Sign of the Times Middle East Style

[Selene]

FYI:

This is the name that did the best in the poll that William put up.

"Amr Moussa, Secretary General of the Arab League (AL), has made a surprising statement regarding his intentions to run as a candidate in Egypt's presidential race. "Every qualified Egyptian has the right to run for the presidency", said Moussa at an AL conference in Cairo on Monday. "As for my candidacy, I shall address it in due time," Moussa added. Moussa's short announcement, seemingly meant to keep his options open, may indeed be carrying a coded message for Mubarak himself; 'I am here if you need me. I can provide a safe exit scenario for you and the regime. A safe exit from an unsustainable situation that can turn ugly.'"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wael-nawara/amr-moussa-offers-a-safe-_b_802489.html

Adam

[william.scherk]

This is the name that did the best in the poll that William put up.

"Amr Moussa, Secretary General of the Arab League (AL), has made a surprising statement regarding his intentions to run as a candidate in Egypt's presidential race. "Every qualified Egyptian has the right to run for the presidency", said Moussa at an AL conference in Cairo on Monday.

If protests manage to depose the President entirely, elections must be held in sixty days. Any chances of constitutional amendments are frozen. What Mousa says about 'every qualified Egyptian' is true, but the devil is in the details. The only way anyone can get on the ballot is by having a party of parliament sponsor/ratify their candidacy by overwhelming majority, and only party candidates can run.

Which party runs parliament? The NDP, with 96% of the seats. So, say Mubarak goes to the beach, Suleiman takes over, who gets on the ballots? If Moussa could somehow get on the ballot, he could win, and then the dismantling of the entire fucking monster regime could begin.

But the NDP and the entire fucking monster regime is still in command.

This is why Suleiman and Mubarak are indulging in the extra-constitutional whoopee, and not obeying the strictures of the law. Egypt could have a new President two months from Mubarak's departure, but that President would not be to the present regime's taste.

Today's dumbshow by the autocrat and his stooge was not credible, not transparent, not detailed, not at all responsive to the demands of Egyptians. The two simply quickened the revolt and clarified that they have lost all connection to the will of the people.

It is a wonderful, sad, enthralling, powerful moment. If I could pray, I would pray that tomorrow brings no further bloodshed.

Edited February 11, 2011 by william.scherk

[Selene]

William:

Correct, Good analysis.

I do not see a sane path through these electoral and constitutional rapids.

Additionally, with the Saudi full endorsement of Mubarak, we could be looking at a really brutal subjugation of the "democracy" movement beginning tomorrow.

The US administration's foreign policy face has had to power wash the eggs from their collective faces over the Egyptian situation.

"Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is backing away from comments he made Thursday calling Egypt's branch of the Muslim Brotherhood movement "largely secular." "To clarify Director Clapper’s point - in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood makes efforts to work through a political system that has been, under Mubarak’s rule, one that is largely secular in its orientation," a spokesman for Clapper, Jamie Smith, said Thursday afternoon. "He is well aware that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a secular organization."

At a House Intelligence Committee hearing earlier in the day, Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.) questioned Clapper about the threat posed by the group. Clapper replied by suggesting that the Egyptian part of the Brotherhood is not particularly extreme and that the broader international movement is hard to generalize about."

DNI Head Clapper backs off statement This confirmed that the White House has either no plan or position and is just too arrogant to be quiet. I have rarely seen as inept a White House ever.

Adam

[william.scherk]

Correct, Good analysis.

[ . . . ]

I have rarely seen as inept a White House ever.

You may be quite right -- even though you have an implacable disgust/bias -- what I like to hear is strong enunciation of American principles of freedom. I recall the way Reagan dealt with Marcos . . . dragged out, impotent, indifferent, and ultimately pitiable in retrospect. Reagan offered fuck all to the movement that forced the brutal Marcos regime from office.

