Riots & Protests In North Africa and Middlle-East

I don't know about all of you, but I've been really keeping up on these, because the level of how wide sweeping this all is, is truly amazing. The West has always had a skewed image of the people living in the predominantly Islamic and Arabic world, because the only people we see on TV from these places are dictators, billionaire sultans, hate spreading religious zealots, suicide bombers and terrorists. The other 95% of the people over there are normal folk; working parents, teachers, students, small business owners, etc; but these millions and millions of people have been ignored by the global media, because sensationalism sells, and those bad apples are what drive ratings. These people over there have been held under the boot of these dictators and religious leaders for decades, even centuries, and they've seem to have finally had enough.

Over half of the population of North Africa and the Middle-East is under 30 years old, and suffering from unemployment, poverty, political corruption, totalitarianism, and religious persecution, but because of the internet (yes social networks too), they've been given a window to the rest of the modern world, and now can't help but feel angry. Look at all the things that we have and take for granted, and what they are denied by their political and religious leaders, this has been a long time coming over there and all it needed was for tiny spark to light the fuse.

It honestly started 4 years ago in Egypt by students, then popped up again 2 years ago in Iran after their elections. But what happened in Egypt through January and February was a powerful statement by the youth of that nation, that young Muslims have ideals and goals that the Western cultures can relate too and support. These weren't terrorists and zealots, but rather students and workers tired of a system that holds them down.

Egypt tried its' best to go non-violent, but that many people involved and that many emotions; someone's bound to get hurt or killed, it's a natural outcome of an uprising. The passion of those young Egyptians looking to take back their nation for the people, has spread to Libya, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, and probably a lot of other countries soon. These countries are way more pissed and violent toward their leaders however. The people are poor, unemployed and have been held down for most of their entire lives; and I know it's going to get worse before it gets better in a lot of these places, but thankfully they're finally showing a fierce interest in supporting their own humanity along with supporting political and religious beliefs. Every culture should be able to relate to humanity, should be, being the key.

All these nations revolting surround Saudi-Arabia; I wonder how those golden-sword carrying, douchebag, billionaire sheiks feel about that?

What's everyone's thoughts on all these happenings?

I really hope they bring about lasting, positive change. Your point re: increased globalization through online contact is a good one -- that's something that was unavailable in earlier Mid-East attempts at revolution (thinking Iran 1979), and it is introducing the concept of a different way of life for Mid-East people. Small world indeed.

I remember thinking, when we heard about the anger in Egypt, that there must have been a single event that pushed this to come about -- one that we don't know about thanks to the temporary shutdown of communications in Egypt at that time. A "straw that broke the camel's back", no weird implication intended. People don't pick a day to riot because they're bored of the status quo; there has to have been something that occurred that pushed the people to their breaking point -- something that we don't know about b/c it never got to Western press. It will be interesting to see if it comes out years from now.

In any case though, it has set off a domino effect. And it's better to attempt to bring about change than to survive painfully and die slowly. My hope is that one oppressive, fear-mongering government is not replaced with another. There need to be policy changes, not just personnel changes. I was worried when I heard that Mubarak's rule was replaced with military rule; that can't be any better for the people of Egypt. At least Libya's army is unwilling to obey Gaddhafi's order to attack protesters (though Gaddhafi now has hired thugs to take care of that unfortunately).

All we can do now is watch. (Which makes me wonder why some people keep saying, "Oh, Obama blew his handling of the Egyptian situation" -- contrary to recent belief, there is NO reason why the U.S. has to act as Interpol and have its hands in the dealings of all other countries.)

The U.S. has gotten really trigger happy lately, so I think we should just wait and let these countries settle things for themselves. My hope is that they will form a democratic government that is focused on secular affairs and not religious.

I'm pretty disgusted with Condem party of the UK and more than sick to the stomach with Tony Bliar. He courted Gaddhafi, the World was supposed to see him as a good leader and statesman to his people whereas he was always a dictator of the worst kind.

I fear for what is coming but fear should never stand in the way of toppling dictators and putting power back in the hands of the people

helen damnation wrote:

I'm pretty disgusted with Condem party of the UK and more than sick to the stomach with Tony Bliar. He courted Gaddhafi, the World was supposed to see him as a good leader and statesman to his people whereas he was always a dictator of the worst kind.

