Egypt Has Left The Internet

[nun]

[quote name='INCUBUSRATM' timestamp='1296787917' post='496738']
[quote name='nun' timestamp='1296787521' post='496737']
cell phones can only receive calls and sms, and make phone calls. they still cannot send out sms.
[/quote]

Well, the guy on the forum who I've been following says they canNOT receive text messages...
[/quote]

i sent email then sms, and he replied my email :
"[font="Tahoma"][size="2"]I can't send to you message from the cell phone, cause it is still unavaliable...i CAN CALL BUT I CAN'T SEND SMS...."
[/size][/font]ok so maybe i misread the cairene's email
?

[Chreees]

Yeah, and I bet internet and phone service and stuff is going in and out. Who knows.

[agunn1231]

yeah....we talked about this in class today too. it got brought up randomly though....our topic in history today was 17th century france.

[blucker]

man... not good.

not good at all.

[mustafabey]

The entire event is turning into what we in the Marine Corps called a clusterfuck!

[Chreees]

[quote name='mustafabey' timestamp='1297287066' post='497348']
The entire event is turning into what we in the Marine Corps called [b]a clusterfuck![/b]
[/quote]

Word.

[mustafabey]

Mubarak may leave tonight! So says al Jazeera. The cabinet meeting was chaired by Minister of defense, Field Marshal Tantawi, so it may mean the military is looking to stabilize the nation. Today's strike gave some cause to think the Suez canal might be affected. It would stop oil shipments and would prompt more serious foreign meddling.

[mustafabey]

Hosni stays,again. he sure is a tough old buzzard. I'd would love to know whats going on behind the scenes,the US has its agenda, which gives lip service to freedom but savors status quo. Netanyahu is made of the same buzzard meat as Hosni and absolutely wants no democracy.Which way is the army pulling, at one point today it looked like a military coup. Does Hosni have nasty shit on everybody like J Edgar Hoover did, he could wear his dresses to White House dinners and no one would say a word. Or is he trying to piss off the Egyptian people enough for them to go on a rampage, so he has an excuse to sic the army on them. This round to Mubarak.

[Rani]

I think due to today's speech, Egypt is possibly back on "bloodbath likely" status. Several members of the government apparently let it slip that Mubarak would be resigning, and then he doesn't. So the crowds went from celebration to what one only assumes they're feeling. I don't see at this point how violence can be avoided. Emotion is running so high, hope was there and then yanked away. I still believe we and other nations need to stay out of it and let the Egyptian people choose for themselves. But if the army begins firing on their own people, all bets are off.

I just can't see Mubarak's mindset. He's being ousted. Today, tomorrow, or in September as he claims, but he's still going. Why one earth would he contribute to an atmosphere and actions that are tearing his country apart? Any facade that he cares about his country is obviously exposed for the false front it is. Just head for the retirement villa already and hope nobody has bribed your private security to shoot your ass in the dark.

'Rani

[mustafabey]

This is a quote from Fareed Zacharia, which is pretty much my feeling of what is going on in Egypt'

"The danger here is that things will get radicalized. ... The opposition, the protesters, the crowds are going to get angrier and angrier. They're going to draw perhaps more violent people. That is, in a sense, what the regime is hoping for. In a strange sense, I think the Mubarak regime is trying to bait the crowd in Tahrir Square and is hoping for violence and is hoping for some kind of march on the presidential palace that seems to get violent. Then they can step in and in the guise of restoring order, return to the military rule, return to the martial law that they want to consolidate. That's the danger here.

This might be a turn that history will record as the moment things went awry."

