Some crazy fluff going on. For those who don't know, I'll do a quick recap of what's happened in the past month.

Approximately a month ago, a young street vendor in Tunisia named Mohamed Bouazizi self-immolated in protest. The reason being, the police confiscated his cart because he didn't have a "permit". Keep in mind, this is in Sidi Bouzid, a southern area of Tunisia that is largely neglected compared to the lavish north, where all the money is spent. The cops basically stopped this guy from selling fruit on the street as a job because he couldn't get a "legal" job elsewhere (unemployment in Tunisia is high, especially in the impoverished south).

After he lit himself on fire, word spread and Tunisians began going into the streets and protesting, and these protests quickly spread mainly because of social media (phones, facebook, twitter...etc) and TV (news channels like Al Jazeera). The police tried to put down the riots, but were unsuccessful -- and when the government called in the military to help, the military refused and advised 'president' Ben Ali to leave the country.

So Ben Ali fled to Saudi Arabia (big surprise there), and protests in Tunisia are ongoing because they want all of Ben Ali's compatriots out of the government as well (and many of them recently resigned from the new cabinet).

What happened in Tunisia -- the first successful "people's" revolution in contemporary Arab history -- set off copycat demonstrations in other countries. Almost immediately they started demonstrating in Algeria, and following that was Yemen and Jordan.

This also set off the Egyptians, who demand a more democratic country and want the government to stop squandering funds and to help out the more impoverished people who the government generally doesn't give a damn about (like in most countries). So now, Egyptians are on the streets lighting fluffing everything on fire (like the "National Democratic" Party's headquarters (the same Party that got 95% of the "votes" in the last election).

The riots today, which started roughly after Friday prayers, wants "president" Mubarak to relinquish power and stfu. They have named this as the "day of wrath/anger."

That is basically what has been happening so far. If you guys are interested in seeing events unfold live, check on Al Jazeera English's livestream of the events unfolding:

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

So what do you guys think of what's going on over there?

EDIT: Egyptian protesters' diagram of necessary items: http://i.imgur.com/X62q9.gif

Earlier Al Jazeera article on the Anonymous web attacks and "cyberwar" in Tunisia: http://english.aljazeera.net/...01/20111614145839362.html

I forgot to mention, Anonymous has also been involved. They shut down the websites of a few government ministries in Tunisia and I believe may be targeting Egypt as well.

Keep your eyes peeled for an article on the AlJaz website coming from someone affiliated with Anon. Will probably be posted within a couple of days.

Don't forget the Egyptian government cutting off internet access to parts of its country, and blocking access to social media sites. And sending military vehicles to certain cities to enforce a 'curfew', lol...

I'm curious as to the age demographic of the protesters.

Yeah, true Nuk. There is so much fluff going on it's getting hard to keep track. :P

age of the protesters? looks like everyone.

i dunno. i don't get the whole we should burn something to demonstrate dealy-bob.
why did the protests start roughly after Friday prayers?
were they incited to riot by religious leaders?
or do they look to other kinds of leaders when they want to incite mayhem?

The Islamic Brotherhood - the premier religious movement there that actually isn't as extreme as everyone thinks - was not involved and has not been involved in the riots thus far, although I think they are planning on joining along sometime soon.

So far, people seem to be looking to former IAEA chief ElBaradei to take over if they successfully oust Mubarak.

whatever helps the people, aslong as it helps.

Do we have players from this area???

Did Mubarak take over when Sadat was assassinated, or was there someone inbetween?

/too lazy to google

I think I'm the closest to that area we're going to get -- I live in Qatar.

Sounds like perfect imag territory!

Imag is launching egyptian recruitment campaign!

Thanks TAN! I couldn't figure out what sparked this tussle in Egypt. All my paper says is "disgruntled over poverty." That struck me as odd as it has been like 70% poverty in Egypt for decades.

Will an overturned Mubarak regime spell even more slaughter for the Coptics?

Mubarak has been in since the assassination.

Thanks Tan for your explanation.

I demand the Egyptians tell that guy "tits! or gtfo!"

Part of me wishes the protesters the best of luck since Murbarak is a brutal despot. But another part of me worries that if they are successful that whatever replaces Mubarak might not be something that we (America) will like.

End of world?

The Copts are hardly getting slaughtered in Egypt. A new regime might even be more Copt friendly or less Copt friendly. Who knows? But the Muslims in Egypt tend to get along pretty well with their Coptic brothers.



You mean a leader that will think independently? Heaven forbid. :P

Al Jazeera English is doing a lot of reporting and writing on the topic. Here is a pretty good article that touches on the youth demographic:

http://english.aljazeera.net/.../01/2011129081571546.html

It was a long time coming imho. The last time they tried rising up against the military dictators they failed, because it was mostly the Muslim Brotherhood that stood against the regime.That time they got massacred and went underground. This time it's a POPULAR uprising with boatloads of the populace rioting and demanding change.

Seems like a nice time for the Brotherhood to get involved. Though I'd say there's a 25% of chance of them actually succeeding in overthrowing Hosni Mubarak, especially when the army is called out in force to "Suppress" the riots.

