Inspired in part by this thread, and not wanting to hijack it, can someone explain to me in a sentence or two just why Egyptians are protesting?
I did a quick news search, and found this on the BBC’s site:
Is it simply because the Egyptians (ostensibly) want more freedom than they’ve had under Mubarak?
Can anyone either enlighten me or point me in the right direction so I can get some background on this?
'Preciate it.
At the conclusion of noon prayers the young and the restless emptied out of the mosques into the streets to protest a lack of jobs and income against Mubarak. (todays news).
Because Mubarak is a dictator who’s governed with a fairly ferrous hand for the past 30 years and people are tired of it. Food prices worldwide are rising…any time food becomes hard to obtain, unrest is going to start.
Mubarak IS pretty bad, freedoms-wise. We in the US generally don’t hear about it that much, because he’s OUR son of a bitch. That kind of attitude by our government toward the governments of the region (“He’s a little heavy-handed, but at least he’s not urging the bombing of Jerusalem or New York City”) is one reason we’re in the mess we’re in as far as our problems with extremist Muslims.
ETA: Tunisia helped inspire the protests in Egypt (as well as concurrent protests in Jordan, Lebanon, Yemen and Algeria). Also, the online group Anonymous has been giving internet support…hacking the Egyptian government, doing DNS attacks. Egypt has shut down the internet (literally). There’s no domestic or international internet connections up. Only pass-through connections are still working. They’ve shut down cellphone networks, 3G, texting…any technology that can help the protesters/rebels communicate and coordinate has been shut down.
Thanks jayjay. That gave me some understanding, and your line “We in the US generally don’t hear about it that much…” is a big reason why I asked the question.
Just in case anyone is interested, here is a short summary interview.
More at the link.
Oh how charming, the little darlings have figured out their oppression comes from their own leaders and not the west nor from Israel.
Been away from the news for a few days. It’s a little disconcerting to fire up the TV and see Cairo burning. I do hope it all turns out for the better over there.
So democracy is starting to take hold in the middle-east after all? Hmmmmm…
This, um, analysis is leading us into rather non-GQ territory, but just to clarify a factual point:
One of the grievances asserted by Egyptian protesters is that their leaders are oppressing them precisely because they’re putting the interests of the West and/or Israel above the interests of their own people. Mubarak’s critics frequently refer to him as a “puppet” of the US and Israel.
So no, it’s not as though Egyptians are articulating any meaningful distinction between “oppression by their own leaders” and “oppression by the west/Israel” here.
Uhhhhhhh…
You might want to brush up on your who-backs-what-dictators a bit.
So are these protesters better compared to the 1989 eastern Europeans, or to the 1979 Iranians?
Sure ole Hosni plays footsie with the USA, but without the money they get from the USA, they’d have been loads poorer, oppressed and unhappy than with the money we give them. Hosni does a good job of currying favor and money from countries that have it.
We don’t have enough jobs or security here…and no other countries gives us a dime, should we take to the street?
We are free here, all of us, to suffer with problems of unrestricted capitalism.
Like Hoover said “the problem with capitalists is that they are too greedy”.
Except that the US helps to keep all these dictators in power, giving Mubarak billions of dollars every year.
Mubarak gets paid to keep the hoardes in order; it’s a nasty job, but someone has to do it.
Rather than give out warnings for threadshitting/hijacking, I’ll simply move this from General Questions to *In My Humble *Opinion, where a hot-button topic such as this can gather opinions as well as sticking to the facts.
samclem MOderator, GQ
Egypt has been, since the 1970s, among the largest recipients of US foreign aid (I believe this includes military aid). Right now the top three recipients are Iraq, Afghanistan and Egypt…pretty amazing for a country that isn’t exceptionally poor. It’s pretty obvious that there are some motivations out there besides sympathy for the people of Egypt.
Dictators from poor countries have to respond at least marginally to the people, But dictators with large amounts of outside funds- be it from foreign aid or natural resources- can beef up their security to the point where they are entirely unaccountable to anyone.
Without US support, Mubarack would have had to begin responding to his people decades ago. But we decided to put our geo-strategic goals above the Egyptian people’s hopes for self-determination.
Some self-determination…probably going to run to Al Queda or the Taliban as soon as they can. Let them see how much liberty and freedom those thugs give them.
You have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of Egyptian religious and political issues, do you? Neither Al Qaeda nor the Taliban are strong (or, in the case of the Taliban, existent) in Egypt. Their homegrown Muslim political club is the Muslim Brotherhood, which has a wide range of membership as far as political/religious views go. There is never going to be a completely secular democracy in the ME/NA without some kind of dictatorship (and we completely destroyed one of those in the last decade).
And, frankly, I am and always have been ashamed of the way my country handles this. It’s one thing to tout the glories of democracy and then allow other countries to enjoy those glories. It’s another thing entirely to pay lip service to the glories of democracy and then tack on “as long as we like who you elect.”
From The Guardian’s live blog:
Taxi for Mubarak!
Ominous (from Al Jazeera English’s liveblog):
Yup, by the Speaker, who is next in line if the President can’t fulfil his duties.