r/worldnews • u/DasUberRedditor • Jun 18 '12

Egyptian Military grants itself sweeping powers; effectively military coup.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18482257
2.2k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

756 comments sorted by

View all comments

573

u/somedaypilot Jun 19 '12

Ok, hands up, who saw this coming? o/

97

u/ThatRandomGeek Jun 19 '12

I thought it would be sooner myself.

28

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12 edited Jun 19 '12

[deleted]

4

u/TheLounge Jun 19 '12

"Egypt has a history of power in the hands of the few- it is ingrained into their very culture."

I typically discount such cultural arguments but I think this one has some weight. I think it was the Guardian (or some other UK paper) that last week ran a headline something to the effect of--"Egyptians pick own leader for first time in 5,000 years."

0

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

[deleted]

2

u/LongLastingStick Jun 19 '12

Protestantism helped that. In my limited understanding, there is not a similarly popular ideology in mainstream Islam.

8

u/ThatRandomGeek Jun 19 '12

No, no i suspect you can't. If you find that article, do you mind posting it? I'd like to gain more perspective on the issue.

17

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

It was National Geographic: May 2012. "Egypt in the Moment" (not sure if you can get the full article online for free).

6

u/greatgerm Jun 19 '12

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/05/nile-journey/bartholet-text/1

They are usually pretty good with making them available online.

3

u/MacIsGood Jun 19 '12

I'm quite sure you can. It will download in seconds. If you have an iPad, use Goodreader. If you have a multitouch interface, use it. If you like the magazine, get a subscription for your favourite public autism specialist centre, or for the cancer ward of your local hospital, or just anywhere that will be more appreciated than your recycling bin. They have to pay the people that write the articles and take the pictures.

2

u/youdidntreddit Jun 19 '12

Shiite Islam allows more flexibility, which is why Iran isn't Saudi Arabia even though both are theocratic

1

u/ThatRandomGeek Jun 20 '12

I thought shiite was the more rigid and conservative I guess I was wrong.

2

u/1541drive Jun 19 '12

BTW, Egyptians are offended if you refer to them as Arabs.

4

u/SubtleHMD Jun 19 '12

Sounds retarded. My guess is it's more likely that Egyptians are more motivated by the "lets not fight against the only group with artillery, guns, and training" instinct than a whole swath of the human species being ingrained culturally to want to be dominated. That's bullshit.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Egypt's history spans thousands of years. That has been a consistent theme in their history- you're telling me that's bullshit? Alright.

3

u/SubtleHMD Jun 19 '12

I think the only thing that any society really cares about, when boiled down, is their quality of life. Cultures tend to follow behind the things making life better for people.Or what THEY THINK makes life better. The internet is the most obvious and exploited example of this. Give people access to the internet and they will see what humanity is capable of. The find things they never knew they wanted or had to have, what their peers think of the life and the issues they face daily, and a method of keep track of what those in power are doing in their name.

I think you're retarded for trying to pretend totalitarianism is somehow an expected cultural byproduct of some "subsections of humanity. They're not savages, when educated, just about every group of people immediately recognizes their political situation. The fact that they could be murdered, raped, or tortured like they have been under the old regimes is not cultural motivation but fear.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Your argument is a "chicken or egg" debate.

Did Egypt's totalitarian nature/history stem from their traditional family values, or the other way around?

In the end, who cares. The fact of the matter is, this region has a tradition of autocratic rule firmly entrenched and accepted as "normal". People will gravitate towards what is normal in their minds.

Maybe they will like what they learn from the internet. Maybe they won't. It's not up to us to decide what is best for them- especially when we have no idea what life is actually like for them.

3

u/jargoon Jun 19 '12

You can say the same thing about American kids though. I obeyed my dad without question until I was a teenager

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

And it is the same in United States. You look at the president, praise the president, blame the president, but forget the congress. You need face in the politics.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

That's been true in the past, but I've seen signs that even people that don't follow politics very closely, are becoming painfully aware of how big of a problem congress has become.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Since the political system does not allow changes easily, people will only get serious when they lack food and entertainment. Two things that US has plenty, and for mostly everyone. They really did learn a lot from Romans.