IF they do succeed, though that means a fluffload of good for all the neighboring Arab countries, Palestine most of all since Egypt controls a major part of the blockade around that said country. With the right leaders in charge, Palestine "might" be liberated or at least the refugees moved en masse elsewhere so that they aren't missile/shell humped every other day by Israel.

gah, missed this thread >.<

The old get old, and the young get stronger.
May take a week, and it may take longer.
They got the guns, but we got the numbers.
Gonna win yeah, we're taking over!

"and these protests quickly spread mainly because of social media (phones, facebook, twitter...etc) and TV (news channels like Al Jazeera)"

the riots will calm down once the idiots burn down the infrastructure, and sit there wondering why they can't access their social media.



I demand that guy tells the Egyptians "Tits! or gtfo!"

It's playing havoc with me and my family's summer holiday.

What's a church bomb here or there, right? And removing their livelihood by slaughtering their livestock.

http://www.copts.co.uk/...&id=1648&Itemid=1

oh, this another dealy-bob about muslims and pigs, is it?

Right. Because one bombing means it happens all the time. Slaughtering their livestock was probably done more out of ignorance than it was out of malice. I forget which disease was going around when they did that, so they slaughtered all their pigs to prevent the disease from spreading -- poor science on their part, since as I recall the pigs couldn't even transmit the disease or something like that.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/141999

"The Nile News channel devoted a few minutes at the top of its news hour to the protests, while devoting at least two hours Thursday to showing Israeli troops “persecuting” what appeared to be residents of a refugee camp. The English-language Nile TV station did not mention the protests against the government at all."

sometimes its better to leave a wolf in power that has already filled his belly for the next wolf could be really hungry.

No that isn't what worries me. What worries me is that a bunch of loons might take charge like in Iran following the 1979 revolution.

am i suppossed to be reading this stuff?

http://www.khilafah.com/...global-swine-flu-pandemic

http://www.bourgieinterrupted.com/...ds/2009/09/miss-piggy.jpg

yah, it's probably better if i don't read that stuff.

http://sheikyermami.com/...awi-and-muslim-tolerance/

wonder what is the best way to search for something related to da islam that shows the good that they do in the world that doesn't perpetuate their need to resort to violence or an intent to use violence.

should be possible, gotta be at least a billion of them living in peace with their neighbors.

no, they're just doing it to put you off-guard Dibs, buy more guns. jew need more defense because they're coming to wipe jew out.

tits or gtfo.

Hamas is reportedly now crossing the border into Egypt since the military has reduced the number of people at their borders....

Hamas grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood... which is aiming to be the ruling group should the Mubarak lose power.

terrorists running the largest arab country in the world is probably what paladin is afraid of

Not exactly terrorist that I am afraid of. More correctly I worry about Egypt having a government that thinks evil thoughts whenever they see an American flag. Especially after we have spent three decades supplying them with top of the line American military hardware.

clicked the quote button instead of the edit button on my last past. ignore this post.

crap did it again. fml.

The word "terrorist" is subjective.

And what is so wrong with Iran's government, exactly, when it comes to evil thoughts about America? How many Americans have they killed again? Don't you think all the anti-Americanism comes from...oh i dunno...the SANCTIONS that have been placed on them?

Oh I'm not saying they we don't deserve some of the hatred they send our way. I am merely saying that the current Iraninan government isn't in our best interest. I would rather not see that happen to Egypt.

Things could swing the other direction too.

Honestly, I don't care if Egypt comes closer to us as long as they have a humane government that answers to their people. I'll put the burden on our shoulders to be worthy of close relations with a free society.

And those sanctions have absolutely nothing to do with their seizing of the American embassy in 1979 or sponsorship of the 1983 bombing of the American embassy in Beirut. I will not say that the US did nothing to provoke those attacks, but you're being revisionist at best if you try to claim that the SANCTIONS were the source of the anti-American feelings.

Also it seems like attacks against the Copts are happening more and more often, and one has worry about them accelerating with a less secular government in place. Mubarak has done a lot to try and keep the religious zealots down (which is a lot easier to do in a police state than a democracy). That problem more than anything else will be the eventual cause of the internal collapse of the US as we know it (and hopefully won't happen until long after I'm gone).

That said, getting rid of Mubarak is probably an improvement for the majority of the Egyptian population (assuming that a stable government fills the void and keeps corruption down to a sustainable level), but as a previous poster pointed out is not necessarily the best thing for Europe, the US, and Canada, but quite frankly our desires do not and should not matter a hell of a lot to the people of Egypt.

<3 Al Jazeera - coverage is top-notch :)

What's wrong with being revisionist? Is the standard line of thinking always 100% correct or something? It's not possible that a mainstream belief in something is wrong?

Anyways, the sanctions on Iran have *nothing* to do with anything you mentioned above. They are 100% about Iran's nuclear program, that and only that. But there were no sanctions on Pakistan or India or Israel acquiring nuclear weapons, and none of those countries have been asked to disarm. Iran hasn't even *acquired* nuclear weapons yet.

Why, Pakistan is much more of a terrorist sandbox playland than Iran is. So why aren't we trying to get them to disarm? Why won't Israel sign the NPT, and why won't they allow UN inspectors in?