After Vice President Omar Suleiman's speech, Zakaria said the move discredited Suleiman as any kind of transitional figure:

"Egypt is a very nationalist country with a very proud people. It has a 7,000-year-old history, as President Mubarak pointed out [in his speech]. But I don't think it's going to work. What you just witnessed is Omar Suleiman discrediting himself as any kind of transitional figure. Omar Suleiman, the vice president, could have been the man who ushered in a new Egypt. He wouldn't have lasted but he would have been the man who brokered it all. But he has decided to stick with his boss. ... Suleiman is a former general, former head of military intelligence and President Mubarak's consigliere. ... The regime is hoping that it can wait out these protestors. But I think the big mistake for the last two weeks that the regime has made is that it has kept assuming that these people are going to go home. And they don't go home - the crowds just keep getting bigger and bigger and stronger and stronger. Friday will be a very crucial day because my guess is that you'll see the largest protest you've ever seen in Egypt."


He's being pulled too many ways and like a stubborn he is just going to sit on his ass and try not to be movable. There's an awful lot of international meddling on here,between the US, Israel, the Saudi's and probably the army, the Muslim Brothers and the corporate world. I'll say it gain Clusterfuck

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='mustafabey' timestamp='1297372534' post='497489']
Hosni stays,again. he sure is a tough old buzzard. I'd would love to know whats going on behind the scenes,the US has its agenda, which gives lip service to freedom but savors status quo. Netanyahu is made of the same buzzard meat as Hosni and absolutely wants no democracy.Which way is the army pulling, at one point today it looked like a military coup. Does Hosni have nasty shit on everybody like J Edgar Hoover did, he could wear his dresses to White House dinners and no one would say a word. Or is he trying to piss off the Egyptian people enough for them to go on a rampage, so he has an excuse to sic the army on them. This round to Mubarak.
[/quote]

I'm tending to agree with you for the most part on this. I think we are watching an obvious attempt to provoke the crowd. No matter how much you think the army isn't going to stand on the present gov't side, they have a long history of supporting their own. Mubarak and his VP were both officers at one point. In the end, they will, or at least some will fire on the protesters. Maybe not so much from the rank & file soldier, but there would be elite guard units more than willing to murder a shoe-waving protester just for the sake of it. If the protesters move on the residences, offices of upper leadership, or military posts you will see it put down in a style more typical of a mid-50's soviet action. I really don't think mobarak would be beyond instigating a false-flag op as a justification. The guy is a wildcard at this point. I think the protesters now making threats against his future well being, and talking about trials/hanging are not doing themselves any favours. I think they are painting the people in power into a corner. They will not leave peacefully if they are in fear of future retaliation. Once he has created a situ where he has a reason to smack the protest down, he will be there for life. I can hear the excuses now. The protesters have a real chance that they will over-play their hand.

The other wildcard is the Suez, any action involving damage to or seizure of the canal will result in foreign intervention. If the problems continue, we should see 150$ bbl oil within a few weeks (ready for 4.20+ before summer? You can bet 4.00+ will produce a repeat recession.) Any further threat to the suez coupled with long-term unrest/protests and I would put a couple of maple leaves on seeing 250$ bbl by mid summer. 7.00 gal gas, and we see a deep depression. Sounding like fun yet?

All the while PEBo is windmilling, He really is looking like he has zero ability to even figure out what is going down 15 minutes before it happens. I guess that is what you get when you have a pres with absolutely no respect from a foreign power.

clusterfuck fits. But then that fits any foreign crisis the USA has stuck it's nose in the middle of since 1945. Think we will ever learn?

[Chreees]

No, we won't ever learn. That is this country's biggest flaw- greed.

[mustafabey]

God Damn Scotty we agree! Even the part about the presidents handling of this fiasco. After his Cairo speech of 2009,Egyptians might have thought they had someone on their side, but just like he did to everyone,when the rubber met the road, when the talk had to meet the walk, Obama just didn't have the balls to stand by his words. During the campaign, when I was love struck by hope and change,lots of people said that Obama just didn't have the experience. Maybe they were right, and maybe he can't even choose the correct advice from his advisors as his position changes daily,inching ever so slowly towards some expression of support,but making the nations chief secret policeman the leader isn't my idea of democracy and it isn't the Egyptians either.
And the Suez, I'll bet Special Ops troops are packed, ready and sitting on planes.

[mustafabey]

Mubarak's gone! What's next?

