or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Arab Spring (formerly "Youth Protests in Egypt - Internet Shut Down")
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Arab Spring (formerly "Youth Protests in Egypt - Internet Shut Down") - Page 2

post #51 of 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post

ElCap, Egypt is a pretty sophisticated place. And Mubarek had secret police and torture prisons. I think the Egyptians are capable of choosing a secular leader on their own. I think all the fearmongering about the Muslim Brotherhood is misplaced. They rejected the uprising in the beginning and didn't even put their toes in the water until just the last day or so. I also don't think any of us here in west knows jack &%$# about Egyptian politics, so ElBaradei might seem like a good idea to you or me, but that doesn't mean the Egyptian people want someone who's been living in Vienna all these years. I think they'll figure it out without with us ending up with any scary America-hating Ayatollah Khomeinis. I think the protesters have demonstrated that that's not what they want -- they simply want a chance to live freely and have a functioning economy that doesn't hand all the country's richest to the top guys only.


I'm not saying the Egyptians are not sophisticated or want a theocratic government, even the Muslim Brotherhood claims they don't want theocracy;

See http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2011/01/31/interview-brotherhood

 

But it's not propaganda that they will have to play a role, and they should, if they have popular support. What I'm worried is who will fill the vacuum. Being worried about it, doesn't mean I advocate keeping the status quo or having our government impose anything. Still, I fail to see a lot of strong well organized opposition alternatives outside of the Brotherhood, maybe you can point some out. Not sure why you claim that is Fox News propaganda (or CNN)? It is legitimate to wonder and worry what part they will play, the only thing we can demand is that whatever role anybody plays is earned in an acceptable way (fair elections).

 

The US needs to worry about our interest in the area of course, mainly what is going to happen with the peace agreements with Israel once Mubarak is gone.

 

post #52 of 351
Thread Starter 

ElCap, the Egyptian people want to have fair elections to determine that.  What they've had for 30 years is "elections" wherein Mubarek miraculously wins 90% of the vote.  They want Mubarek out, an interim president (maybe ElBaradei, maybe someone else) and fair, honest elections where candidates present platforms, etc.  They're no different than we are here.

 

What bothers me about Fox and CNN fearmongering the whole radical Muslim angle is, a) they never bothered to even cover the events in Egypt until they had this angle, so they never got around to reporting the fact that it began as a youth uprising motivated by issues of freedom of expression and economic rights, not religion, and 2) they never got around to reporting ANYTHING about Mubarek, and there was no handwringing about his despotic practices.  We bombed a country (supposedly) over the kinds of things he does out in the open, and now, Fox and CNN are promoting hand-wringing over who will come in to "fill the void" without noting that the current leadership itself IS a void.  It seems racist and paternalistic to me.  These are educated, savvy people, not sheep. 

 

Tomorrow is the "million man march" and even greater (peaceful) crowds will converge on Tahrir Square.  These people want Mubarek gone.  And the Egyptian army is in solidarity with the people, not Mubarek. 

 

ps.  Google has set up a voice mail where Egyptians can call in their tweets and google will post them.  Super cool. 

post #53 of 351

Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post

ElCap, the Egyptian people want to have fair elections to determine that.  What they've had for 30 years is "elections" wherein Mubarek miraculously wins 90% of the vote.  They want Mubarek out, an interim president (maybe ElBaradei, maybe someone else) and fair, honest elections where candidates present platforms, etc.  They're no different than we are here.


Not sure why you're telling me this, did you read my last couple of posts. I'm not saying anything to contradict that.

 

I also don't get your rants against CNN, I was watching it over the weekend and the coverage seemed great. Did you watch Fareed Zakaria's GPS this weekend? I think he did a great job.

 

 

Quote:
What bothers me about Fox and CNN fearmongering the whole radical Muslim angle is, a) they never bothered to even cover the events in Egypt until they had this angle, so they never got around to reporting the fact that it began as a youth uprising motivated by issues of freedom of expression and economic rights, not religion, and 2) they never got around to reporting ANYTHING about Mubarek, and there was no handwringing about his despotic practices.

 

Err ...

 

They seem to have been covering this for quite some time;

Demonstrators in Egypt rail against brutality, man's death

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/06/25/egypt.police.beating/ (June 25, 2010)

 

Egypt releases jailed opposition leader

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/18/egypt.release/ (February 18, 2009)

 

Christian Amanpour

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1004/28/ampr.01.html (April 28, 2010)

 

 

 

Quote:
Good evening, and welcome to the program. I'm Christiane Amanpour.

Tonight, it is not uncommon for a country to declare emergency powers in times of national crisis, but when that happens and what happens when the state of emergency lasts for almost 30 years, as it has in Egypt, with a population of nearly 80 million people and a professional class that often needs to look abroad for jobs and political freedom?

The Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, has been in power since 1981 when he succeeded Anwar Sadat after he was assassinated by Islamic militants. The country does hold elections every few years, but so far, the ballot box has failed to deliver real change or real democracy.