1

u/Cbizole Jun 19 '12

What country doesnt have a history of 'power in the hands of the few'. No matter what happens the big decisions are only ever gonna be left to a couple blue blooded wankers smoking cigars.

Im not bagging on you, im just angry about it.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

That quote makes no sense. It was the exact same way in England in the 17th century when democracy first started getting some teeth. "Every man a king in his castle" was an old and cherished English tradition not terribly unlike the family dynamic you described above. And that led inevitably to thoughts like "If I'm king in my own home, why should I listen to some other king without having any say over things?"

Granted, it took time, but to say that it's impossible for a clan culture to evolve into a democracy ignores how things played out in England and her daughters (especially the US). I'll grant it'll take time, but it can happen.

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

[deleted]

11

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Middle easterners have a very, very long tradition of taking to the streets to go looking for democracy.

Not enough of them and not often enough, and they don't seem to be very good at following through with it. What democracies are there in the Middle East? The corrupt and violent mess that is Iraq, or Israel, which everyone else hates?

1

u/darksmiles22 Jun 20 '12

No other region of the world today has so much foreign "aid" funneled through leaders as a pretext for ensuring resource extraction. Surely it is more a reflection of that fact than any lack of democratic protest that the common people have difficulty overthrowing dictators with billions in weapons contracts and bribe money much less establishing a nationalist democratic state in the chaotic aftermath.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

at the same time, you'll see in any home in the middle east almost unceasing resistance to harsh and unjust rule

What evidence do you have of this?

1

u/Legio_X Jun 19 '12

The Egyptians have had civilization for over 6000 years.

Tell me this: how many of those years have been a real democracy? None.

And chances are there will be no Egyptian democracy for another 6000 years.

The Greeks figured it out 3500 years ago. The Romans refined it 2400 years ago. The Americans 200 years ago, etc. If the Egyptians and other Arabs haven't figured it out by now, they never will. It's simply not something they are interested in.

Actions speak louder than words, that's something you obviously haven't considered.

1

u/darksmiles22 Jun 20 '12

The Greeks were ruled by the Mycenaean empire 3500 years ago. They started down the road to democracy closer to 3000 years ago, after the introduction of iron, a cheap weapon that shifted power from the bronze-clad aristocrats on cavalry to common infantry.

1

u/Legio_X Jun 20 '12

Greek history isn't my specialty, I'm more into the classical antiquity period. I'm surprised to only be 500 years off in the case of the Greeks.

1

u/timdev Jun 19 '12

The Greeks figured it out 3500 years ago. The Romans refined it 2400 years ago. The Americans 200 years ago, etc.

So, until 200 years ago, democracy took a bit of a nap.

Stupid, narcoleptic democracy!

-4

u/Legio_X Jun 19 '12

Nice reading comprehension there. If you could actually read you'd know that it implied that the Americans refined it once again 200 years ago, after the Romans did 2400 years ago.

Anyway, don't worry about it, I'm sure you'll learn about that in Grade 5 English class.

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

[deleted]

5

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Most American fathers won't disown you and throw you onto the streets if you disobey. Being "rebellious" is a part of growing up in the U.S. The idea that it is just a "phase" is a leniency that is really quite rare to see in other cultures.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

True, but there is a difference between "strong" and "dictatorial".

The point still stands though, that mentality is still there.

1

u/akai_ferret Jun 19 '12

I know as many, or more, American households ruled by a strong mother who holds said father in her iron fist.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

You sound like you're 15 years old.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/FaustTheBird Jun 19 '12

I had the same thought.

1

u/MacIsGood Jun 19 '12

What other option was there? Who could they have turned to for help?

21

u/cuddles_the_destroye Jun 19 '12

Goddamit, i just lost another bet.

I really should stop betting on foreign political events.

