Riots in Egypt

[PhoenixEnigma]

Al Jazeera is reporting that police/security forces are nowhere to be seen, despite thousands of (peaceful) protesters on the street. Army forces are out, but almost completely passive (protesters are climbing over tanks and the like), and really only there to protect critical infrastructure. It's going to be very interesting to see what happens when the curfew falls (currently in a little over an hour?), as the military would be the ones to enforce that. I'm not really sure they will, when push comes to shove.

[Diadem]

The more I think about it, the more I realize those protesters may be on to something. Even the most hardened soldiers will have trouble shooting at civilians who are enthusiastically cheering at them. Given current circumstances, what general will dare to give such an order?

I am really getting the impression that the military is indecided about whom to support. For now they seem content to just sit on the sideline and watch, but they won't be able to keep up that attitude forever. Whose side they will finally chose will most likely be the determining factor in the outcome of this conflict.

A more dangerous possibility is that the military is internally divided. If several generals side with Mubarak while others do not, we might see a civil war.

[F117Landers]

The more I think about it, the more I realize those protesters may be on to something. Even the most hardened soldiers will have trouble shooting at civilians who are enthusiastically cheering at them. Given current circumstances, what general will dare to give such an order?

I am really getting the impression that the military is indecided about whom to support. For now they seem content to just sit on the sideline and watch, but they won't be able to keep up that attitude forever. Whose side they will finally chose will most likely be the determining factor in the outcome of this conflict.

A more dangerous possibility is that the military is internally divided. If several generals side with Mubarak while others do not, we might see a civil war.

If you were given the order to shoot a (peaceful) protestor, would you do it? I know that I wouldn't.

[Gelsamel]

They're also y'know, the citizens the military exists to protect. If it was a violent minority, no problem, the whole country?

[bigglesworth]

They're also y'know, the citizens the military exists to protect. If it was a violent minority, no problem, the whole country?

It's also the fact that the Egyptian rank and file are conscripts. They will all know some of the protestors.

[aleflamedyud]

Well this is something I didn't really expect.

So........ they planned the revolt themselves, but because we knew about it, its our fault?

Welcome to America, #2 country in being blamed for every evil on Earth, including the ones that aren't evil.

Next up, Egyptian government arrests the American shark who helped Shark el-Sheikh plan his attacks on innocent Egyptians.

[F117Landers]

Welcome to America, #2 country in being blamed for every evil on Earth, including the ones that aren't evil.

Next up, Egyptian government arrests the American shark who helped Shark el-Sheikh plan his attacks on innocent Egyptians.

Did you say sharks?
http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=66693

[The Reaper]

Welcome to America, #2 country in being blamed for every evil on Earth, including the ones that aren't evil.
Next up, Egyptian government arrests the American shark who helped Shark el-Sheikh plan his attacks on innocent Egyptians.

Did you say sharks?
http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=66693

Yes, that is indeed the reference.

[Dream]

America will obviously be supporting its tame dictator while also supporting the democratic movement that might usurp him. That's basically how it works in the Middle East for America, talk about human rights and progressive politics, but materially support Mubarak, Abdullah, (at one time) Saddam or whoever. Then if the progressives get anywhere, try to back both horses. The policy hasn't been tested by such a powerful uprising before, unless one counts pre-1953 Iran. It will be interesting to see exactly what America does, or doesn't do.

[aleflamedyud]

America will obviously be supporting its tame dictator while also supporting the democratic movement that might usurp him. That's basically how it works in the Middle East for America, talk about human rights and progressive politics, but materially support Mubarak, Abdullah, (at one time) Saddam or whoever. Then if the progressives get anywhere, try to back both horses. The policy hasn't been tested by such a powerful uprising before, unless one counts pre-1953 Iran. It will be interesting to see exactly what America does, or doesn't do.

"Interesting" my ass, we ought to drop the dictators and support the democrats outright.

[Thesh]

The game we are playing is trying to make friends with as many leaders as possible. If he stays in power and we outright oppose him, we don't have an ally anymore. If we back him 100% and the people take over with a democracy, then we also lose. So the compromise is to say "Well, we are still your friends but please give your people some of what they want." We hope that will make the people less pissed at us. What is right and what we should do isn't of concern to a politician.

Personally, I would back democracy over dictator any time.

[The Reaper]

"The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?" - Joshua (WarGames)

[nehpest]

The live feed of English Al-Jazeera says they have a new Prime Minister. He is the former Aviation Chief of Staff, Ahmed Shafiq.