In a few minutes, we'll hear from one of the most prominent Egyptians on the world stage, the former head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, who is now eyeing the presidency.

 

 

post #54 of 351
Thread Starter 

ElCap, you don't need to link-spam me. I found CNN's coverage totally superficial and phony. I'm not trying to lecture you either. I'm seeing this meme of "who will fill the void!?!" everywhere and it seems to not just be coming from Fox.

 

But if you want an idea of some of the Egyptian individuals that we in the west have never heard of (which is what I mean about us having only really a small sliver of the picture), here's a leaked cable about a letter a man who ran against Mubarek sent to Condoleeza Rice after Mubarek imprisoned him on a trumped up charge: http://wikileaks.ch/Cable-from-Imprisoned-Egyptian.html Interesting.

post #55 of 351

yt, "link spam", you made some claims about the CNN coverage and a cursory google search shows you're not correct about it. I watch both Al Jazeera and CNN this past weekend, and didn't see much a problem with CNN's coverage on Egypt. And again, I though GPS last weekend (which I'm assuming you didn't watch) did a great job covering the main issues. I mean, you can go ahead and keep on hating CNN, but I find it funny how you put CNN and Fox at the same level, with nothing to back that up.

 

Also, you kept repeating points that I'm not arguing against, that the protests are peaceful, that they are legitimately being driven by the youth and not a party, that Mubarak is not Democratically elected, etc. I find it odd when you point that several times to me when responding, it seems to indicate you are assuming I don't believe that. Very strange.

 

My point is that I don't see any political group besides the brotherhood organized to the point that they can offer a political alternative. That doesn't mean that new groups won't be formed, but it seems foolish to just not point out that they are the obvious group out there (currently) that can "fill the void". There's nothing false about that, I asked you what other groups/alternatives are out there and you didn't mention one but went on a little tirade against CNN.

 

Quote:

But if you want an idea of some of the Egyptian individuals that we in the west have never heard of (which is what I mean about us having only really a small sliver of the picture), here's a leaked cable about a letter a man who ran against Mubarek sent to Condoleeza Rice after Mubarek imprisoned him on a trumped up charge: http://wikileaks.ch/Cable-from-Imprisoned-Egyptian.html Interesting.

 

The irony is that my "link spam" contained an article from CNN about him. But I guess CNN is too biased to have really reported on his unfair imprisonment, maybe they planted that article recently? :-)

post #56 of 351

BTW, arguing what part of a new government the Muslim Brotherhood would play, doesn't necessarily mean that they'll advocate for a type of Iranian Theocracy (as I already pointed out);

 

ex:

http://www.salon.com/news/egyptian_protests/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/01/31/muslim_brotherhood

 

Israel should be concerned, but like the article points out, the "brotherhood" is no worse than any opposition group on that issue for them.

post #57 of 351
Thread Starter 

ElCap, I'll cede on semantics but I won't cede on CNN's superficial and ratings-driven ways (my opinion).  Maybe it's not Fox-level propaganda, but I find it focuses its coverage around a central premise that it never veers from and simply ignores elements of a story that, while true, don't conform to that angle.  Obviously not everybody on CNN is that way, but everything I've seen lately doesn't change my opinion.  Again, this is my opinion only.  I wanted to know more about this story so I watched Al Jazeera, which was on the ground covering it from the beginning, and twitter, where I could read the first person accounts of Egyptians.  OK, enough derailment. 

post #58 of 351

Hey prefer I MSNBC, but CNN's coverage has been superior. Actually, I usually like Chris Matthews but he's way out of his element on this one (and even he kind of admitted it). Andersoon Cooper is doing a great job tonight BTW.

 

Ben Wedeman *lives* with his family in Egypt and has been doing great coverage from the very start (with very early exclusive footage at the very beginning), on CNN and twitter at the same time.

http://twitter.com/#!/bencnn

I think your accusations against CNN are unfair and unfounded.

 

Man, CNN should be paying me for this ...

post #59 of 351
Thread Starter 

Well, I guess we're all going to have to get used to CNN now that Comcast owns MSNBC.

post #60 of 351

Kate your knowledge of Egypt comes from the internet, most people in this thread have ether been their or have friends and contacts there, Please bear that in mind when you compare it to Iraq.

 

As for the Rich are the twitters thing, i can tell you from personal experince that even the poorest houses in Eygpt possess sattalite dishes and internet connections. While i was there I honesttly saw a house with only three walls but one of them had a Satalite Dish. Sure the owners where in a tent inside the remains but they still had tv and internet,

post #61 of 351

Don't try and engage Kate in a conversation, please. Both parties have to be operating on the same plane of reality for it to work. And on matters like this they both must posses some semblance of a moral fiber.

post #62 of 351


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post

Any good ideas why this is playing out much differently than what happened in Iran? (at least so far it seems)


 

Well because Iran was revolting against 50 years of rule by Britain and US.  Iran HAD a secular moderate democracy, but it was overthrown and brutally suppressed by the US.  Only thing that could combat this was predictably a hard-line reaction.  You have to remember the way Iran has turned out is purely a function of Western greed and crimes.  Unmolested, Iran probably would've been a beacon for the region. 