In any case, maybe only Americans really give a shit about the US position, or obsess and fret and fuss and make partisan hay. Do you think Egyptians pause to even consider the official US position?

If they do, here is what your President released as your government position. Can you do better, Adam?

The Egyptian people have been told that there was a transition of authority, but it is not yet clear that this transition is immediate, meaningful or sufficient. Too many Egyptians remain unconvinced that the government is serious about a genuine transition to democracy, and it is the responsibility of the government to speak clearly to the Egyptian people and the world. The Egyptian government must put forward a credible, concrete and unequivocal path toward genuine democracy, and they have not yet seized that opportunity.

As we have said from the beginning of this unrest, the future of Egypt will be determined by the Egyptian people. But the United States has also been clear that we stand for a set of core principles. We believe that the universal rights of the Egyptian people must be respected, and their aspirations must be met. We believe that this transition must immediately demonstrate irreversible political change, and a negotiated path to democracy. To that end, we believe that the emergency law should be lifted. We believe that meaningful negotiations with the broad opposition and Egyptian civil society should address the key questions confronting Egypt’s future: protecting the fundamental rights of all citizens; revising the Constitution and other laws to demonstrate irreversible change; and jointly developing a clear roadmap to elections that are free and fair.

We therefore urge the Egyptian government to move swiftly to explain the changes that have been made, and to spell out in clear and unambiguous language the step by step process that will lead to democracy and the representative government that the Egyptian people seek. Going forward, it will be essential that the universal rights of the Egyptian people be respected. There must be restraint by all parties. Violence must be forsaken. It is imperative that the government not respond to the aspirations of their people with repression or brutality. The voices of the Egyptian people must be heard.

The Egyptian people have made it clear that there is no going back to the way things were: Egypt has changed, and its future is in the hands of the people. Those who have exercised their right to peaceful assembly represent the greatness of the Egyptian people, and are broadly representative of Egyptian society. We have seen young and old, rich and poor, Muslim and Christian join together, and earn the respect of the world through their non-violent calls for change. In that effort, young people have been at the forefront, and a new generation has emerged. They have made it clear that Egypt must reflect their hopes, fulfill their highest aspirations, and tap their boundless potential. In these difficult times, I know that the Egyptian people will persevere, and they must know that they will continue to have a friend in the United States of America.

Edited February 11, 2011 by william.scherk

[Selene]

William:

Merely because I oppose O'biwan does not mean that I would not support his foreign policy if I felt it was in the best interests of the US, or was morally correct.

My answer is that I could have produced a better statement that was less rambling and confusing.

I would also have more trust in the elements of this statement if O'biwan had issued a similar moral statement when the green revolt began in Persia, or when Fidel Castro makes an eight hour speech, or when the Dalai Llama comes to the United States, or when Hu Jintao comes to the United States, etc.

Additionally, we do not have a clear understanding as to who is going to control this "democratic" vote.

Adam

[william.scherk]

My answer is that I could have produced a better statement that was less rambling and confusing.

Looking forward to that. In the meantime, how about this statement:

“I applaud President Mubarak’s decision to step down. This was obviously a very difficult decision for President Mubarak, but it is the right decision for Egypt. History will note that President Mubarak’s last action in office was in the best interest of the country he loves.

“While this is a welcomed event, the Egyptian people are clearly saying that President Mubarak’s resignation should be the beginning, not the end, of their country’s transition to democracy. I completely agree. For the Egyptian people to achieve the legitimate and enduring democratic change they seek, representatives from Egypt’s pro-democracy parties and movements must be included in the transition government. In advance of elections later this year, Egyptians must be free to exercise their universal rights peacefully – to speak and express themselves without interference, including over the internet; to organize independent political parties; to register candidates of their choosing for office; and to participate in elections that are free and fair by international standards.

“In the days ahead, the Egyptian military will continue to have a critical role in maintaining order and stability while allowing their fellow Egyptians to exercise their universal rights in peace. The Egyptian people are demanding a meaningful and irreversible transition to democracy, and I urge the Egyptian military to faithfully support and secure the coming process of political change in Egypt.

