Follow Egypt's Big Day As Millions Take To The Streets

Tyler Durden's picture

Update: Semi-automatic gunfire now heard in Alexandria.

For Egypt, it is now or never. With millions out on the streets in Cairo and other cities, the Egyptian population will likely not have another chance at such a massive showing of popular expression of anger against President Mubarak. For those who wish to follow today's million man march, can do so at the usual places: the Al Jazeera blog, the video feed below, the Guardian blog, real time mappable tweets, and of course, the video feed below.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
NewThor's picture


pan-the-ist's picture

Yesterday NPR stated that Israel is contacting its allies to inform them that they are supposed to support Mubarak.  Today all of the NPR reporting is 'framed' as if Mubarak will remain in power...

Nothing like a little presupposition to try to magic the truth and opinion.

SWRichmond's picture

If the Egyptian Army has indeed said it is staying out of it, then "it" is over.

Edit: AlJazeera reporter on live feed is reporting that the army is letting people into the demonstrations after checking them for weapons, and in defiance of the "curfew."  It's over.  Next?

flacon's picture

> Next?

Yemen, then Jordan and Syria together.


...and then Spain, Portugal, and Italy, and then Kalifornia, and IlliNOY and New York and Michigan, and New Jersey. 

Shylockracy's picture

What will Mubarak Obama do next?

Big Ben's picture

This kind of reminds me of the late 70's when there were massive protests against the Shah of Iran and President Carter basically did nothing to support the Shah. His "reward" was the Iranian hostage crisis which ended his (already slim) chances of reelection. The main difference was that the Iranian revolutionaries had a popular figure (Khomeini) to rally around who was supported by a well organized base. I don't see an Egyptian counterpart to Khomeini.

More and more things seem to resemble the late 70's. We have high unemployment and a president who doesn't seem to be able to fix the economy. And inflation seems to be looming in the background.


YHC-FTSE's picture

I wasn't sentient enough to form any political opinions in the late 70's, but I've heard a counter perspective to your recollections. I was told that the Iranian revolution was started by a popular uprising of mostly secular socialists (National Democratic Front) demonstrating against the ruling monarchy, then fearing a "socialist" Iran, Khomeini was bussed in from exile by the Americans. He did come very late into the revolution. After he took power, Khomeini then executed members of left-wing organizations and media, the NDF was denounced, turning Iran into a theocracy. The Shah's reception (for hospital treatment) in the US and the US's refusal to extradite him ended in the Iranian hostage crisis - the rest is history.


If contemporary events resemble the 70's, then I suppose we have the rapid rise of the economy in the 80's to look forward to. The 80's were great for a lot of reasons!

Big Ben's picture

I was attending university at the time and there were lots (hundreds at least) of Iranian students there at the time. I was acquainted with a half dozen or so, and I can tell you that they were all very much pro-Khomeini. They held huge demonstrations on campus where they shouted "Down with the Shah" and "Khomeini!". I have been told that there were other groups (mainly communists and socialists) who also opposed the Shah, but I never personally met any of these people back then.

I suspect there was widespread opposition to the Shah at the time, but clearly Khomeini had the largest and best organized set of supporters. And there was never any question about who would replace the Shah if he left.

Actually, the US helped ease the Shah out of power by promising him a safe place to flee to. Without that he might have elected to stay and fight it out, possibly resulting in a bloody civil war which the Khomeini supporters might not have won. Of course, once the US had made that promise, it was obligated to keep it.

Khomeini's supporters siezed upon this promise (which had actually helped them to take power) as a pretext take over the US embassy and start the hostage crisis. This was a very stupid move because the Iranian military was mostly US supplied. When Khomeini chose to pick a fight with his major arms supplier, Saddam Hussein saw a opportunity to settle old scores with Iran and started the Iran-Iraq war which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iranians. Khomeini should at least have found a new arms supplier before electing to pick a fight with the US.

YHC-FTSE's picture

That was interesting! Many thanks for your recollections. According to the Iranians I've met in London, some of whom were members of the NDF at the time tell the story from their perspective (That they were the most popular party!) and I don't think they're liars. I just did a quick search, and there's quite a bit of literature about the Iranian revolution being hijacked by the Americans to install Khomeini instead of the socialists because, just like the 1953 coup, a consortium of oil importers and refiners found it expedient and it suited the cold war against the USSR. This book concurs -

From  "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order", written by William Engdahl.:


"In November 1978, President Carter named the Bilderberg group's George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council's Brzezinski.  Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalistic Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini.  Robert Bowie from the CIA was one of the lead 'case officers' in the new CIA-led coup against the man their covert actions had placed into power 25 years earlier.


