quote:Confirming what a few have reported this evening: in an action unprecedented in Internet history, the Egyptian government appears to have ordered service providers to shut down all international connections to the Internet. Critical European-Asian fiber-optic routes through Egypt appear to be unaffected for now. But every Egyptian provider, every business, bank, Internet cafe, website, school, embassy, and government office that relied on the big four Egyptian ISPs for their Internet connectivity is now cut off from the rest of the world. Link Egypt, Vodafone/Raya, Telecom Egypt, Etisalat Misr, and all their customers and partners are, for the moment, off the air.
At 22:34 UTC (00:34am local time), Renesys observed the virtually simultaneous withdrawal of all routes to Egyptian networks in the Internet's global routing table. Approximately 3,500 individual BGP routes were withdrawn, leaving no valid paths by which the rest of the world could continue to exchange Internet traffic with Egypt's service providers. Virtually all of Egypt's Internet addresses are now unreachable, worldwide.
This is a completely different situation from the modest Internet manipulation that took place in Tunisia, where specific routes were blocked, or Iran, where the Internet stayed up in a rate-limited form designed to make Internet connectivity painfully slow. The Egyptian government's actions tonight have essentially wiped their country from the global map.
What happens when you disconnect a modern economy and 80,000,000 people from the Internet? What will happen tomorrow, on the streets and in the credit markets? This has never happened before, and the unknowns are piling up. We will continue to dig into the event, and will update this story as we learn more. As Friday dawns in Cairo under this unprecedented communications blackout, keep the Egyptian people in your thoughts.
That was so painful to watch. To be fair the State Dept Rep obviously has an official line that he has to stick to, but it was still frustrating as all get out, wanting a substantial response to such relevant questions.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
1. Egypt's Internet move has been compared to Xinjiang in 2009. 2. An interesting piece on AlJazeera (and underscoring, man, our media sucks)
quote:Al Jazeera has been widely hailed for helping enable the revolt in Tunisia with its galvanizing early reports, even as Western-aligned political factions in Lebanon and the West Bank attacked and burned the channel’s offices and vans this week, accusing it of incitement against them. ... “The notion that there is a common struggle across the Arab world is something Al Jazeera helped create,” said Marc Lynch, a professor of Middle East Studies at George Washington University who has written extensively on the Arab news media. “They did not cause these events, but it’s almost impossible to imagine all this happening without Al Jazeera.”
posted
Yeah, we need a Radio Free Middle East for the digital age. I don't think Wi-fi tech is quite there yet.
My question is: What is the United States' response? Does Obama, who went to Egypt in the name of peace and whatever, come out and denounce the uprisings that he more or less said he supported before? Or does he speak in favor of Mubarak, who is technically our ally?
Tricky situation. This is like a repeat of the crap the US used to pull in the 60s and 70s with supporting oppressive regimes (though Mubarak might be comparable milder) because of regional alliances rather than supporting democracies. But there's also the question of what best serves US interests. In a lot of Middle Eastern countries, taking down our oppressive ally in the leadership would likely mean a democratically elected (though I can't imagine all of them would even have elections) Islamic gov't that hated us even more. So what do we do when democracy, the thing we champion, produces negative results for us as a nation?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good points by Lyrhawn. I am concerned that the American mainstream media keeps referring to the protests and riots in Egypt as being "pro-democracy," which leads many Americans to be sympathetic with them. But it may very well be that what is really going on is a bid by Islamic clerics to goad the population into overthrowing the predominantly secular government of Hosni Mubarak, so Egypt can be taken over by the rule of Islamic fundamentalists.
If the forces of religious despotism win in Egypt, look for a similar "revolution" to take place in Turkey.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe that America is called to lead the cause of freedom in a new century. I believe that millions in the Middle East plead in silence for their liberty. I believe that given the chance, they will embrace the most honorable form of government ever devised by man. I believe all these things because freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is the Almighty God's gift to every man and woman in this world, except for Egyptians. ... This young century will be liberty's century. By promoting liberty abroad, we will build a safer world. By encouraging liberty at home, we will build a more hopeful America. Like generations before us, we have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom. This is the everlasting dream of America ... unless it becomes kinda inconvenient. In which case, screw freedom.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Good points by Lyrhawn. I am concerned that the American mainstream media keeps referring to the protests and riots in Egypt as being "pro-democracy," which leads many Americans to be sympathetic with them. But it may very well be that what is really going on is a bid by Islamic clerics to goad the population into overthrowing the predominantly secular government of Hosni Mubarak, so Egypt can be taken over by the rule of Islamic fundamentalists.
If the forces of religious despotism win in Egypt, look for a similar "revolution" to take place in Turkey.
