Has anyone seen the Kenneth Cole tweet about the protests? Guaranteed to get them some hits despite its poor taste? I'm on my phone or I would post it. It was on the guardian feed.A people's Revolution
- Thread starter Avatar
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Has anyone seen the Kenneth Cole tweet about the protests? Guaranteed to get them some hits despite its poor taste? I'm on my phone or I would post it. It was on the guardian feed.not really.. but people including me are scared of complete anarchy
Millions are in uproar in #Cairo. Rumor is they heard our new spring collection is now available online at Shop Kenneth Cole New York and Kenneth Cole Reaction - Kenneth Cole Official Site. -KC
Lame
The brother hood has no chance in hell of wining an election in Egypt. They are less supported than you think. They will remain in the minority if democracy prevails.
Maybe the promised match on the palace after prayers latter today will end the stand off once and for all.
There's no march to the palace tomorrow as far as I understand
And to ease the tension a bit : Just on TV, Qaddafi: " Women should take all their rights whether they're male or female "
CNN saying no LIVE pictures tonight, uncertainty about tomorrows coverage
Gaddafi's pro-LGBT now, top man.
..
^ bs
The most they do is fire in the air to separate them apart
The most they do is fire in the air to separate them apart
Avatar anything big planned tomorrow after Friday prayers?
Interesting. On BBC some of the folks who shook their shoes at Muburak's speech had hinted one might happen if Muburak hadn't left power by Friday afternoon. I'm interested to see how it will pan out.
Mubarak's about to have his money cut off, which would be 900 million for the rest of the year. That means the military will toss him out on his ass.
As far as our credibility...what credibility? We support dictators. We supported Mubarak since 1981. We have no credibility when it comes to freedom and democracy.
We're all words, no action.
I hope you're right. More so, I hope a new democratic regime if one arises in Egypt will be able to maintain stability. MUbarak was quite brutal in his control of the brotherhood- democracies seldom use those measures.
Edit:
Just fount this:
Muslim Publics Divided on Hamas and Hezbollah | Pew Global Attitudes Project
Not sure what's the reputation of the Pew Research Center, but taking these figures at face value the brotherhood could be quite influential in the post-Mubarak era.
I hope you're right. More so, I hope a new democratic regime if one arises in Egypt will be able to maintain stability. MUbarak was quite brutal in his control of the brotherhood- democracies seldom use those measures.
Edit:
Just fount this:
Muslim Publics Divided on Hamas and Hezbollah | Pew Global Attitudes Project
Not sure what's the reputation of the Pew Research Center, but taking these figures at face value the brotherhood could be quite influential in the post-Mubarak era.
Pew have pretty good reputation, and are pretty even handed in how they collate and disseminate their information.
The thing with those stats is, for example in Bangladesh, a question like that would garner probably 70%-75% Good also, But that's because being Muslims, most people look at it as a good thing.
However when you get to the details, and you see people backing off...local papers and NGOs have run surveys to see how supportive people are of Islamic laws, on divorce, crime, social practices...and the support levels drop down into the low teens.
People here are Muslim, proud to be Muslim, and God fearing, but they don't want to give up their lifestyles....I imagine the same to be true for Egypt.
I see what you mean, and I share your hope for Egypt. Still, a comparative view shows that figures for Egypt are considerably higher than in other surveyed Arab states. Anyway, I reckon we are restricted to a guessing game because the reality of decades of dictatorship prevent a clear idea of the magnitude of any political/religious sentiment.
Fair enough comment...Egypt after all gave birth to the concept of Arab Nationalism & Fundamentalist Islam.
Those of you who fear an Islamic government inheriting Egypt:
News from The Associated Press
Who is behind the Egyptian protests? | Robert Dreyfuss | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
And to quote something:
News from The Associated Press
Who is behind the Egyptian protests? | Robert Dreyfuss | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
And to quote something:
Yeah...
If Mubarak refuse to leave the US shouldnt have any other choice but stop giving him money, at least eventually. What the military will do I dont think anyone knows for sure, not even Mubarak.. It's also said the guy has somewhere betwen $40-60 billion.
The Muslim Brotherhood has said they won't have a nominee for president in the possible election or ministers.
Ayatollah Khomeini BEFORE the victory of the revolution (February 11, 1979)
"Personal desire, age, and my health do not allow me to personally have a role in running the country after the fall of the current system." -- Interview with the Associated Press, Paris, November 7, 1978
"I have repeatedly said that neither my desire nor my age nor my position allows me to govern." -- Interview with the United Press, Paris, November 8, 1978
"I don't want to have the power or the government in my hand; I am not interested in personal power." -- Interview with The Guardian newspaper, Paris, November 16, 1978
"I don't want to be the leader of the Islamic Republic; I don't want to have the government or the power in my hands. I only guide the people in selecting the system." -- Interview with an Austrian TV reporter, Paris, November 16, 1978
"It is the Iranian people who have to select their own capable and trustworthy individuals and give them the responsibilities. However, personally, I can't accept any special role or responsibility." -- Interview with Le Journal newspaper, Paris, November 28, 1978
"After the Shah's departure from Iran, I will not become a president nor accept any other leadership role. Just like before, I limit my activities only to guiding and directing the people." -- Interview with Le Monde newspaper, Paris, January 9, 1979
Yeah. I know. I wasnt taking what they said without a grain our several of salt. Just relaying what the muslim brotherhood has told journalists.
