Revolt in Egypt

[seremtan]

the guy would probably have said "do you know doombrain? he lives just up the road from me..."

[GONNAFISTYA]

[Unisaw]

Suez canal open = good outcome the US of A (and the rest of the world). Military in egypt controls most of the economy (and our billions go to them for the most part). For now a good outcome.

[GONNAFISTYA]

One thing about all this that really needs pointing out because absolutely nobody is talking about it: the reason this protest worked and the reason it toppled a 30 year standing government is because the protestors had one agenda, one message, one voice. The entire country rallied around a single issue and demanded a single result.

I've said countless times before that protesting works but only when it's focused. This is the exact reason you never let unorganized hippies set up a protest, because they'll get the same crowds they'll always get: a bunch of well-meaning morons all carrying signs that are protesting completely different things. You will never get anywhere when the purpose of your protest is to get out of Iraq and half of your crowd is carrying signs that say "War Criminal" and the other half say "Save The Whales". Like I said, they're well-meaning but they're not helping to further their agenda at all.

In large part, protests almost never work in western cultures because of the protestor's individualistic approach to ideology: they only care about their little problems and can't get everyone on the same page. The Tea Party movement almost stayed on message for the most part but there were still too many Billy Bob's with their "Git yer hands off muh guns" signs to make it a non-ridiculous group.

When protests are focused on a single agenda (like overturning the CRTC's decision on UBB) and they can keep out the morons carrying signs saying "Conservatives Suck" or "Harper Sucks" or prevent those useless cunts that go around in black doing nothing but breaking shit from showing up, then real change can be made.

Seriously...those anarchists in all black are a fucking joke and do absolutely nobody any good. Whoever believes they're a necessary evil is too stupid to live and should kill themselves right now.

[mjrpes]

Good article explaining how the revolution was organized

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/world ... tests.html

For their part, Mr. Maher and his colleagues began reading about nonviolent struggles. They were especially drawn to a Serbian youth movement called Otpor, which had helped topple the dictator Slobodan Milosevic by drawing on the ideas of an American political thinker, Gene Sharp. The hallmark of Mr. Sharp’s work is well-tailored to Mr. Mubark’s Egypt: He argues that nonviolence is a singularly effective way to undermine police states that might cite violent resistance to justify repression in the name of stability.

And Gene Sharp on nonviolence...

hhttp://www.fragmentsweb.org/TXT2/p_srevtx.html

Egyptians followed the strategy of nonviolence amazingly well.

[Yeahso]

One thing about all this that really needs pointing out because absolutely nobody is talking about it: the reason this protest worked and the reason it toppled a 30 year standing government is because the protestors had one agenda, one message, one voice. The entire country rallied around a single issue and demanded a single result.

I've said countless times before that protesting works but only when it's focused. This is the exact reason you never let unorganized hippies set up a protest, because they'll get the same crowds they'll always get: a bunch of well-meaning morons all carrying signs that are protesting completely different things. You will never get anywhere when the purpose of your protest is to get out of Iraq and half of your crowd is carrying signs that say "War Criminal" and the other half say "Save The Whales". Like I said, they're well-meaning but they're not helping to further their agenda at all.

In large part, protests almost never work in western cultures because of the protestor's individualistic approach to ideology: they only care about their little problems and can't get everyone on the same page. The Tea Party movement almost stayed on message for the most part but there were still too many Billy Bob's with their "Git yer hands off muh guns" signs to make it a non-ridiculous group.

When protests are focused on a single agenda (like overturning the CRTC's decision on UBB) and they can keep out the morons carrying signs saying "Conservatives Suck" or "Harper Sucks" or prevent those useless cunts that go around in black doing nothing but breaking shit from showing up, then real change can be made.

Seriously...those anarchists in all black are a fucking joke and do absolutely nobody any good. Whoever believes they're a necessary evil is too stupid to live and should kill themselves right now.

This is true. I covered a couple of student protests, and every 5th person had a different sign moaning about something completely different. It completely ruined the cohesion of the group and just made everyone look weak.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

I've said countless times before that protesting works but only when it's focused. This is the exact reason you never let unorganized hippies set up a protest, because they'll get the same crowds they'll always get: a bunch of well-meaning morons all carrying signs that are protesting completely different things. You will never get anywhere when the purpose of your protest is to get out of Iraq and half of your crowd is carrying signs that say "War Criminal" and the other half say "Save The Whales". Like I said, they're well-meaning but they're not helping to further their agenda at all.

