I thought that was pretty classy.
Silly and most prevalent in America. Curiously also in America we have Fox news which clearly does not abide by objectivity even as it advertises itself with it.
My point is simply that pure objectivity is an impossibility.
Attempting to reach pure objectivity can lead you down a wrong path, just look at how American journalists contort themselves in order to be nautral, facts and reality be damned.
In Europe it is much more prevalent that everyone has a bias, know what it is and keep it in mind as you read, watch, or listen to them.
I'm hoping that Al Jazeera, which is accused of having copied the style of fox news if not the substance, does not follow American journalism down the path of a bias free utopia.
I hope Egyptian journalists who show any kind of emotion at this news, are only jokingly reprimanded. As long as it doesn't turn into a soap opera, bias ought to be expected of mere humans, even if they are journalists.
Al Jazeera derives most of its fame from being the least biased news agency in the Middle East, with satellites that let it broadcast to places that would prefer for their citizens only to have access to the official state-run news.
When journalists want to show some emotional aspect of an event, they can interview citizens on the streets, that's their job; expressing it themselves is not pro and surely not trustworthy.
> Al Jazeera, which is accused of having copied the style of fox news if not the substance
Huh? Who said that? AJE is BBC's school, not Fox. I've heard their local channels are more expressive in their orientation, but AJE is another league.
Really? I haven't been following the English Aljazeera, but the Arabic Al-Jazeera was not impartial at all throughout the revolution (which I don't mind).
World news outlets (inter-regional) seem to be the best at objectivity.
- Howard Zinn
Still, hopefully a step in the right direction - more options are now available to the Egyptian people.
No matter how awesome the new regime is, I doubt they can fix this. Sad fact: many of Egypt's problems are inflicted by the people on themselves, not by Mubarak.
This is a really incredible success of the Egyptian people, but it's just the first step of De-Mubarak-ification.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
-- C. S. Lewis
I have to congratulate AlJazeera for their tremendous coverage of unfolding events. They have been very professional and fearless in their reporting. Western media should take notes.
Who knows what tomorrow will bring but for now Egypt and the entire world can smile wide and celebrate.
Mazal Tov to the people of Egypt!
Nobody knows what tomorrow will bring but it will not be under the foot of a dictator at least we know that - and how could that be bad? Am I scared that things will not go so well, sure. But I'm an optimist and I got to work for and I got to hope that things will work out for the best - for Egyptians, for Arabs, for Muslims, for Africans, for Israel, for Americans and for all people who want to be free.
In 1917 the Russian people got themselves out from under the foot of the Romanovs and into the hands of the Bolsheviks.
Mazal Tov to the people of Egypt!
It's "mabruk" btw.
We have just began, and I hope everything will be fine.
Hopefully that will be the next step, anything less than starting from scratch with their government is going to leave the old system and those who gained power from it in place.
They would do well to learn from South Africa's example in this. I honestly believe that if it was not for the phased departure of apartheid from 1990 to 1994, combined with the constitutional convention and the preservation of the national police and the military, South Africa's transition would have ended in disaster. In the end the security forces played a massive role in creating a stable enough environment for the vital negotiations to take place and without the work of the military behind the scenes it's doubtful that the 1994 election would have happened at all.
So the biggest mistake now would be to rush this. Egyptians need to understand that the steps they take next are going to set the stage for the next 30 years and determine whether Mubarak will be followed by a true multi-party democracy or by yet another group of thuggish oppressors. They had better make it count.
Muhammad Hosni Sayyid Mubarak was the President of Egypt from 1981 to 2011. 
History unfolding live indeed.
Regardless, the turnout and determination of the Egyptian people is an inspiration. Great to see the beginnings of a positive outcome.
The BBC's Jon Leyne in Cairo said the announcement caught everyone by surprise, and all over the city drivers honked their horns and people fired guns into the air.
But the army takeover looks very much like a military coup, our correspondent adds.
The constitution has been breached, he says, because officially it should be the speaker of parliament who takes over, not the army leadership.
Hope for the best, plan for the worst. So far the Egyptian military have been on the right side of this situation but we have no guarantees what happens next. This is the end of the beginning, not the end.
