans declare that the russians attacked us and start praying and masturbating for armageddon, the bankers make a killing investing in gravestones and granite, the corporatists make a killing on government subsidized paupers insurance payouts, the tea party will be happy with fewer liberals, socialists, blacks, muslims, intellectuals, catholics, jews, and poor people in the world, and the democrats get to brag about how they solved unemployment and made everything solvent.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
well, you know, 'murica has fascist propaganda as news, microwave weapons, and the neutron bomb. so you know, we keep doing the same thing and states declare bankruptcy so every retiree loses their state pensions and healthcare and unemployment climbs to 30%. america turns into egypt, obama drops a few bombs, vaporises a few tens of millions, but the cities are left and will be livable soon enough. the republicans declare that the russians attacked us and start praying and masturbating for armageddon, the bankers make a killing investing in gravestones and granite, the corporatists make a killing on government subsidized paupers insurance payouts, the tea party will be happy with fewer liberals, socialists, blacks, muslims, intellectuals, catholics, jews, and poor people in the world, and the democrats get to brag about how they solved unemployment and made everything solvent. I'll ask you to kindly quit narrating my wet dreams.

I really hope the western nations don't get their filthy hands all over this.

29NffzEh2b0

I'm going to marry Zizek some day

People being shot by the army (maybe) and the police. The guy that the police shot could hardly have looked more harmless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqydgpyVNKY

Originally posted by Liberator
I really hope the western nations don't get their filthy hands all over this.

Course they wont. It's not like they have any interests in the area...Such as the Suez canal.

And Mubarak is OUT as of today.

Bitchin'.

Ahmadinejad's response was hysterical. Paraphrased: "Congratulations people of Egypt. Persevere until you get freedom, don't let your new sovereignty fail. Oh, yeah, almost forgot, Death to Israel."

Now if only this could happen in Syria.

I'd like to see this happen in Arabia. Mix things up a little.

The Muslim Brotherhood will end up ruling Egypt....just wait and see, and that may ultimately be better than the alternative

polls state that the muslim brotherhood only has about 15% support among the egyptian people, any look at the history of this event shows that they were not the initial, or any, cause of the protests, and they have said they wont run a candidate in the next presidential elections...

but, wait, angry brown people, must be crazy fundamentalists, no way they could want the same things we do. And there are no social/cultural differences from Iran and Egypt, one can be used as a clear model of the other

/facepalm

Originally posted by inimalist
polls state that the muslim brotherhood only has about 15% support among the egyptian people, any look at the history of this event shows that they were not the initial, or any, cause of the protests, and they have said they wont run a candidate in the next presidential elections...

but, wait, angry brown people, must be crazy fundamentalists, no way they could want the same things we do. And there are no social/cultural differences from Iran and Egypt, one can be used as a clear model of the other

/facepalm

Originally posted by inimalist
...

, no way they could want the same things we do.

And what do "we" want exacly?

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
And what do "we" want exacly?

in this context, I was speaking about the universiality of democracy and individual freedom. Taking a stand against oppression, ie: human universal qualities that fly in the face of the idea of some "clash of civiliziations".

Basically, these people in the streets of Egypt are fighting for the same things we have. It is a secular revolution against material tyranny, not some ideological resistance against colonial American power, which is a more valid model for Iran.

you can deconstruct "we" all you want, it doesn't make the Muslim Brotherhood any more involved in the protest, nor does it make them anything but marginal on the political scene in a mainly secular nation like Egypt.

Originally posted by inimalist
in this context, I was speaking about the universiality of democracy and individual freedom. Taking a stand against oppression, ie: human universal qualities that fly in the face of the idea of some "clash of civiliziations".

Basically, these people in the streets of Egypt are fighting for the same things we have. It is a secular revolution against material tyranny, not some ideological resistance against colonial American power, which is a more valid model for Iran.

you can deconstruct "we" all you want, it doesn't make the Muslim Brotherhood any more involved in the protest, nor does it make them anything but marginal on the political scene in a mainly secular nation like Egypt.
No see since America didn't directly back this overthrow it MUST lead to a communist or fundamentalist regime, or some combination of the two. awesome

Originally posted by Omega Vision
No see since America didn't directly back this overthrow it MUST lead to a communist or fundamentalist regime, or some combination of the two. awesome

glad you pointed that out, Glenn

EDIT: though, maybe I should qualify, 15% is hardly marginal, and the MB is a far cry from Al Qaeda or other extremist organizations, though again, only 15% of Egyptians support them.