Really? This doesn't happen. No one goes to an Iraq protest with a save the whales placard. However, when people protest things like the G20, there are dozens of issues that are related and therefore you might see a wide variety of issues brought up.

It's like the whole sound bite thing. You want complex issues reduced to sound bites for public consumption but sometimes things can't be easily and comprehensively expressed just to fit that model (imo).

[obsidian]

Seriously...those anarchists in all black are a fucking joke and do absolutely nobody any good. Whoever believes they're a necessary evil is too stupid to live and should kill themselves right now.

There's quite a bit of evidence that suggests that a number of supposed "Black Bloq" anarchists during the G8/G20 summits in Toronto and Montreal were actually police instigators. You're absolutely right about them destroying the message of the protests and alienating the cause from the general public. It's part of the reason why we'll never see a public inquiry into police actions here in Toronto.


GG Egypt, freedom this time without the 10 Plagues.

Though the future of Egypt is much in the air - whether or not they will be able to run fair elections, set up some sort of constitution and laws of democracy, and if they will elect a moderate leader who may lead with fairness and accountability.

[Ryoki]

In large part, protests almost never work in western cultures because of the protestor's individualistic approach to ideology: they only care about their little problems and can't get everyone on the same page.

Err, no - protests have lost their effectiveness in western cultures because at the end of the demo, everyone goes home for food and sleep and continues life normally the next day. The other side knows that they only have to sit it out and they'll have won. In Egypt they managed to disrupt normal life for most of the country and refused to end things before they got what they wanted, it's as simple as that.

[GONNAFISTYA]

You will never get anywhere when the purpose of your protest is to get out of Iraq and half of your crowd is carrying signs that say "War Criminal" and the other half say "Save The Whales". Like I said, they're well-meaning but they're not helping to further their agenda at all.

Really? This doesn't happen. No one goes to an Iraq protest with a save the whales placard. However, when people protest things like the G20, there are dozens of issues that are related and therefore you might see a wide variety of issues brought up.

Which is exactly why protesting at a G20 summit is pointless. If you do not have a cohesive point or argument to bring forth, then how do you expect those that attend G20 summits to address them? The short answer is they won't....they'll ignore the larger, more important issues with the same dismissiveness as they'll ignore the smaller issues. The "Save The Whales" was an example of an almost non-relevant placard that gets displayed at protests that have nothing to do with the overall point of the protest (such as a protest against corporate pollution or global warming) or is - at best - a minor issue to the big picture.

Speaking of the big picture, since everyone knows that the G20 and G8 summits happen every single year, protestors should spend time highlighting and discussing one or two specific issues with globalization at each summit (to drive the point home) and then the next year either re-focus on them or - if addressed - move on to the next issue. Having 10,000 people all holding up 10,000 different signs year after year after retarded-fucking-year does absolutely nothing to address the problems protestors have with globalization. Is it any wonder why none of the attending delegates actually has to address any one specific issue?

Rioting and property damage caused by the protestors seem to happen year after year and the delegates always seem to address that when asked. So give them something else to talk about.

It's like the whole sound bite thing. You want complex issues reduced to sound bites for public consumption but sometimes things can't be easily and comprehensively expressed just to fit that model (imo).

As I just mentioned, you progressively present your case on specific issues with specific talking points and stay on message, reinforcing the previous talking points you made from G20 summits of the past. It's the reason the abortion debate hasn't gone away...because those people who don't support it and want to change the system DO NOT change their message year after year.

[GONNAFISTYA]

In large part, protests almost never work in western cultures because of the protestor's individualistic approach to ideology: they only care about their little problems and can't get everyone on the same page.

Err, no - protests have lost their effectiveness in western cultures because at the end of the demo, everyone goes home for food and sleep and continues life normally the next day.

This has everything to do with the western individualism I was talking about.

The other side knows that they only have to sit it out and they'll have won. In Egypt they managed to disrupt normal life for most of the country and refused to end things before they got what they wanted, it's as simple as that.

