"All Egyptians are Osama Bin Laden" Islamists take over Tahrir protests, secular groups leave - Polidicks

[quote]Egypt's secular groups have said they no longer support the protest movement and have withdrawn their support after the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists hijacked Friday's protests in Cairo's Tahrir Square. The secularists' boycott came as tens of thousands of people gathered on Friday to demonstrate in what had been dubbed "The Friday of Unity and the People's Will" march. The protesters' demands include ending military trials for civilians, seeking justice for families of those killed during the revolution, raising the minimum wage, and ensuring quick trials for former government officials. Al Jazeera's Ayman Mohyeldin in Cairo said secular and liberal political parties, including the revolution youth coalition, had addressed a news conference on Friday, accusing the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis of taking over the protests. "They [secular groups] said the Islamists went against the deal ... In the early hours of the morning [they] started taking down banners and putting up [banners] with Islamic messages," he said. "They also say the Salafists prevented the other parties from taking their positions on the stage and essentially pushed them out." [/quote] [url]http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2011/07/2011729143340707514.html[/url] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14341089[/url] More bad news from the Arab Spring, hopefully the Islamists simmer down. They DO have the same goals though, so don't worry too much.

When the revolutions of the moderates are over the revolutions of the extremists will begin.

I never trusted them from the start, so this behavior comes off as no surprise to me. The Islamists never wanted western democracy. They just got the young protestors to throw out Mubarack so they could install their own regime in the vacancy of power. It's really quite sickening. Happened in Iran in the 1980s, and it looks like it's happening again in Egypt.

my dad totally predicted this as well hopefully it doesnt end like he says it will

[QUOTE=yawmwen;31413054]my dad totally predicted this as well hopefully it doesnt end like he says it will[/QUOTE] It will end like the English Revolution And the French And the Russian

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31413180]It will end like the English Revolution And the French And the Russian[/QUOTE] As in what?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31413395]As in what?[/QUOTE] A despot kicked out, to be replaced by a less despotic form of government that suffers from instability that is then again replaced by another despot worse than the original one. Had the French revolution never occurred, more democratic and social reforms would have occurred earlier due to the reaction against the revolution. Had the English one never occurred, the nobility of England would have eroded the power of the monarchy, then later begin a series of reforms extending the franchise to the wealthy, then middle classes, then proletariat. Had the Russian never occurred, the Duma would have slowly become more powerful as the Tsar and his son were weak men (The latter having a bad blood condition) and a democracy would have formed by the middle of the century. The deaths of the revolutions and the actual revolutions were pointless themselves, and essentially only delayed things.

I sense pessimism. Though let's be honest, the first priority of these should be domestic issues like food distribution, energy, etc, as opposed to "religious values" as some news reports imply. The Muslim Brotherhood is a bit conservative, but they do have some liberal values and are a lot less harmless than the the way the media depicts them. Can't say much on the Salafist groups, though. But I highly doubt it's another Iran. Couples are bound to get into a fight a few months after their marriage, tensions are bound to grow a few months after a revolution.

hah, unintentional mass trolling.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31413523]A despot kicked out, to be replaced by a less despotic form of government that suffers from instability that is then again replaced by another despot worse than the original one. Had the French revolution never occurred, more democratic and social reforms would have occurred earlier due to the reaction against the revolution. Had the English one never occurred, the nobility of England would have eroded the power of the monarchy, then later begin a series of reforms extending the franchise to the wealthy, then middle classes, then proletariat. Had the Russian never occurred, the Duma would have slowly become more powerful as the Tsar and his son were weak men (The latter having a bad blood condition) and a democracy would have formed by the middle of the century. The deaths of the revolutions and the actual revolutions were pointless themselves, and essentially only delayed things.[/QUOTE] i have a problem with people saying "if this didn't happen ____ would happen" you dont know this, it did happen so thats your only evidence. all you can do is speculate and realistically many events could happen instead that would change the course from what you speculate would happen.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;31418137]i have a problem with people saying "if this didn't happen ____ would happen" you dont know this, it did happen so thats your only evidence. all you can do is speculate and realistically many events could happen instead that would change the course from what you speculate would happen.[/QUOTE] The French revolution was bad in the long run. The monarchies became extremely reactionary around Europe and refused or delayed reform for a considerable length of time. The governments in power were much much more reactionary in 1815 than in 1790.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31418244]The French revolution was bad in the long run. The monarchies became extremely reactionary around Europe and refused or delayed reform for a considerable length of time. The governments in power were much much more reactionary in 1815 than in 1790.[/QUOTE] im not saying whether it was good or bad im saying you dont know what would have happened if the french revolution didnt take place, all you can do is speculate

[QUOTE=yawmwen;31418296]im not saying whether it was good or bad im saying you dont know what would have happened if the french revolution didnt take place, all you can do is speculate[/QUOTE] Speculate indeed, but you can be sure that if the revolution did not occur there would not be as many dead. (Seeing that just about every nation in Europe in those 25 years was engaged in a war with or against France, the result of which was 3.25 to 6.5 million persons died in one of the largest wars in history)