 

Egypt while supported by the West, hasn't been ruled by the British Military in a long time.  The Military's reign officially ended in the 1930s, this was a long time ago.  And even then, England was a protectorate.  And its questionable whether or not they even wanted to stay indefinitely.  In Iran, both the US and UK wanted to stay indefinitely.  It was a revolt against foreign criminals.  The Shah left Iran in 79.  It's mainly just the fact Iran revolted against a much more violent, suppressive, and foreign regime than Egypt is right now.

 

 

 

 

As for the Aljazeera versus CNN debate.  Even if an Arab revolution wasn't happening, why would you ever choose to watch CNN over AlJazeera?  AlJazeera even has more bureaus worldwide than CNN, even in places like South America.  Its not just that they have journalistic integrity, they even have larger and better reach than CNN. 

 

CNN is a news channel which can be lobbied to change its news.  So why would you want to watch a news channel that is blend of news and propaganda?  AlJazeera on the other hand is the scourge of totalitarian and suppressive governments(Arab ones more than any) all around the world, because AlJazeera is unflinching, the truth is all they are concerned with.  There's a reason the US has a blackout of AlJazeera across most the country.  There's a reason AlJazeera is banned in Egypt right now, but CNN sure as hell isn't.  American news media(certainly broadcast) is I'm sorry to say a bit of a joke, as proven by(but not limited to) the media coverage of the Iraq War and the leaked classified military war files of both the Iraq and Afghanistan War.  All of which AlJazeera covered very well.

 

Interesting to remember CNN became a force in American news by refusing to embed reporters in the Gulf War.  Instead they decided they wouldn't be agents of government propaganda.  Everyone watched CNN during the Gulf War.  Ted Turner, I believe, made a big deal of refusing to contribute towards the death of American Journalism.  Fast forward to the Iraq War, and CNN has no probs with embedding.  It's hard to see what CNNs identity is.  I'm not saying stoop to Fox News, which is certainly an anamoly of nightmarish proportions, just to foster an identity, but they're just blah.  But I don't mind Anderson Cooper or Fareed Zakaria too much.

post #63 of 351

From AlJazeera, a shot from the protest in Tahrir square:

 

vWk2C.jpg

 

And in other news:

 

U.S. Open to a role for Islamists in the new Egypt government.

 

And:

 

Jordan's King Abdullah sacks government amid street protests.

 

Things very much seem to have reached the point of no return not only for Egypt, but for the entire Middle East. Even if regime changes remain limited this time, the genie is out of the bottle. We could be looking at the events that will shape the next fifty years of Middle Eastern politics. And sadly I don't trust our current batch of politicians to not fuck things up. I hope I'm proven wrong, though.

post #64 of 351


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nabster View Post

As for the Aljazeera versus CNN debate.  Even if an Arab revolution wasn't happening, why would you ever choose to watch CNN over AlJazeera?  AlJazeera even has more bureaus worldwide than CNN, even in places like South America.  Its not just that they have journalistic integrity, they even have larger and better reach than CNN. 

 

CNN is a news channel which can be lobbied to change its news.  So why would you want to watch a news channel that is blend of news and propaganda?  AlJazeera on the other hand is the scourge of totalitarian and suppressive governments(Arab ones more than any) all around the world, because AlJazeera is unflinching, the truth is all they are concerned with.  There's a reason the US has a blackout of AlJazeera across most the country.  There's a reason AlJazeera is banned in Egypt right now, but CNN sure as hell isn't.  American news media(certainly broadcast) is I'm sorry to say a bit of a joke, as proven by(but not limited to) the media coverage of the Iraq War and the leaked classified military war files of both the Iraq and Afghanistan War.  All of which AlJazeera covered very well.

 

Interesting to remember CNN became a force in American news by refusing to embed reporters in the Gulf War.  Instead they decided they wouldn't be agents of government propaganda.  Everyone watched CNN during the Gulf War.  Ted Turner, I believe, made a big deal of refusing to contribute towards the death of American Journalism.  Fast forward to the Iraq War, and CNN has no probs with embedding.  It's hard to see what CNNs identity is.  I'm not saying stoop to Fox News, which is certainly an anamoly of nightmarish proportions, just to foster an identity, but they're just blah.  But I don't mind Anderson Cooper or Fareed Zakaria too much.


I don't know why people seem to not read the posts they are responding to. I said I watched mainly CNN (on TV) and Al-Jazeera (On laptop) this weekend, but actually, I even if I had watched CNN I don't feel I should apologize for it. Did you see their coverage of the early moments of the revolt? You do realize Al-Jazeera was criticized originally for not covering this enough at the beggining right?