Probably the same journalists that they'll gang rape then saw limbs off when they get in.
I found the following piece from Stratfor interesting:
Editor’s Note: The following is an internal STRATFOR document produced to provide high-level guidance to our analysts. This document is not a forecast, but rather a series of guidelines for understanding and evaluating events, as well as suggestions on areas for focus.
Let’s use the Iranian rising of 1979 as a model. It had many elements involved, from Communists, to liberals to moderate Muslims, and of course the radicals. All of them were united in hating the Shah, but not in anything else.
The Western press did not understand the mixture and had its closest ties with the liberals, for the simple reason that they were the most Western and spoke English. For a very long time they thought these liberals were in control of the revolution.
For its part, the intelligence community did not have good sources among the revolutionaries but relied on SAVAK, the Shah’s security service, for intelligence. SAVAK neither understood what was happening, nor was it prepared to tell the CIA. The CIA suspected the major agent was the small Communist Party, because that was the great fear at that time — namely, that the Soviets were engineering a plot to seize Iran and control the Persian Gulf.
Meanwhile, Western human rights groups painted the Shah as a monster and saw this as a popular democratic rising. Western human rights and democracy groups, funded by the U.S. government and others, were standing by to teach people like Bani Sadr to create a representative democracy.
Bani Sadr was the first post-Shah president. He was a moderate Islamist and democrat; he also had no power whatsoever. The people who were controlling the revolution were those around Ayatollah Khomeini, who were used by the liberals as a screen to keep the United States quiet until the final moment came and they seized control.
It is important to understand that the demonstrations were seen as spontaneous, but were actually being carefully orchestrated. It is also important to understand that the real power behind the movement remained opaque to the media and the CIA, because they didn’t speak English and the crowds they organized didn’t speak English, and none of the reporters spoke Farsi (nor did a lot of the intelligence agency people). So when the demonstrations surged, the interviews were with the liberals who were already their sources, and who made themselves appear far more powerful than they were — and who were encouraged to do so by Khomeini’s people.
It was only at the end that Khomeini ran up the Jolly Roger to the West.
Nothing is identical to the past, but Iran taught me never to trust a revolutionary who spoke English; they will tend to be pro-Western. When the masses poured into the streets — and that hasn’t happened in Egypt yet — they were Khomeini supporters who spoke not a word of English. The media kept interviewing their English-speaking sources and the CIA kept up daily liaison meetings with SAVAK — until the day they all grabbed a plane and met up with their money in Europe and the United States. The liberals, those who weren’t executed, also wound up in the United States, teaching at Harvard or driving cabs.
Let’s be very careful on the taxonomy of this rising. The Western human rights groups will do what they can to emphasize its importance, and to build up their contacts with what they will claim are the real leaders of the revolution. The only language these groups share with the identified leaders is English, and the funding for these groups depends on producing these people. And these people really want to turn Egypt into Wisconsin. The one thing I can guarantee is that is not what is going on.
What we have to find out is who is behind this. It could be the military wanting to stage a coup to keep Gamal Mubarak out of power. They would be doing this to preserve the regime, not to overthrow it. They could be using the demonstrations to push their demands and perhaps pressure Hosni Mubarak to leave voluntarily.
The danger is that they would be playing with fire. The demonstrations open the door for the Muslim Brotherhood, which is stronger than others may believe. They might keep the demonstrations going after Hosni leaves, and radicalize the streets to force regime change. It could also be the Muslim Brotherhood organizing quietly. Whoever it is, they are lying low, trying to make themselves look weaker than they are — while letting the liberals undermine the regime, generate anti-Mubarak feeling in the West, and pave the way for whatever it is they are planning.
Our job now is to sort through all the claimants and wannabees of this revolution, and find out who the main powers are. These aren’t spontaneous risings and the ideology of the people in the streets has nothing to do with who will wind up in power. The one thing to be confident of is that liberal reformers are the stalking horse for something else, and that they are being used as always to take the heat and pave the way.
Now, figure out who is really behind the demonstrations and we have a game.
Editor’s Note: The following is an internal STRATFOR document produced to provide high-level guidance to our analysts. This document is not a forecast, but rather a series of guidelines for understanding and evaluating events, as well as suggestions on areas for focus.
Let’s use the Iranian rising of 1979 as a model. It had many elements involved, from Communists, to liberals to moderate Muslims, and of course the radicals. All of them were united in hating the Shah, but not in anything else.
The Western press did not understand the mixture and had its closest ties with the liberals, for the simple reason that they were the most Western and spoke English. For a very long time they thought these liberals were in control of the revolution.
For its part, the intelligence community did not have good sources among the revolutionaries but relied on SAVAK, the Shah’s security service, for intelligence. SAVAK neither understood what was happening, nor was it prepared to tell the CIA. The CIA suspected the major agent was the small Communist Party, because that was the great fear at that time — namely, that the Soviets were engineering a plot to seize Iran and control the Persian Gulf.