[sje46]

The live feed of English Al-Jazeera says they have a new Prime Minister. He is the former Aviation Chief of Staff, Ahmed Shafiq.

Keep in mind that this isn't the new President. Mubarak is still in charge.

[PhoenixEnigma]

The live feed of English Al-Jazeera says they have a new Prime Minister. He is the former Aviation Chief of Staff, Ahmed Shafiq.

Yeah, shuffling the deck doesn't matter much when it's the dealer that's the problem.

It is worth noting that both the PM and VP have ties with the military, though. Given that the military seems to be in a position to tip things one way or the other, and haven't yet, it seems possible it's a ploy to get the military to side with Mubarak.

In other news, it appears the government is attempting to increase the media blackout - Al Jazeera has apparently been ordered to shut down their operations there, and I'm not sure what the status of other official press actually in Egypt is, either. To my mind, this is a worrying development - expelling the press is rarely a sign of good things to come. On the bright side, there are now several thousand people who are managing to tweet despite the blackouts, and so far there doesn't seem to be anyone around to actually enforce any further media shutdowns (and therefore, the revocations of broadcast licenses are being ignored for now) .

Apparently law and order is also starting to suffer, despite an increased military presence now, and that's probably only going to get worse - looting is become a problem and there's reports of thousands of escaped prisoners overnight as well.

EDIT: Al Jazeera's studios and sat uplink in Egypt are now closed and down, although the journalists are still reporting live via audio and twitter, and apparently they have live video feeds in Cairo?

[Greyarcher]

It is worth noting that both the PM and VP have ties with the military, though. Given that the military seems to be in a position to tip things one way or the other, and haven't yet, it seems possible it's a ploy to get the military to side with Mubarak.

In other news, it appears the government is attempting to increase the media blackout - Al Jazeera has apparently been ordered to shut down their operations there, and I'm not sure what the status of other official press actually in Egypt is, either. To my mind, this is a worrying development - expelling the press is rarely a sign of good things to come. On the bright side, there are now several thousand people who are managing to tweet despite the blackouts, and so far there doesn't seem to be anyone around to actually enforce any further media shutdowns (and therefore, the revocations of broadcast licenses are being ignored for now) .

EDIT: Al Jazeera's studios and sat uplink in Egypt are now closed and down, although the journalists are still reporting live via audio and twitter, and apparently they have live video feeds in Cairo?

Yeah...those aren't good signs at all. I'm expecting the government to strike in force any time now.

[Dream]

Yeah...those aren't good signs at all. I'm expecting the government to strike in force any time now.

With what? The army is hanging out with the protesters, kicking about on top of their tanks and allowing them free passage to everywhere but critical infrastructure. There are police stations on fire all over the country. No-one is stopping anything, bar the occasional secret police murder, and that's not going to hold people back on a national scale. Where is a "strike in force" going to come from?

[F117Landers]

Yeah...those aren't good signs at all. I'm expecting the government to strike in force any time now.

With what? The army is hanging out with the protesters, kicking about on top of their tanks and allowing them free passage to everywhere but critical infrastructure. There are police stations on fire all over the country. No-one is stopping anything, bar the occasional secret police murder, and that's not going to hold people back on a national scale. Where is a "strike in force" going to come from?

Why, the sharks, of course!



In all seriousness, I agree with Dream. Considering the scale of the riots, It is unlikely that troops are going to respond with a 'strike in force,' but that's my own opinion.

[Greyarcher]

Yeah...those aren't good signs at all. I'm expecting the government to strike in force any time now.

With what? The army is hanging out with the protesters, kicking about on top of their tanks and allowing them free passage to everywhere but critical infrastructure. There are police stations on fire all over the country. No-one is stopping anything, bar the occasional secret police murder, and that's not going to hold people back on a national scale. Where is a "strike in force" going to come from?

You think that the army is just defying orders to crack down? Or that the police--or those other security forces--are completely useless? They could violently crack down, but they haven't because it would be a fiasco.

Of course, I could be over-estimating the amount of control Mubarak has over the forces, and how willing they are to disobey orders to use extensive lethal force against protesters. Perhaps Mubarak can't crack down at all. But I commonly expect the worse, if only to mentally prepare myself for it.

[PhoenixEnigma]

You think that the army is just defying orders to crack down? Or that the police are completely useless? They could violently crack down, but they haven't because it would be a fiasco.