These are rhetorical questions, don't bother answering them.




Sadat was a secularist, and discrimination against Copts actually INCREASED during his tenure. The correlation between violence against Copts and Islamism is almost nonexistent. If I am incorrect, please cite some (credible) evidence and I will gladly change my views, because what I say is not gospel (pun intended) and will admit it when I err.




A police state and oppression are not how you "keep [something] down." In fact, those policies are exactly what is bringing the government down in the first place. Or do you think everyone rioting in Egypt right now are religious zealots (for the record, the Islamic Brotherhood -- who haven't even committed any attacks for the last decade -- didn't join the protests until yesterday or today).



This.

TAN

The Iranians have killed hundreds of Americans through their terrorist support of Hezbollah and incursions into Iraq over the last eight years.

The reason we are so loosey goosey with Pakistan is exactly because they already have the bomb. We were tools and didn't know until they had them. Nukes are a game changer. Do you think the US would be feeding North Korea and playing games with Kim Jong Il otherwise? All we need is another despotic regime to step up with them.

Right you are about Sadat and Mubarak persecuting the Copts. There is a chance that the uprising will result real moderate reform, but the track record does not bear that out. It is far more likely the Muslim Brotherhood will cease control producing a radicalized regime and necessitating the seizure of the Suez canal.

You are blaming Iran for killing American soldiers playing in their backyard? Are we forgetting whose neighborhood those soldiers were/are in? Don't you think Iran has more of a right to manipulate their local geopolitics than we do? Don't forget, we supported the Shah of Iran, who was a brutal dictator, and we supported Saddam Hussein, who was a brutal dictator. We have waaaaay more blood on our hands than Iran does -- they only killed American soldiers, whilst we are responsible for the deaths of the innocent. I'm sorry to say this -- no wait, I'm not -- but I don't place the value of American lives above others. We are all human, and all life is equally valuable.




Can you give me evidence on why you think Iran would be batfluff insane enough to actually use any nuclear weapons they acquire beyond deterrence? Like any actual, credible evidence besides calling them insane just because you've always been told they're evil and insane?



Dude, do you even know WHY you hate the Muslim Brotherhood? Read up on them. They aren't even as bad as most people think. In fact, there is a lot of infighting between them because they have gotten so moderate lately.

FYI, they are supporting ElBaradei (who is a secularist and American puppet who has been living outside of Egypt for the last 40 years):

"That reflects the organization's strategy that their religious goals need to be put on the back burner to achieve democracy, said Helmi Gazzar, the head of the Brotherhood's district party office in northern Cairo"

Link: http://online.wsj.com/...04576114132934597622.html

No, America was not responsible for the blood caused by the Shah and Saddam. The Shah and Saddam were. Every major power on earth supports and or trades with a nation run by a ruthless leader. If we didn't support a said leader and refused to trade with that nation and/or placed an embargo on them you would also accuse us of being responsible for the deaths of the peoples of that nation.

"ElBaradei (who is a secularist and American puppet who has been living outside of Egypt for the last 40 years)"

He must not have been a useful puppet. He came out against the US invading Iraq. That was 8 years ago. If he was a puppet he certainly wasn't one since then.

I was also against invading Iraq but not for the reasons most others were.

Look up military aid to Saddam.

Look up US support for the Shah.

Don't be lazy, I'm not doing it for you (because I am even lazier).



He was against invading Iraq because he wanted more time to look for WMDs, which was his friggin' job after all. You're right, maybe I exaggerate that he was a "puppet" -- but he's certainly very West-friendly, almost to the point where we'll be trading one Mubarak for another.

http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm

Young man, I am quit aware of the amount of military sent to the Shah and Saddam. I was alive then. Your point? See I'm missing something here. Did the Americans use those weapons on those respective peoples when those bad guys ran those countries? There were a lot of Russian T Tanks and AK-47 assault rifles in countries run by some awful people. The Soviets were not to blame for what those countries did. Americans, as well as other countries, sell arms to alot of countries. Heck I believe the French sold arms to both sides during the Iran/Iraq war. I would hardly blame them for the war or the resulting deaths.

And I'll state it again since you ignored the comment. Would it have been better for the US to just not trade with those countries or try to get a point across and use sanctions? I've heard people, perhaps yourself as well, complain that our sanctions against Irag caused the death of innocent civilians.

So weapons are bad? Sanctions are bad? Refusing to trade is bad? Supporting dissidents, revolutionaries and the like against bad leaders is bad too. Regime change?...oh no let's not touch that one. Not getting involved at all seems to have caused people to complain as well...ie people on the old Mehul earth forums screamed that the US had to get involved in Bosnia. Then they screamed when we did. And of course shame on America for waiting so long to get involved in WW2.

I don't know what the answer should be in regards to how my country or any other one should or shouldn't react. However what I do know is that what these bad leaders do is on them and it is up to the peoples of those nations to do something about it. We are seeing that now in Egypt. I hope whatever ends up happening makes their lives better.

As for ElBaradei, he doesn't seem to answer to any country. That might just be a good thing in this case. But him being out of the country so long may be a problem. Who knows.