Meanwhile, Western human rights groups painted the Shah as a monster and saw this as a popular democratic rising. Western human rights and democracy groups, funded by the U.S. government and others, were standing by to teach people like Bani Sadr to create a representative democracy.
Bani Sadr was the first post-Shah president. He was a moderate Islamist and democrat; he also had no power whatsoever. The people who were controlling the revolution were those around Ayatollah Khomeini, who were used by the liberals as a screen to keep the United States quiet until the final moment came and they seized control.
It is important to understand that the demonstrations were seen as spontaneous, but were actually being carefully orchestrated. It is also important to understand that the real power behind the movement remained opaque to the media and the CIA, because they didn’t speak English and the crowds they organized didn’t speak English, and none of the reporters spoke Farsi (nor did a lot of the intelligence agency people). So when the demonstrations surged, the interviews were with the liberals who were already their sources, and who made themselves appear far more powerful than they were — and who were encouraged to do so by Khomeini’s people.
It was only at the end that Khomeini ran up the Jolly Roger to the West.
Nothing is identical to the past, but Iran taught me never to trust a revolutionary who spoke English; they will tend to be pro-Western. When the masses poured into the streets — and that hasn’t happened in Egypt yet — they were Khomeini supporters who spoke not a word of English. The media kept interviewing their English-speaking sources and the CIA kept up daily liaison meetings with SAVAK — until the day they all grabbed a plane and met up with their money in Europe and the United States. The liberals, those who weren’t executed, also wound up in the United States, teaching at Harvard or driving cabs.
Let’s be very careful on the taxonomy of this rising. The Western human rights groups will do what they can to emphasize its importance, and to build up their contacts with what they will claim are the real leaders of the revolution. The only language these groups share with the identified leaders is English, and the funding for these groups depends on producing these people. And these people really want to turn Egypt into Wisconsin. The one thing I can guarantee is that is not what is going on.
What we have to find out is who is behind this. It could be the military wanting to stage a coup to keep Gamal Mubarak out of power. They would be doing this to preserve the regime, not to overthrow it. They could be using the demonstrations to push their demands and perhaps pressure Hosni Mubarak to leave voluntarily.
The danger is that they would be playing with fire. The demonstrations open the door for the Muslim Brotherhood, which is stronger than others may believe. They might keep the demonstrations going after Hosni leaves, and radicalize the streets to force regime change. It could also be the Muslim Brotherhood organizing quietly. Whoever it is, they are lying low, trying to make themselves look weaker than they are — while letting the liberals undermine the regime, generate anti-Mubarak feeling in the West, and pave the way for whatever it is they are planning.
Our job now is to sort through all the claimants and wannabees of this revolution, and find out who the main powers are. These aren’t spontaneous risings and the ideology of the people in the streets has nothing to do with who will wind up in power. The one thing to be confident of is that liberal reformers are the stalking horse for something else, and that they are being used as always to take the heat and pave the way.
Now, figure out who is really behind the demonstrations and we have a game.
For 30 years they've been led by a dictator. The average age of the population is something like 25? 40% of the population live in poverty? They all just want change, no one knows what will come after, just change? There arent really any stand out candidates? They'll have a democratic election in 6 months? And probably several other points. Of course there's a risk they'll end up with someone they didnt really want at first.
Just got back from tahrir..Probably More than a million protester.. and the fecker won't budge !!
because unfortunately as long as the protests are peaceful, it's no sweat off his back. Sure life stands still...and the economy suffers in the short term, but he knows the protesters will lose momentum before Egypt the country defaults.
Violence = deaths,
deaths = western pressure = resignation.
Violence = deaths,
deaths = western pressure = resignation.
That's the thing Suedesi the best reporting in this case isn't being done by the western media, it is being done by Al-Jazeera.
They aren't only speaking to English or western friendly protesters/activists/leaders.
They aren't only speaking to English or western friendly protesters/activists/leaders.
The protesters have to just go after the fecker, if he doesn't want to leave, kick him out.
Agree. Watching CNN etc is all fine, they run a lot of good stories, and have good reporters who often risk a lot to get those stories etc. But they also very often have a slightly (excuse my shit english) "pre-decided starting point" when telling their story. Last night I watched this guy Piers Morgan on there, he had a discussion about the muslim brotherhood and the question was "how dangerous are they" or something to that effect. So they ARE dangerous, that's for sure, the only question is HOW dangerous..
Too bad they don't have an Ayatollah Khomeini. It's an entirely different dynamic.
If you think the CNN coverage is frustrating(it's not that bad) you should see the Fox News coverage of the uprising
You have to excuse Piers...he's not used to discussing topics that matter, he used to be an editor of two of the leading tabloids in the UK, NOWT and I can't remember the other one.
He then made a name by being a host/judge on equally stupid tv shows...CNN are struggling so brought in this idiot in the hope that he could court controversy and bring them some Primetime Ratings again.
I see the kooks have come out of the woodwork again. Why are the moderators allowing this thread to be hijacked again?
western pressure is already there
violence can lead to martial law
people are still upbeat in the streets. there were/are millions in the streets today