And yet Ron, in a democracy, if that's the government they want, that's the government they should be allowed to have.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, there's that. I remember what Bush did after urging Palestinians to hold elections. After months of saying "democracy, democracy, democracy," they elected Hamas, and he immediately denounced the election, Hamas, and said that Hamas would not be recognized as the legitimate government. We're all for democracy, until we don't like the results.
That's the basis of my conundrum with US foreign policy in this case. Are we really for democracy everywhere even when the results are overwhelmingly likely to make the situation worse for us?
fugu's link was interesting, but I wonder how Copts in general feel about demcoracy in Egypt. It wasn't exactly a picnic when MUbarak wasn't helping them, but will it be any better if a regime unfriendly to Copts is voted into power? In what ways do they hope to see their situation improve when Mubarak is gone and the veneer of secularism goes with him?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Mubarak himself is not out of the picture mind, he's just stating that he is willing to restructure the government. What sort of government that will be is anybody's guess.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That's the basis of my conundrum with US foreign policy in this case. Are we really for democracy everywhere even when the results are overwhelmingly likely to make the situation worse for us?
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Consider these words
quote:To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
Propping up the wrong side of history right up until it falls has consequences.
Consider:
quote:It will be remembered (when you ask now and later why they hate us), that Mubrak’s repression took place with the full support of both parties in the US and the Obama administration. Do you know now why whenever a US official, any US official, ever utter the word “democracy”, Arabs get a strong urge to throw up? In Iran, the US covertly smuggled those cute camera pens for demonstrators. They were not cute enough for the Egyptian people.
posted
That's not entirely accurate. Don't get me wrong, we've sent billions to prop Mubarak up, but our support for him hasn't been 100%. Obama has spent the last two years telling Mubarak every chance he got that Mubarak needed to increase the speed of introducing reforms and open the political process more. He pushed every time they were in the same room, and he pushed through the State Department.
Do I think that means we're the good guys? No, not really. But he certainly didn't turn a blind eye.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Talk is cheap. (Billions of dollars aren't)
Hell, every time a US president travels to China they go through the empty ritual of speaking about human rights, but no one really thinks it means squat.
Example:
quote:Dr. ElBaradei: “I am pretty sure that any freely and fairly elected government in Egypt will be a moderate one, but America is really pushing Egypt and pushing the whole Arab world into radicalization with this inept policy of supporting repression.”
(It's a telling change that in the past, protesters in Tiananmen Square would make copies of the Statue of Liberty while now they're basically saying, "get out of the way")
posted
The founders of democracy in the USA qualified the idea of democracy with the need for voters to be literate and informed. Otherwise there is anarchy. I would question whether a population brainwashed by Islamic fundamentalist extremists qualifies as literate and informed in any way other than "technically."
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The founders of democracy in the USA qualified the idea of democracy with the need for voters to be literate and informed. Otherwise there is anarchy. I would question whether a population brainwashed by Islamic fundamentalist extremists qualifies as literate and informed in any way other than "technically."
They also wouldn't have thought that it was any of our business how Egypt goes about forming its government, so long as they don't interfere with us.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that the largest opposition group in Egypt as well as throughout the Muslim world--The Society of Muslim Brothers--while not itself on the U.S. State Department's Terrorist Organizations List, nonetheless is credited with spawning Hammas and Al Qaeda (though Al Qaeda has denounced the MB for its advocacy of non-violence). It's professed goal is to turn away from "modernism and reformism" and overthrow secular governments in Arab states, and establish an Islamic state, ruled by the Qur'an and Sunnah.
The Muslim Brotherhood is banned in Egypt. It's candidates for office get around the ban by running as Independents, according to Wikipedia. It is described as "an Islamist transnational movement and the largest political opposition organization in many Arab states." It is also said to be "the world's oldest and largest Islamic political group," and the "world's most influential Islamist movement." Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood
President Obama has placed himself in a difficult position by expressing support for the rioters in Cairo, despite the fact that the administration of Hosni Mubarak has long been an ally of the USA.
[ January 29, 2011, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The founders of democracy in the USA qualified the idea of democracy with the need for voters to be literate and informed. Otherwise there is anarchy. I would question whether a population brainwashed by Islamic fundamentalist extremists qualifies as literate and informed in any way other than "technically."
What else did the founders of democracy in the USA think about voters?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here are a couple of quotes attributed to Thomas Jefferson:
quote:"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." (as cited in Padover, 1939, p. 89)
". . . whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right." (as cited in Padover, 1939, p. 88) Link: http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/winter96/jefferson.html
Another statement attributed to Jefferson: "Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe."
Of course, that latter provision could be perverted, if a specific population is not encouraged to learn to read (as was the case with most slaves in the Old South, and even of their children after Emancipation), and subsequent literacy tests to limit who is allowed to vote.
