The jasmine revolution spreads?

[imperium3]

It's clearly a water droplet on the camera. Besides if there were an actual glowy greeny horsy thing there, why have none of the protesters (who would have been inches away) mentioned it?

So yeah. Thoroughly unconvinced

[Tycow]

Buh?

Duh! aka already covered (in ridicule, mostly)

Bleh! I bow to your superior (and more timely) linkage!

[Aye Capn]

Perhaps it is I that jump to the conclusions since I frankly have no idea who these people are or why do you mention them at all.
...
That said, if I did make wrong connection between passage 1 and 2 in your org. post I do apologize.

You figured it out. Accepted.

The relationship between the gang-sexual-assault and the Leftist nincompoop who leapt to their defense is that both actions are deplorable and both represent the use or encouragement of sexual violence as a political weapon.

But the sick fantasy of an Egyptian Janjaweed bringing Karmic justice to uppity and/or Jewish females belongs to Nir Rosen and his Egyptian allies, not to Rosen's fellow travelers on the Left here in the West, so I do owe an apology.
I should apologize to you and anyone else of the Leftist persuasion, as this does seem to be a bridge too far. Given what's been said about Sarah Palin it was not outside the realm of possibility to imagine a circling of the wagons around Nir Rosen, but not this time. I jumped to conclusions and for that I apologize -- nobody wants to associate themselves with Mr. Rosen, however much they might agree with his politics, and I was wrong to think so.

Rest of your post is pretty much a big "guilty by asossication" argument.

You're right, but we're not dealing with a lone rapist in a crowd of drunken revelers but a gang-rape (or violent sexual assault) after someone yells, "Jew!" which is an entirely different situation.

It doesn't indict the entire crowd, but it doesn't absolve them either. In the end it comes down to numbers: how many in the crowd take the Nir Rosen view that any woman who disagrees with their point-of-view or belongs to an out-group deserves to be raped? How many would actually participate in said rape?
Both of those numbers are greater than one and include an element of political, racial, and/or religious hate, so your rock concert experience doesn't represent what happened to Lara Logan.

Regarding the Iran - it is just the proof of how western backed regime can produce the most anti-western regime in less of 26 years*. Supporting the dictators will always backfire when the boss gets overthrown.
*Besides, the fact is that Iran had sort of a democracy in 1953 - CIA backed the overthrow of it. In 1979 came the blowback.

Whether or not Mubarak's regime is "our fault" is irrelevant to the desirability of an Iranian-style theocratic revolution in Egypt, but I do take your point.
While we made terrible mistakes in Iran I do think we are far less to blame for Mubarak, who you should remember belongs to the same regime as our enemy Gamal Nasser who launched the Yom Kippur War. Mubarak neither came to power nor stayed in power because of Sadat's signing of the Camp David Accords despite our becoming much friendlier to the regime after their change of heart.

This too happened on Tahrir square:

Good point. I couldn't help but notice no one thought to include the Star of David in their symbolic displays of peaceful coexistence, but it certainly proves that Muslim theocrats don't rule the streets.

[Warenwolf]

I should apologize to you and anyone else of the Leftist persuasion (...)

Heh, you missed my political persuasion by couple of hundred miles but thats OT.

The relationship between the gang-sexual-assault and the Leftist nincompoop who leapt to their defense is that both actions are deplorable and both represent the use or encouragement of sexual violence as a political weapon.

Not to offend you - What you say may or may not be true but to a non-american such as myself it isn't really my problem or interest. American nincompoop (whatever that is) = american problem (unless he is the boss of the country and decides to invade Canada in order to force them to wear skirts - which then becomes international problem).
To give you some perspective - you don't really care about Annex 7 implementation failure in my country. Not that you know anything or have heard anything about Annex 7. Discussion about American political factions (two of them) isn't really related to this thread, don't you agree?


But all of the above is really OT - back to the core of you post:

It doesn't indict the entire crowd, but it doesn't absolve them either.

Unless entire crowd was aware and supported the actions of those that attacked Lara Logan they do not share the responsibility. And I am telling you - with the numbers we are speaking about there is no way entire crowd was aware of what was happening with Logan. Not even a tiny minority...
On 1 February, Al Jazeera reported that more than 1 million protesters have gathered at Tahrir square. If we assume that only 200.000 people were present when the attack on Logan happened, the incident would not tell us anything about the nature of the protest in the egypt.
The noise of the crowd would have drowned her screams and nobody would notice anything even 50 meters away (depending on the density of the crowd and time of the day, of course)

Tahrir square protests were not gathering of rapists or political extremists. So far, you haven't convinced me otherwise.

Were they rapists and political extremists among them? - yeah but then again you should visit some of the football (soccer) games in Europe (Rivals of Ajax FC chanting* - "'Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas'" ). It isn't indicative of the political orientation of the countries where the games take place or the football supporters in generall.