 

http://www.zawya.com/Story.cfm/sid20110129_29112_263/Hints%20of%20Qatari%20fears%20from%20al-Jazeera

 

 

Quote:

Yet, when the flame lit by Tunisia reached Egypt, a country with which Qatar has only recently made up after a diplomatic row, and where events are more likely to affect the rest of the region, al-Jazeera's first days of coverage appeared restrained, drawing consternation from some observers.

Coverage of Tuesday's "day of rage," was relatively moderate compared with al-Jazeera's handling of the revolt in Tunisia, perhaps reflecting, as commentators say, Qatar's own concern at the fall of one of the region's most stable regimes and the domino effect on the Middle East.

 

And at the end of the day Al-Jazeera is funded by Qatar, I find it funny that you think they're the standard for independent media, that's extremely naive;

 

Quote:
Media critics maintain that although al-Jazeera has played a crucial role in widening the space for freedom of expression in the Middle East, it is also a foreign policy tool for Qatar, used to expand the Gulf state's diplomatic ambitions. According to US diplomatic cables released on WikiLeaks, Qatar uses al-Jazeera as a bargaining chip to punch above its weight in regional affairs.  Al-Jazeera's tone towards Saudi Arabia has also changed over the past year, as relations between Doha and Riyadh have improved.

 

As usual my mix of news is always a potpourri from different outlets, instead of criticizing those getting their news from multiple sources, start being more critical of the ones you trust and don't rely on a single one.

post #65 of 351

Relying on any single source of information, especially about a subject where you have little personal experience through which you can filter it is sub-optimal. Huge news organizations like CNN, BBC and AlJazeera are extremely valuable because they can put "a lot of boots on the ground" and none of them should be rejected as a source. Along with places like Reuters and AP they can serve as a very good feed of information. It's their editorial content that you have to keep clear off.

 

At least until you get a taste about each one's area of expertise and biases. Finding people who can put all the raw data in context is the difficult part. And unless you follow international news a lot and over a long period, it will be difficult to be sure which of the talking heads know what they're talking about. So the best course of action is to widen your net as much as possible and hope the law of averages works. Saying this source is state controlled, or biased, or has an outside agenda, or is too far from the events is counterproductive.

 

Unless you have actual first or second hand experience of a situation. Then it's easy finding out who knows what he's talking about. 

post #66 of 351

Stellios, you're completely correct, but that is obvious.  I don't think anyone would seriously say one should rely only on one source for their news.  I really have no idea why such such an obvious point needs to be argued, since no one said otherwise.  And yes its important to try and understand the failings of news media, as I have tried to explain a little of CNNs failings, probably badly.  If someone disagrees with what I said about CNN they can tell me so without acting like it personally affects them.  But saying shit like, " I don't have to apologize for watching CNN", is just well, lame and meaningless.  Saying one news organisation is better than another does not mean one should only use one source of news, its amazing this needs to be clarified.  And no news organization is perfect, but that doesn't mean they're all equally imperfect.
 

Quote:

 

I don't know why people seem to not read the posts they are responding to. I said I watched mainly CNN (on TV) and Al-Jazeera (On laptop) this weekend, but actually, I even if I had watched CNN I don't feel I should apologize for it. Did you see their coverage of the early moments of the revolt? You do realize Al-Jazeera was criticized originally for not covering this enough at the beginning right?

 

http://www.zawya.com/Story.cfm/sid20110129_29112_263/Hints%20of%20Qatari%20fears%20from%20al-Jazeera

 

 

 

Jesus, you don't need to defend yourself by telling me you consume news from a wide variety of media.  Who said you should apologize for watching CNN?  Why are you making this about YOU?  My post was only about you in response to your question about why Iran's revolution is not similar to Egypt's, which is why it's quoted!  As for the whole Al-Jazeera vs CNN thing, I only got into it because I found it interesting, it was not directed at you in anyway.  I was not criticizing you, but CNN.  I really don't care where you get your information from.  Considering my whole post is comparing CNN to AlJazeera, and had nothing to do with you, your defensiveness is strange.

 

"Criticizing those getting their news from multiple sources."  Considering you were complaining that people don't read your post its a little ironic and a lot hypocritical of you not to have read that I don't mind Fareed Zakaria and Anderson Cooper, thus obviously I don't consume news from one source(its dumbfounding this needs to be said).  If you did read it, it just makes you dishonest in your arguments.  Honestly, either way its a meaningless straw man tactic, because absolutely no one is arguing otherwise. 

 

 

Quote:

 

Quote:

Yet, when the flame lit by Tunisia reached Egypt, a country with which Qatar has only recently made up after a diplomatic row, and where events are more likely to affect the rest of the region, AL-Jazeera's first days of coverage appeared restrained, drawing consternation from some observers.

Coverage of Tuesday's "day of rage," was relatively moderate compared with AL-Jazeera's handling of the revolt in Tunisia, perhaps reflecting, as commentators say, Qatar's own concern at the fall of one of the region's most stable regimes and the domino effect on the Middle East.