[Rani]

[quote name='mustafabey' timestamp='1297428619' post='497561']
God Damn Scotty we agree! Even the part about the presidents handling of this fiasco. After his Cairo speech of 2009,Egyptians might have thought they had someone on their side, but just like he did to everyone,when the rubber met the road, when the talk had to meet the walk, Obama just didn't have the balls to stand by his words. During the campaign, when I was love struck by hope and change,lots of people said that Obama just didn't have the experience. Maybe they were right, and maybe he can't even choose the correct advice from his advisors as his position changes daily,inching ever so slowly towards some expression of support,but making the nations chief secret policeman the leader isn't my idea of democracy and it isn't the Egyptians either.
And the Suez, I'll bet Special Ops troops are packed, ready and sitting on planes.
[/quote]

Now hold on a second....... Imagine for just a moment YOU are President of the United States. You have Presidents and Heads of States calling you all the time. You have to maintain relationships, even if distant cautious ones, with every other nation, some of which are nuclear. How do you then take sides in a civil revolution? Do you alienate every other head of state in the world by backing protesters? We have mediocre relationships with Saudi and the UEI right now. And let's not even go into Pakistan. Do you threaten those relationships further by going against an existing head of state that our preceding administrations have supported in the past? And if you do, how stable do you think the rest of the world will consider the US in the future?

Obama did exactly the right thing by staying out of it. Had he backed Mubarak he would have alienated every Middle Eastern citizen and given extremists just one more example of how we can't mind our own business. Had he backed the protesters, he would have alienated every Middle Eastern government official. Taking sides was a no win for the US. Diplomacy ain't an easy job. You have to keep all sides relatively happy, and leave your own options open. He did EXACTLY what he needed to do. But the interesting thing about him, is that he took the position he did, not just because it was a necessary one in the overall global picture, but because according to his staff he fiercely believes the Egyptian people MUST choose their own destiny for themselves without interference and make it happen. It is absolutely the only way to make lasting change. If we had interfered, it would have always been our turning point, never the people's victory. Now and forever this victory belongs to the Egyptian people. That is, after all, what true democracy is.

Generally I think being in the middle of a revolution is a bad place to be unless you're intentionally seeking to lower your life expectancy, but I would have paid money to have been there early this morning when the military finally made a clear decision and turned their gun turrets away from the crowds and towards the Presidential palace. The military taking control is a very good thing from the US standpoint. A substantial portion of the military are US trained and appears to have the same mentality that they are defenders of the people rather than a specific administration. So while the dust hasn't settled, at least the direction it's moving gives every indication of being a good thing for Egypt and it's citizens.

'Rani

[Tyler]

Hell yeah I would have loved to be there today. One thing I don't understand is that we try to force-feed other countries democracy yet when it comes from the ground up we're like "woah hold up, what is that? slow down there!" I for one am stoked about the possibilities this brings to Egypt and the rest of the region

[Chreees]

I believe (and hope) this will bring about a new era of other countries following suit, thus bringing peace to not only the Middle East, but the greater part of the world.

[mustafabey]

[quote name='Rani' timestamp='1297447629' post='497587']
[quote name='mustafabey' timestamp='1297428619' post='497561']
God Damn Scotty we agree! Even the part about the presidents handling of this fiasco. After his Cairo speech of 2009,Egyptians might have thought they had someone on their side, but just like he did to everyone,when the rubber met the road, when the talk had to meet the walk, Obama just didn't have the balls to stand by his words. During the campaign, when I was love struck by hope and change,lots of people said that Obama just didn't have the experience. Maybe they were right, and maybe he can't even choose the correct advice from his advisors as his position changes daily,inching ever so slowly towards some expression of support,but making the nations chief secret policeman the leader isn't my idea of democracy and it isn't the Egyptians either.
And the Suez, I'll bet Special Ops troops are packed, ready and sitting on planes.
[/quote]

Now hold on a second....... Imagine for just a moment YOU are President of the United States. You have Presidents and Heads of States calling you all the time. You have to maintain relationships, even if distant cautious ones, with every other nation, some of which are nuclear. How do you then take sides in a civil revolution? Do you alienate every other head of state in the world by backing protesters? We have mediocre relationships with Saudi and the UEI right now. And let's not even go into Pakistan. Do you threaten those relationships further by going against an existing head of state that our preceding administrations have supported in the past? And if you do, how stable do you think the rest of the world will consider the US in the future?