Also keep in mind, that the Arab nations want to unite. If you give the people the power, you'll see tomorrow that most of the borders are removed, which let the place for the building of a very strong and influential civilization.
As I said in my other thread, we have just began and it'll be a very long road and will need a very long breath.
WTF? Have you ever spoken with an actual Arab?
If you had, you'd know that nationalism is alive and well. Egyptians are quite cognizant of the differences between themselves and Syrians or Lebanese or Jordanians. They have zero interest in abolishing borders and uniting with other countries.
But what do I know, I'm only an Egyptian.
For their support for brothers countries like Palestine, may be you won't support them, but the majority does.
And you being an Egyptian doesn't represent what the majority of Egyptians think. Only the future will tell what their orientations will be.
You seem to suggest that you can't extrapolate from one Egyptian to all Egyptians, yet at the same time you seem to be talking about Arabs as some monolithic mono-culture, which seems like a very backwards and ill-informed view.
Sure, Egyptians and, say, Jordanians are both Arabs, but guess what, Brits and, say, Austrians are both Germanic Caucasians, don't expect them to team up anytime soon.
Do you have any evidence to support this idea? Anything at all? Or is this just some fantasy you dreamed up?
You need not fabricate beliefs for me regarding Palestine. It is not relevant to the discussion at hand, namely your evidence-free assertions.
And you being an Egyptian doesn't represent what the majority of Egyptians think. Only the future will what their orientations will be.
Of course not, but my direct experience is one data point. So far, you've supplied no evidence, direct experience or otherwise.
You're only one Egyptian.
Borders won't disappear, at least not over night, but Arabs have a sense of unity and brotherhood in their subconscious.
> WTF? Have you ever spoken with an actual Arab?
I am one ;) and I speak with them all the time. I believe csomar is also one (judging by his name).
You know this is pseudo-science garbage, right? There is no reason to believe that Arabs have a particular "sense of unity and brotherhood". There is no evidence. I know that people like to make up stories about how awesome their national/religious/ethnic group is, but at HN I'd hope we could dispense with that BS.
And even if it were true, that doesn't tell us anything about whether Egyptians want to merge their country with Jordan or Libya or Sudan.
You're not making any sense.
> There is no reason to believe that Arabs have a particular "sense of unity and brotherhood".
There's plenty, actually. Just walk around any street in any major Arab city/capital and ask the people:
* Do you view Egyptians as your brothers
* Do you view Palestinian as your brothers
* Do you support the Palestinian cause
* Do you support the Egyptian revolution
> I know that people like to make up stories about how awesome their national/religious/ethnic group is, but at HN I'd hope we could dispense with that BS.
I didn't make any such claim.
Right this second, Al-Jazeera (Arabic) is reporting celebrations throughout the Arab world.
Let me break it down for you: you made a claim about the sub-conscience of a group of hundreds of millions of people. You've supplied zero evidence. You've cited no scientific studies, nothing.
There's plenty, actually. Just walk around any street in any major Arab city/capital and ask the people
Let's assume everyone says yes...so what? What does that tell us about a sub-conscious sense of unity and brotherhood? If you went to many European countries, there'd be huge public support for the Egyptian revolution or the Palestinian cause, but surely that wouldn't be due to a sub-conscious sense of unity and brotherhood, right?
However, I believe my claim is not without evidence; there's plenty of evidence for it. You just have to be a part of the culture.
You do have to interpret it charitably, though. If you interpret it as "Every single Arab person has this ideology", then of course it's a false claim.
It's not too different from the claim that "Egyptians are fed up with Mubarak". I can assure you there are Egyptians who were against this revolution. For that matter, normal, educated Egyptians; not police thugs or businessmen. Maybe 10 million people marched to the street, but Egypt has way more population than just 10 million.
Going by your logic, one would dismiss the claim that "Egyptians are fed up with Mubarak" as non-scientific.
(Edit: I said you're not making sense because it doesn't make sense to use the word "scientific" when talking about this issue).
If you reject my claim about the existence of an "Arab brotherhood" spirit, then you're making a much more substantial claim than I am: you're claiming Arabs don't care about each other.
Your claim is the one that lacks evidence.