 

And at the end of the day Al-Jazeera is funded by Qatar, I find it funny that you think they're the standard for independent media, that's extremely naive;

 

I'm sure there are plenty of good criticisms of Al-Jazeera, but this isn't it.  This is weak.  "drawing consternation from some observers" is hardly damning criticism.  Especially since those observers are the ones that want Mubarak to step down!  I mean what's even your point here?  That Al-Jazeera was a little slow in understanding how quickly Egypt would revolt (but still cover it better than any other TV station)?

 

You seem to be strangely mistaken that I think Al Jazeera is infallible, I just think its a lot better than CNN.  Actually its not strange considering how a majority of your post is simply idiotic straw man tactics, putting words in my mouth that were never uttered. 

 

And yes Al-Jazeera is state funded, but Qatar takes a completely hands off approach.  That's why it works.  It may be naive, but its flat out dishonest to question their integrity without giving any good examples or reasons, other than merely raising the spectre of state funding, a bit pathetic.  If you're going to criticise Al-Jazeera you're going to have to do better. I doubt you've even watched the news channel for any significant amount of time.

 

Quote:

 

 

As usual my mix of news is always a potpourri from different outlets, instead of criticizing those getting their news from multiple sources, start being more critical of the ones you trust and don't rely on a single one.

 

Who said its independent?  Who said one should consume a singular news source?  Who said one shouldn't be critical of their news source?  Truly baffling.  Considering you have nothing interesting or committal to say or argue about either news channel, its very clear you're the one who's not critical. 

post #67 of 351

Wow, lots of personal attacks and scary out of proportion rantings!!! Geez ...

 

Look, we got to this big derail because I mentioned CNN and yt went off on a tangent. Out of the blue, you asked "why would you choose Al-Jazeera over CNN". When I read that, I interpreted "you" as in "me", since you were replying to me AND that was in context with the discussion. Now I see you meant it in a general sense. Let's just blame it as a bug in the inexact nature of the English language. But why would anybody then bring up "why would you (anybody) chose Al-Jazeera over CNN?". Nobody suggested you should only watch CNN, actually one person did suggest the opposite, to watch Al-Jazeera over CNN (and compliment that with a dose of twitter, which is a bit funny too).        (Sorry for the formatting, damned editor doesn't let me hit enter ...)

post #68 of 351

I didn't suggest you claimed Al-Jazeera was infallible, but you said ; "CNN is a news channel which can be lobbied to change its news." So I pointed out some issues with AJ and that there are questions about how independent it is from being "lobbied" by the country that funds it. Why would you think that is an unfair thing to bring up? If you are going to question the journalistic integrity (specially on the Egypt coverage) of CNN, why can't somebody do the same for the source you are saying is far superior? You don't find it a bit funny that commentators in AJ that are criticizing the lack of a democratic process in Egypt don't bring up non Democratic states like Qatar???

post #69 of 351

Ahh, its my fault mainly.  I understood how you took my self important post as being directed at you, even though it wasn't.  Thus, I shouldnt've gotten worked up.  Embarassing.  Dunno why I'm such an ass sometimes.  My bad.  Quit pot, too much mental energy needs to be displaced!!

 

Partly its just some of the Americans around here are just very touchy when someone criticises anything US, ya know?  Its a bit annoying because I'm open to bashing the UK all the time.

 

Anyways, looks like the NYT is reporting Obama has asked Mubarak not to run in the next elections.  Unprecedented and incredible.  Looks like its going to happen.

 

post #70 of 351

Hey no problem, my tone was probably too negative and I appreciated your feedback on the vs Iran comparision.

It seems very likely Mubarak will say he won't run anymore, the problem is, that's not what the people want. They want him out now (or very soon), so that may not be enough ...

post #71 of 351


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post

I didn't suggest you claimed Al-Jazeera was infallible, but you said ; "CNN is a news channel which can be lobbied to change its news." So I pointed out some issues with AJ and that there are questions about how independent it is from being "lobbied" by the country that funds it. Why would you think that is an unfair thing to bring up? If you are going to question the journalistic integrity (specially on the Egypt coverage) of CNN, why can't somebody do the same for the source you are saying is far superior? You don't find it a bit funny that commentators in AJ that are criticizing the lack of a democratic process in Egypt don't bring up non Democratic states like Qatar???


 

I know what you're referencing.  But that's more Qatar being, " look at how we've opened the region up to freedom of speech.  We're the most important Arab country for this reason."  Its more Qatar bragging about what Al-Jazeera has become.  I don't think Qatar really influences the news.  They want to influence the region by reminding people of the importance of Al-Jazeera as a moderating voice in Middle Eastern politics.  I watch the English language version not Arabic(since I'm not an Arab!), so I'm only speaking for this.  I think this is the true flaw in my arguements, assuming Al-Jazeera English and Arabic have an affinity.  But seriously, Al-Jazeeras autonomy is pretty infamous.  There's a reason Al-Jazeera is hated both in the West and in the Middle East.  And anyway, its lots of ex BBC and ironically CNN people running the show.