Their scheme was based on a detailed study of the phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism, as presented by British Islamic expert, Dr. Bernard Lewis, then on assignment at Princeton University in the United States.  Lewis's scheme, which was unveiled at the May 1979 Bilderberg meeting in Austria, endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines.  Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth.  The chaos would spread in what he termed an 'Arc of Crisis,' which would spill over into Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.


The coup against the Shah, like that against Mossadegh in 1953, was run by British and American intelligence, with the bombastic American, Brzezinski, taking public 'credit' for getting rid of the 'corrupt' Shah, while the British characteristically remained safely in the background."



It was very interesting to see it from your perspective, and I hope you found this equally interesting.

Big Ben's picture

I have noticed that Middle Easterners have a tendency to blame anything bad that happens on the US. For example, there was an earthquake in Iran and one of my Iranian acquaintances blamed it on the US. At first, I thought he was joking but he was really serious! This is an engineer educated in a US university.

It is difficult for me to believe that a US administration (even the Carter administration) would suddenly decide to replace a reliable ally like the Shah with an Islamic firebrand. The Khomeini supporters that I knew were constantly saying that the Shah was a US puppet. This was the thing which seemed to anger them most. I think that the Shah may in some sense have been a victim of the Camp David peace accords. These caused intense anger throughout the Middle East because people felt that Sadat had betrayed Islam and shown himself to be a US puppet. And Iranians felt that the Shah had friendly relations with the US and received a great deal of US military assistance, so he was probably just another Sadat.

In any case, I think it was clear from the outset that Khomeini and his supporters were not going to be at all friendly to the US, and I think that Khomeini would have been the last person that the US would have picked to replace the Shah. I think that the Carter administration might possibly have deceived itself into thinking that it could forge a frosty working relationship with the Khomeini regime (a colossal miscalculation as it turned out!) and so they bowed to what they saw as inevitable and encouraged the Shah to leave without a fuss.

Of course, if it is really true that most Iranians were anti-Khomeini and really wanted a secular democracy to replace the Shah, then clearly Carter committed a massive foreign policy blunder which is still causing major headaches today. But I haven't heard even Carter's harshest critics accuse him of such a blunder. I wasn't in Iran at the time, so I cannot claim firsthand knowledge of what was happening there then. But I kind of wonder whether your NDF friends might not be deceiving themselves a little bit about their popularity at the time. If the NDF really was so popular, then I don't see how the US could have prevented them from coming to power (even if for some crazy reason it had wanted to).

YHC-FTSE's picture

Many thanks for sharing your thoughts. I suppose it is possible that the old Iranians I bump into every now and then may have their memories coloured and distorted by being in the thick of the uprising and by the passage of years. But I think they're earnest - most of them are academics in science - after all, they had to flee for their lives when Khomeini came to power and they have nothing to gain or lose any more. It's been fascinating hearing the same tale from different perspectives. 

cranky-old-geezer's picture

We're seeing ME returning to its 5,000+ year theocratic ways.  US puppet regimes moderated it a few years, nothing more.

Cindy_Dies_In_The_End's picture

New Jersey! Now wait a minute, according to South Park, NJ takes over the USA.


Get it right.





Pez's picture

Al Qaeda problems got ya down bub? Call 1-800-4CIA! That's 1-800-4CIA! For a Large Fee they will call off those nasty Al Qaeda terrorists and secretly install a US friendly puppet regime. Remember that's 1-800-4CIA! Do it today! ...again that's 1-800-4CIA! You'll be glad you did!

Missing_Link's picture

The beginning of a radical Islamist middle east, unfortunately.

From :

59% of Egyptians back Islamists. Only 27% back modernizers. 50% of Egyptians support Hamas, 30% support Hizbullah, and 20% support al-Qaeda. 82% support executing adulterers by stoning, 77% support whipping and cutting the hands off thieves, and 84% support executing any Muslim who changes his religion.
pan-the-ist's picture

Spread your propaganda somewhere else.

TuesdayBen's picture

You listen to NPR, which serves up the purest form of propaganda, do you not?

Rodent Freikorps's picture

With tax dollars. Govt. approved propaganda at that. Real official stamp of approval.

Yes, it is.

pan-the-ist's picture

You obviously didn't grasp the part in my comment where I am pointing out NPRs agenda.

hardmedicine's picture

NPR is the biggest propaganda shill of them all because they take the "controlled opposition" position and make the average sheeple think they are really out there tearing it up!!! hahahaha.  I remember the days when I, yes I, listened to NPR thinking how nice it was of my government to be so open to criticism.!  Oh God, the matrix amazes me even now. 


Alcoholic Native American's picture

I had a professor that would constantly mention NPR, this idiot actually ascked me after my Osama Bin Laden presentation, arnt you gonna talk about 9/11. I said, nope.