On that we agree. But its also not an empirical claim: it is something that exists outside the realm of evidence.
it's impossible to provide a scientific evidence about any sociological claim.
Do the sociologists know that?
No, you are very confused. You are the one making a claim. You are the one failing to provide any evidence for it. I'm not claiming that no such spirit exists: I'm pointing out that your claim is garbage because there is literally no evidence behind it. I don't have to prove anything because I'm not making a claim. All I have to do is show that your claim has zero evidence behind it.
Did you miss MichaelSalib's post up-thread where he said, "But what do I know, I'm only an Egyptian."?
Getting rid of external influences (specially American) is a whole other story; to come in a later stage.
This is one of the better images I've seen showing the pure scale of the protests. In the US, we had our "million man march" which questionably had so many people. In Egypt, many millions have been involved over the course of far longer than one day. With relation to their total population, the size of the movement is pretty mind boggling.
I don't know whether that's a good or bad thing.
How do I, as an American citizen, minimize cognitive dissonance when the following disparate events occur?
America's stance: democracy and 'freedom' are fundamental rights of all people.
America's actions: refusing to recognize a democratically elected body because the resulting will of the people is openly hostile towards America and Israel (Hamas winning seats in Palestinian elections).
In other words, the only legitimacy that being elected democratically confers on leaders is that of being the authentic representatives of their people. The greater legitimacy of a government as a member of the international community of states might be influenced by whether it's democratic or not but is determined mostly by that governments actions and stated intentions. Hamas has refused to agree to steps, such as renouncing terrorism, that the US, EU and Israel believe are fundamental to a government being a member of the international community.
So they have accepted the results of the election, but they're under no obligation to be friendly with the result.
With that said, like all great powers the US's foreign policy is at times hypocritical to some extent. It will extol the virtues of rapid democratic change in some countries while discouraging it in others. This seeming mismatch in standards is the problem with a foreign policy with an idealistic rhetoric but a realpolitik reality. The truth is that encouraging rapid democratic change in all cases would be foolish and irresponsible, because it could lead to far worse outcomes than the status quo. Some countries can handle that kind of explosive change, others can't and need to be shepherded towards it at a slower rate. I think Egypt falls into the latter category.
It looks like a carnival erupted at Tahrir Square when word got out. It was pretty vibrant before, but euphoria is clearly evident.
Watch the video stream if you can, it's uplifting to see. It's more than just the anticipation of celebration, it's the pure and unadulterated celebration and the carnival atmosphere associated with that.
Just put it into perspective, a dictator that most have lived under all their lives, the fear that goes with it... it's all being released in one go.
It's really hard to watch these pictures and not feel that rub off, but down on the ground this is probably the highest concentration of pure happiness and elation on this planet.
Look, awesome is an over-used word and we're an extremely cynical bunch... but this really is awesome.
Very well said. This is just fantastic. I hope the Egyptian people get everything they're hoping for. How exciting!
It will certainly be interesting to see if this leads to a domino effect in the Middle East and how it affects US foreign policy.
I'm glad to see this, its the first step to sending him to the Hague.
2/10 morning - He's going to step down.
2/10 evening - He's not stepping down.
2/11 morning - He's really stepping down.
Hopefully the rest of the ride will be less bumpy and more pleasant.
Now if the U.S. government gets on the ball, they will redirect some substantial portion of the Egyptian ~$2 billion military aid and announce we will help build science and technical schools, universities, and hospitals.
Thanks to those of you who have been hosting and continue to host Tor bridges in support of emerging democracies:
In any case, Egypt's security requirements are not going anywhere and the country will still have to maintain a sizable military in future, so cutting the funding will just mean that the state will have to obtain replacement funds from the national budget. Right now the $2 billion that the US gives to the Egyptian military is $2 billion that's freed up for the state to spend on other things like schools, universities and hospitals. That they don't do a good enough job of that already is due more to corruption than to any actual lack of funds.
Finding a way to ameliorate the corruption stifling the economy would have bigger bang for the buck.
"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
It is also a shame that users who try to question the relevancy of HN submissions get downvoted. Even though it has more than 100 upvotes it is still not relevant to what this site is about. Unless the goal is to become reddit 2.0 with lots of mainstream articles simply because a large amounts of users think it is interesting, I think this kind of articles are best enjoyed elsewhere on the web. I flagged this story, even though I find it interesting.
