BBC posts: time at 1935: ABC reporter Christiane Amanpour has just interviewed President Mubarak, and she tweets: "I asked Mubarak if he was ready to leave office. He said: I am fed up. After 62 yrs in public service I have had enough. I want to go." With luck he will leave this night -then the big march planned for Friday (4Feb11) can be a celebration and start the new Egypt.
BBC 1947 GMT: More from ABC's interview with President Mubarak: he told the channel he would stay on until September because he feared chaos if he stood down now, and added: "I was very unhappy about yesterday. I do not want to see Egyptians fighting each other."
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Mahatma Gandhi Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! source
BBC at 2100 GMT: Mrs Clinton also urges Egypt's "government and a broad and credible representation of Egypt's opposition, civil society and political factions to begin immediately serious negotiations on a peaceful and orderly transition".
There is not enough outrage in this thread over Anderson Cooper being attacked by the assholes. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thematic Interpretations? I can certainly accept that as a possible abstract thesis but— —in considering reality as I perceive it, I think you're pushing a bit with that. As an abstract thesis? Sure. But people don't get an abstract reset every time they open their mouths, or click Post New Reply. Thus, even if we go with cynicism, whence comes it? Given our neighbor's history in consideration of issues related to Islam and Muslims, the cynicism is rooted in his disdain for those people. Revolutions are a difficult enough business in general. Matt Frei reminds of other revolutions that faltered, floundered, or met seemingly inexplicable failure. It's part of the nature of revolutions. Some fail. Some implode. Some forfeit themselves as their first post-revolutionary act. Even 235 years ago, Americans nearly failed with the Articles. They wounded their own Revolutionary victory grievously with the three-fifhts compromise and the boundary of equality demarcated by the slaves themselves. Those wounds would fester and nearly kill the Republic. Indeed, we also drew a line at who could secede according to what grievances. There was no clean way out of that knot. The French Revolution saw Thomas Paine escape execution by accident as vengeful tyrannies vied for the prize. The Russian Revolution was a disorganizational disaster until Stalin purged it and froze the dictatorship. Betrayals of their Revolutions. It takes a lot to win a Revolution. I will forego the sports analogy, since it looked so stupidly simplistic—even condescending—when written down. Condescending toward the Egyptians, as such. However, it's still early, and there are any number of ways this can go wrong. It's a human thing, not a Muslim or Egyptian thing. Our neighbor's failure to recognize human aspects of many things he blames on Muslims for being Muslim is recognized, extrapolated, and thus colors my perception even of his cynicism. The alternative, as I see it, is to regard every new expression of his on a blank slate, connected to nothing except the moment, and suggestive of nothing about his general outlook. As a general rule, I find that outcome counterintuitive. It is not a standard I expect people would accept if consistently applied. Functionally, I disagree with it, and thus stand with my original assertion of bigotry.
Do you remember all the promise of the Iranian Revolution? The high words of the liberals about the New Democracy that was to be established by the over throw of the Shah, the end of SAVAK, the will of the people? Do you remember all of that........1979........32 years later, Iran is a dictatorial Theocracy, the religous police and militias have replaced SAVAK, Sharia has replaced trial by jury, women are being stoned for being raped by their relatives, Homosexuals are being hanged because of who their are, protesters are shot in the streets, arrested in the middle of the night, yes, all of the high sounding rhetoric from the Carter, Liberal and Democrats about how evil the Shah's regime was, and how it needed to go, and what replaced it, a even worse dictatorial theoracy, steeped in murder, thugism, repression, supporting terrorist across the world, militarizing it's society, building a nuclear weapons program, calling for the destruction of Israel, and planning for a war it is willing to start all in the name of reveling the Hidden Imam, the Mahadi, the end of the world, judgment day, do you remember that? And you want that for Egypt? The Islamic Brotherhood, ally to Hitler, translators of Mein Kampf into Arabic, the assassin of Mahmud Fahmi Nokrashi, the Brotherhood supported the military coup that overthrew the monarchy in 1952, the attempted assassination of Gamal 'Abd al-Nasser 1954, involved in the assassination Anwar Sadat 1981, and this is what you want to replace Mubarak?
So, basically, you don't trust Muslim people to have the kind of thing that George W. Bush sought to give them.
Not that I necessarily disagree (nor care to devote much attention to the history in question), but it seems an idea worth floating that the material in question is better explained by plain old authoritarianism or even just dispositional conservatism (in the reactionary sense - to the extent that such is distinct from authoritarianism in the first place). Not that the above is particularly exclusive of (or even, separable from) a racist/culturalist/whateverist explanation, by any means. But perhaps we're better served by saving the criticism of racism for instances in which such is less instrumental, and instead addressing the authoritarianism directly. Or is this a chicken-and-egg scenario?