I fear for what is coming but fear should never stand in the way of toppling dictators and putting power back in the hands of the people

The fact that U.S. and U.K. officials were in pleasant talks with this rotten bastard got my nerves as well. This wannabe Ernesto Guevara (who btw was sack of sh*t too), was openly responsible and behind the funding of the Lockerbie bombing, the 1986 Berlin disco bombing, Flight 772 bombing and Black September group who carried out the 76 Olympic abductions. But because this guy was an opponent of Saddam Hussein and didn't care for Bin Laden (during his CIA days), he's a pal to the West now because he supposedly doesn't like "our enemies". The guy is an enemy of free people and civilians the world over, and his treatment of his own countrymen over the last 40 years is indicative of how awful a person he is. I hope his people eventually drag him out into the streets kicking and screaming.

The best thing for North America and Europe to do is stay out of it. This is the people of that part of the world's problem, they don't need our help to fight this fight, it's the people against the leaders. I hope afterward, the West will aid them in rebuilding, but I'm sure the greedy banks and politicians are thinking up ways to get involved, to make more money off of our dead Americana and English soldiers.

I worry now about the whole no-fly zone mooted by the shameful british government. Just butt out, you have enough troubles at home.

^^ I hear ya -- the U.S. is debating it now, too. From what I've heard, instituting a no-fly zone would first require some sort of offensive -- and considering that the U.S. is already in 2 WARS ffs, I don't think we can add this to our list!

My grandmother used to say "The U.S. is not the police for the rest of the world." When she was young isolationism was no longer the M.O., but it wasn't completely forgotten (or compromised with trade agreements as it is today).

I hate what's happening now, hate is too weak a word. It's like another Iraq and it sucks.

WAR, NOT IN MY NAME

It's refreshing to read this. My most liberal friends are surprising me by being pro-war. The logic is that this man is evil (no argument here) and we must save his people. I understand where they're coming from, but we're already engaged in so many open-ended conflicts.

I suppose I surprise myself by being opposed to the engagement- my beloved Aunt Lynne is a journalism professor and expert on the Lockerbie bombings, so I Gadafi has been on my sh*t-list since I was a pre-teen.

I can see this ending badly- with the US/UN/NATO still occupying a combat role ten years down the line and/or doing that thing we were soooo good at in South/Central America back in the cold war- installing an even more inhumane ruler who at least does what we say.

I can see this ending in the same way Em I hate it

I dont know anybody who is pro war or, if I do, I dont listen to them. Wars are just a form of bullying and they're not offering protection to the Libyan people, they're protecting the f**king oil

I definitely fumed when I heard the U.S. bombed Libya. It still pisses me off.

The consensus among my friends is that Gadafi is very, very bad and it's our job to fix that. It makes me feel like a selfish American when I express concerns over the possible outcome, but I can't help but have some trepedation.

If nothing else, the US failed to please anyone here at home- some, like John Kerry, were arguing for a no-fly-zone from the first day of the protests. The administration upset that camp by waiting so long and then upset the anti-war camp by getting into it at all!

At the end of the day, even though I have lots of opinions, I'm glad I'm not the one having to make an unpopular-either-way decision like that. Some kids say they want to be the president when they grow up... crazies...

Emmature wrote:

I understand where they're coming from, but we're already engaged in so many open-ended conflicts.

I agree.

1) This would be another conflict in which the goal is nebulous; we won't know when we'll be able to pull out.

2) Before we can even consider whether we have the responsibility to help the Libyan rebels, we have to remember that the U.S. is still in two wars -- we have not got the $$$ for those two, let alone a third! I have a friend whose brother is in Afghanistan; he tells her that when a soldier's Kevlar vest is damaged, the soldier does not get a loaner while the vest is out for repairs -- s/he just has to cross fingers and hope not to be hit again. Look, if we haven't got spare life-saving materials, how can we even consider assisting in another war?

These conflicts America and England involve themselves in, are for the politicians, weapon manufacturers and banks to make money of the poor citizens of the USA and UK, killing and dying in battle with the nameless poorer people of the 3rd-World. These efforts of "help", are merely measures to keep the world in line, the rich richer and the poor poorer.

These people living in northern Africa and the Middle-east want to better their own way of life, and I knew our power-hungry leaders of the West were dying to get involved.