Of course, I could be misinterpreting the amount of control Mubarak has over the forces, and how willing they are to refuse orders to use extensive lethal force against protesters. Perhaps Mubarak can't crack down at all. But I commonly expect the worse, if only to mentally prepare myself for it.

The army isn't, AFAIK, defying orders yet, but some officers have already stated that they will, should those orders come, and the military has been seen to side with the protesters against the police in a few cases (for example, a military commander ordering a firetruck being used to disperse protesters to retreat). It's also worth remembering that in a situation like this, the military can be viewed almost as a potential leading party, and from that position they'd probably not want to tie themselves too closely to Mubarak at this point.

That said, the Egyptian police force is pretty damn big, and have thus far seemed pretty loyal to Mubarak. If he wants to do something stupid, I'm pretty sure he still has the ability to do so.

[The Reaper]

If long-since-gone Ancient Rome has anything to say about it, the military is ALWAYS the ruling party.

[engr]

Iranian officials apparently support the uprising and claim it was "inspired by the Islamic vigilance in the region which will help the country restore its original position in the national, regional and international arenas".

[sardia]

Iranian officials apparently support the uprising and claim it was "inspired by the Islamic vigilance in the region which will help the country restore its original position in the national, regional and international arenas".

They support it because a more democratic egypt will be friendlier to their side and less friendly to the west and more specifically the US.

[fruitschinposamurai]

I find it ridiculous that people fail to see Mohamed ElBaradei as anything more than a US backed puppet.

A democratic Egypt will not necessarily be more friendly to the West. The dictatorship in the past has been terrible to the people of Egypt but has been very friendly to the US (by this I am not referring to Western Culture; rather I refer to the political compliance).

Most people do not know this but Egypt oppresses Islamic culture. They would place secret service on religious leaders who would attend early morning prayers in mosques daily and would even go to the point of making sure that they do not grow out their beard (allegedly because that is a sign of being in the Muslim Brotherhood).

[Dream]

I find it ridiculous that people fail to see Mohamed ElBaradei as anything more than a US backed puppet.

What? Here's Wikipedia, because this isn't worth searching through old newspaper articles:

Spoiler:

The United States initially voiced opposition to his election to a third four-year term in 2005.[14] In a May 2005 interview with the staff of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Lawrence Wilkerson, the chief of staff to former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, charged former Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton with an underhanded campaign to unseat ElBaradei.[15] “Mr. Bolton overstepped his bounds in his moves and gyrations to try to keep [ElBaradei] from being reappointed as [IAEA] head,” Wilkerson said. The Washington Post reported in December 2004 that the Bush administration had intercepted dozens of ElBaradei’s phone calls with Iranian diplomats and was scrutinizing them for evidence they could use to force him out.[15] IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said the agency worked on "the assumption that one or more entities may be listening to our conversations". "It's not how we would prefer to work, but it is the reality. At the end of the day, we have nothing to hide," he said. Iran responded to the Washington Post reports by accusing the United States of violating international law in intercepting the communications.[16]
The United States was the only country to oppose ElBaradei's reappointment and eventually failed to win enough support from other countries to oust ElBaradei. On 9 June 2005, after a meeting between U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and ElBaradei, the United States dropped its objections. Among countries that supported Elbaradei were China, Russia, Germany and France. China praised his leadership and objectivity.[14] and supported him for doing "substantial fruitful work, which has maintained the agency's role and credit in international non-proliferation and promoted the development of peaceful use of nuclear energy. His work has been universally recognized in the international community. China appreciates Mr. El Baradei's work and supports his reelection as the agency's director-general."[17] France, Germany, and some developing countries, have made clear their support for ElBaradei as well.[15] Russia issued a strong statement in favor of re-electing him as soon as possible.
ElBaradei was unanimously re-appointed by the IAEA Board on 13 June 2005.[18]

And of course, they were implacably opposed to him because:

Spoiler:

