DC Anti-Mubarak Demo on Monday

9 Responses to “DC Anti-Mubarak Demo on Monday”

1. Andrew Brehm on March 23rd, 2007 4:23 pm

   “Oh yeah, and a lovely war will start with Israel.”

   That is a best case scenario. An immediate war would be quickly won by Israel (and the world would condemn the Jews for fighting for their survival when attacked) and few people would get hurt.

   What is more likely, I think, is that Egypt will then close the Suez canal for Israeli ships (and the world will applaud the effort) and let militias attack Israel at will (and the world will watch them kill Jews and rejoice). If Israel fights back, the world will condemn Israel for starting a war.

   THAT is the new custom. The days of honest open wars are over.

2. Carsten Agger on March 23rd, 2007 11:05 pm

   Andrew: You’re a troll. Stay out of this.

   I think if the MB are so strong it’s partly Mubarak’s fault. What if Mubarak had actually championed free speech and debate? What if he’d actually paved the way for Egyptians saying what they want and doing what they want? What if he’d actually not tried to buy elections and undermine the judiciary?

   I mean, if ever anybody has had the chance to do some good for his country, he’s the guy. What did he do? Kind of nothing. And … if he had done something good as outlined above?

   The MB would have never stood a chance.

3. Andrew Brehm on March 24th, 2007 12:19 am

   “Andrew: You’re a troll. Stay out of this.”

   Carsten Agger: Who are you? I have never seen you comment here before. If you are new, you might want to read before you attack. If you have posted here before, I must have missed you.

   Either way, welcome to Drima’s blog. But I’m afraid I will not “stay out of this”.

   How dare you tell me what to do!

   Regards,

   Andrew (troll)

4. Finnpundit on March 24th, 2007 2:03 am

   I’m afraid Carsten Agger’s attempt to define trolling are as uninformed as his understanding of Egyptian politics.

   It’s ironic, though, that Mubarak gets all the flak, while someone like Bouteflika of Algeria, with exactly the same policies - and perhaps with more blood on his hands, with some 150,000 to 200,000 dead in Islamist-inspired civil war - rarely gets mentioned.

   A possible reason for this disparity seems to be that Mubarak and Egypt are oriented to the anglophone world, while Bouteflika and Algeria are francophone. Would this mean that the francophone world simply doesn’t inspire the same levels of debate? Or perhaps francophone media responds to state directives in a better way?

5. Andrew Brehm on March 24th, 2007 2:36 pm

   That is an interesting point about Mubarak and Bouteflika.

   And I think we ought to remember that while Mubarak is a dictator he has so far managed to keep the vast majority of his population alive and has refrained from starting wars or even participating in them.

6. Andrew Brehm on March 24th, 2007 2:38 pm

   “What if he’d actually paved the way for Egyptians saying what they want and doing what they want?”

   I am not a pacifist but I do believe that some wars are really unnecessary. Specifically the war between Egypt and Israelis that most Egyptians want would be one I’d rather see avoided.

7. Carsten Agger on March 24th, 2007 2:47 pm

   I think we ought to remember that while Mubarak is a dictator he has so far managed to keep the vast majority of his population alive …

   Well, that’s hardly enough, I’m afraid: Hitler, Stalin and Mao all managed to keep the vas majority of their populations alive. The point about Algeria is well taken, though - I think there’s more focus on Egypt in the English-speaking media because Egypt is, well, English oriented. If you go to the French speaking press I’m sure you’ll find a LOT more about Algeria.

   Still, I maintain Mubarak would have done MUCH better if he had focused on creating an open society and not about raking in power to himself. Cf.: Naguib Mahfouz, “Children in our Alley”.

8. Andrew Brehm on March 24th, 2007 4:51 pm

   “Hitler, Stalin and Mao all managed to keep the vas majority of their populations alive.”

   You must remember a different Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

   Or perhaps you didn’t get the irony in “vast majority”. My point was precisely that Mubarak did not murder hundreds of thousands let alone millions of the people he rules.

9. Roman Kalik on March 25th, 2007 7:54 am

   Stalin murdered millions of his own population in the gulags. Mao murdered tens of millions in concentration camps, and is probably the greatest mass-murderer in of the 20th century. Hitler only killed ‘only’ the ‘undesirables’ in his country and then went on to kill just about everyone else in senseless and pointless wars against, well, anyone within range.

   Yes, Mubarak is a deadbeat dictator who cares solely about himself, but he’s still a cut above the murderous dictators who kill anyone and everyone they don’t like just because they feel like it, and drag the poor sods in their country along for the ride. I agree, he could have done much better. I’m sure the US and Israel weren’t expecting a Mubarak when they signed agreements with Sadat. And I agree that it was Mubarak’s stifling all moderade political debate that allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to gain so much support. Hell, I even think that the majority of Egypt’s society’s hatred for Israel is largely due to him still playing the We All Hate Israel card whenever there’s some political upheaval he wants to hide. Like with that documentary recently while Mubarak was busy revising the constitution.

Leave a Reply