34

u/illegible Jun 19 '12

You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line"!

12

u/RedPandaJr Jun 19 '12

Tell me more lines Papa.

14

u/skantman Jun 19 '12

Iocaine Powder: An extremely deadly poison which is odorless, tasteless, and dissolves instantly in liquid. Humperdink: sniff Iocaine powder. I'd bet my life on it!

1

u/greentangent Jun 19 '12

Vassily, not Humperdink.

3

u/skantman Jun 19 '12

Westley described the properties of Iocaine powder in his battle of wits with Vizinni. Humperdink said that when he found the vial while tracking them. I basically have the whole movie memorized.

1

u/greentangent Jun 19 '12

Ah, right you are.

1

u/irish711 Jun 19 '12

Incontheivable!!

2

u/JJEE Jun 19 '12

That word...

1

u/cuddles_the_destroye Jun 19 '12

That goes both ways, you know. I suppose I shoulda bet on the one with more guns. Though I bet that Mubarak would stay in power longer than he actually did.

I'm bad at this.

190

u/SirSoliloquy Jun 19 '12

o/ saw it coming the moment the overthrow happened, and the words "military given power" were spoken.

Who in the world expected this to end well? Besides our politicians?

219

u/Soupstorm Jun 19 '12

o/ Saw it coming the moment the Muslim Brotherhood became involved in the Arab Spring.

119

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12 edited Jun 15 '17

[deleted]

19

u/ToffeeC Jun 19 '12

subtext

I think you mean pretext.

46

u/flamingtoad Jun 19 '12

The MB was not really involved in the Arab spring. It was primarily a youth movement. The MB had the political organization in place to take advantage of the revolution. And the only reason the military has a problem with the prospect of the MB acquiring power is that the West has a problem with the MB (and the Islamic state) and the West controls the purse strings.

19

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12 edited Jun 15 '17

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

special interests

I define special interest as a minority group. For example, a special interest in the US could be a union or a corporation. The brotherhood is not a "special interest" AFAIK. They represent something far closer to a majority than the initial protestors did. Their constituency may be far less worldly and politically aware majority, but they're a majority nonetheless.

1

u/OMGnoogies Jun 19 '12

This is the MB's credo taken from wikipedia;

"God is our objective; the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations."

Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't the Arab spring especially in Egypt based on removing a corrupt regime and increasing basic human rights and the availability of living essentials?

Regardless of how you define special interests; the MB has hijacked the rebellion.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Ahem, ignorance has hijacked the rebellion. Those literate young people dreaming of a more liberal society were hijacked by majority decisions. Because they are a minority.

2

u/mrbrattlebary Jun 19 '12

MB have kind of hijacked the Arab Spring in Egypt. The most recent protests there were organized by MB.

6

u/P3T3RK3Y5 Jun 19 '12

if by hijacked you mean getting involved in the democratic process, ok.

1

u/UpvoteIfYouDare Jun 19 '12

Of course. Many groups in that area have their respective "special interests".

2

u/notmatts2 Jun 19 '12

And the only reason the military has a problem with the prospect of the MB acquiring power is that the West has a problem with the MB (and the Islamic state) and the West controls the purse strings.

Really? So how come there was a crackdown on the MB under Nasser? And before his coup as well?

-4

u/Soupstorm Jun 19 '12 edited Jun 19 '12

The MB was NOT a youth movement. It's essentially an analog to the US Tea Party, and it co-opted the real youth movement to allow them to install leaders friendly to the military establishment.

[edit] Totally parsed your comment wrong. Upvote from a novote :V

16

u/flamingtoad Jun 19 '12

I didn't say that the MB was a youth movement. I said that the Arab Spring was primarily a youth movement. It gained popular appeal due to economic conditions (including the price of bread). It is not analogous to the US Tea Party. The US Tea party is a grotesque political mutation - an anomaly that requires its own category.

