From Leading the Egyptian Revolution to Making Minimum Wage in San Francisco
priceonomics.com
priceonomics.com
"As the drums of war sounded in America, Egyptians believed that we could not accept a foreign invasion of another Arab country. We were furious that our government, which was allied with the United States, allowed American and British warships to sail through the Suez Canal toward Iraq. I had an intuition that if the United States attacked Iraq, Egyptians would take to the streets."
There is so much irony in that paragraph combined with the title it is hard to know where to begin.
And what became of Egypt is also really not quite what he intended.
Sam Harris says it best:
> As I tried to make clear on Maher’s show, what we need is honest talk about the link between belief and behavior. And no one is suffering the consequences of what Muslim “extremists” believe more than other Muslims are. The civil war between Sunni and Shia, the murder of apostates, the oppression of women—these evils have nothing to do with U.S. bombs or Israeli settlements. Yes, the war in Iraq was a catastrophe—just as Affleck and Kristof suggest. But take a moment to appreciate how bleak it is to admit that the world would be better off if we had left Saddam Hussein in power. Here was one of the most evil men who ever lived, holding an entire country hostage. And yet his tyranny was also preventing a religious war between Shia and Sunni, the massacre of Christians, and other sectarian horrors. To say that we should have left Saddam Hussein alone says some very depressing things about the Muslim world.
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/can-liberalism-be-saved-...
But they didn't. There is a lot of stuff wrong - from my perspective - in the Arab world, and nobody with actual power from the Arab world seems to actually want to do much about it. So we end with these half-hearted revolutions which are more regime changes than actual fundamental changes and if they are fundamental changes they tend to be for the worse rather than for the better. It's a real pity.
As for the Iraq war, Saddam and his sons - and all those supporting the regime - were complete assholes. And I would have supported regime change per-se for that reason alone, but that wasn't what was sold. Because if we did support regime change for those reasons then there would be a long waiting list of other regimes that would deserve to be 'fixed' long before we'd get to Saddam (in spite of all the crimes they were engaged in the world is full of such trash, they were not the exception, in spite of the media spotlight being very much on Iraq).
What's need in the Middle East is a home grown secular, scientific revolution and rejection of Islam. Without that, nothing is possible there and all revolutions and evolutions will fail. The Imperialists will continue their half ass crusade to civilize the natives... while only causing havoc and destruction.
I see change coming only through the gradual replacement of generations. As old people die, new people get born and they experience the world in a new way so they form new mentalities. I think the internet and mobile phones have a lot to do with it.
Don't think the technology automatically brings the messages you like, ISIS uses the very internet and mobile phones for their purposes. They even established the new "internet centers" in the areas they took over.
In the USA and Canada it is still very much a popular thing, no idea how long it will take to get to the point where people realize they're being had.
Religion can have positive effects in people's lives, but at the same time organized religion is used for vote marshalling and politics, it's just another power structure and a business to boot. This goes for most religions, not just for Christianity.
Personally I'd be fine with an englightened version of Islam, one that formally recognized the rights of women and that did away with the most antiquated and damaging aspects of the religion. Of course a push to effect that would result in even harsher pushback from the fanatics, for fear that such a strategy might succeed.
>Religion can have positive effects in people's lives, but at the same time organized religion is used for vote marshalling and politics, it's just another power structure and a business to boot. This goes for most religions, not just for Christianity.
The relationship between the House of Saud and the Wahabbist establishment in Saudi Arabia demonstrates this. It's absolutely chilling stuff that is woefully unexamined for its importance to the making of the modern world.
Catholic Africa is growing and will possibly step in to replace the West after it goes majority Islamic.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-33256561
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-...
And Christianity does not have the same problems with science, humanism, and atheism that Islam does.
I lived through such a revolution in 1989, in Eastern Europe. It's not just a problem for Arabs. I think revolutions are usually hijacked wherever they happen.
It takes the blood of patriots to fuel the fire of democracy, not America's endless military industrial complex coffers.