I think it's a bit of a far stretch to assume that the Russian Duma somehow would have gained more power - there's no evidence (that I know of) to assume that the Tsar, who even more strongly believed in the need for totalitarian autocracy in Russia after the 1905 revolution, would have let Russia become more democratic. Have to agree with yawmwen on this one - we can't assume anything about what would have happened if these revolutions didn't occur.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31413523] Had the French revolution never occurred, more democratic and social reforms would have occurred earlier due to the reaction against the revolution. Had the English one never occurred, the nobility of England would have eroded the power of the monarchy, then later begin a series of reforms extending the franchise to the wealthy, then middle classes, then proletariat. Had the Russian never occurred, the Duma would have slowly become more powerful as the Tsar and his son were weak men (The latter having a bad blood condition) and a democracy would have formed by the middle of the century. [/QUOTE] anything to even remotely support these wild assertions?

i dont see how napoleon was worse than Louis XVI lol let me make this clear; revolutions kick start the events that sobotnik says would happen naturally, to believe that it would happen without the revolution simply isn't true, revolutions are the birth of equality - it's foolish to think that anything but the people uprising can change a form of government, i mean ffs haven't you played civilization iv !!! [editline]29th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;31423159]anything to even remotely support these wild assertions?[/QUOTE] bump

i suck at civilization 4

the difference in the arab protests is that these protests are spread across most of the arab countries at once rather then a single country, all united in the same purpose: people with no ideology, banding together for fair rights

[QUOTE=thisispain;31423159]anything to even remotely support these wild assertions?[/QUOTE] The Dumas of Russia had it in their primary interest to wrest control from the Tsar, and many rich people prefer having power rather than share it with a man who spent much of his time gardening. Land reforms had been carried out by Pytor Stolypin that was giving land to the peasantry that they could farm themselves for income and thus better themselves into the Kulak class. (Stalin reversed this completely and brought the farms under state control) As well as this the Duma, whilst possessing little power was actually slowly gaining it over a period of time. For example they were slowly controlling more of the budget. In 1908 and 1912 social reforms were enacted by the Duma, in education and insurance. The Duma was also slowly gaining more power even during the war it gained more power and influence to the point that in 1917 it could declare itself the provisional government of Russia, and by sharing power with the Petrograd Soviet it managed to run Russia for a few months, but was plagued by problems mainly due to the losing war, with the allies forcing them to stay in the war. In July the Bolsheviks tried to seize power but failed, as did a coup by Kornilov which brought the Bolsheviks back. By October Russia was deep in the shitter, and the Bolsheviks exploited this to seize power. Shortly after they seized power Russia collapsed into a series of warlording states, out of which came another autocratic regime which kept the autocratic tradition in Russia continue for the remainder of the century.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31441905]The Dumas of Russia had it in their primary interest to wrest control from the Tsar, and many rich people prefer having power rather than share it with a man who spent much of his time gardening. Land reforms had been carried out by Pytor Stolypin that was giving land to the peasantry that they could farm themselves for income and thus better themselves into the Kulak class. (Stalin reversed this completely and brought the farms under state control) As well as this the Duma, whilst possessing little power was actually slowly gaining it over a period of time. For example they were slowly controlling more of the budget. In 1908 and 1912 social reforms were enacted by the Duma, in education and insurance. The Duma was also slowly gaining more power even during the war it gained more power and influence to the point that in 1917 it could declare itself the provisional government of Russia, and by sharing power with the Petrograd Soviet it managed to run Russia for a few months, but was plagued by problems mainly due to the losing war, with the allies forcing them to stay in the war. In July the Bolsheviks tried to seize power but failed, as did a coup by Kornilov which brought the Bolsheviks back. By October Russia was deep in the shitter, and the Bolsheviks exploited this to seize power. Shortly after they seized power Russia collapsed into a series of warlording states, out of which came another autocratic regime which kept the autocratic tradition in Russia continue for the remainder of the century.[/QUOTE] but none of that shows that if the bolsheviks hadn't seized power, everything would have been rosy. you said yourself - "by October, Russia was deep in the shitter". that doesn't exactly imply "but if they'd waited it out all would have been well".

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31442667]but none of that shows that if the bolsheviks hadn't seized power, everything would have been rosy. you said yourself - "by October, Russia was deep in the shitter". that doesn't exactly imply "but if they'd waited it out all would have been well".[/QUOTE] Well the war was dragging on but had the provisional government hung onto power and held its elections the Bolsheviks would find it difficult to seize power once they had been done. (The elections were actually held but by that point the Bolsheviks held power and simply dismissed it). If the new government (A large section consisting of SRs most likely) held on for another year after and exploited the public support from "winning" the war (Or American joining in and delivering the final punch to an exhausted Germany) then the Bolsheviks would have never risen to power.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31448624]Well the war was dragging on but had the provisional government hung onto power and held its elections the Bolsheviks would find it difficult to seize power once they had been done. (The elections were actually held but by that point the Bolsheviks held power and simply dismissed it). If the new government (A large section consisting of SRs most likely) held on for another year after and exploited the public support from "winning" the war (Or American joining in and delivering the final punch to an exhausted Germany) then the Bolsheviks would have never risen to power.[/QUOTE] while i reckon that argument is debatable in itself, that still doesn't answer the question of how russia would have been fine if the bolsheviks hadn't seized power, but simply how the bolsheviks could have eventually been UNABLE to seize power, regardless of its merits

How unexpected of them.