In an interview with CNN in May 2007, Dr ElBaradei gave one of his sternest warnings against using military action against Iran, a state signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Referring to "the extreme people who have extreme views" he said, "you do not want to give additional argument to some of the 'new crazies' who want to say let us go and bomb Iran."[26]
New York Times columnist Roger Cohen interviewed ElBaradei in April 2009. ElBaradei is quoted as saying, “Israel would be utterly crazy to attack Iran." He considers an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would "turn the region into a ball of fire and put Iran on a crash course for nuclear weapons with the support of the whole Muslim world.”[27] ElBaradei believes the nuclear non-proliferation regime has "lost its legitimacy in the eyes of Arab public opinion because of the perceived double-standard" in relation to Israel's nuclear weapons program.[28]
In an interview with French newspaper Le Monde, ElBaradei said "I want to get people away from the idea that Iran will be a threat from tomorrow, and that we are faced right now with the issue of whether Iran should be bombed or allowed to have the bomb. We are not at all in that situation. Iraq is a glaring example of how, in many cases, the use of force exacerbates the problem rather than solving it."[10]
On October 4, 2009, the Xinhua News Agency reported that "At a joint press conference with Iran's Atomic Energy Organization chief Ali Akbar Salehi in Tehran, ElBaradei brought Israel under spotlight and said that the Jerusalem regime has refused to allow inspections into its nuclear installations for 30 years, the report said.
In an interview published on July 12, 2010 in the German magazine Der Spiegel, ElBaradei said "I do not believe that the Iranians are actually producing nuclear weapons. [...] in general, the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran is overestimated, some even play it up intentionally.[29]

It's common knowledge among people informed about such events that ElBaradei is disliked by America, precisely because he seems impervious to their influence.

[Diadem]

You think that the army is just defying orders to crack down? Or that the police are completely useless? They could violently crack down, but they haven't because it would be a fiasco.

Of course, I could be misinterpreting the amount of control Mubarak has over the forces, and how willing they are to refuse orders to use extensive lethal force against protesters. Perhaps Mubarak can't crack down at all. But I commonly expect the worse, if only to mentally prepare myself for it.

The army isn't, AFAIK, defying orders yet, but some officers have already stated that they will, should those orders come, and the military has been seen to side with the protesters against the police in a few cases (for example, a military commander ordering a firetruck being used to disperse protesters to retreat). It's also worth remembering that in a situation like this, the military can be viewed almost as a potential leading party, and from that position they'd probably not want to tie themselves too closely to Mubarak at this point.

Mubarak has been in power for 30 years. He's had plenty of time to make sure all generals are completely loyal to him. Of course in situations like this even complete loyalty is a relative term. It's certainly not based on true friendship, but on opportunistic alliances, and the fact that those generals will be complicit in the worst crimes Mubarak commited, so if he goes down, so will they.

It's a tricly situation. The soldiers on the street clearly like the protetors. And the prosters have responded to them in perhaps the best possible way, cheering them on enthusiastically. Like I said before, it's hard for soldiers to shoot at crowds that are cheering at them. But at the same time it's hard for soldiers to disobey orders. This is not a western nation where they might go to jail for doing that. They will be shot, without a trial. Unless of course those who are supposed to do the shooting also disobey orders...

It's not at all clear what side the military will come down on. There's different forces at work. We might see them dropping Mubarak completely, or maybe a few generals will try to stay loyal but face mutiny other generals as well as from those below them, so that they are powerless. Or we might see a more even split in loyalties, which is probably the worst possible outcome, because that means civil war. Or indeed, the majority of the military might still choose Mubarak, in which case the protest will be violently cracked down upon.

Friday I was convinced Mubarak was done for. But it's two days later now and nothing much has happened. Momentum is critical in situations like this. If Mubarak refuses to step down, he wins simply by surviving long enough. No protest can go on with this level of intensity for weeks or months. There's only three possible outcomes. If the military sides with the protesters it's over. If they remain on the fence however the protesters will have to raid Mubarak's residence and kill him in the next few days, or they lose the momentum and Mubarak will win.

[fruitschinposamurai]

I find it ridiculous that people fail to see Mohamed ElBaradei as anything more than a US backed puppet.