“The United States stands fully ready to assist the Egyptian people and government as they begin the hard work of democratic reform.”

[Selene]

William:

McCain should learn to keep his mouth shut when he has no reason to comment on the Egyptian situation.

Moreover, it is condescending and rambling. Additionally, we still have no clue as to what is actually happening.

Adam

[william.scherk]

McCain should learn to keep his mouth shut when he has no reason to comment on the Egyptian situation.

Looking forward to a rightly-reasoned statement on events. You seem to intuitively grasp what everyone above the station of adjunct pooperscooper should not say and not do, so it would be instructive to hear your comments.

In the meantime, the official Objectivist view of events in the Middle East.

“But if you mean whose side should one be on Israel or the Arabs? I would certainly say Israel!”

Israel is up against “a group of almost totally primitive savages, who have not changed for years, and are racist, and resent Israel because it is bringing industry, intelligence, modern technology…”

“They’re terrorists… they’re monsters…”

Edited February 11, 2011 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

To be objective, since your excerpts give a distinct one-dimensional impression. why not give the whole quote?

Just a suggestion...

Michael

[william.scherk]

To be objective, since your excerpts give a distinct one-dimensional impression. why not give the whole quote?

[william.scherk]

McCain should learn to keep his mouth shut when he has no reason to comment on the Egyptian situation.

Here are a few more US elected officials who have no reason to comment on the Egyptian situation. I leave off the link and particular attributions for a few hours so that Il Consiglieri can prepare a denunciamento. There are both Democrats and Republicans mixed in here, but it is obvious who is who . . . suffice it to say that they should all keep their mouths shut.

_______________________________

"The Iranians trying to take advantage of the situation in Europe have only exposed the bankruptcy of their system. I say to our Iranian friends: let your people march, let your people speak, release your people from jail, let them have a voice!"

"I hope this will lead to an orderly transition to a more orderly government."

"I am pleased that President Mubarak has heard and heeded the voice of the Egyptian people, who have called for change. It is crucial that Mubarak's departure be an orderly one and that it leads to true democracy for Egypt, including free, fair and open elections. We caution all sides against violence during this transition, and we will be watching the situation closely. We wish the Egyptian people the best in their next steps toward determining their own future under a democratic process."

"I congratulate the Egyptian people for their resolve, courage, and determination to end a thirty year undemocratic system. President Mubarak's resignation today is a major step toward democracy, but it does not complete the task. We should encourage the military, which is now in control, to set out a path to achieve free, transparent, and open elections no later than the current September schedule. There must be an immediate end to any and all laws that prevent the development of viable political parties and a process that encourages moderate and progressive parties to emerge. At this moment, ‘We are all Egyptians.'"

"Now that the immediate demands of the Egyptian people have been met, steps must be taken for the prompt commencement of a calm and orderly transition process towards freedom and democracy in Egypt... The Egyptian military can continue to play a constructive role in providing for security and stability during this transformational period. The U.S. and our allies must focus our efforts on helping to create the necessary conditions for such a transition to take place. We must also urge the unequivocal rejection of any involvement by the Muslim Brotherhood and other extremists who may seek to exploit and hijack these events to gain power, oppress the Egyptian people, and do great harm to Egypt's relationship with the United States, Israel, and other free nations."

"This announcement is a positive step, and an historic opportunity - and major challenge - for the people of Egypt to establish a government that's responsive to their hopes and needs... The U.S. must stand ready to support an Egyptian-led transition and reform process that respects universal freedoms, human rights, and the democratic aspirations of the Egyptian people."

"Only the Egyptian people can determine if Egypt's military can be trusted... We should stand with them in their right to self determination."