Which is why I've said about a billion times in the past that a single day of "laying down tools" or going on strike in support of a specific issue can do more than two weeks of protests.

[andyman]

Which is why I've said about a billion times in the past that a single day of "laying down tools" or going on strike in support of a specific issue can do more than two weeks of protests.

Works for unions!

[Ryoki]

This has everything to do with the western individualism I was talking about.

Naw man, i'd say it has everything to do with our high standard of living. Why would you spend a night in the cold for some abstract ideal when you could sit at home drinking beer, playing xbox and complain on the internets instead?

Which is why I've said about a billion times in the past that a single day of "laying down tools" or going on strike in support of a specific issue can do more than two weeks of protests.

Laying down tools would certainly work if it had popular support. Not too sure about strikes - especially if it concerns a specific sector in an economy that has a bunch of people looking for jobs. As Thatcher and Raegan demonstrated in the eighties it's just as easy to be a hardass and fire every-fucking-one. Which btw, as andy hinted, is why unions have lost much of their importance.

[Peenyuh]

Naw man, i'd say it has everything to do with our high standard of living. Why would you spend a night in the cold for some abstract ideal when you could sit at home drinking beer, playing xbox and complain on the internets instead?

Now THAT sounds just like GONNANAGYUH!

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

The state-owned Egyptian newspaper Al-Gomhuria reported Mubarak was suffering a “severe psychological condition and is declining treatment, despite his illness.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/artic ... eport?bn=1


he mad?

[GONNAFISTYA]

This has everything to do with the western individualism I was talking about.

Why would you spend a night in the cold for some abstract ideal when you could sit at home drinking beer, playing xbox and complain on the internets instead?

lol...are you serious? Perhaps my sarcasm detector is broken. Your statement is a prime example of individualism: opposing external interference upon one's own self interests.
And again it's not about an abstract ideal when you spell it out for all to see.

Which is why I've said about a billion times in the past that a single day of "laying down tools" or going on strike in support of a specific issue can do more than two weeks of protests.

Laying down tools would certainly work if it had popular support.Not too sure about strikes - especially if it concerns a specific sector in an economy that has a bunch of people looking for jobs. As Thatcher and Raegan demonstrated in the eighties it's just as easy to be a hardass and fire every-fucking-one. Which btw, as andy hinted, is why unions have lost much of their importance.

If you're talking about it not working in Dutchieland or other western societies then you're only proving my point that individualism - instead of focusing for change single-mindedly on an issue as a population - will never make revolutionary change.

WTF? It had popular support in Egypt...that's why it worked. And those same tactics, supported by work stoppages in specific sectors that could not only hurt a government but destroy a government that wasn't even a democracy. Only now is the Egyptian military now telling those on strike to get back to work. Why? Because they completed their objective and now there's no reason to stop working. Sure...some people want to continue striking claiming pay grievances, but that's now a new discussion to have for another day. Once the country goes "back to normal" and gets a proper government again they can choose to bring up wage issues with another stike or protest...whichever they choose.

And as for the assertion that unions have lost much of their importance...well...my right-wing, free-market thinking father says the same thing and I'll just type here what I say to his face: Once you get rid of unions and regulation then business-orientated practices take over...again. It's the very existance of unions that threaten ultra-capitalistic businesses (ie cut-throat bastards that would sell out their own mothers for a wink of profit...which is most of them) from repealing vacation pay, maternity leave, minimum wage and employment insurance. If you think that removing the threat of unions asserting worker rights is a good idea then ask yourself what crime rates would be like if you removed the police service...they're there to represent an ideal, not always to inforce it, which by its very existance inforces the ideal.

You're talking about getting rid of the very thing that gave you the standard of living you were earlier talking about.

Seriously...I honestly can't tell if your being sarcastic or not because what you're saying is so messed up and contradictory.

[GONNAFISTYA]

Naw man, i'd say it has everything to do with our high standard of living. Why would you spend a night in the cold for some abstract ideal when you could sit at home drinking beer, playing xbox and complain on the internets instead?

Now THAT sounds just like GONNANAGYUH!

You're a mental midget that nobody likes.

[Peenyuh]

[Ryoki]

Your statement is a prime example of individualism: opposing external interference upon one's own self interests. And again it's not about an abstract ideal when you spell it out for all to see.