The same provision is also perverted if the majority of the news media is significantly biased.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still trust their vision and overall wisdom far, far more than I do those of the people who now profess to be "Progressives," who seem to be impatient with the way the U.S. Constitution restrains them, and are eager to circimvent it or revise it wholesale.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, because after all, human slavery's got nothing on Progressives! Or genocidal programs against natives. Or no voting for women. Or property requirements for voting. Or, or, or.
That's the sort of thing I was getting at, by the way, Ron, as a means of highlighting how bizarre your demonization of "Progressives" is when juxtaposed by your reverence for the Founding Fathers. Who, incidentally, I have enormous respect for as well-more than you, since I freely acknowledge their faults and bless `em for their virtues, such as according us their descendents with a Constitution that can be changed. (The horror!)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only people I can think of who are active politically and are actively trying to circumvent the constitution are ... conservatives. They're tea party, in fact.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't confirm this, but apparently the Egyptian National History museum was ransacked by looters. I wonder how many Western curators are checking Ebay right now.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard on NPR this morning that the History Museum was being guarded by bands of volunteer youths who were afraid that looters would destroy things or that nearby fires would consume the museum.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This Economist article did what all the others did not - finally clarify what is going on and, most importantly, what the likely repercussions are.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I can't confirm this, but apparently the Egyptian National History museum was ransacked by looters. I wonder how many Western curators are checking Ebay right now.
posted
Also, apparently, citizens grabbed and apprehended a lot of the city vandals on motorbikes and found most of them were carrying government arms and id's, probably acting as provocateurs. An age-old story!
also, al jazeera has definitely done its job a little too well for mubarak:
posted
Rakeesh and Sam, "progressives" had nothing to do with abolishing slavery--that was the work of religious conservatives. As for the way native Americans were treated, this is decried mainly by people who believe American should stand for and do what is good and right according to the Christian outlook, people who sent missionaries to the tribes to equip them to stand up to abusive government. It is always conservatives who want the Constitution applied to everyone. Classic "Liberals" were actually what we would today call Libertarians, (whom self-proclaimed progressives would regard as ultra-conservative). Modern leftist "progressives" merely hijacked the term "liberal." As for granting the voting franchise to women, it is conservatives who want the rights and principles contained in the Constitution expanded to include everyone, because it is conservatives who believe in empowering the individual and protecting the individual against expansive big government. It is religious conservatives who uphold the principles taught by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (NKJV) This is what has transformed America for the good in the past century and a half. Not socialism, not leftist propaganda.
Conservatism does not in this country refer to resisting change. It only means resisting those changes that are based on wrong theories of government, and protecting what is right and good, such as the proven principles contained in the Bill of Rights, and the economic system of capitalism, which best allows the individual to succeed and improve his lot and even move up in class. (Upward mobility in class is a largely American invention, which we model to the world.) Only modern "liberals" and progressives have ever wanted to set aside the the U.S. Constitution with a total revision that would not put so many barriers in the way of their implementing their unproven (and in many cases already disproven) leftist theories of big, collectivist government.
One way you can tell that left-leaning modern liberals never had anything to do with adding worthwhile amendments to the Constitution, is that it takes a 2/3 majority in Congress, and ratification by a 3/4 majority of states, to amend the Constitution, and modern liberals have never comprised more than about 20% of the population--usually closer to 15%. Conservatives have always outnumbed them about 2:1, and moderates tend to listen to conservatives more than they do to the America-bashing, military-bashing, capitalism-bashing propaganda of liberals.
[ January 30, 2011, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for the way native Americans were treated, this is decried mainly by people who believe American should stand for and do what is good and right according to the Christian outlook, people who sent missionaries to the tribes to equip them to stand up to abusive government.
Congratulations! Your historical fantasy has reached offensively false levels. There's too much wrong with this to even begin, especially given that the tribe conversion efforts mostly impugned upon them that they were lesser beings, like the blacks. But still, in some cases, trainable for service labor.
Wait, that's more than this is worth. Do yourself a favor and shut up about the native americans. Stick to your fantasies about liberals without trivializing the tragedy of an entire race of people for the sake of your fictional narratives.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rakeesh and Sam, "progressives" had nothing to do with abolishing slavery--that was the work of religious conservatives. As for the way native Americans were treated, this is decried mainly by people who believe American should stand for and do what is good and right according to the Christian outlook, people who sent missionaries to the tribes to equip them to stand up to abusive government. It is always conservatives who want the Constitution applied to everyone. Classic "Liberals" were actually what we would today call Libertarians, (whom self-proclaimed progressives would regard as ultra-conservative). Modern leftist "progressives" merely hijacked the term "liberal." As for granting the voting franchise to women, it is conservatives who want the rights and principles contained in the Constitution expanded to include everyone, because it is conservatives who believe in empowering the individual and protecting the individual against expansive big government. It is religious conservatives who uphold the principles taught by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (NKJV) This is what has transformed America for the good in the past century and a half. Not socialism, not leftist propaganda.