"America stands for the right of the Egyptian people to realize their highest aspirations, and today's news of President Mubarak's resignation marks the most significant moment in Egypt's recent history... I am hopeful that the Egyptian military, now in power, will follow through on recent promises to amend Egypt's constitution, implement democratic changes, investigate the acts of violence that ensued in recent weeks, and advance an orderly and peaceful transition."

"The Egyptian people have asked for something very simple and yet remarkable, something that every American can identify with; a good job, food on the table, and a say in the future of their country. America has stood with the Egyptian people and taken its place on the right side of history. Egypt, and the entire world, will remember America's stand for peace and democracy for generations to come. While the resignation of President Mubarak is a monumental step, it is a first step. Egypt's transition to true democracy will require continued support from the United States and peace loving nations throughout the world."

"It is impossible to watch the images coming from Egypt of huge numbers of ordinary Egyptians - young and old, secular and religious, men and women, rich and poor - and not be deeply moved by their struggle to bring democracy and human rights to one of the world's great civilizations. Ultimately, the Egyptian people control their political destiny, but the stakes are high for the United States as well. If Egypt succeeds in building a functioning, credible democracy in the heart of the Arab world, it could lead to a new era for hundreds of millions of people."

Edited February 11, 2011 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

Hilarious interview by Iran State Television with an Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood member. The Iranian propaganda machine has been ladling out the hooey bigtime, trying to gather the Egyptian uprising under the skirts of Big Momma Islamic Iran.

The title of the story is US support for Mubarak insults Egyptians -- but that is out of the mouth of the Iranian. Read the interview to see the Muslim Brotherhood guy refuse to take the bait. Quite funny.

[caroljane]

There's a good discussion led by the excellent Steve Paikin on Boring TV tonight.

One remark: "a cautious, conservative revolution."

Leading maybe, maybe to a new country, even a "new Arab" with the joy and pride and hope we see in Egyptians today.

[Selene]

Carol:

I'll take those bets...what odds are you giving?

What does the Whistler Ouija Board predict?

Adam

[william.scherk]

I'll take those bets...what odds are you giving?

What does the Whistler Ouija Board predict?

Let me ask you a question, on a scale of 1 through 10, with 1 being no threat to establishing a repressive Egyptian Islamic state and 10 being highly probable of establishing an Islamic Egyptian state, where would you place the Muslim Brotherhood in the post Mubarak Egyptian political landscape?

Edited February 12, 2011 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

The New York Times has gander at television coverage of the day Mubarak left office, in a story called Mubarak’s Fall Prompts Double Takes by Anchors. More 'gushing' over Al Jazeera.

It was Al Jazeera’s victory as well, of course, and that struggle was also fought live on television over the last 18 days, though more subliminally. The Mubarak government, which repeatedly tried to block the Arabic-language channel, treated Al Jazeera as an enemy that incited the protesters.

Al Jazeera English seemed intent on using the upheaval in Egypt to assume the kind of authoritative role that CNN had during the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The network fought back — with impassive resistance. Throughout the crisis, its correspondents covering the protests tried to hold themselves to a strict neutrality that even CNN reporters didn’t feign.

Most viewers in the United States can’t watch Al Jazeera English on television — though Link TV recently began simulcasting live programming for 12 hours a day. But lots of people are frustrated with the short attention span and distractions of American news programs. (On Thursday, when Mr. Mubarak was supposed to resign and didn’t, cable news programs were underscored with crawls about Kelsey Grammer’s divorce and Jennifer Hudson’s weight.)

As they did at the height of the Iraq war, many Americans chose to watch foreign newscasts, in particular streams of BBC World News and Al Jazeera English.

Sometimes, it paid off. On Thursday, when the world expected Mr. Mubarak to step down, MSNBC was so convinced of it that it kept the words “Egyptian President to Step Down” on the screen several minutes into Mr. Mubarak’s speech announcing he wasn’t leaving.