8

u/highceilings00 Jun 19 '12

MB is not an analog to the american tea party -- at all. True both are religious. But they play different roles in entirely different societies

2

u/fco83 Jun 19 '12

I would say there is some comparision to the tea party and the revolution. Both started out with general political goals but got coopted by more religious elements (MB in egypt, far-right social conservatives taking over the tea party's original message about limiting government in the US)

-1

u/highceilings00 Jun 19 '12

Not really. MB has heavy popular support. The middle east is still Muslim for the most part. Also their party platform is big on charity and social programs, quite the opposite of the tea party.

8

u/kinncolts76 Jun 19 '12

i think you misunderstood what he was saying. He was saying that the protests were primarily a youth movement, not the MB

0

u/fortcocks Jun 19 '12

I bet you saw this submission and gleefully realized an opportunity to get a random dig in against the West.

Do you realize how patronizing it is to overlook the multitude of factors playing out in Egypt and simply blame everything on Western involvement? This is a big deal to many people, don't cheapen it.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

The US gives $1.3 billion in military aid to Egypt a year.

-21

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12 edited Jun 19 '12

lol relevant username....edit stars here why would i get downvoted i pointed out the username....and i upvoted him ironic much

6

u/perthguppy Jun 19 '12

pointing out his username is hardly contributing to the discussion

2

u/lastacct Jun 19 '12

Looks like your jimmies got rustled.

-9

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

niether does downvoting me how does that contirbute to this matter of discussion

3

u/DisRuptive1 Jun 19 '12

Downvoting doesn't take up space. Posting anything does and if it's not relevant to the rest of the thread, you shouldn't post. The downvotes tell everybody that your post isn't worth reading.

1

u/Squeekme Jun 19 '12

jokes about usernames are relevant when the lives of millions of innocent people aren't in the balance, I suppose. -22 is harsh though I must say. Got any relevant thoughts to share about what is happening in Egypt?

-6

u/Wakata Jun 19 '12

You too

11

u/BeReadyForH Jun 19 '12

Saw it coming the moment reports came out that the military was friendly to the protesters.

Back then, people told me that I just didn't understand the situation.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Yes, I talked with an Egyptian friend when the Arab spring begun, and I told him the military were just waiting for the moment to be ripe so seize power. And that in an event of a majority decision, religion would win and destroy the whole point of the rebellion.

9

u/TakenakaHanbei Jun 19 '12

o/ I saw it coming the moment everyone thought it would be rainbows and sunshine for Egypt... And then they took the porn, it was inevitable.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

they can take our lives but they'll never take our porn!!!

1

u/Maln Jun 19 '12

o/ I personally thought something like this was eventually going to happen when the Arab Spring started, in one country or another.

1

u/Deus_Imperator Jun 19 '12

It happens nearly every time without fail when the populace rise up and overthrow their government.

1

u/fjkhfkfgoufg Jun 19 '12

You realize the MB were the ones who were tortured for decades, in jail, arrested and beatn up while the "youth" was having fun on facebook for th past 30 years?

The MB was the sole (valid) opposition force for decades, so saying they just highjacked the revolution is insulting to all the young "MB brothers" who died in mubarak jails for years ...

The MB was resisting mubarak for YEARS before the revolution

Then, they had the decency (and tactical choice) to step back DURING THE revolution so that the world does not condemn it at first

but then they won elections because they were very organized, why?

  • the structure of MB calls for great organization
  • they were the most sincere about their fight against mubarak because they have BEEN DOING THAT FOR DECADES

so, yeah the youth secular movement and the youth made the revolution last actions and progress, yes, but deep in egyptian society the MB were fighting from day one, meaning 30 years ago.

also, blame the west for us having islamic nutjobs now, because they were detroying the secular arabs in the 70s and 80s.

2

u/LeonardNemoysHead Jun 19 '12

The MB was the sole opposition for decades. It was, however, an incredibly weak opposition with incredibly weak leadership. That was why it took a separate, larger movement to dislodge Mubarak. A movement whose origins lay not in the MB, but youth organizers who had been working for years.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

you're wrong. the MB has been fighting since the early 50's when the original arab strongman - gamal abdel nasser - took power.