To conclude this wall of text:

If the protesters prevail we may see an extremist regime take control over Egypt. If the West supports the regimes in ME, when these regimes fall (and they will fall eventually) we WILL see extremist regimes taking control (hence Iran example)


PS:

Regarding the anti-jewish feelings in egypt. Seeing how often they have been in war with Israel and general feeling towards jews in arab world I would be surprised if there was no animosity against the jews in Egypt. Anti-americanism is too pretty much given.


*the chant btw has nothing to do with antisemitism originally.

[imperium3]

If the protesters prevail we may see an extremist regime take control over Egypt. If the West supports the regimes in ME, when these regimes fall (and they will fall eventually) we WILL see extremist regimes taking control (hence Iran example)

Bahrain's Quiet Anger Turns to Rage

It looks like killing a few demonstrators wasn't such a good idea, it looked like the protests were crushed but now maybe they have been given fresh impetus. This could get nasty...

[Tracker001]

This ????

The General Framework Agreement: Annex 7
http://www.ohr.int/dpa/default.asp?content_id=375

[Aye Capn]

Not to offend you - What you say may or may not be true but to a non-american such as myself it isn't really my problem or interest.

There were two "problems", one of which was that a gang of Egyptians brutally sexually assaulted an innocent woman for about half an hour while a crowd of onlookers watched. Do you really mean to say that only Americans would care about that?

Tahrir square protests were not gathering of rapists or political extremists. So far, you haven't convinced me otherwise.

Some nontrivial percentage of them are rapists and political extremists. Neither of us knows what that percentage might be.

If the protesters prevail we may see an extremist regime take control over Egypt. If the West supports the regimes in ME, when these regimes fall (and they will fall eventually) we WILL see extremist regimes taking control (hence Iran example)

Regarding the anti-jewish feelings in egypt. Seeing how often they have been in war with Israel and general feeling towards jews in arab world I would be surprised if there was no animosity against the jews in Egypt. Anti-americanism is too pretty much given.

Right, we help the Israelis fight against Nasser we're the Great Satan. We support Mubarak we're the Great Satan. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
So screw those guys, let them suffer under brutal military dictators whom we at least have some leverage over.
Eventually after enough revolutions and bloodshed some faction might come to power which has had some common sense beaten into them, like the current popular reform movement in Iran. They've suffered theocracy long enough to know it's a bad idea, so maybe if they take over Iran they'll play nice with the Israelis and we can all get along.

These idiots can go pound sand.

[Warenwolf]

There were two "problems", one of which was that a gang of Egyptians brutally sexually assaulted an innocent woman for about half an hour while a crowd of onlookers watched. Do you really mean to say that only Americans would care about that?

It was rather clear in previous posts (both from the tone and text) that it was not what I meant. I was commenting on your comments regarding political left in US and non-relevance of those to the situation in Egypt.

Some nontrivial percentage of them are rapists and political extremists. Neither of us knows what that percentage might be.

Since we do not know the percentage we cannot judge it non-trivial either.

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat



@Tracker001
I'll bet you a cookie that you had to google that one.

[imperium3]

Right, we help the Israelis fight against Nasser we're the Great Satan. We support Mubarak we're the Great Satan. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
So screw those guys, let them suffer under brutal military dictators whom we at least have some leverage over.

Translation: We sell the guns that shoot their sons, and they get upset with us? We give money to support a brutal dictator over them, and they get upset with us?

Well, that's damned unreasonable of them.

Eventually after enough revolutions and bloodshed some faction might come to power which has had some common sense beaten into them, like the current popular reform movement in Iran. They've suffered theocracy long enough to know it's a bad idea, so maybe if they take over Iran they'll play nice with the Israelis and we can all get along.

But one of the big unifying factors in most Arab countries, is that the general populace loathe Israel and the West. Iran, given its history, is probably the best example. So no truly popular movement out there will be producing pro-Israel regimes in a hurry.

The US, of course, knows this, hence the sponsoring of dictators that agree with its views. Because better that a whole region live in poverty and misery, than that anyone stands up to the Zionist land-thieves that run Israel* and, given that it is a political system controlled by money, the US too...


*I should clarify that this refers to much of the government (principally Avigdor Lieberman and his ilk) and the settlers here - not the whole Israeli people.

[BeidAmmikon]

Bahrain security forces accused of deliberately recruiting foreign nationals
I think the last hope for protesters anywhere is to appeal to the "you're my blood, you're my kin, Don't Tase Me Bro" to convince the armed forces amassed against them to not open fire. When foreign troops are brought to the scene, this hope fades away. How long before something like this happens, when robots will be sent in to do the job of men? Although, iron is present in both blood and robots...

[Warenwolf]

Clever... Nothing is efficient as fomenting hatred between different groups in your population in order to hide your own oppression and tyranny. Additionally foreign nationals as security element is also a tried and true method.

[Aye Capn]

Some nontrivial percentage of them are rapists and political extremists. Neither of us knows what that percentage might be.

Since we do not know the percentage we cannot judge it non-trivial either.

I would hardly characterize what happened to Lara Logan as "trivial".