Hours earlier, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Cairo, Ayman Mohyeldin, was asked whether he thought Mr. Mubarak would indeed depart. The correspondent said he thought it was unlikely that the Egyptian dictator would relinquish power so easily. And when he turned out to be right, Mr. Mohyeldin remained poker-faced and soft-spoken as he covered the protesters’ enraged reaction.

He was far less indignant than Anderson Cooper of CNN, who told Wolf Blitzer: “This is a slap in the face. This is stepping on the grave, on the blood of Egyptian people that has been spilled for more than two weeks in that square we’re looking at, Wolf.”

On Friday, Mr. Finighan asked Mr. Mohyeldin, who is Egyptian-born but educated in the United States, to “stop being impartial for a moment” and share his personal feelings about the turn of events. (Mr. Mohyeldin was one of the reporters for Al Jazeera who were detained by the security forces during the protests.)

[william.scherk]

Wall Street Journal: Egypt's Military Rulers Suggest They Will Honor Israel Treaty

CNN: Egypt: U.S. military officials meet with Middle East counterparts

New York Times: Military Offers Assurances to Egypt and Neighbors

Jerusalem Post: PM welcomes Egypt military pledge to maintain peace treaty

Ha'aretz: Netanyahu: Egypt-Israel peace is cornerstone of Mideast stability

Fox News: Main Opposition Groups to End Protests in Cairo

Bob Kolker: Remember the Bastaille! 1793! The Terror! Shit down their necks!

[Selene]

The New York Times has gander at television coverage of the day Mubarak left office, in a story called Mubarak's Fall Prompts Double Takes by Anchors. More 'gushing' over Al Jazeera.

It was Al Jazeera's victory as well, of course, and that struggle was also fought live on television over the last 18 days, though more subliminally. The Mubarak government, which repeatedly tried to block the Arabic-language channel, treated Al Jazeera as an enemy that incited the protesters.

Al Jazeera English seemed intent on using the upheaval in Egypt to assume the kind of authoritative role that CNN had during the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The network fought back — with impassive resistance. Throughout the crisis, its correspondents covering the protests tried to hold themselves to a strict neutrality that even CNN reporters didn't feign.

Most viewers in the United States can't watch Al Jazeera English on television — though Link TV recently began simulcasting live programming for 12 hours a day. But lots of people are frustrated with the short attention span and distractions of American news programs. (On Thursday, when Mr. Mubarak was supposed to resign and didn't, cable news programs were underscored with crawls about Kelsey Grammer's divorce and Jennifer Hudson's weight.)

As they did at the height of the Iraq war, many Americans chose to watch foreign newscasts, in particular streams of BBC World News and Al Jazeera English.

Sometimes, it paid off. On Thursday, when the world expected Mr. Mubarak to step down, MSNBC was so convinced of it that it kept the words "Egyptian President to Step Down" on the screen several minutes into Mr. Mubarak's speech announcing he wasn't leaving.

Hours earlier, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Cairo, Ayman Mohyeldin, was asked whether he thought Mr. Mubarak would indeed depart. The correspondent said he thought it was unlikely that the Egyptian dictator would relinquish power so easily. And when he turned out to be right, Mr. Mohyeldin remained poker-faced and soft-spoken as he covered the protesters' enraged reaction.

He was far less indignant than Anderson Cooper of CNN, who told Wolf Blitzer: "This is a slap in the face. This is stepping on the grave, on the blood of Egyptian people that has been spilled for more than two weeks in that square we're looking at, Wolf."

On Friday, Mr. Finighan asked Mr. Mohyeldin, who is Egyptian-born but educated in the United States, to "stop being impartial for a moment" and share his personal feelings about the turn of events. (Mr. Mohyeldin was one of the reporters for Al Jazeera who were detained by the security forces during the protests.)

William, et al:

"Al Jazeera English seemed intent on using the upheaval in Egypt to assume the kind of authoritative role that CNN had during the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The network fought back — with impassive resistance. Throughout the crisis, its correspondents covering the protests tried to hold themselves to a strict neutrality that even CNN reporters didn’t feign."