Obama did exactly the right thing by staying out of it. Had he backed Mubarak he would have alienated every Middle Eastern citizen and given extremists just one more example of how we can't mind our own business. Had he backed the protesters, he would have alienated every Middle Eastern government official. Taking sides was a no win for the US. Diplomacy ain't an easy job. You have to keep all sides relatively happy, and leave your own options open. He did EXACTLY what he needed to do. But the interesting thing about him, is that he took the position he did, not just because it was a necessary one in the overall global picture, but because according to his staff he fiercely believes the Egyptian people MUST choose their own destiny for themselves without interference and make it happen. It is absolutely the only way to make lasting change. If we had interfered, it would have always been our turning point, never the people's victory. Now and forever this victory belongs to the Egyptian people. That is, after all, what true democracy is.

Generally I think being in the middle of a revolution is a bad place to be unless you're intentionally seeking to lower your life expectancy, but I would have paid money to have been there early this morning when the military finally made a clear decision and turned their gun turrets away from the crowds and towards the Presidential palace. The military taking control is a very good thing from the US standpoint. A substantial portion of the military are US trained and appears to have the same mentality that they are defenders of the people rather than a specific administration. So while the dust hasn't settled, at least the direction it's moving gives every indication of being a good thing for Egypt and it's citizens.

'Rani
[/quote]

Oh,Obama did his best trying to balance this thing. I'm sure he was pulled every which way, much like Mubarak. The problem here is hypocrisy. We talk the freedom and democracy babble, but we support some pretty nasty right wing monsters. We can go on and on about wanting democracy in North Korea but when its one of our nasty allies, then democracy must preserve the status quo. We can't show support for an outfit like the Muslim brotherhood, and no matter what anyone says,we must claim their solidarity with terror. So,OK Egypt you get "democracy" alright but the secret policeman gets to be president.
I had to listen to the right wing idiots today, Beck claiming the caliphate is upon us, such idiocy given the different versions of Islam even with the Sunni fold.Like Sunnis and Shia are going to join hands anytime now. Limbaugh seemed sad, like his favorite buddy had gotten the boot and went on about how the whole thing was engineered by communists,socialists,leftists,liberals etc. Yeah right Rushbo, a communist sharia state, no God but you still gotta keep the ladies veiled Then you have the Republicans, who somehow have obtained a copyright on words like democracy,freedom,liberty and constitution. Talk talk talk. During both the Bush and Obama administrations many of our rights disappeared.The patriot act. The extension wasnt passed yesterday, not because no one wants it, because they want the thing to become permanent, like Egypt's martial law. We don't live in a democracy anymore, we live in a plutocracy. The people who call the shots are Big Oil,The Military industrial boys, the Israel lobby. Thats where our foreign policy went on this one
Trouble is the gamble went wrong(maybe) but the Egyptian people and Islamic have lost what little respect they had for us. We support the terror being done to the Palestinians, we don't say squat when Israel talks of getting rid of the Arabs in Israel. Netanyahu gives us the finger and we smile and say thanks. There are plenty of people in Israel who are afraid of a right wing dictatorship taking hold of their nation. Not all Israelis are of like mind with Netanyahu and his gang.
So now Egypt has a miltary dictatorship and we shall see what happens on the democracy front.
And what going to happen in Iran? Syria? Saudi? and yes Rani, Pakistan, with all those delicious not very democratic nukes.
Back in the late 1700's two revolutions, the French and the American ushered in a period when the definition of a nation changed. Its happening again. We don't rejoice, because we define democracy in colonialist and imperialist terms. Its only democracy, when they do what we want. Nuff rant
,

[Rani]