I think we can live with 1 spot on the front page for a few hours of one day being used up by the story of a 30 year old dictatorship being overthrown by its people. Especially considering there were about 8 stories this morning about the Nokia/Microsoft partnership of which 3 were basically dups of a press release.
(and, no, me checking my email this morning is not also a "historic event" ;)
I think that those who question the relevancy of submissions such as these deserve an answer that is more than "Actually, this is all about hacking!" I did not upvote this submission but here are my reasons for not flagging it:
1. This is likely not a controversial issue among HN readers, major ideological disagreements that might result into insults and people screaming at each other are unlikely. A constructive discussion is likely.
2. The developments in Egypt had no overwhelming presence on HN during the last weeks. I think that frequency and not only the topic matters. This submission would definitely be inappropriate if Egypt had been on the top of HN all the time over the last few weeks but that hasn't been the case. Occasional interesting off-topic diversions have been a part of HN for as long as I can remember. We have to be vigilant so that they don't overwhelm HN but they are occasionally ok.
3. The developments in Egypt are serious and not superficial or phony, worthy of a constructive discussion.
Well, now I'm curious to see if pg manually shoves it off again, like he did with the earlier Very Popular Egypt Submission.
If your account is less than a year old, please don't submit comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. (It's a common semi-noob illusion.)
Your account is 178days old.
Really? Because it's on Al Jazeera it means it's not on top of CNN, MSNBC and Fox News right now? A prime example of how logic flies out (even in the smallest details) when discussing politics.
In the most fundamental matters, President and Mrs Mubarak are incomparably more enlightened than the Egyptian public.
Here's a section from The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright, describing what Mubarak's security services did after Ayman al-Zawahiri attempted to assassinate Mubarak in 1995:
To deal with Zawahiri, Egyptian intelligence agents devised a fiendish plan. They lured a thirteen year-old boy named Ahmed into an apartment with the promise of juice and videos. Ahmed was the son of Mohammed Sharraf, a well-known Egyptian fundamentalist and a senior member of [Zawahiri's organization] al-Jihad. The boy was drugged and sodomized; when he awakened, he was confronted with photographs of the homosexual activity and threatened with the prospect of having them shown to his father. For the child, the consequences of such a disclosure were overwhelming. "It could even be that the father would kill him," a source close to Zawahiri admitted.
After this the Egyptian agents got the first boy to lure in a second, whom they also drugged and raped. Then they got the two to spy on Zawahiri in an attempt to kill him. Then Zawahiri caught the two boys spying. And then he had them both shot.
I guess enlightenment means raping children now. Are you enlightened too?
What about stealing billions of dollars from your people? Is that a sign of enlightenment?
The discussions I've seen about Egypt seem to assume that it can be governed like the countries we're familiar with. Most of the things that seem evil are in fact cock-ups or unfortunate necessities. We learned about this after ousting Saddam Hussein, and were forced into all sorts of brutalities that indeed would not work well in the US or Britain.
We learned about this after ousting Saddam Hussein, and were forced into all sorts of brutalities that indeed would not work well in the US or Britain.
What did History ever do to you that compelled you to slander and malign it so?
Are you just completely irrational or does this mean something? I honestly can't tell.
My point is simply that regime change doesn't automatically generate the political equivilent of rainbow-shitting unicorns, which is what people seem to be assuming. Governments tend to be molded by circumstances more than we realize, and not the personality of such-and-such a strongman. "We'll see what happens," is my final analysis but the best guess is always repetition.
I think your explanation of US behavior in post-Hussein Iraq is ahistorical...to say the least.
Governments tend to be molded by circumstances more than we realize, and not the personality of such-and-such a strongman.
Absolutely, I very much agree.
I'm still curious though: is child-rape enlightenment?
Okay, you're asking an imbecilic question, but I'll answer it because you're basically setting yourself up: No, it isn't.
Now, is the mutilation of children, practiced by the Egyptian population in general, enlightenment? Is it? Huh? I answered your bullshit question; do me the favor of answering my real question.
Maybe you should read the original article I posted and think twice.