Translation: We sell the guns that shoot their sons ...

We'll let them conquer Israel when Hell freezes over.
If they're angry that we sell Israel weapons -- and give them weapons, too, for that matter -- they should perhaps look at their own history of attacking, invading, and blockading Israel for the reason Israel feels the need to be so well-armed.
It should also be noted that if Nasser had chosen not to invade Israel the guns that defend Israel wouldn't have killed the sons who foolishly invaded.
The "they" of whom you speak are not a people capable of seeing reason. If they were they would put the blame for their dead sons on Nasser, not the country Nasser invaded or the ally that provided the weapons that allowed Israel to prevail.

[RegisterMe]

To be fair Aye Capn I think he was referencing your use of the term "non-trivial" in terms of numbers, not what happened..

[Warenwolf]

To be fair Aye Capn I think he was referencing your use of the term "non-trivial" in terms of numbers, not what happened..

I am quote sure now that he keeps on "misunderstanding" people's positions on purpose.

The method is to make the other party angry or failing that, forcing them to be defensive thereby derailing the discussion in order to avoid to produce real arguments for one's positions or hide the lack of the arguments for the mentioned position.

[Aye Capn]

On the contrary, the fact that it happened is proof of a nontrivial number.

[RegisterMe]

OK, I understand. The act itself was not trivial in nature (it was abhorrent, and in no way do I do anything that doesn't condemn the act and the people who carried it out).

The confusion arose because of the merging of the ideas about the non-trivial nature of the act with the use of "non-trivial" in relation to a number, ie the percentage. Following your logic a non-trivial act carried out by one person in a crowd of two billion equates to a non-trivial percentage. In fact the numbers simply don't matter, because they are irrelevant to the triviality (or not) of the act.

I don't agree with describing things this way, I think they are misleading, but I don't think it's worth arguing about, it hinders discussion about wider events - those continuing in Tunisia, those bubbling away in Libia (84 dead?), those in Bahrain, and wherever next.

EDIT: And the leader from the Economist this week.

[Warenwolf]

@RegisterMe:

Thanks for the link to the economists leader article. Interesting read.







Some background info about Bahrain and its protests:
What is at stake

Protests also seem to catch on - latest place is Djibouti




Regarding Libya and Algeria:

I think that Libya's unrest is simply too much localized to produce a regime change. Every time I read about something happening there it always happens in same city, east in the country.

In Algeria, last weeks protests have been dwarfed by the 30 000 man strong security force that showed up.

Regardless if all protest fail in ME, in my opinion their aftermath will be the same Year of Revolution had on Europe's societies.

UPDATE:
Despite Libya's unrest being largely a localized affair, IMHO, it doesn't appear that Gaddafi strays his hand when it comes to crack downs - Libya's forces opened fire at a funeral

[Aye Capn]

OK, I understand. The act itself was not trivial in nature (it was abhorrent, and in no way do I do anything that doesn't condemn the act and the people who carried it out).

The confusion arose because of the merging of the ideas about the non-trivial nature of the act with the use of "non-trivial" in relation to a number, ie the percentage. Following your logic a non-trivial act carried out by one person in a crowd of two billion equates to a non-trivial percentage. In fact the numbers simply don't matter, because they are irrelevant to the triviality (or not) of the act.

I don't agree with describing things this way, I think they are misleading, but I don't think it's worth arguing about, it hinders discussion about wider events - those continuing in Tunisia, those bubbling away in Libia (84 dead?), those in Bahrain, and wherever next.

EDIT: And the leader from the Economist this week.

I can't argue with that. Were I to provide a quantitative justification for "non-trivial" I'd need more data.

I do think that some popular movements should succeed and others should fail. Had we the foresight to have stopped the Iranian revolution it would've probably been a good idea to do it.

On the other hand, taking the very long view with the Iranian example, if Egypt has to go through a period of religious oppression before finally developing a popular revolutionary movement that rejects both dictatorship and theocracy for democracy maybe I'm being short-sighted. If it stunts a nation's inevitable march to democracy to be frozen in place at some step along the way then letting things get worse is the price of things ultimately getting better.
I still don't buy that it is always the best policy to replace any dictatorship with anything else -- anything else? I can think of "anything elses" that could be a lot worse. A Mubarak for a Pol Pot? Bad trade.
I'm skeptical of the Egyptian movement, but that skepticism is based on many things, not just the Lara Logan attack.
Based on what I know about most of the other movements I hope they succeed. For me it all depends on what outcome seems most likely.

[pjknibbs]

I do think that some popular movements should succeed and others should fail. Had we the foresight to have stopped the Iranian revolution it would've probably been a good idea to do it.

But then, it probably would have been a good idea to not topple the democratically-elected Iranian government back in 1953...and yes, I'm aware that was mostly done at British insistence.

[BeidAmmikon]

Yo, UN! Yo, NATO! Won't you enter Libya to topple the regime there? There's a new Milosevic down there who's gunning down his own people. Abuse against civilian population and the like...
F***hy hypocrites.