[quote name='mustafabey' timestamp='1297461468' post='497615']
[quote name='Rani' timestamp='1297447629' post='497587']
[quote name='mustafabey' timestamp='1297428619' post='497561']
God Damn Scotty we agree! Even the part about the presidents handling of this fiasco. After his Cairo speech of 2009,Egyptians might have thought they had someone on their side, but just like he did to everyone,when the rubber met the road, when the talk had to meet the walk, Obama just didn't have the balls to stand by his words. During the campaign, when I was love struck by hope and change,lots of people said that Obama just didn't have the experience. Maybe they were right, and maybe he can't even choose the correct advice from his advisors as his position changes daily,inching ever so slowly towards some expression of support,but making the nations chief secret policeman the leader isn't my idea of democracy and it isn't the Egyptians either.
And the Suez, I'll bet Special Ops troops are packed, ready and sitting on planes.
[/quote]

Now hold on a second....... Imagine for just a moment YOU are President of the United States. You have Presidents and Heads of States calling you all the time. You have to maintain relationships, even if distant cautious ones, with every other nation, some of which are nuclear. How do you then take sides in a civil revolution? Do you alienate every other head of state in the world by backing protesters? We have mediocre relationships with Saudi and the UEI right now. And let's not even go into Pakistan. Do you threaten those relationships further by going against an existing head of state that our preceding administrations have supported in the past? And if you do, how stable do you think the rest of the world will consider the US in the future?

Obama did exactly the right thing by staying out of it. Had he backed Mubarak he would have alienated every Middle Eastern citizen and given extremists just one more example of how we can't mind our own business. Had he backed the protesters, he would have alienated every Middle Eastern government official. Taking sides was a no win for the US. Diplomacy ain't an easy job. You have to keep all sides relatively happy, and leave your own options open. He did EXACTLY what he needed to do. But the interesting thing about him, is that he took the position he did, not just because it was a necessary one in the overall global picture, but because according to his staff he fiercely believes the Egyptian people MUST choose their own destiny for themselves without interference and make it happen. It is absolutely the only way to make lasting change. If we had interfered, it would have always been our turning point, never the people's victory. Now and forever this victory belongs to the Egyptian people. That is, after all, what true democracy is.

Generally I think being in the middle of a revolution is a bad place to be unless you're intentionally seeking to lower your life expectancy, but I would have paid money to have been there early this morning when the military finally made a clear decision and turned their gun turrets away from the crowds and towards the Presidential palace. The military taking control is a very good thing from the US standpoint. A substantial portion of the military are US trained and appears to have the same mentality that they are defenders of the people rather than a specific administration. So while the dust hasn't settled, at least the direction it's moving gives every indication of being a good thing for Egypt and it's citizens.

'Rani
[/quote]

Oh,Obama did his best trying to balance this thing. I'm sure he was pulled every which way, much like Mubarak. The problem here is hypocrisy. We talk the freedom and democracy babble, but we support some pretty nasty right wing monsters. We can go on and on about wanting democracy in North Korea but when its one of our nasty allies, then democracy must preserve the status quo. We can't show support for an outfit like the Muslim brotherhood, and no matter what anyone says,we must claim their solidarity with terror. So,OK Egypt you get "democracy" alright but the secret policeman gets to be president.
I had to listen to the right wing idiots today, Beck claiming the caliphate is upon us, such idiocy given the different versions of Islam even with the Sunni fold.Like Sunnis and Shia are going to join hands anytime now. Limbaugh seemed sad, like his favorite buddy had gotten the boot and went on about how the whole thing was engineered by communists,socialists,leftists,liberals etc. Yeah right Rushbo, a communist sharia state, no God but you still gotta keep the ladies veiled Then you have the Republicans, who somehow have obtained a copyright on words like democracy,freedom,liberty and constitution. Talk talk talk. During both the Bush and Obama administrations many of our rights disappeared.The patriot act. The extension wasnt passed yesterday, not because no one wants it, because they want the thing to become permanent, like Egypt's martial law. We don't live in a democracy anymore, we live in a plutocracy. The people who call the shots are Big Oil,The Military industrial boys, the Israel lobby. Thats where our foreign policy went on this one
Trouble is the gamble went wrong(maybe) but the Egyptian people and Islamic have lost what little respect they had for us. We support the terror being done to the Palestinians, we don't say squat when Israel talks of getting rid of the Arabs in Israel. Netanyahu gives us the finger and we smile and say thanks. There are plenty of people in Israel who are afraid of a right wing dictatorship taking hold of their nation. Not all Israelis are of like mind with Netanyahu and his gang.
So now Egypt has a miltary dictatorship and we shall see what happens on the democracy front.
And what going to happen in Iran? Syria? Saudi? and yes Rani, Pakistan, with all those delicious not very democratic nukes.
Back in the late 1700's two revolutions, the French and the American ushered in a period when the definition of a nation changed. Its happening again. We don't rejoice, because we define democracy in colonialist and imperialist terms. Its only democracy, when they do what we want. Nuff rant
,
[/quote]