What? Here's Wikipedia, because this isn't worth searching through old newspaper articles:

Spoiler:

The United States initially voiced opposition to his election to a third four-year term in 2005.[14] In a May 2005 interview with the staff of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Lawrence Wilkerson, the chief of staff to former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, charged former Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton with an underhanded campaign to unseat ElBaradei.[15] “Mr. Bolton overstepped his bounds in his moves and gyrations to try to keep [ElBaradei] from being reappointed as [IAEA] head,” Wilkerson said. The Washington Post reported in December 2004 that the Bush administration had intercepted dozens of ElBaradei’s phone calls with Iranian diplomats and was scrutinizing them for evidence they could use to force him out.[15] IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said the agency worked on "the assumption that one or more entities may be listening to our conversations". "It's not how we would prefer to work, but it is the reality. At the end of the day, we have nothing to hide," he said. Iran responded to the Washington Post reports by accusing the United States of violating international law in intercepting the communications.[16]
The United States was the only country to oppose ElBaradei's reappointment and eventually failed to win enough support from other countries to oust ElBaradei. On 9 June 2005, after a meeting between U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and ElBaradei, the United States dropped its objections. Among countries that supported Elbaradei were China, Russia, Germany and France. China praised his leadership and objectivity.[14] and supported him for doing "substantial fruitful work, which has maintained the agency's role and credit in international non-proliferation and promoted the development of peaceful use of nuclear energy. His work has been universally recognized in the international community. China appreciates Mr. El Baradei's work and supports his reelection as the agency's director-general."[17] France, Germany, and some developing countries, have made clear their support for ElBaradei as well.[15] Russia issued a strong statement in favor of re-electing him as soon as possible.
ElBaradei was unanimously re-appointed by the IAEA Board on 13 June 2005.[18]

And of course, they were implacably opposed to him because:

Spoiler:

In an interview with CNN in May 2007, Dr ElBaradei gave one of his sternest warnings against using military action against Iran, a state signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Referring to "the extreme people who have extreme views" he said, "you do not want to give additional argument to some of the 'new crazies' who want to say let us go and bomb Iran."[26]
New York Times columnist Roger Cohen interviewed ElBaradei in April 2009. ElBaradei is quoted as saying, “Israel would be utterly crazy to attack Iran." He considers an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would "turn the region into a ball of fire and put Iran on a crash course for nuclear weapons with the support of the whole Muslim world.”[27] ElBaradei believes the nuclear non-proliferation regime has "lost its legitimacy in the eyes of Arab public opinion because of the perceived double-standard" in relation to Israel's nuclear weapons program.[28]
In an interview with French newspaper Le Monde, ElBaradei said "I want to get people away from the idea that Iran will be a threat from tomorrow, and that we are faced right now with the issue of whether Iran should be bombed or allowed to have the bomb. We are not at all in that situation. Iraq is a glaring example of how, in many cases, the use of force exacerbates the problem rather than solving it."[10]
On October 4, 2009, the Xinhua News Agency reported that "At a joint press conference with Iran's Atomic Energy Organization chief Ali Akbar Salehi in Tehran, ElBaradei brought Israel under spotlight and said that the Jerusalem regime has refused to allow inspections into its nuclear installations for 30 years, the report said.
In an interview published on July 12, 2010 in the German magazine Der Spiegel, ElBaradei said "I do not believe that the Iranians are actually producing nuclear weapons. [...] in general, the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran is overestimated, some even play it up intentionally.[29]

It's common knowledge among people informed about such events that ElBaradei is disliked by America, precisely because he seems impervious to their influence.

Not worth arguing about this either. These views are popular with the Egyptians, so going with America's opinions would hurt his popularity. You will see that if he gets into power his views will change.

However; if it turns out that he is a good leader for Egypt then I will be more than happy.

[Woofsie]

Just watched a police truck drive over several protesters on Al Jazeera. Not a pleasant sight. There seems to be a big clash between police and protesters going on right now.

[JonScholar]

It's not at all clear what side the military will come down on. There's different forces at work. We might see them dropping Mubarak completely, or maybe a few generals will try to stay loyal but face mutiny other generals as well as from those below them, so that they are powerless. Or we might see a more even split in loyalties, which is probably the worst possible outcome, because that means civil war. Or indeed, the majority of the military might still choose Mubarak, in which case the protest will be violently cracked down upon.

As I see it, the Tienanmen square option is completely out of the question at this point. With the entire world now watching, a military crackdown would undoubtedly cost Egypt the tremendous amount of military aid they receive from the US, even if it didn't trigger serious retaliation from the international community (it probably would). The very real threat, is what you've already mentioned: the protesters simply losing momentum. Mubarak right now is trying to wait it out, and if he survives this for long enough, the protesters will go home, or enough will go home that the police will be able to handle what is left.

[Роберт]

Military crackdown is definitely unlikely.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ja ... s-no-force

"The presence of the army in the streets is for your sake and to ensure your safety and wellbeing. The armed forces will not resort to use of force against our great people." It referred to the "legitimate demands of honourable citizens".