That is certainly an inaccurate statement. They were extremely partisan throughout the coverage. I do not know how they compared to CNN, bit Al Jazeera was certainly not neutral.

I heard CNN is fighting hard to be number three in the cable news ratings!

Adam

Post Script: Nice touch William with the last Bob link! lol

[william.scherk]

Egypt's news outlet Al Masry Al Youm reports on an Al-Jazeera interview tith Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Though al-Qaradawi has refused official ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, he has a wide following in the Middle East, as broadcaster/Islamist ideologue/religious authority. He is also banned from entering the US. MSK has noted al-Qaradawi several times on OL, notably in this post.

Al-Qaradawi: Freedom takes priority over Islamic law

(this story has been repeated in thousands of other news aggregators and blogs. Al Masry Al Youm is a privately-owned news outlet)

Preserving the people's freedom is more important than setting up a system of Sharia (Islamic law), even though freedom remains part and parcel of Sharia, said Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi on Friday evening in an interview with Al Jazeera television network. Al-Qaradawi, who is an influential Islamic thinker and president of the International Union for Muslim Scholars, is closely tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's largest opposition group.

Recently, some members of the Brotherhood have tried to alleviate concerns that they want to establish an Islamic state by asserting that the Brotherhood does not seek to the rule the country or establish an Islamist government in Egypt.

Al-Qaradawi also emphasized that the army should protect the nation and the rights of the people, rather than rule the country. He stressed that the right to protest peacefully for the sake of a better life is granted by Islam and recognized by every human rights convention. He congratulated the Egyptian people and the Arab nation on the departure of President Hosni Mubarak after 18 days of the revolutionary struggle.

He described the young revolutionaries as honorable Egyptians who went beyond the call of duty to achieve national justice.

Al-Qaradawi expressed his confidence that God had aided them because he aids those who sacrifice in order to bring about justice, adding, "I was sure that God would aid the revolutionaries. I swore in my Friday sermon that God would soon help these youth, and that is indeed what turned out happening.”

Holding the ousted president responsible for the bloodshed, he said that “God wanted to award this victory to the Egyptian people” and denounced claims that Egyptians were servile and slavish.

He added that Tahrir Square had become a university for the educating the virtues of self-sacrifice, and suggested that the square should be renamed “25 January Revolution Square.”

Al-Qaradawi praised independent media outlets for disclosing facts and uncovering falsehoods while criticizing government owned media outlets as misleading. He accused the later of having continued its campaign of deception up to the final moments before Mubarak’s resignation was announced.

[william.scherk]

Wonderful takedown of Iranian pretensions to leadership over the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions, by Iranioan exile Amir Taheri**, from the pan-Arab news site Asharq Alawsat.

Egypt: Change within the regime, not regime change

For three weeks, Iran’s state-owned media have been making a song and dance about “Islamic revolution” in Egypt.

The claim is that the protestors inn Tahrir Square in Cairo are “spiritual children” of Ruhollah Khomeini, the mullah who seized power in Tehran 32 years ago.

Here is how daily Kayhan put it:

“Khomeini’s Islam has become the axis of events and developments in the Third Millennium. A powerful Islamic bloc is emerging under Iran’s leadership.”

Notice that the editorialist, presumably a devoted Islamist , is referring to the Third Millennium of the Christian era!

Also notice that what matter for him is “Khomeini’s Islam” not Islam as such.

[ . . . ]

Last Friday, the “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenehi came out of the purdah to present himself as “The Leader of Muslims In The World” and, in two speeches, one in Persian the other in a hesitant Arabic, claimed that Tunisians and Egyptians had risen “under the banner of our revolution.”

The fact that the Khomeinist regime has no presence in Tunisia or Egypt, not even an embassy, did not stop that outlandish claim.