When you reach a certain standard of living like we do in the western world, it's very hard to motivate people to do physically demanding stuff like protest night and day for two weeks, especially if it's for an issue that has no immediate direct impact on someone's life. It has little to do with individualism imo, more with selfishness and laziness and operating in the knowledge that for you personally, everything will be business as usual the next day. You can go and call all of those things traits of individualism, but it's going to get you in trouble if you turn it around, which is why i take issue with it.

Were the protesters in Egypt somehow not individualists, just a faceless mob with a single demand..? And were the counter protesters individualists because they opposed external interference upon their own self interests? I mean, using that definition, one could certainly argue that way - i won't though, because what we're talking about just has little to do with individualism and more with a wide range of other things.

If you're talking about it not working in Dutchieland or other western societies then you're only proving my point that individualism - instead of focusing for change single-mindedly on an issue as a population - will never make revolutionary change.

WTF? It had popular support in Egypt...that's why it worked. And those same tactics, supported by work stoppages in specific sectors that could not only hurt a government but destroy a government that wasn't even a democracy. Only now is the Egyptian military now telling those on strike to get back to work. Why? Because they completed their objective and now there's no reason to stop working. Sure...some people want to continue striking claiming pay grievances, but that's now a new discussion to have for another day. Once the country goes "back to normal" and gets a proper government again they can choose to bring up wage issues with another stike or protest...whichever they choose.

And as for the assertion that unions have lost much of their importance...well...my right-wing, free-market thinking father says the same thing and I'll just type here what I say to his face: Once you get rid of unions and regulation then business-orientated practices take over...again. It's the very existance of unions that threaten ultra-capitalistic businesses (ie cut-throat bastards that would sell out their own mothers for a wink of profit...which is most of them) from repealing vacation pay, maternity leave, minimum wage and employment insurance. If you think that removing the threat of unions asserting worker rights is a good idea then ask yourself what crime rates would be like if you removed the police service...they're there to represent an ideal, not always to inforce it, which by its very existance inforces the ideal.

You're talking about getting rid of the very thing that gave you the standard of living you were earlier talking about.

Seriously...I honestly can't tell if your being sarcastic or not because what you're saying is so messed up and contradictory.

Whoa now, where did i argue against unions? I was only explaining why two events in the eighties caused unions all around the world to lose much of their former power. Incidentally two events where major strikes, both with popular support and both lengthy enough to really mess with day to day life in their country didn't work and got crushed. Hence my apprehensiveness regarding sector specific strikes and unions, they've not yet adapted to the new world. Of course we need unions, they just need to reinvent themselves somehow... because as it is now, they're hardly a player.

You know how many people our age join unions? The numbers are pretty tragic.

[GONNAFISTYA]

Yeah...I had a feeling I wasn't understanding you correctly.

With regards to western individualism, I was purposefully trying not to use the terms "selfishness and laziness", and tried to jump through hoops to not offend any sensitive morons who would have spent the next 2 pages calling me not only anti-American but anti-everything-to-do-with-western-civilization. From now on, I'll just call it as I see it. I tried to stay optimistic, but that's utterly retarded these days.

In a nutshell, western selfishness and apathy means no meaningful changes can occur (including stopping global warming or corporate globalization raping the poor) since 95% of the unwashed masses are more concerned with who Kim Kardashian is fucking this week or who got booted from the Big Brother house and can never be organized to focus on anything beyond a commerical break due to ADHD.

[Plan B]

Guess the only concern is that these countries now getting revolutionized will still play economic ball, and not get anti-western islamajubbed.

[mjrpes]

Lara Logan got beaten and brutally raped by gang of people during the celebrations...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/ ... 2070.shtml

[seremtan]

Guess the only concern is that these countries now getting revolutionized will still play economic ball, and not get anti-western islamajubbed.

yes it's important that they stay on message with our western plutocratic globalisation agenda, because the only alternative is to start cutting off heads

ffs put down the kool aid

[andyman]

Lara Logan got beaten and brutally raped by gang of people during the celebrations...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/ ... 2070.shtml

Yeah people still rape people...

[feedback]

Lara Logan got beaten and brutally raped by gang of people during the celebrations...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/ ... 2070.shtml

Yeah people still rape people...

Yeah could have just as easily been a mullah