Do you have a link to that poll? From what I've read, and this includes Al Jazeera, the Muslim Brotherhood would have a majority if elections were held soon.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Do you have a link to that poll? From what I've read, and this includes Al Jazeera, the Muslim Brotherhood would have a majority if elections were held soon.

blog summing it up well:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/poll_no_constituency_for_musli.html

pdf of the poll:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/html/pdf/pollock-Egyptpoll.pdf

Muslim Brotherhood wont run in presidential elections:

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2011/02/04/jk.erian.muslim.brotherhood.cnn?hpt=T2

Originally posted by inimalist
glad you pointed that out, Glenn

EDIT: though, maybe I should qualify, 15% is hardly marginal, and the MB is a far cry from Al Qaeda or other extremist organizations, though again, only 15% of Egyptians support them.
Yeah in some countries where there aren't a few major power blocs 15% can be a winning plurality. Ukraine for instance has more than a dozen parties of roughly equal prominence and influence IIRC.

Edit: That poll pretty much dismisses any notion that a Fundamentalist takeover is likely, given that the three major reasons for such a change (Regime seen as too Pro US, regime not Islamic enough, and regime seen as too pro-Israel) are so low on the list of reasons.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Yeah in some countries where there aren't a few major power blocs 15% can be a winning plurality. Ukraine for instance has more than a dozen parties of roughly equal prominence and influence IIRC.

the point is that they wouldn't get anything resembling a clear majority, and in no way are they going to "take over" egypt (if there is any such take over, it will undoubtedly be the military, again).

there is also the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is a far cry from the Iranians or Al Qaeda.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Edit: That poll pretty much dismisses any notion that a Fundamentalist takeover is likely, given that the three major reasons for such a change (Regime seen as too Pro US, regime not Islamic enough, and regime seen as too pro-Israel) are so low on the list of reasons.

oh, exactly

Egypt is far too modern and secular of a society for this to happen, and Islam was never a banner for rallying against oppression (whereas in Iran, Islamic garb and other outward signs of religiosity were banned, making Islam a powerful way to identify with rebellion).

Originally posted by inimalist
the point is that they wouldn't get anything resembling a clear majority, and in no way are they going to "take over" egypt (if there is any such take over, it will undoubtedly be the military, again).

there is also the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is a far cry from the Iranians or Al Qaeda.
So we file that theory away with "fluoride is really a mind control conspiracy" and "Obama is a secret Muslim"?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So we file that theory away with "fluoride is really a mind control conspiracy" and "Obama is a secret Muslim"?

well, I think this comes more from the ideas of "clash of civilizations-esque" mindsets, where it is thought that Muslim people just can't have democracy because their culture has never had it and it wont mesh with their religion, whereas the others seem like signs of clinical paranoia.

and no, I don't know when one becomes the other...

Algeria

kdnp3qvMFwU

Yemen

Vtijtz2OgTM

Analysis of both

NLx-fNDwjSI

An interesting piece by STRATFOR. I can't link it, so I will post the entire article in parts (you need a free subscription to see the article in full, which I would recommend, they are generally conservative and cynical, but they offer a good perspective, especially here):

Part 2

Originally posted by inimalist
An interesting piece by STRATFOR. I can't link it, so I will post the entire article in parts (you need a free subscription to see the article in full, which I would recommend, they are generally conservative and cynical, but they offer a good perspective, especially here):

Wow, very cynical. I don't know if I've heard anything to argue against that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Wow, very cynical. I don't know if I've heard anything to argue against that.

I think he downplays how the Internet may allow for communication and organization that makes revolutions of this scale possible (rather than requiring millions in the street), and sort of hand waves at the fact that the protestors were the impetus for the events. regardless of who actually pulled power out from under Mubarak, the next administration is going to have serious pressures to be accountable to, because even if it is only a fraction of the population, hundreds of thousands willing to use their bodies to obstruct the state can't be ignored, and al jazeera is already talking about the expectations the "youth" have in terms of political representation.

but ya, it is a good point, and there are numerous examples of such interim military rulers just becoming dictators, though there are other examples of successful transitions.

N-tTg7iJo0M

The fight for women rights in the Arab world?

The mother of the revolution has fought for women's rights in Egypt for over 15 years!

What role will women play in the new political era?

Watch now, or subscribe to Al Jazeera English on your local satellite provider.

stfu

Originally posted by inimalist
Watch now, or subscribe to Al Jazeera English on your local satellite provider.

You might want to run a malware scan on your computer. I think you have a trojan.