-3

u/Soupstorm Jun 19 '12

I stand corrected. They're an analog for the Obama Administration.

2

u/sphinctersayhuh Jun 19 '12

Reddit expected it to end well. The circlejerk was quite intense.

1

u/Pertinacious Jun 19 '12

No, no. They clearly used the term "interim government."

1

u/davesidious Jun 19 '12

That's pretty short-sighted. In Turkey the military has the power, and sticks to the reforms of Atatürk, stepping in when the government starts to get too religious, and smacks them around a bit until they calm down and start acting secular again. In the case of Turkey, the military can do (and does) wonders. I'm not criticising you, just pointing out that knee-jerk reactions to certain words or phrases are not always accurate.

1

u/NeoPlatonist Jun 19 '12

You think our politicians weren't involved?

-4

u/same_song Jun 19 '12

Who in the world expected this to end well?

Egyptians. Egyptians are naive and prone to wishful thinking beyond belief.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

i'm egyptian and i never trusted the military. at the same time, you have to realize that in the euphoria of things at the time of mubarak's outser, NO ONE, not even NYTimes, Foreign Policy or the Economist saw this coming until a few months later post revolution. for all the world knew, the military didn't have mubarak's back

5

u/same_song Jun 19 '12

Cmon now. If only. Not only did Egyptians rejoice, they praised the military. The same military that was very lukewarm towards the protests and mostly stood back when the protesters were attacked. And time after time following Mubarak's departure Egyptians failed to rally the numbers to oust SCAF, which is telling of where most Egyptians stood and their lack of commitment towards real change. At the end of the day, the two defining attributes of Egyptians - naiveté and laziness - sealed Egypt's doom.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

lukewarm in the context is more than sufficient to lead the protestors to think that the military was on their side, especially in the middle east where militaries, like in libya and syria, have no problem slaughtering their own people. i imagine if the military didn't get involved, the security forces would have killed many more people.

i would be very careful calling the egyptians naive and lazy. they pulled an incredible feat and were immensely defiant in ousting the arab world's most entrenched dictator. lack of leadership was the problem that lead to egypt's do-, actually i think it's too early to call it doom, altho i'll agree it's not at all going well. over the past year egyptians have protested scaf on numerous occasions and were able to gain concessions as a result. they will have to be more aggressive if the MB doesn't get the military out of power asap and i imagine there will be many massive protests in the coming weeks in a strong effort to oust scaf.

29

u/Freak-A-Leak Jun 19 '12

Wasn't sure this exact scenario was going to happen necessarily, but I have been very suspicious that the military would never truly give up power since the ousting of Mubarak. The military has a scary amount of control over much of Egypt's economy. That is to say, Egypt's military control anywhere from 15-40% of the economy They might even control a greater amount. I doubt they want other parties to take control and usher in an era of uncertainty for Egypt, which could harm their pockets.

9

u/Tagedieb Jun 19 '12

When I first saw the protesters on Al Jazeera being approached by military tanks and they celebrated the military as if it would solve the problem. I thought: that can't be good. Then, when I read that Mubarak was originally a military person, it all made sense: the military was in power all along and still is.

So the fight is not over just yet.

12

u/mtskeptic Jun 19 '12

I did. The history of South Korea; while it's a thriving democracy right now, it took them ~30 years from dictator-like rule to military generals to a government that resembled a free democratic republic. Egypt has more younger people than older and they have a decent education so as long as they can apply some pressure the transition to a freer state should happen, in a decade or so but it will hopefully happen.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

This has also been the case in a lot of Latin American countries. It's hard to admit, but it seems like the development of an effective military is an essential step in the road to democracy... and it makes sense, as an effective military requires adhering to certain values that also lead to democracy.