 

They actually have discussed non Democratic Qatar.  Maybe not in a detailed way.  But they discussed the implications to the rest of the region and the possibility it could sweep outwards.  And Qatar is discussed, although, very briefly.  They come to the conclusion that Saudi, Kuwait, and Qatar will escape such possibilities because of the tremendous wealth and social programs.  But you're correct they didn't criticize non democratic rule.  I'm surprised I didn't think of such an obvious hypocrisy.

 

But seriously, Al-Jazeera is the only Arab news station that is allowed in Israel.  Because Al-Jazeera has the best reputation for giving every side a platform to argue from, which is why the Arab world thinks Al-Jazeera is a pro Israeli organization.  I just personally think Al-Jazeera is the new channel that is most committed to non biased hard hitting news.  Does this mean they're completely non biased?  No.  But they have less of an allegiance than the others.  But they consistently cover news, no one else wants to.  I know this might be strange to hear in America where its reviled(?), that Al-Jazeera is a top news organization, but this is their well deserved reputation.  The quality of their programming is fantastic.   

post #72 of 351

The funny thing about AJ English, while watching it this weekend, I thought I was watching the BBC!

post #73 of 351

Oh they definitely have a BBC vibe!  Overwhelming amount of ex BBC dudes on it.  And gladly not every voice sounds stuffy.  Funny how our accents make us sounds so much more popous than an American one.  On a side note, a huffington post article about Al-Jazeera and its popularity in Canada.  Swear to god last time about Al-Jazeera.  Even I'm starting to hate them after reading my posts.

 

Interesting to think how far can this go?  Jordan has been having lots of protests.  And the other obvious country is Bahrain.  A small island.  But theres an important US military base on this Island.  A big naval base.  Its the only country other than Iran and Iraq that has more Shiites than Sunnis.  And the truth is, this is the place where the monarchy probably treats its people, the Shiites the worst.  Its a nice country, I went there a long time ago to see Formula 1, as its the first leg.  Very modern, with hotels, bars, and malls.  But also the most likely for revolution, which is a huge worry, because of the fear of Iran.  Its interesting, but Bahrain also has the go ahead to be more suppressive due to the fear of Iran.  And also its a small country, easy to contro the flow of info.   

post #74 of 351
Thread Starter 

Not to reignite the argument, just an observation:  I did some international traveling recently and noted the massive contrast between the international and US news outlets.  CNN and Fox (and MSNBC too, though I couldn't get it where I was) speak like they're addressing kindergartners.  Intl news like BBC and AJ speak as if they're addressing intelligent adults.  I find the same thing on the NPR shows I listen to.  They don't "dumb it down" or stick to one easy to follow narrative.

post #75 of 351

*sigh*

 

So does that include CNN International and CNN en Español?

post #76 of 351

An al-Arabiya correspondent is reporting that supporters of President Mubarak are marching towards Tahrir Square. 

 

Al-Jazeera reports that men in civilian clothes and armed with bladed weapons attacked demonstrators in Port Said after the army withdrew from the streets. .. .   .kjgdfkj..              

post #77 of 351
Thread Starter 

It's been peaceful up till now.  The people I'm following on twitter believe it's Mubarek's NDP thugs inciting violence to create the conditions for a "shock and awe"-style bloodbath. 

post #78 of 351
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post

*sigh*

 

So does that include CNN International and CNN en Español?



LOL.  Not on CNN International (but that's not what I got in overseas hotels) and I haven't watched CNN en Español.  Is it?

post #79 of 351

I think the president's statement struck the right balance, and also, he did kind of say indirectly that Mubarak should leave now although I'm not sure if the Egyptian people will read it that way.

post #80 of 351

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/some-weekend-work-that-will-hopefully.html

"Some weekend work that will (hopefully) enable more Egyptians to be heard
1/31/2011 02:27:00 PM
Like many people we’ve been glued to the news unfolding in Egypt and thinking of what we could do to help people on the ground. Over the weekend we came up with the idea of a speak-to-tweet service—the ability for anyone to tweet using just a voice connection.

We worked with a small team of engineers from Twitter, Google and SayNow, a company we acquired last week, to make this idea a reality. It’s already live and anyone can tweet by simply leaving a voicemail on one of these international phone numbers (+16504194196 or +390662207294 or +97316199855) and the service will instantly tweet the message using the hashtag #egypt. No Internet connection is required. People can listen to the messages by dialing the same phone numbers or going to twitter.com/speak2tweet.

We hope that this will go some way to helping people in Egypt stay connected at this very difficult time. Our thoughts are with everyone there.

Update Feb 1, 12:47 PM: When possible, we're now detecting the approximate (country-level) geographic origin of each call dialing one of our speak2tweet numbers and attaching a hashtag for that country to each tweet. For example, if a call comes from Switzerland, you'll see #switzerland in the tweet, and if one comes from Egypt you'll see #egypt. For calls when we can't detect the location, we default to an #egypt hashtag.