[JonScholar]

It seems that Mubarak has effectively lost the support of his military. While admitting that it's too soon to know for absolute sure. My guess is that Mubarak will be sharing drinks with his buddies in Riyadh by the end of the week. What is happening in Egypt is truly spectacular. The protests are getting larger, and there doesn't seem to be any real means by which he can control this situation any longer. There are already signs of the government trying to negotiate with the opposition, but I doubt they'll settle for anything less than Mubarak's resignation.

[Chewbaccawacca]

I'm inclined to agree with that sentiment. The people of Egypt have so far disregarded Mubaraks attempt at placating them with the dissolving of his government. It seems that nothing short of his removal from office will end the protests.

As has been pointed out, the military isn't likely to "crack down" on the populace. For they are indeed the very countrymen it is the army's duty to protect.

In addition, I find it just as unlikely that the citizens will back down due to apathy and eventual disinterest.
The recent activity isn't like the riots in Egypts recent past, this is not economics so much as political freedom. They're already riled up, I think it will continue until the pot boils over.

Whether or not it will be for the better in the long run remains to be seen. After all, from what I've read Mubarak isn't exactly the worst leader they could have. If it weren't for the lack of political/religious impartiality I believe he would be looked upon favorably by the people in that part of the world.

But then, I don't live there, so perhaps not.

[Greyarcher]

Excellent, excellent. I was wondering to what degree Mubarak had the military in his pocket--since he did hold power for several decades--but it looks like things weren't that bad.

[Dream]

Elbaradei reckons democracy is necessary for a peaceful future in Egypt, with particular reference to Israel. Refers to Muslim Brotherhood potential as "true fiction", and dismisses out of hand US and British positions on the crisis. Does not rule out taking power in forseeable future.

[sourmìlk]

A lot of you seem to be making the assumption that the replacement government will likely be better, perhaps even democratic.

My dad, as usual, has a very cynical interpretation of events in his blog.

Essentially, he says that the power vacuum is likely the draw in another militant group that won't be nearly as friendly to the US and Israel as Mubarak.

[The Reaper]

The internet doesn't like not being in egypt, so its evolving.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/ ... fully.html

[Dream]

I wonder, idly, if cutting digital communication has ensured that people continue to venture out into the streets to stay in touch with one another. Perhaps if the internet and phones were still running, some proportion of the demonstrators would have dispersed by now, content to watch events unfold from afar.

[Chewbaccawacca]

I wonder, idly, if cutting digital communication has ensured that people continue to venture out into the streets to stay in touch with one another. Perhaps if the internet and phones were still running, some proportion of the demonstrators would have dispersed by now, content to watch events unfold from afar.

That seems possible. Though I know if I were there I personally, I wouldn't be able to stand staying at home. I'd at least want to be out there seeing it happen first hand even if I weren't an "active" participant.

[sourmìlk]

I wonder, idly, if cutting digital communication has ensured that people continue to venture out into the streets to stay in touch with one another. Perhaps if the internet and phones were still running, some proportion of the demonstrators would have dispersed by now, content to watch events unfold from afar.

This is an interesting observation. If I were in that situation I'm pretty sure I'd be motivated to actively protest if the internet is down.

There was another thread (or maybe it was this one) with a suggestion that I liked: point a few communication satellites at Egypt and give them all free WiFi.

[Iulus Cofield]

A lot of you seem to be making the assumption that the replacement government will likely be better, perhaps even democratic.

My dad, as usual, has a very cynical interpretation of events in his blog.

Essentially, he says that the power vacuum is likely the draw in another militant group that won't be nearly as friendly to the US and Israel as Mubarak.

No offense to your dad, but I very much doubt our primary concern should be the (hopefully) new Egypt will be as friendly to the US or Israel. I mean, we're talking about people trying to oust a dictator, not the balance of power in the region. Hmmm, speaking of balance of power, is anyone eerily reminded of Europe in the 19th century? Revolutions spreading from country to country, politicians foremost concerned with staying in power, secondmost with maintaining the balance of power in the region. Violent times ahead, perhaps, but if the situation remains analogous then there may also be a much more liberal, secular, and prosperous Middle East in the distant future. Certainly something worth dreaming for.

The internet doesn't like not being in egypt, so its evolving.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/ ... fully.html

I had heard about this service, but I had no idea Google thought it up and implemented it over the weekend.