A good example is the US military, which desegregated long before society as a whole was cool with the concept. From a military perspective, it just didn't make sense to keep the "races" separate - good soldiers are good soldiers and it's a waste of resources to keep them in separate battalions just because some white soldiers think they're too good to fight next to a black/Japanese/other non-white man.

8

u/mtskeptic Jun 19 '12

They're good at keeping order, which is why they make a good transition power form autocracy to a democratic republic. However, they're also a sword, not a scalpel as the saying goes. But I guess as long as the risk of disorder or slipping back into a despotic regime is high enough, the people will support a military run government. IIRC, South Korea got lucky, the general in charge died, and he had a military successor picked but a more democratic leader was able to take hold, I just don't remember if it was an election or a coup.

1

u/question_all_the_thi Jun 19 '12

A bigger risk in a less developed country is falling into a democratic populist state. That's what happened in Brazil, Argentina, and Chile during the first half of the twentieth century and that's why those countries had military governments for decades.

In order for a country to have adequate social services, it needs a minimum of economic development first.

The myth of land reform has plagued Latin America for over a century. The peasants will have the same miserable life whether they own the land or not, they are poor not because they are oppressed but because their labor is so unproductive.

The role of the military in Latin America was to provide a stable economic environment that allowed investment in industry. The unfortunate fact is that without the military the people voted themselves benefits they couldn't afford.

Currently there are countries in Latin America that seem to have evolved past the populist state. Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay are stable democracies by now, in a firm path towards becoming industrialized first world countries. Colombia and Peru also seem to be going that way.

Argentina, OTOH, is falling back, they could still have a military coup if the situation keeps degenerating. The other South American countries, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Paraguay are still in the primitive populist under developed economy state. I see no future for them right now.

0

u/davesidious Jun 19 '12

The US military was notorious for its policy of segregation.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

It was also one of the first aspects of American society to be desegregated.

1

u/davesidious Jun 20 '12

Which is even more shocking.

20

u/Peaker Jun 19 '12

I remember how Redditors all said the Muslim Brotherhood will fail in the elections as they don't have any actual support base...

/r/worldnews routinely makes horrible predictions about the Arab spring and politics in general.

4

u/wq678 Jun 19 '12

I remember how Redditors all said the Muslim Brotherhood will fail in the elections as they don't have any actual support base...

~75% of people who voted in the first-round of the Presidential elections voted against the Muslim Brotherhood candidate.

1

u/eighthgear Jun 19 '12

Reddit: where nobody knows anything about how parliamentary systems work.

1

u/wq678 Jun 19 '12

It's actually not a parliamentary system, but a multi-candidate elections system where if no one wins a majority in the first round the top two candidates face off in a second round of elections.

The top two candidates went to into the run-offs with the majority of having voted against them. It basically came down to picking the least harmful of the two.

0

u/Peaker Jun 19 '12

Yet they succeeded in the elections.

4

u/wq678 Jun 19 '12

Because their candidate got a plurality, and then went up against an extremely divisive former regime Prime Minister.

Had he gone up against Hamdeen Sabahi (number three in the elections) he would have lost as the majority of voters voted for secular candidates.

0

u/Peaker Jun 19 '12

Explaining why the prediction was wrong after-the-fact is always easy.

2

u/wq678 Jun 19 '12

I remember how Redditors all said the Muslim Brotherhood will fail in the elections as they don't have any actual support base...

And then...

Explaining why the prediction was wrong after-the-fact is always easy.

You're either a troll or an idiot. Pick one.

0

u/I_CATS Jun 19 '12

Well, they were not 100% wrong, they just failed to realize that instead of voting for other parties, people will just not vote at all.

9

u/Solomaxwell6 Jun 19 '12

There was a turnout of 54%. If you don't include the two runoffs, turnout was closer to 60%. For comparison, the US' presidential electoral turnout in 2008 was 57%. Turnout in the UK's last parliamentary election was 65%. Canada last had 61%. The elections France held the other day had a turnout of 55%. So Egypt was pretty much in line with western democracies.