Posted by Ujjwal Singh, CoFounder of SayNow and AbdelKarim Mardini, Product Manager, Middle East & North Africa"

post #81 of 351

Glad to see Mubarkek has agreed not to run again. Hopefully the mob can now turn their energies to political action in the upcoming election, and leave talk of "storming the presidential palace" behind

 

Also, I have been pro AJ since like 2004. They do some good reporting, and are at least no more biased that what runs on US TV

post #82 of 351

How is protesting your government not political action?

post #83 of 351

Some food for thought.

 

I find myself falling into the thought process he describes quite often despite my best intentions. It's probably a combination of the natural 'fear of the other' and the cynicism one develops from seeing democracy manhandled even in countries where the democratic traditions and liberties are supposedly ironclad. But in the end, you either believe in an idea and hope for the best (while prudently preparing for the worst) or you end up getting in bed with people you wouldn't trust with running a hot dog stand.

post #84 of 351

Protest is political action at its rawest and most natural.

post #85 of 351

I don't remember who I read this from but even if it sounds a little extreme seems to describe these things pretty well. It said: Protests are a reminder to those that rule us that there are a lot of us. And us gathering, taking them by force and hanging them from a lamp post is always an option if they get too carried away.

 

Governments getting a bit of fear put into them by the people from time to time, is a good thing for democracy.

post #86 of 351

Deputy PM Nick Clegg was very enthusiastic about the whole thing today on the BBC. He talked about it being democracy in action, I wonder if he thinks the same thing about the tution fees protests.

 

Ether way it's a fantastic example of the true power of the people.

post #87 of 351

Yeah, the shit is really hitting the fan now.  The "stability" forces are beating the protesters, and the non-violent protest is about to go seriously south.  The more violent this gets, the more pressure Murabak will get to step down.  What a stupid, stubborn son of a bitch.  

post #88 of 351

It almost seems to me that Mubarak doesn't want to leave now only because of pride. He said he's not running for re-election, but also said "Hey I wasn't going to run for it anyways" in order to not admit defeat by the protesters. It seems like leaving soon is just too much humiliation for him to bear.

post #89 of 351

He's totally delusional.  Better to be humiliated then lose ones head.  

post #90 of 351

Yea, I hate that SOB.  This might be a bit assholish of me, but if the violence ensures he leaves office before September, I'm for it.  And the pro Mubarak protestors are just a combination of hired thugs and criminals, and the police forces.  Al-Jazeera has been showing some of the confiscated police ids of the Mubarak protestors.  Also the Army has been screening weapons, but when the pro Mubarak thugs came in on horses and cammels, weilding sticks and knives they were unmolested.  This is clearly Mubarak trying to control the situation.  The coordinated nature of the pro Mubarak protest, reeks of the police force.  I think theres enough evidence to believe this.

 

 

Quote:
It almost seems to me that Mubarak doesn't want to leave now only because of pride. He said he's not running for re-election, but also said "Hey I wasn't going to run for it anyways" in order to not admit defeat by the protesters. It seems like leaving soon is just too much humiliation for him to bear.

 

Yup, this is the main problem.  He wants his legacy.  Hes been the ruler for 30 yrs.  He wants to be remembered as the guy who made peace with Israel, as a close ally of the west, as a moderating influence in the east, as a war hero.  Thats how he views himself.  Doesn't want to be banished like the common tyrant he is, that will be the only thing remembered by his legacy.

 

Quote:
Not to reignite the argument, just an observation:  I did some international traveling recently and noted the massive contrast between the international and US news outlets.  CNN and Fox (and MSNBC too, though I couldn't get it where I was) speak like they're addressing kindergartners.  Intl news like BBC and AJ speak as if they're addressing intelligent adults.  I find the same thing on the NPR shows I listen to.  They don't "dumb it down" or stick to one easy to follow narrative.

 

Yes, I totally agree.  Although, Fox News is the true culprit.  Take a look at this hilarious video.  That part, when he talks about China is priceless.

 

When I'm in the US, I like to watch MSNBC.  I don't really notice the patronising tone with them.  Sadly, we only get CNBC here.  Oh god, Colberts parody of Keith Olberman absolutely killed me.

post #91 of 351

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nabster View Post

Yea, I hate that SOB.  This might be a bit assholish of me, but if the violence ensures he leaves office before September, I'm for it.  And the pro Mubarak protestors are just a combination of hired thugs and criminals, and the police forces.  Al-Jazeera has been showing some of the confiscated police ids of the Mubarak protestors.  Also the Army has been screening weapons, but when the pro Mubarak thugs came in on horses and cammels, weilding sticks and knives they were unmolested.  This is clearly Mubarak trying to control the situation.  The coordinated nature of the pro Mubarak protest, reeks of the police force.  I think theres enough evidence to believe this.