Are you or not, advocating some sort of action to keep Mubarak in power? If not then theres nothing else you can do. Apparently not if they use that freedom to vote for someone anti-American.....you can have democracy only if you vote for the "right" person.
So you're saying that if westerners vote for someone we don't like, we can bomb them too?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Patronising too, I think. It would be great if you had a government in our best interests rather than your own.
Maybe not, but you don't hear too many objections for the system thats been in place for the last 60 years at least. Its amusing that those people whose taxes ensure the security of undemocratic regimes and who volunteer to kill the people that oppose them, are also the same people who whine interminably about the Islamists. How dumb do you have to be to be taken in by such BS?
Well its consistent in that I think its purely driven by self-interest, to support whatever is favourable to oneself. Ie. use the argument 'for democracy' if the dictator is acting against your interests, and in other situations use the argument that we can't trust democracy with Muslims 'coz they might vote in someone acting against your interests! Hence the 'double standards' that people complain about. Not moral or ethical but some people arent..
Yes, that attitude is pretty commonplace, I think. When people talk about doing what is right, they usually refer to the standards they set as being morally appropriate only for themselves and enforce those, rather than seeing everyone as peers who are entitled to the same right to decide for themselves. Which is why, one of the most common justifications for supporting oppression is that the oppressed are not qualified to govern themselves. Its one reason why untouchability survived for thousands of years and its one reason why the yoke of the "white man's burden" is still upon the "Third World". Can't have people making their own mistakes and learning from them. Not when its so much easier to corral and rule over them.
Rather, it's a supposition of yours. Actually, you considered then de-considered: Now - is his rejection grounded in his perception of the religion of the Egyptian revolutionaries? For me, it's your comments above plus the backing of arguably the most recognizable opposition candidate by the Muslim Brotherhood. You know for a fact this is not his position? What is his stance on other revolutions? And of which kind? Right-wing? Left-wing? That depends entirely on the process used to develop such a position which - as we've seen on here - is often flawed or negated via the internal biases of the accuser. This would be counterintuitive from the onset.
Honduras is most recent example. The democratically elected but left leaning president was expelled, still in his PJs, from the country by a US armed and backed right-wing military coup. He eventually slipped back into the country and received shelter in the Brazilian Embassy. Not one South American country recognized as legal the coup's leaders. They have brutally suppressed human rights from their caesura of power, and sill do so under the recently "elected" new president: "Since the inauguration of President Porfirio Lobo in January 2010, there have been new acts of violence and intimidation against journalists, human rights defenders, and political activists. This report documents 47 such cases, including 18 killings. {Billy T notes: "Since January inauguration" implies that is 47 new cases in less than one year in a tiny country under the US supported dictatorship. Most cases of human rights abuse, rape and murder etc. don't make it even to this report, and none into the US press.} While some of these attacks may be the result of common crime, available evidence—including explicit threats—suggest that many were politically motivated. Impunity for violations has been the norm. No one has been held criminally responsible for any of the human rights violations committed under the de facto government in 2009. And available information indicates that there has been little or no progress in investigating the attacks and threats that have occurred this year. This lack of accountability—and the ongoing violence and threats—have had a chilling effect on free speech and political participation in Honduras, particularly among those who opposed the 2009 coup. Until Honduran authorities take concrete steps to reduce impunity and curb the ongoing attacks, it will be difficult for the country to restore trust in its democratic system. ..." Quote from: http://www.hrw.org/en/node/94957/section/2 (HRW = Human Rights Watch, a very respected organization.) Billy T comments: This is just the latest example of US hypocrisy - Speak of democracy and support dictatorships that come to power by over throw of left wing elected leaders. Few Americans make the same association with "9/11" that most South Americans do. They know that was the day in 1973 that the CIA's thugs assonated the democratically elected, but openly communistic, president of Chile, Salvador Allende, who was soon replace by US friendly dictator Pinochet. In that dictatorship 50,000 left-wing supporters of democracy were killed, tens of thousands by being drugged and then transported a few mile out to sea in US supplied helicopters and pushed out. Thousands of girls were raped in their jail cells, and then had their babies taken and given to childless supporters of the regime before they were killed. There are more than 100 adults who have leaned who their real parents were with DNA testing, but many adults don't yet know that their parents are not their biological parents. In most cases, those that learned became aware when needing a blood transfusion with a blood type impossible for their "parents" to have given them. SUMMARY: Short term advantages or “real politic” seems to always trump the US’s long term interests. Make hypocrisy the policy of the US, not its ideals. IMHO, the most destructive organization of US values, principles, and long term US interests that exists is the CIA.
This is the "transitory period" of revolution - the revolution in the case of Honduras being second-party (which, to be honest, a lot of revolutions are). Ever watch Zapata? Maybe the theocratic party will simmer down...and maybe not. There seems to be a strong element of order in this transition, but that's probably meaningless.