The Khomeinist regime is desperate to find at least some echo of its bizarre ideology somewhere, anywhere.

In March 1980, Khomeini claimed that “very soon” the tide of his revolution would “sweep the Muslim world.”

Thirty-two years later, the promised tide has not reached a single Muslim nation.

[ . . . ]

Tunisians and Egyptians are neither blind nor deaf. They have seen and heard what has happened to Iran and its peoples under the mullahs.

They have heard of mass executions, over 100,000 in the first three years of the regime alone, and the deaths of one million in the eight-year war against Iraq. In the past two months alone, the regime has executed 102 people, including women and children.

[ . . . ]

The next reason why Tunisia and Egypt will not go the way Iran went is that political parties in those countries have not repeated the mistakes of their Iranian counterparts.

In Iran in 1979 all political parties dissolved their identity witihin that of Khomeini. Democrats accepted “walayat al-faqih” or rule by the mullahs. Communists went to mosques to pray. Feminist ladies donned black burqas and bowed to gender apartheid.

In Tunisia and Egypt, however, all parties have maintained their identity to avoid dissolution in an amorphous mass of mobs mad with revolution.

[ . . . ]

Today, even Islamists in Tunisia and Egypt try to be different. Neither An-Nahda nor the Muslim Brotherhood regard Islam as a poison that should be pumped down their peoples’ throats by force.

[ . . . ]

The “unity” that Iran saw under Khomeini could only lead to despotism. In Iran in 1979, there was room for just one ideology that, as events showed, could only be imposed by force. Political diversity in Tunisia and Egypt will lead to pluralism.

Khomeinism was angry that there were too many social and cultural freedoms in Iran under the Shah, not too little. Tunisian and Egyptian protestors, however, want more freedoms not less.

More importantly, perhaps, the Shah’s regime was structured around one man. When that man decided to leave rather than stay and fight, the whole structure disintegrated. In February 1979, power in Iran was like a box of jewels abandoned in a street, waiting for someone to pick it up. The mullahs picked up the box without a fight.

[ . . . ]

In Tunisia and Egypt the demise of a president has not led to the collapse of the whole regimes.

Each in its own way, Tunisia and Egypt may be following the model developed in a number of Asian and Latin American countries in which autocratic regimes based on the armed forces gradually evolved into democracies.

This was the case in South Korea and Taiwan and, more recently, Indonesia. It has also been the case in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Guatemala among others.

The process goes something like this: an autocracy evolves into a plutocracy that allows a widening space for dissent that, in turn, succeeds in broadening its base. In the meantime, economic success produces a larger middle class, the key ingredient for pluralist politics.

Thanks to economic development and inclusion in the global trading system, all the countries mentioned ended up looking like their democratic partners.

In every case, however, a popular movement for reform maintained the necessary pressure to achieve change of direction. Without political reform there could be economic growth but not genuine economic development. This is why the “Jasmine Revolution” in Tunisia and the freedom fest in Tahrir Square were needed to provide the necessary pressure to get the country out of an historical impasse.

____________

** Taheri is known for occasional fabrications of news items emanating from Iran, but his polemic is a welcome antidote to those who see only parallels between Iran 1979 and Egypt 2011.

[Richard Wiig]

And on a side note, people like Al-Qaradawi (and possibly Rauf, since he admires this creep so much), have it backwards. Hitler was not an instrument of Allah. Al-Qaradawi and people who follow him are instruments of Hitler, dragging Islam through the muck of Nazism, even to the point of openly preaching murder.

Islam is pure and loving, but it's been corrupted by Nazism. That damn Hitler!

[Selene]

This is priceless. THE EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION IS BUSH'S FAULT!!!!

Now it is from the Boston Globe which is nominally a newspaper, so read at your own risk!