But like--- does the Arab world even have a culture of democracy? I think if we waited for that revolution to happen, we would still be waiting. Has the arab spring produced democratic results? The answer is mostly no--- they've just traded old regimes for civil wars among new regimes. Tunisia is a happy exception. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/01/daily-c...
I think a lot of people in the Arab world certainly do want democracy, probably a majority of them in many countries, but the problem is that once a majority bloc attains power they exercise it autocratically. Look at how Mohamed Morsi behaved in power in Egypt, or how Erdogan uses the police and courts to silence and persecute the opposition in Turkey. Look at Al-Maliki's lurch towards sectarianism [1] in Iraq that created the conditions for the rise of ISIS. As a firm believer in democracy, it's pretty disheartening.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouri_al-Maliki#Sunni_friction
Interesting discussion about the Arab Spring, particularly in Egypt, on /r/eli5 (of all places): https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4co5py/e...
The fact that Salafists are actually pretty well allied with Sisi's inner circle is especially disturbing.
So, let's bomb the shit out of those people and kill more of them. And everyone else should chip in as well.
It's not about rulers being cruel. A ruler being cruel to his people doesn't give another foreign power the right to come in and depose that leader by force. An egalitarian anyone would support that concept.
In any case, the Iraq invasion wasn't because Saddam was cruel - although that's definitely the ret-conned justification given that all the other reasons for the invasion turned out to be invalid.
And if being cruel to your people is the yardstick by which you choose to invade other countries, how come the US isn't invading North Korea? Oh that's right, because they don't have oil, there's no family vendetta between the leaders of those countries, there's no visceral national tragedy recently that would allow the government to ride on the back of it and go to war on flimsy pretenses, and lastly because a war with North Korea would most likely draw in China, and that's a sleeping dragon the US would rather let lie.
The semblance of democracy in Iraq has come at the cost of over a hundred thousand lives. I'm not sure how many Iraqis feel they are better off.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect
The irony is more apparent when you read further in the article that the author received support from the very same U.S. for his activity of making a democratic revolution. However he was just an "activist" and Muslim Brotherhood the "political force." Which developed exactly how it sounds, as he also describes.
My other comment here contains some more interesting quotes.
An activist's job is to point out things that are wrong. It is true that often, removing an individual or a group from power does not necessarily result in a better leader, but it is something that leaders fear happening to them.
"I negotiated agreements between activists and political groups like the Muslim Brotherhood."
Note also that the Muslim Brotherhood was actively "the choice" of the U.S. at the time of the revolution. Now I'll quote the author once again as he describes the power struggle between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood:
"The election represented Egyptian politics since the revolution: a power struggle between military dictators and religious fanatics. And the Muslim Brotherhood—whose religiosity, I believe, is a trojan horse for pure political ambition—treated activists just as harshly as the military."
I personally don't believe the religion of Muslim Brotherhood is "a trojan horse," it's where they get the the goals of their political activity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood
"The Brotherhood's English language website describes the principles of the Muslim Brotherhood as including firstly the introduction of the Islamic Sharia as "the basis for controlling the affairs of state and society" and secondly, work to unify "Islamic countries and states, mainly among the Arab states, and liberating them from foreign imperialism""
Activists and journalists should investigate and bring to light the misdeeds of everyone including Morsi and the MB, but it is incredulous at this point to believe that the real problem with Egypt is not the corrupt elite of the military, crony businesses and the state apparatus. It wasn't the Muslim brotherhood, the left, or the liberals who were firing on crowds from helicopters, killing thousands in the streets. It was the military.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood
"as of 2015" Muslim Brotherhood "is considered a terrorist organization by the governments of Bahrain,[7][8] Egypt, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates.[9][10][11][12]"
But in 2011 the U.S. politicians and operatives called them "our guys" who "won" in Egypt.
Recently, however:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/223...
