Ok, I initially thought you meant that the protesters were in no way peaceful which had me confused.

The protesters have been more peaceful that the pro-govt supporters. The protesters had been there for 3 days without violence. Today violence erupted when the pro-govt (military police) started to show force.

Any news on the gunfire they've been hearing?

I Wear Pants;662782 wrote:Any news on the gunfire they've been hearing?

There were clashes, with injuries and it is dawn now, with apparent anti-government protesters moving back in.
Friend has been watching al Jazeera online.
http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/

Update, apparently 5 dead from the night gunfire.

Yeah, shit is about to hit the fan. This is worse than it was last Friday.

I Wear Pants;662782 wrote:Any news on the gunfire they've been hearing?

One report.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/02/chaos-cairo-mubarak-backers-opponents-clash/

The situation is quite dangerous. Civilians are now fighting each other with basically sticks and stones. Civil war on the military scale is now a possibility. The military has so far remained neutral. But we all know that the military is made up of the people. So far they have kept their politics on the down low. Political hotheads on both sides are fomenting trouble. The situation is spiraling out of control. If Mubarak resigns the situation would diffuse. He has refused to do so. Now his supporters have entered the fray fomenting violence. No coincidence.

If the military sides with the anti-government protesters Mubarak would resign. If they side with Mubarak there would be a short violent put down of the rebellious protesters. If the military splits it will bring civil war to Egypt. Personally I believe that many of the lower ranks of the Egyptian military sympathize with the opposition. Many of the upper ranks are with the government. How this situation plays out depends on the Egyptian military.

majorspark;662833 wrote:One report.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/02/chaos-cairo-mubarak-backers-opponents-clash/

The situation is quite dangerous. Civilians are now fighting each other with basically sticks and stones. Civil war on the military scale is now a possibility. The military has so far remained neutral. But we all know that the military is made up of the people. So far they have kept their politics on the down low. Political hotheads on both sides are fomenting trouble. The situation is spiraling out of control. If Mubarak resigns the situation would diffuse. He has refused to do so. Now his supporters have entered the fray fomenting violence. No coincidence.

If the military sides with the anti-government protesters Mubarak would resign. If they side with Mubarak there would be a short violent put down of the rebellious protesters. If the military splits it will bring civil war to Egypt. Personally I believe that many of the lower ranks of the Egyptian military sympathize with the opposition. Many of the upper ranks are with the government. How this situation plays out depends on the Egyptian military.

The violence has been escalating ever since the Mabarak supporters have shown up. I wouldn't say the protesters are rebellious, they have been quite peaceful as demonstraters.

majorspark;662833 wrote:One report.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/02/chaos-cairo-mubarak-backers-opponents-clash/

The situation is quite dangerous. Civilians are now fighting each other with basically sticks and stones. Civil war on the military scale is now a possibility. The military has so far remained neutral. But we all know that the military is made up of the people. So far they have kept their politics on the down low. Political hotheads on both sides are fomenting trouble. The situation is spiraling out of control. If Mubarak resigns the situation would diffuse. He has refused to do so. Now his supporters have entered the fray fomenting violence. No coincidence.

If the military sides with the anti-government protesters Mubarak would resign. If they side with Mubarak there would be a short violent put down of the rebellious protesters. If the military splits it will bring civil war to Egypt. Personally I believe that many of the lower ranks of the Egyptian military sympathize with the opposition. Many of the upper ranks are with the government. How this situation plays out depends on the Egyptian military.

Al Jazeera reported the same thing.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/201122124446797789.html
Live video, which no other network has right now:
http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/

dwccrew;662834 wrote:The violence has been escalating ever since the Mabarak supporters have shown up. I wouldn't say the protesters are rebellious, they have been quite peaceful as demonstraters.

Rebellion is not a bad word if it is against an unjust power. Even if violence is a necessity to over throw such a power. Our founders were rebels. Also rebellion does not equal violence. In the situation in Egypt the violence IMO was initiated by the government in an attempt to put the rebellion down. Escalated by sending their supporters in to foment trouble. Like I said it is no coincidence these government supporters arrived on the scene after Mubarak's speech.

majorspark;662843 wrote:Rebellion is not a bad word if it is against an unjust power. Even if violence is a necessity to over throw such a power. Our founders were rebels. Also rebellion does not equal violence. In the situation in Egypt the violence IMO was initiated by the government in an attempt to put the rebellion down. Escalated by sending their supporters in to foment trouble. Like I said it is no coincidence these government supporters arrived on the scene after Mubarak's speech.