SgtShaftoe's picture

I think it remains to be seen.  Calling the Muslim Brotherhood a extremist group is like comparing the Boy Scouts to Delta Force. It's just ridiculous prima face.  I understand there's alot of propoganda going around like what you highlighted above, but it's important to know the source of the information and separate the propoganda from facts.

Incidentally the Muslim Brotherhood's website and germain article to this point is here:  

The West would be well-advised to show that, while it may not necessarily be on the side of the protestors (somewhat incredibly, Hillary Clinton already said the US won't take sides - talk about pre-emption), it will vigorously support their right to protest, assembly, and that it will not stand by while those fighting for freedom are shot to death. The protestors, who are, in fact, risking their lives, need to know that the world is watching. And that the world cares. This, presumably, is US policy, or maybe it used to be US policy. I'm not entirely sure. I do know, however, that President Bush said the following in his 2003 speech to the National Endowment for Democracy: "Militarism and rule by the capricious and corrupt are the relics of a passing era. We will stand with these oppressed peoples until the day of their freedom finally arrives.” I suppose this is the time to stand?


...So now when tens of thousands of Arabs all across the region are stating, with unmistakable clarity, that they will no longer accept the authoritarian status quo, they are forcing us to take sides, testing our so-called "moral clarity." What they are really doing, I suspect, is forcing us to fall on the wrong side of history. This is not a good place to be.



Not exactly the words of radicals...


Batty Koda's picture

The Muslim Brotherhood are a tool of western intelligence set up in 20's, similar thing to Al Queda. It's possible the anglo-american empire will help them gain power so Egypt can be turned against Iran. A long running plan has been to form a radical Sunni Arab front of nations and use them against the Shiite Persians. Mubarak wasn't stupid enough to go along with this so now he's gone.

Big Ben's picture

I don't really know anything about the Muslim Brotherhood. But in general, radicals who are not yet in power often adopt moderate positions in order to maximize their support and minimize opposition. Only when they become firmly established do their true positions become apparent.

GDE's picture



The Muslim Brotherhood are fundamentalists.

Bringin It's picture

Re. The Boogie Men of The Muslim Brotherhood.

We are currently under the thumb of the Israeli Brotherhood of Ben Shalom Brenarnke and crew.  [But no one can say this.]  We make annual tribute payments in various forms and get nothing in return, so captured we be. 

How much worse can our trajectory get? 

How much worse can the Boogie Men be?  I say bring on the Boogie Men. 

Have you listened to the drum beats at the Cairo rallies?  Boogie men get down.


Uncle Remus's picture

That is pure and unadulterated bullshit. Seems to me like it is a first step in telling Israel to go fuck itself, without our help.

Additionally, America doesn't need any help with fundmentalism.

Bringin It's picture

Seems to me like it is a first step in telling Israel to go fuck itself, without our help.

Clearly, it's about time.  I hope you're on to something.  Just one thing.  Who's 'our'?

If this is upsetting to you, maybe should have been active trying to rein in the supreme hubris, let alone abuse, a long time ago.

But let's see what happens.  Given the stakes, you must have the A-Team in action.  Here's a blast from the past with a different A-Team.

Why do you presume I/we want to help Israel do anything? 

SRV - ES339's picture

...and then Spain, Portugal, and Italy, and then Kalifornia, and IlliNOY and New York and Michigan, and New Jersey

Howard Dean, is that you... where's the "Ye Haaaaaaaaw?"

PY-129-20's picture

Yes, yes - and then the Chinese. And then South America  - and then the whole world will collapse and then we will have WWIII with those laser beams and stuff - and then the Martians will come to overtake the world and the Messiah dude will stop them...yeah,

...come on, it isn't that bad, right?

The CNBC pundits, Harry Wanger, Zimben, Spock, Margarete Brennan and the "Sunshine and Gloria Media Corp" told me all is fine. Therefore it must be true, of course.

trav7777's picture

Jordan's gov't has now resigned.  The King obviously wants to avoid a similar overthrow.

Ghoulface Skerry has called for resignation, some rumbling from the US Senate is significant.  Several other governments, Iran and Turkey most notably, have called for Mubarak's resignation.

Can NeObama get off the golf course long enough to make comment on this?

AnAnonymous's picture

If the Egyptian Army has indeed said it is staying out of it, then "it" is over.


'It' will be over only when the West decides it is over.

If the Egyptian tyrant is really cooked, then this puppet is holding till his masters have designed their plan to preserve the west interests in Egypt.

When ready, they will come out and state they support the democratic process in Egypt under conditions, most of them being the preservations of western interests, the rest humanitarian false goals to sugarcoat the real targets.

It could be no rejection of contracts signed between the West and the tyrant (even if he was not representative of his people in a democratic framework, which should lead to nullify previous contracts, a sequence that happened in Iraq for example), commitment not to look to acquire nuclear weapons,  warrantees on this or that.