"32) On May 27, 2015, a group of 159 Muslim Brotherhood-associated scholars from 35 nations announced the publication of a document endorsing violence in Egypt in response to a “war against Islam's principles.”."
"It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) the Muslim Brotherhood meets the criteria for designation as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189); and
(2) the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, should exercise the Secretary of State’s statutory authority by designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization."
The negative of course does not mean justifying any actions of the MB or other groups.
"Initial reports by the Egyptian Health Ministry said 235 protesters, three journalists and 43 policemen died."
Given that the police were certainly equipped with the vests, helms and shields, the number of victims among the police is telling. Think how it would look like in the U.S. if 43 policemen were killed on duty. In Waco, 76 "civilians" were killed, how many casualties were policemen, I think zero?
"In addition, there have been a number of attacks on police stations around the country. Interior Minister Mohamed Ibrahim put the number of stations attacked at 21. Angry mobs reportedly also attacked dozens of Christian properties.[20]"
It's a sad story, but much more multifaceted than you present it.
2. In case of an attack on a police station or church, what should be the correct response: a) arrest and prosecute those involved by presenting evidence in an open court, or b) fire on protestors elsewhere against a coup because you think some have the same sympathies as those involved in the said attack?
The reason why feel I dejected by your line of thinking is that it makes it really easy to justify violence. Daesh can use the same line of reasoning to target those it deems part of the Egyptian state, including the opposition liberals and Muslim Brotherhood for being part of the mass that is not violent towards the state. Trump rallies the epicenter of violence and racism, BLM should be justified on opening fire on them? Since BLM opposed to police actions and hence the rule of law, the Fraternal Orders of Police and the like should open fire on them.
2. It was obviously not "fire on the protesters elsewhere" but the "fire to protect yourself (or the innocent people) from the attack." Again, at least 43 policemen were killed.
The rest of the post tries to introduce logical fallacies to win the argument. We discussed the specific case.
There are thousands of times when this hasn't been true, from Tiananmen Square to Kent State to the Plaza de las Tres Culturas to, yes, Rabaa. The government always claims in these situations that the police were acting in self-defense but it is rarely true (because people are rarely suicidal).
You say you want to discuss "the specific case" but present no actual evidence from Rabaa. Here's what Human Rights Watch has to say (not a perfect source of course but a lot better than the military regime's health ministry):
> The systematic and widespread killing of at least 1,150 demonstrators by Egyptian security forces in July and August 2013 probably amounts to crimes against humanity... In the August 14 dispersal of the Rab’a al-Adawiya sit-in alone, security forces, following a plan that envisioned several thousand deaths, killed a minimum of 817 people and more likely at least 1,000.
> The 188-page report, “All According to Plan: The Rab’a Massacre and Mass Killings of Protesters in Egypt,” documents the way the Egyptian police and army methodically opened fire with live ammunition on crowds of demonstrators opposed to the military’s July 3 ouster of Mohamed Morsy, Egypt’s first elected civilian president, at six demonstrations between July 5 and August 17, 2013. While there is also evidence that some protesters used firearms during several of these demonstrations, Human Rights Watch was able to confirm their use in only a few instances, which do not justify the grossly disproportionate and premeditated lethal attacks on overwhelmingly peaceful protesters.
(https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/12/egypt-raba-killings-like...)
And, look, nobody can stop you from issuing tissue-thin justifications for political massacres and then crying "logical fallacy" when somebody draws out the implications for you, but it doesn't come off very well.
http://dilbert.com/strip/2016-03-27
The Egyptian National Council for Human Rights considers HRW report biased, and they state why:
http://www.nchregypt.org/index.php/en/media-center/news/1427...
"The author of the Human Rights Watch report has intentionally disregarded one of the fundamental testimonies from the reporter Maged Atef about the murder of one of the Police officers after which the exchange of fires started. However, the report, in an obvious bias stand, has taken into account this testimony in more than twenty parts of it related to other happenings which do not condemn the Muslim Brotherhood."