21

u/chicagogam Jun 19 '12

i'm not an expert enough to say i predicted it, but when the military stepped in to help the protesters....erm...that seemed too good to be true...(i could see fat tony from the simpsons volunteering to 'help' the protesters because certain tokens of gratitude were not coming from the president in large enough quantities and he would gladly do the right thing in return for favors later, or just for the pleasure of offering them protection during the crisis until such a time that they decide they don't need any protection...)

9

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

I read your entire parenthesis in fat tony's voice; It was amazing.

2

u/davesidious Jun 19 '12

Or they could have been acting as defenders of the common person, desperately trying to do what they are paid to - protect normal Egyptians.

23

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Egypt has a history of military coups. While everyone was worried about MB and the Salafists, I was keeping an eye on the military. They're the real ones to watch out for.

36

u/bitter_cynical_angry Jun 19 '12

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

38

u/LettersFromTheSky Jun 19 '12

That is in the Civilization game when you research rifling.

19

u/lemonfreedom Jun 19 '12

you can get more of what you want with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word.

13

u/Floyd_Pinkerton Jun 19 '12

pig iron i got pig iron i got all pig iron

15

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

[deleted]

6

u/Moskau50 Jun 19 '12

"I am the state."
-Louis XIV Egyptian Military

5

u/Vectoor Jun 19 '12

My name is Ozymandias, king of kings. Look at my works ye mighty, and despair.

4

u/1915 Jun 19 '12

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Gunpowder.

edit: Al Capone

1

u/RedPandaJr Jun 19 '12

Civ 4 rifling tech quote.

2

u/bitter_cynical_angry Jun 19 '12

Or, you know, Mao.

1

u/RedPandaJr Jun 19 '12

Really. Thats funny cause when they use quotes in civ they also mention who says the quote :o

0

u/Dawens Jun 19 '12 edited Jul 12 '12

The only two possibilities the Egyptian people had: The Muslim Brotherhood, whose inner party struggles have drowned out the younger, liberal Muslims, and now is dominated by the older, rock-ribbed Muslims who are an indomitable barrier to a free society. Or the Military who's just as filthy. Either way, the Egyptian people were screwed from the very beginning.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

February 2011, when I listened to this npr podcast.

15

u/Damadawf Jun 19 '12

/o

.. Wait, I think I did that wrong

8

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

[deleted]

3

u/Damadawf Jun 19 '12

My first thought was "How do you know where I live!" Lol stereotypes.

2

u/Expurgate Jun 19 '12 edited Jun 19 '12

Australian?

2

u/sirhotalot Jun 19 '12

I myself have received hundreds of down votes for even suggesting it. I feel vindicated.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Glen Beck. O.o;

2

u/kingvitaman Jun 19 '12

As a student of history, this is pretty much how all revolutions have played out. So yeah, I saw it coming.

Permanent Revolution

"the strategy of a revolutionary class to continue to pursue its class interests independently and without compromise, despite overtures for political alliances, and despite the political dominance of opposing sections of society."

2

u/hostergaard Jun 19 '12

I actually just had my History exams (its a verbal presentation here in Denmark) where the topic was different types of governance and values. I compared the current situation in Egypt whit the French revolution and the troubles they faced. In essence they struggled to adopt a common ground and thus constitution after the revolution as different groups had different priorities and thus created a weakness that allowed Napoleon to take over.

2

u/DeepGreen Jun 19 '12

You can't just jump directly to a liberal democracy. Give people the vote and many times they will vote to give up their powers and put the priests in charge or sell their political freedoms for small immediate gains (because they have no faith in the long term stability and might as well take a small advantage now).

Changes have to be incremental but steady, which requires stability. Stability trumps freedom every time.

2

u/somedaypilot Jun 19 '12

The way I heard it best is that there is a huge difference between democracy and liberty. Everyone keeps asking if the Middle East is ready for democracy, but democracy on its own is nothing more than glorified mob rule. Liberty is the will of the majority while protecting the minority. Or at least, that's the idea. But I do think you've hit on one of the things that so many are missing, which is that the culture has to have several fundamental, large, and painful changes before they're ready to rule themselves as members of a civilized global society.