The problem is policy changes every time the newest First Lady changes out the furniture in the White House. Nobody, least of all me, can argue with the fact that our past foreign policy decisions were from a global view pretty self-centered and lousy. But "We" were represented by the President at the time who called the shots. That "We" doesn't exist any more.. "We" are now a little more, we hope, focused on the actual rights and responsibilities of others to make their own choices. We can't wipe out the past, but we can make better decisions in the present and future. Obama made the right choice. Does it excuse the fact that past presidents actions contributed to this necessary moment? Of course not. But we can't change the past, only learn from it.

As far as Israel is concerned, I'm no fan. Yes, I know they're under siege, and yes I know, half the Middle East has vowed their destruction as a nation. But they've rarely offered a olive branch from their side and let's face it, the whole West Bank settlement "invasion" was unnecessary and the government throwing it's weight around just because it could. And the tribes on both sides of Abraham's blanket have been at war with each other for several thousand years, and we shouldn't have been taking sides there either. I kind of understand why in our history we might have since they were literally our own ally in the area, but you can't keep supporting someone when they start acting exactly like the thugs they asked us to help protect them from in the first place.

I stand by my belief that for once, our government acted the way it should have. If we'd done so in the past, maybe the Middle East wouldn't be the clusterfuck it is today.

'Rani

[mustafabey]

Rani said:"And the tribes on both sides of Abraham's blanket have been at war with each other for several thousand years, and we shouldn't have been taking sides there either."
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Not actually. There was action against Jewish tribes in Medina when they didn't accept Muhammad's religion as the same as theirs. But the Jews always had peoples of the book status and in general fared very much better in Dar al Islam than they did in Christian Europe. Certainly there were execptions but they were rare. The Islamic world offered European Jews a safe haven from Christian persecutions. After 1492, when Ferdinand and Isabella expelled the Jews,many settled in the Ottoman Empire, where they had their own courts and places of worship. It wasn't until Zionism and its British backers that Judaism became a threat. Muslims considered Zionism as just another colonial intrusion until after the horrors of the Holocaust,Westerners,feeling guilt over doing nothing to stop Hitler's madness, found an Israeli state in Palestine a ready made solution to the ever present "Jewish problem" Unfortunately the Palestinians got the shaft, nobody thinking them important enough to count. After that the Arab world used the Palestinian problem to promote some kind of Arab unity. Still nobody much gives a crap about them. Jews were subject to much more violence under Christian rule since Constantine than they ever got from Islam
Al Jazeera.com has a jewish commentator named M J Rosenberg. here's a link to an interesting viewpoint.