"In addition, the author of the report did not mention any of the human rights violations committed by the management of the sit-in, including cases of kidnapping and torture, as well as cases of using the persons who were participating in the sit-in as human shields and detaining them in the sit-in."
I'm not saying I agree either only with NCHR or HRW. But I'm claiming that the categorization you promote is biased, especially because you don't explain how it is possible to have so many victims among the police unless they were killed by the armed opponents, which, if the later were shooting from the mass, obviously disregarded the lives of the people around them too.
> On his return to Cairo in December 2008, the activist told US diplomats that an alliance of opposition groups had drawn up a plan to overthrow President Hosni Mubarak and install a democratic government in 2011.
> The US government has previously been a supporter of Mr Mubarak’s regime. But the leaked documents show the extent to which America was offering support to pro-democracy activists in Egypt while publicly praising Mr Mubarak as an important ally in the Middle East.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianoce...
> (C) Summary and comment: On December 23, April 6 activist xxxxxxxxxxxx expressed satisfaction with his participation in the December 3-5 "Alliance of Youth Movements Summit," and with his subsequent meetings with USG officials, on Capitol Hill, and with think tanks. He described how State Security (SSIS) detained him at the Cairo airport upon his return and confiscated his notes for his summit presentation calling for democratic change in Egypt, and his schedule for his Congressional meetings.
> xxxxxxxxxxxx contended that the GOE will never undertake significant reform, and therefore, Egyptians need to replace the current regime with a parliamentary democracy. He alleged that several opposition parties and movements have accepted an unwritten plan for democratic transition by 2011; we are doubtful of this claim.*
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianoce...
EDIT: Reformatted on request.
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2008/11...
"Facebook, Google, YouTube, MTV, Howcast, Columbia Law School and the U.S. Department of State Convene the Alliance of Youth Movements Summit
Dec. 3-5 Summit in New York to Bring Together Global Youth Groups, Tech Experts to Find Best Ways to Use Digital Media to Promote Freedom and Justice, Counter Violence, Extremism and Oppression"
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/oct/130503.htm
"Sponsored by the U.S. Department of State, Facebook, Hi5, Google, MySpace, Gen Next, Howcast Media, MTV, PepsiCo, Mobile Behavior, Univisión, Interactive Media, Inc., Causecast.org, WordPress.com, Edelman, and YouTube, the event will convene individuals, government officials, academics, and private and public sector leaders from around the world October 14-16, 2009, to explore ways to advance grassroots movements seeking positive social change through 21st century technology and tools."
Also, a brutal reminder about the devastating personal costs that we so often forget about.
As a climate activist here in the US I had it easy, but still so much of this resonates.
Completely abandoned revolution, we continue to financially support the military dictatorship.
Go read Obama's Cairo speech and laugh at what a total crock of shit it is, and how by extension Obama is a bought and paid for clown.
Meanwhile the Western press does what it can to demonize the muslin brotherhood while white washing the current junta.
And why? Because Egypt is the most populous ME country, borders Israel, and has the Suez canal, it is deemed strategically too important by our elite to allow self rule.
Fuck the American empire, responsible for the genocidal killings of millions since 2001
That's not what's going on.
>And why? Because Egypt...borders Israel, and has the Suez canal, it is deemed strategically too important
This is. US uses Egypt to project military power in the region.
>responsible for the genocidal killings of millions since 2001
The US did not apply the extreme repression required to keep the religious sects in the region from killing each other. That doesn't mean the US is genocidal, it means the Middle East is.
Libya, Syria are much better examples of mishandling a situation. Egypt is fine from geopolitical point of view.
The world is a better place with America Policing, its a thankless job. You are blamed for showing up (Iraq) and you are blamed for not showing up (Syria).
edit: I actually agree with lot of Obama's foreign policy of his second term, where he pivoted to Asia and left the dumpster fire called Middle East to the real stake holders, Turks, Saudis, Iranians and Europeans.