TURMOIL IN EGYPT

Bush program helped lay the groundwork in Egypt

Vote monitors trained with funds from US

In November, demonstrators decried what they called widespread vote rigging in Egypt’s parliamentary elections. US funds helped train election monitors who observed that election. (Asmaa Waguih/Reuters/File) By Farah Stockman WASHINGTON — A small, controversial effort launched under President George W. Bush to fund and train election monitors in Egypt played a key role in the movement to topple President Hosni Mubarak’s regime.

The program, which provided millions in direct funding to pro-democracy[sic] groups, helped dispatch 13,000 volunteers to observe Egypt’s parliamentary elections in December. Thousands of those monitors, angered by what they said was blatant election rigging, joined the protests. Some became outspoken leaders; others used the networking and communication skills they learned to help coordinate 18 days of rallies.

Egypt Revolution is Bush's Fault!

Adam

[william.scherk]

This is priceless. THE EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION IS BUSH'S FAULT!!!!

Now it is from the Boston Globe which is nominally a newspaper

Were there any facts in the story that you could pick out and comment on, Adam? What do you take from the story, once you have checked its contents for truth and context, and once you have evaluated the sources? -- what other facts or background need to be considered?

[william.scherk]

More signs of the times. Looks like a coming insurrection for Libya. That danged Google/Soros/Leftist/Islamist/Boogeyman coalition must be licking its evul NWO chops.

After forty-one years of brutality, Gaddafi needs to take his billions and his little green book, and take a permanent vacation.

From Al-Jazeera.

Protesters die in Libya unrest

At least two people have been killed in clashes between Libyan security forces and demonstrators in the town of Bayda, east of Benghazi, the second largest city, as activists plan major anti-government protests throughout the country on Thursday.

[ . . . ]

"All the people of Beyida are out on the streets," said 25-year-old Rabie al-Messrati, who said he had been arrested after spreading a call for protests on Facebook.

Inspired by popular and successful uprisings in neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt, Libyan protesters are seeking an end to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's 41-year-old rule, one of the longest and most repressive leaders in the world.

[ . . . ]

The rare protests in Libya reportedly began after relatives of those killed in a prison massacre about 15 years ago took to the streets. They were joined by scores of supporters.

The relatives were said to have been angered by the detention of Fathi Terbil, human rights lawyer and official spokesman of the victims' families, who was arrested by the Libyan security forces, for no apparent reason.

However, Terbil was later released, according to reports.

Twelve-hundred prisoners were killed in the Abu Slim prison massacre on June 29, 1996, after they had objected to their inhumane conditions inside the prison.

[ . . . ]

Also calling for reforms are some of Libya's eminent individuals. A group of prominent figures and members of human rights organisations have demanded the resignation of Gaddafi.

They said that the Libyans have the right to express themselves through peaceful demonstrations without any threat of harassment from the regime.

The demands came in a statement signed by 213 personalities from different segments of the Libyan society, including political activists, lawyers, students, and government officials.

Gadhafi's government sought to allay further unrest by proposing the doubling of government employees' salaries and releasing 110 members of the armed - and outlawed - Libyan Islamic Fighting Group who oppose him--tactics similar to those adopted by other Arab regimes in the recent wave of protests.

In a telephone interview with Al Jazeera, Idris Al-Mesmari, a Libyan novelist and writer, said that security officials in civilian clothes came and dispersed protesters in Benghazi using tear gas, batons and hot water.

Al-Mesmari was arrested hours after the interview.

Edited February 17, 2011 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

Here's a schmozzle. A tiny island country ruled by a Sunni King, who imports Pakistanis and others to fill its government and security forces in order to keep down the majority Shia. Biggest allies, the puritanical Saudis, who like to drive over the causeway to booze it up in Manama's western-style nightlife.

Tonight, the government sends in everything they have to crush dissent.

Meanwhile, across the straits, Iranian nutcases, who are presently crushing their own people and calling for the death of 'traitors.'

It's hard to see where the US interests lie. Oh, except that Bahrain harbours the Seventh Fleet . . .

Fox News reports.