[url="http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/201128131221271956.html"]Rosenberg[/url]

[Rani]

[quote name='mustafabey' timestamp='1297466867' post='497631']
Rani said:"And the tribes on both sides of Abraham's blanket have been at war with each other for several thousand years, and we shouldn't have been taking sides there either."
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Not actually. There was action against Jewish tribes in Medina when they didn't accept Muhammad's religion as the same as theirs. But the Jews always had peoples of the book status and in general fared very much better in Dar al Islam than they did in Christian Europe. Certainly there were execptions but they were rare. The Islamic world offered European Jews a safe haven from Christian persecutions. After 1492, when Ferdinand and Isabella expelled the Jews,many settled in the Ottoman Empire, where they had their own courts and places of worship. It wasn't until Zionism and its British backers that Judaism became a threat. Muslims considered Zionism as just another colonial intrusion until after the horrors of the Holocaust,Westerners,feeling guilt over doing nothing to stop Hitler's madness, found an Israeli state in Palestine a ready made solution to the ever present "Jewish problem" Unfortunately the Palestinians got the shaft, nobody thinking them important enough to count. After that the Arab world used the Palestinian problem to promote some kind of Arab unity. Still nobody much gives a crap about them. Jews were subject to much more violence under Christian rule since Constantine than they ever got from Islam
Al Jazeera.com has a jewish commentator named M J Rosenberg. here's a link to an interesting viewpoint.

[url="http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/201128131221271956.html"]Rosenberg[/url]
[/quote]

Actually I'm going all the way back to biblical times........ And that whole Abraham and the two sisters thing that is given credit for being the deepest root of the differences between the two. The Crusades opened yet another whole can of worms that still echoes around now and then.

Here's an irreverent thought....... The historical people of Israel were supposedly ejected from Israel and dispersed throughout the world basically because they pissed God off. So I wonder where that would put any nation who actively assisted them in their return? Yet another reason as far as I'm concerned we should mind our own damn business more often.

'Rani

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='mustafabey' timestamp='1297441773' post='497579']
Mubarak's gone! What's next?
[/quote]

I would say it begins with a prayer that it stays peaceful. Military leadership makes for a damn poor government. After all... that is where mubarak began! Typically a military dictatorship does not relinquish power to anyone they didn't select-elections don't mean allot to them. Trading one dictator you know for another you don't is not really a good choice. Only time will tell, but the "co-sharing" of power between the people and the military don't bode well.


I don't think the USA won any friends in the whole event

[mushrat]

Holy Shit! It worked!

[Rani]

[quote name='mushrat' timestamp='1297480098' post='497653']
Holy Shit! It worked!
[/quote]


What's going to be interesting is that it was such a peaceful coup. There is a very real chance people in surrounding nations take this as an example to emulate. It could be the start of some really dynamic changes in the region.

'Rani

[noodle]

[quote name='mustafabey' timestamp='1297466867' post='497631']
Rani said:"And the tribes on both sides of Abraham's blanket have been at war with each other for several thousand years, and we shouldn't have been taking sides there either."
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Not actually. There was action against Jewish tribes in Medina when they didn't accept Muhammad's religion as the same as theirs. But the Jews always had peoples of the book status and in general fared very much better in Dar al Islam than they did in Christian Europe. Certainly there were execptions but they were rare. The Islamic world offered European Jews a safe haven from Christian persecutions. After 1492, when Ferdinand and Isabella expelled the Jews,many settled in the Ottoman Empire, where they had their own courts and places of worship. It wasn't until Zionism and its British backers that Judaism became a threat. Muslims considered Zionism as just another colonial intrusion until after the horrors of the Holocaust,Westerners,feeling guilt over doing nothing to stop Hitler's madness, found an Israeli state in Palestine a ready made solution to the ever present "Jewish problem" Unfortunately the Palestinians got the shaft, nobody thinking them important enough to count. After that the Arab world used the Palestinian problem to promote some kind of Arab unity. Still nobody much gives a crap about them. Jews were subject to much more violence under Christian rule since Constantine than they ever got from Islam
Al Jazeera.com has a jewish commentator named M J Rosenberg. here's a link to an interesting viewpoint.

[url="http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/201128131221271956.html"]Rosenberg[/url]
[/quote]

Last time I checked, much of the development that the Palestinians are sore about started under the Ottomans. Jews bought land that nobody else was interested in and made them into farms.