Conservatism does not in this country refer to resisting change. It only means resisting those changes that are based on wrong theories of government, and protecting what is right and good, such as the proven principles contained in the Bill of Rights, and the economic system of capitalism, which best allows the individual to succeed and improve his lot and even move up in class. (Upward mobility in class is a largely American invention, which we model to the world.) Only modern "liberals" and progressives have ever wanted to set aside the the U.S. Constitution with a total revision that would not put so many barriers in the way of their implementing their unproven (and in many cases already disproven) leftist theories of big, collectivist government.
One way you can tell that left-leaning modern liberals never had anything to do with adding worthwhile amendments to the Constitution, is that it takes a 2/3 majority in Congress, and ratification by a 3/4 majority of states, to amend the Constitution, and modern liberals have never comprised more than about 20% of the population--usually closer to 15%. Conservatives have always outnumbed them about 2:1, and moderates tend to listen to conservatives more than they do to the America-bashing, military-bashing, capitalism-bashing propaganda of liberals.
EPIC FAIL
REBOOTING HISTORY NOW . . .
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samprimary, as offensive and wrong as Ron's ideas of history are in many places, telling him to shut up is both over the line and counter productive, I think.
Ron,
I want to be very clear on what claims you're making, because you have a history around here of dodging wording later: you're crediting the abolition of slavery to religious conservatives? A strange claim indeed, given how often support for slavery or black inferiority was found in the Bible.
No. The truth, Ron, is more complicated. Abolitionists came from a variety of backgrounds, including MANY New England liberal types. This is a fact, one which any person with a passing knowledge of human slavery in the USA knows. Do you choose to dispute it?
Missionaries were sent to natives to convert them, not help them against the government-which in fact often worked with missionaries. Another fact. Do you want to dispute that specific claim?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I do dispute everything you said. You appear to have been taught a false history. A VERY false history. For one thing, the "liberals" of nearly two centuries ago were not modern liberals, they were what today would be called libertarians. Secondly, 90% of the population nearly two centuries ago was religious in profession.
You are also making things up when you say I have a history of "dodging wording later." That is your mistaken interpretation. You cannot and have never been able to refute what I actually say, so you have to mischaracterize what I say, and then falsely claim victory later, despite the fact that I have answered your arguments--at least the ones that were not too silly to dignify with a response.
Yes, it is true that SOME SOUTHERN SLAVEHOLDERS tried to wrest the Bible to give support to slavery. That just shows the strong hold the Bible had over the populace, that they thought it was necessary to try that. (The Bible used to be taught in public schools.) BUT IT WAS RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES WHO INTERPRETED THE BIBLE CORRECTLY, IN CONTEXT, WHO DEMOLISHED THOSE FALSE CLAIMS and laid the true foundation for the Abolitionist movement--which had its greatest strength in churches, not on the streets. It is no coincidence that nearly all the "stops" on the Underground Railroad were in the homes of fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians, many of them Seventh-day Adventists. For that reason, the lady known as "Sojourner Truth," who repeatedly conducted escaping individuals and families along the Underground Railroad, remained a friend of Adventists all her life, sometimes speaking at Adventist "Camp Meetings," even though she herself never joined the church.
As for what missionaries taught the Indians, again you are ignorant of history. Missionaries are the ones who teach natives to read and write, modern methods of agriculture, and other skills valuable for coping with modern society. In some primitive communities where there was no written language, missionaries created them. Missionaries established virtually all the hospitals and treatment clinics in third world countries, as well as schools and colleges and universities. They did not just try to "convert the natives." What a biased, disparaging, anti-religous thing to say! Virtually all the natives of sub-Saharan Africa were taught to read and write by missionaries, and the same is true of South and Central America, as well as all around the world. If it weren't for missionaries siding with the natives, their cultures would have been overwhelmed and subsumed, probably completely wiped out.
There was a movie out some time ago (The Mission) which depicted in somewhat romanticized fashion the faithfulness of some Catholic missionaries, who stood by the natives even against the political intriguing of their own church when it conspired with colonial governments to exploit the natives.
Go back a hundred years ago, and the word "missionary" had a triple halo around it in the minds of most people. Only in recent times have "Missionary Colleges" changed their names to place-name universities.
I can only shake my head and lament at the utter ruin that is modern eduction, that you don't even know about real history.
By the way, Sam, I am one-eighth native American (Cherokee) myself, so don't presume to tell me to shut up about such matters. I am far better informed than you are about them.
[ January 30, 2011, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