 


I'm wondering if this actually might work and he may be able to hold on to power a bit longer. The disturbing thing is the soldiers so far have behaved honorably, yet today they let these thugs pass by. So the military may still be behind Mubarak, but doesn't want to be too obvious about it.

 

Quote:

Yes, I totally agree.  Although, Fox News is the true culprit.  Take a look at this hilarious video.  That part, when he talks about China is priceless.

 

When I'm in the US, I like to watch MSNBC.  I don't really notice the patronising tone with them.  Sadly, we only get CNBC here.  Oh god, Colberts parody of Keith Olberman absolutely killed me.

 

 

MSNBC pretty much sucks big time for international news. They have no presence internationally, and may of their analyst really don't know what's going on. The only saving grace they have is NBC News. It was funny, I love the Chris Matthews show (for national politics) but he was talking to a foreign NBC correspondent and Chris kept saying, "aren't the people happy our president made such a strong statement in their favor?" and the international NBC guy kept telling him over and over "huh ... no, they feel all the statements from the US govt. have been week". And Matthews would kind of just admit he didn't get it. Again, he's great for national news, party politics, etc. but totally lost internationally.

 

I think CNN has a better organization in these cases, and again, I think they've done a good job so far. In my view, even though I watch MSNBC more, between CNN, MSNBC, and Fox; CNN is till the more "serious" news organization. MSNBC and Fox are more apt for political commentary and analysts.

post #92 of 351

"Nightfall. Bloody battle continues to rage here in Tahrir Square. We are trapped inside with the opposition, who say they'll fight to death."  

 

It is turning ugly. Wonder when and if the army will get involved now.

post #93 of 351

Ugh. I hope it wouldn't come to this. Fuck it then. Mubarak has to go Caucesku style if need be. Fuck that piece of shit. 

post #94 of 351

He'll be fine, Princess Kate'll stand with him.

post #95 of 351
Thread Starter 

Mubarek is behind the violence.  Some news reports are saying that pro-Mubarek demonstrators are being paid.  Some have been found to have ID from the NDP police.  I think the idea is terror, so that the masses, who have demonstrated peacefully for over a week, will suddenly get scared and want him back. 

 

Also:  Anderson Cooper and his crew were attacked by pro-Mubarek forces. 

 

In the ongoing discussion about news, I think Anderson Cooper and CNN in general are at their best when there's a true crisis that merits round-the-clock coverage; not so much when the "crisis" is of the Balloon Boy variety and you have to watch these reporters keep a straight face when talking about utter nonsense because the sales department says they have to. 

post #96 of 351

Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post

Also:  Anderson Cooper and his crew were attacked by pro-Mubarek forces. 

 

In the ongoing discussion about news, I think Anderson Cooper and CNN in general are at their best when there's a true crisis that merits round-the-clock coverage; not so much when the "crisis" is of the Balloon Boy variety and you have to watch these reporters keep a straight face when talking about utter nonsense because the sales department says they have to. 

 

Progress!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jay f View Post

"Nightfall. Bloody battle continues to rage here in Tahrir Square. We are trapped inside with the opposition, who say they'll fight to death."  

 

It is turning ugly. Wonder when and if the army will get involved now.

 

But the army "did get involved". They let the thugs through, when they supposedly were there to keep the peace. I don't want to be an alarmist, but I find this fact extremely disturbing. The army has been good so far, but this inaction is the most direct thing they've done against the protesters. So if they can't keep the thugs away, what are they doing there with their tanks in the first place?

 

They want the world to think they are there for the interest of all Egyptians and not taking sides, but they already took a side.

post #97 of 351

They took the side of allowing peaceful protests. While the presence of the thugs in not exactally peaceful, they are not weilding guns and killing rampantly.

 

If the Army used force to keep the thugs out the situation would possibly blow up. At the moment they are mostly throwing rocks and fighting.

post #98 of 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post

But the army "did get involved". They let the thugs through, when they supposedly were there to keep the peace. I don't want to be an alarmist, but I find this fact extremely disturbing. The army has been good so far, but this inaction is the most direct thing they've done against the protesters. So if they can't keep the thugs away, what are they doing there with their tanks in the first place?

 

They want the world to think they are there for the interest of all Egyptians and not taking sides, but they already took a side.


The "thugs" were reportedly disguised as fellow protesters, who then turned to violence once they had entrenched themselves in with the other protesters, throwing molotov cocktails, rocks and stones at the anti-Muraback movement.  The Egyptian Army would have a hell of a time figuring out who is who at this point.  

post #99 of 351
Thread Starter 

I was wondering if anyone on TV was going to connect the dots between the commodities bubble and the uprising in Egypt and finally someone did.  I don't usually watch The Ed Show,  but I think he does a really good job laying it out and backing it up:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/41380863#41380863

post #100 of 351

Watching Anderson Cooper on CNN right now, and he just read a tweet from the US State Department which basically says "If you are American, haul your ass to the airport and get out NOW."  This is truly scary stuff. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Arab Spring (formerly "Youth Protests in Egypt - Internet Shut Down")