I never said it was a bad word or that it wasn't a neccesity to overthrow an unjust dictator, my point was these people didn't start the violence. While I agree, rebellion doesn't equate to violence, I may have misinterpreted your post. I thought you were insinuating that the violence would subside if Mubarak resigned because the anti-gov't protesters were being violent to force him into resignation.

dwccrew;662846 wrote:I never said it was a bad word or that it wasn't a neccesity to overthrow an unjust dictator, my point was these people didn't start the violence. While I agree, rebellion doesn't equate to violence, I may have misinterpreted your post. I thought you were insinuating that the violence would subside if Mubarak resigned because the anti-gov't protesters were being violent to force him into resignation.

Yes you misinterpreted my post. I understand our governments past support of the Mubarak regime in Egypt. It was well intended. It cost us a lot of money. It is time for us to step back and let the Egyptians plow their own field. If true democracy is being born in Egypt let it be. Give it a chance. Let them choose their own path. If they choose to be trouble making Islamic nutbags and stir up war with Israel or mess with the Suez Canal, we will deal with it. With force if necessary.

Maybe they will choose to be a peaceful government and allow their people just freedoms. I hope any new government will allow the entrepreneurial spirit to flourish with the Egyptian people. I hope it will give them true freedom to make their own way. They have many resources for freedom and capitalism to flourish if the state allows it.

I do not trust the muslim brotherhood. But I say let the Egyptian people select their rulers. We have the power deal with them if they choose the wrong path. At this point I side with the anti-government protesters. Time will tell if they seek true freedom. If they seek equal opportunity to put food on their table. If they seek freedom to allow the lowest among them to prosper and become great. I hope that is what this revolution is about. If it is not God help the Egyptian people. It will not end well for them.

Obama Doctrine is failing in the Middle East … take a bow Obama
In addition to that failure let add the following list
Healthcare
Budget
Jobs
Domestic oil policies
Banking industry
Housing industry
China
Iran
Russia
Afghanistan
Europe
North Korea
Obama Legacy …Lost the Suez Canal and the Middle East Allies …. take another bow Public Servant

Belly35;662901 wrote:Obama Doctrine is failing in the Middle East … take a bow Obama
In addition to that failure let add the following list
Healthcare
Budget
Jobs
Domestic oil policies
Banking industry
Housing industry
China
Iran
Russia
Afghanistan
Europe
North Korea
Obama Legacy …Lost the Suez Canal and the Middle East Allies …. take another bow Public Servant

Gotta love ya Belly, but ok, sure. Half of those the President, to me, has done a pretty good job, given the circumstances and constraints.
And, it is not a given that the Suez is lost.

ptown_trojans_1;662924 wrote:Gotta love ya Belly, but ok, sure. Half of those the President, to me, has done a pretty good job, given the circumstances and constraints.

But I would think that you would think the same thing no matter who was President. Ptown, you're one of the most passive posters we have on this forum, sort of like Jane Bennet (Pride/Prejudice - see the good in everyone)

CenterBHSFan;662933 wrote:But I would think that you would think the same thing no matter who was President. Ptown, you're one of the most passive posters we have on this forum, sort of like Jane Bennet (Pride/Prejudice - see the good in everyone)

Haha. Thanks.
I'm a glass half full kind of guy.

Kill each other...fine...don't care...but if this is about the "president" of the last 30 years...why are they looting the mummies? That pisses me off. If you need violence to make your movement go, fine...but the mummies and all that are NOT part of the movement nor the reason for your movement, so why fuck up such an important piece of history?

bases_loaded;662950 wrote:Kill each other...fine...don't care...but if this is about the "president" of the last 30 years...why are they looting the mummies? That pisses me off. If you need violence to make your movement go, fine...but the mummies and all that are NOT part of the movement nor the reason for your movement, so why fuck up such an important piece of history?

Looters usually aren't actually involved in the cause. They just come out during the cause, because it's easier to get away with it in the confusion.

O-Trap;662958 wrote:Looters usually aren't actually involved in the cause. They just come out during the cause, because it's easier to get away with it in the confusion.

The military should have free rein on those people.

bases_loaded;662970 wrote:The military should have free rein on those people.

Yeah, but with the confusion, the military usually has its hands full. That's why looters loot when they do.