If all these conditions are not accepted, then the West will not support the process (to understand, will try to thwart the  process by various means) etc...

Once it is sure that the Egyptian governments to come are stripped from all the power that could harm western interests, at this point, these people will be free to proceed.

Not before.

B9K9's picture

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I know the idea of an omnipotent, organized supreme body is comforting to many @ ZH. However, the fact remains that while there may be certain US policy objectives being loosely formulated, chaos is the reigning theme.

I've shared many, many times @ ZH that my dad was a career intelligence dude, and that I myself have been caught in the type of situation we're seeing in Egypt. Trust me when I tell you that no one is in charge, much less State/CIA. The situation is very fluid & volatile; around and around we go, where it stops, no one knows.

OT: I hope everyone is taking notice of the trend-line: once cops/guards "lose" their uniforms (since they have their own families to protect), criminal gangs come out. And the first thing they do is free their compatriots from various prisons.

Combine this with power being down, food stores running low, water scarce and what do you get? Local posses guarding/protecting neighborhood enclaves, with almost everything locked down tight. Forget papers - it's all visual recognition.

Take note Americans; this is how it rolls.

Gully Foyle's picture


I would think Iran and Turkey have many open channels to the revolution.

Both have been positioning as big players in the area.

Are Russia and China on the same negative footing as the US and Europe with the Egyptian people?


subqtaneous's picture

Agreed.  If it were true that the Uncle Sam had the sort of control of being mentioned here, Iran never would've gone the direction it did in 78-79, which is the closest analogy to the size and scope of this revolt.

We'll just have to watch and wait.


hero HNL's picture

I love your picture...



AnAnonymous's picture

 I know the idea of an omnipotent, organized supreme body is comforting to many @ ZH


I did not postulate the existence of an omnipotent, organized supreme body. It is implicit when you state the possibility that the Egyptian tyrant is done.

All I stated is that the West will determine the end of the current process.

Option one: the Egyptian tyrant can channel the Egyptian discontent. He is maintained.

If not, option two: the Western powers call for negociations and a peaceful transition they warrant. Egyptians will be allowed in a type of government stripped from any potential option to harm western interests.

If not, option three: Egypt is besieged by the West through various measures, most of them decided on the behalf of the world through the UN.

The process end will be determined by the West. It does not mean that the West has the control over the outcomes of the process.

creviceCaress's picture



i do believe that AnAnonymous has a good point. disco Iran was a different time different place.....this can't be compared at all, way too many different aspects.....this could be an organic event that isn't being fanned by the west, and if it is and the west has no immediate plan to keep it under control then things could start getting eenteresting......things have a peculiar hue to them now,timing is everything, the "omnipotent"  ones let egypt loose of the clutches?  possible.....highly unlikely.  may take a coupla days

Cathartes Aura's picture

the main difference in the arguments presented above is that one is put forward from a "US" point of supposed agenda/power, while AnAnonymous consistently uses "the West" - I believe this to be a more accurate assessment now.

it's less about what any individual nationstate's puppet-figurehead "says" and more about who is guiding the game, IMO. . . can folk really not see the parallel in Mubarek & Obama as installed focal points??

pan-the-ist's picture

Is "the West" a euphemism I am not familiar with?

Cathartes Aura's picture

dunno, are you familiar with duality, "the East"?

some folk here are stuck rooting for their "sides" - the mind training born of religious absolutes, good/bad, right/wrong, man/woman, etc. - so if the red team is good, then the blue team is bad, blahblahblah. . . when reality is much more subtly blurred.

I guess my point is "the West" is a way to point at a more overarching narrative - beyond the "US" or any particular nationstate, to include the historical meddling of Old Europe "western" first world, whatever - it's not just amrka's agenda being played out here, things are being steered by power that claims no state allegiance.

if you were being facetious, then stick with the first line, my apologies.

Bringin It's picture

Thanks, excellent post as usual CA. 

This for example -

things are being steered by power that claims no state allegiance

You sound like someone I bumped into while walking towards Sprout Plaza at a point in the past.

I liked your lines about the Hegelian Dialectic the other day when you said don't play the game, but if you have to look for an antagonist, look vertically, not horizontally.  Clever.

A Nanny Moose's picture

it's all visual recognition.


....and the second the US at least.

hedgeless_horseman's picture

Civilians armed with knives, axes, golf clubs, firebombs, metal bars and makeshift spears watched over many neighborhoods in the sprawling capital of 18 million this weekend, defending their families and homes against widespread looting and lawlessness.


The thugs had exploited the chaos created by the largest anti-government protests in decades and the military failed to fill the vacuum left by police.


ACOG, bitches!!!

AldoHux_IV's picture

One of many undersirable risks associated with violent revolutions, but violent revolutions occur because there are those who prevent peaceful ones from happening or more specifically when people's will are ignored time and time again.