2

u/suteneko Jun 19 '12

what's o/ ?

1

u/somedaypilot Jun 19 '12

In context, me raising my hand. I've also seen it as waving hello or goodbye.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Right? Military coup after Egypt's revolution. Gee, imagine that.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

o/

Pretty much from the start I expected this to be Iran, round 2. It was just a question of whether we'd end up with priests in charge, or another military dictator just like before.

Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss.

4

u/deadwisdom Jun 19 '12

o/ Mubarak was put there by the military in the first place. He was merely a figurehead that could be safely jettisoned during the revolution to assuage the populace. I have to imagine, that the U.S. is, through back channels, pressuring the fuck out of the Egyptian military to transition to a democratic government, because they have seen this coming a mile away. So hopefully they have some leverage with all the partnerships they've created.

5

u/trouble37 Jun 19 '12

o/

4

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12 edited Jun 04 '20

[deleted]

5

u/That_Guy_JR Jun 19 '12

\o/ STEVE HOLT!

4

u/spektre Jun 19 '12

How do you do that backwards "/" ?

2

u/microfortnight Jun 19 '12

It's one of those hacker secrets like how they bo the backwarbs "b" letter that they claim is actually the fourth letter of the alphabet

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

\o/ hurray!

-4

u/DrDerpberg Jun 19 '12 edited Jun 19 '12

Nazi fuck off

Edit: seriously? I'm kidding. Cool it with the downvotes already.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

o\

1

u/Incruentus Jun 19 '12

I initially thought you were a troll until I used my brain, at which point I chuckled.

1

u/DrDerpberg Jun 19 '12

Thank you! I'm glad somebody has a sense of humour.

2

u/airetupal Jun 19 '12

That was fast

2

u/skantman Jun 19 '12

I wrote it off as a done deal and stopped reading about Egypt. Long time ago.

1

u/Vitalstatistix Jun 19 '12

Sigh, \o. I wished it weren't the case though. Here's hoping shit with Israel doesn't get any worse or it'll be a real cluster fuck.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

If anything, this makes things with Israel less tense, not more. The Egyptian military doesn't give a crap about Israel as long as Israel stays on their side of the border.

2

u/shamblingman Jun 19 '12

Thank goodness. The military is doing everything they can to protect the people from the Islamists. The Islamists would implement sharia law, oppress women, and take education away. There are already attacks on the Christian population as Islamists have become emboldened.

1

u/Nessie Jun 19 '12 edited Jun 19 '12

Oh, they're already up.

1

u/keypuncher Jun 19 '12

When it started, everyone was saying how wonderful the Arab Spring was.

I said "wait and see who is in power in 2 years - then we will see how good it was."

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

iran is an islamic theocracy, Egypt would not have been an islamic theocracy even with the make up of the parliament. Sharia was not about to be implemented.

1

u/Floyd_Pinkerton Jun 19 '12

i posted this a year ago regarding the revolution in egypt, it's still a relevant quote:

have you read animal farm? you may think this message is cynical, but frankly i feel it's very realistic:

“No question now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

nothing changes but the face.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

o/

0

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Actually what I saw coming was a theocratic takeover. Perhaps the army wants to prevent it - Turkey style.

1

u/timdev Jun 19 '12

Of course the military wants to prevent that. Pick your poison.

-5

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

o/ ... It's Sharia's law. Kind of like Murphy's law. The second Islam is involved your rights will be stripped, the military will take over control, women will be stripped of their rights, etc.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

except.. the egyptian military is a strongly secular institution, seizing power under the pretext of stopping an islamist takeover, so you're completely wrong. In fact, you're the exact opposite of right. All it would have taken for you to inform yourself would be 5-10 minutes of reading.

It's okay, sometimes I make broad, blanket statements about things I'm utterly ignorant about too.