My parents' house split in half during the Landers Earthquake in 1992. We spent a couple days with family waiting out the aftershocks. Came back and our house had been looted.

Just the nature of the beast.

majorspark;662871 wrote:Yes you misinterpreted my post. I understand our governments past support of the Mubarak regime in Egypt. It was well intended. It cost us a lot of money. It is time for us to step back and let the Egyptians plow their own field. If true democracy is being born in Egypt let it be. Give it a chance. Let them choose their own path. If they choose to be trouble making Islamic nutbags and stir up war with Israel or mess with the Suez Canal, we will deal with it. With force if necessary.

Maybe they will choose to be a peaceful government and allow their people just freedoms. I hope any new government will allow the entrepreneurial spirit to flourish with the Egyptian people. I hope it will give them true freedom to make their own way. They have many resources for freedom and capitalism to flourish if the state allows it.

I do not trust the muslim brotherhood. But I say let the Egyptian people select their rulers. We have the power deal with them if they choose the wrong path. At this point I side with the anti-government protesters. Time will tell if they seek true freedom. If they seek equal opportunity to put food on their table. If they seek freedom to allow the lowest among them to prosper and become great. I hope that is what this revolution is about. If it is not God help the Egyptian people. It will not end well for them.

Those are my thoughts exactly. My point in an earlier post was that just because Egyptian leaders might be democratically elected, doesn't for a minute mean that the Egyptian people will be "free" in the American sense of the term. With close to 3/4's of the population (according to 2007 polling) favoring enforcement of sharia law, don't expect concepts like freedom of religion, etc. to blossom in a post-Mubarak Egypt.

But hey, if that's the end result of Egyptians deciding what government they want for themselves, let them have it. I guess they are free to decide they don't want to truly be free, if that's possible.

This is not getting better: 10 are dead from gunfire and now journalists are being attacked and arrested.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/blog-post/2011/02/journalists_in_egypt_arrested.html?nav=rss_email/components
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/02/cnns-anderson-cooper-journalists-attacked-protesters-cairo/

ptown_trojans_1;663418 wrote:This is not getting better: 10 are dead from gunfire and now journalists are being attacked and arrested.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/blog-post/2011/02/journalists_in_egypt_arrested.html?nav=rss_email/components
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/02/cnns-anderson-cooper-journalists-attacked-protesters-cairo/

So at what point did this situation worse?

Was it about the same time the Muslim Brotherhood got involved?

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:I wouldn't call the Brotherhood irrational. They are not al Qaeda. They are not Hamas.
They don't like Israel or the U.S., but would not be willing to sacrifice Egypt's future. The Brotherhood has really redefined itself since the 1990s. It is just everyone still equates itself with the 90s and support of terrorism. But, since 9/11, it has really split with the whole jihadi mindset or modern terrorism. The Brotherhood denounced 9/11, and has denounced all terror attack by al Qaeda against the West. It even denounced al Qaeda in Iraq

Belly35;663458 wrote:So at what point did this situation worse?

Was it about the same time the Muslim Brotherhood got involved?

1. When people starting to die and plain clothed government guys swooped in yesterday.
2. The Brotherhood still is not really involved. They are not organizing or calling for certain items.
3. Even if they were, it is the pro Mubarack people that are inciting the violence, not the Brotherhood.

ptown_trojans_1;663469 wrote:1. When people starting to die and plain clothed government guys swooped in yesterday.
2. The Brotherhood still is not really involved. They are not organizing or calling for certain items.
3. Even if they were, it is the pro Mubarack people that are inciting the violence, not the Brotherhood.

Are you sure of that or is that just passive speculation?
What colors are the different players wearing? The plain cloth guys are the bad guys and the other plain cloths guys are the other bad guys..

See PT1 what going on in the street is secondnary just a smoke screen to get attention off the real force behind the actions.
When anti- government demonstrator have signage written in English, chanting English slogans there is more to this than just street violence and demonstration.

I would let the street fighting continue ..if they want to kill themselves let them . Sooner or later reality will come full circle …. Weed out the bad and thin out the radical

Muslim Brotherhood and Elbaradei just does not set real good in the area of “ friendly and freedom”

Belly35;663522 wrote:When anti- government demonstrator have signage written in English, chanting English slogans there is more to this than just street violence and demonstration.

I thought that too when they had protest signs in English. Not that they couldn't have someone write the signs in English, but they were obviously targeting a non-egyptian audience.