So I know that fit is hitting the shan in egypt, and almost all the stuff I find is on what is happening right now. I've been looking for a while now and can't find significant information on how it actually started outside of the generic remarks that the people are upset at their government.

There's just so much new stuff coming out all the time that it's drowning a lot of the backstory, and I can't find that anywhere. Can anybody fill in please?

So I know that fit is hitting the shan in egypt, and almost all the stuff I find is on what is happening right now. I've been looking for a while now and can't find significant information on how it actually started outside of the generic remarks that the people are upset at their government.

There's just so much new stuff coming out all the time that it's drowning a lot of the backstory, and I can't find that anywhere. Can anybody fill in please?

Seems obvious to me. The president just did a bunch of stuff to piss off the people like imposing a curfew, turning off the internet, and probably raising taxes too high. Eventually the people just got tired of it and took to the streets to protest.

[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1297023246' post='4770565']
So I know that fit is hitting the shan in egypt, and almost all the stuff I find is on what is happening right now. I've been looking for a while now and can't find significant information on how it actually started outside of the generic remarks that the people are upset at their government.

There's just so much new stuff coming out all the time that it's drowning a lot of the backstory, and I can't find that anywhere. Can anybody fill in please?

Seems obvious to me. The president just did a bunch of stuff to piss off the people like imposing a curfew, turning off the internet, and probably raising taxes too high. Eventually the people just got tired of it and took to the streets to protest.
[/quote]I think he's asking for things before the current stuff. He's been in power for 30 years, so what has he done during those 30 years that have led to this is basically what he's asking. I too would be curious.

My understanding is that the president is a general that took power several decades ago and the people simply want him to step down and not seek re-election. The general happens to have been friendly to the US so there's some nervousness in the west about what a regiem change would mean. Will someone get elected who is also friendly to the west or would they form a highly Isalmic state sort of thing or something somewhere in between?

The general happens to have been friendly to the US so there's some nervousness in the west about what a regiem change would mean.

Yes, it's always a bitch when people demand the right to choose their own leader than then choose the "wrong" one...

I watched an egyptian on CNN give a pretty good account of how it started. I guess there was a guy selling fruit out of a cart in Tunisia who got his cart taken away for not having a permit. The guy lit himself on fire over it. Then it got viral with people setting up facebook and twitter pages and protests in his honor. Somehow (i didn't get this part) this got converted into egyptian protests organized through twitter and facebook. Then when the internet got shut off more people got involved.


Wikipedia entry

Tunisia [...] The guy lit himself on fire over it.

That very same thing happened 4-5 days later in Egypt, which was big TV news here because everyone said "oh oh, now there will be a revolt in Egypt as well, and then some nutter will light himself in every Arabian country, and the world will end". Though it indeed did start the revolts that we see now, but I'm not aware of any other incident elsewhere.

The somewhat longer backstory is that Mubarak has been the legitimately elected president of Egypt for around 30 years, after Sadat died [s]from old age[/s] by accident. Mubarak was a honourable soldier before becoming president, much like Idi Amin, and was elected president in an unbiased, free democratic process, again much like Amin, Castro, or Chávez. Like every president, he has his expenses, so it is only natural that a little less money remains for everyone else. If they spent more time working and less time complaining, they'd see that. Also, like every honourable man, Mubarak has enemies who are mostly bad people, so it is best to keep them in prison without a trial. In his case, they're Muslim leaders, so that's ok anyway. Plus, Mubarak has always shown his loyality for Israel, which is good because everyone else in that area is an enemy.
So, nobody can blame our leaders for shaking hands with him during the decades and giving him a few billions of military funds every year. After all, we help securing peace and make the planet a nicer place that way. Oh, and we retain control over the Suez canal, too. Who knows what becomes of it when the evil Muslims take over.

Now, suddenly the people is revolting. Shit... who thought that might happen... what now? Well, um... we've always said that, if the people decides, then the tyrant must go. And he had it coming. Down with Mubarak.
Hopefully the next president elected in a free democratic process will buy it.

[font=arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif][size=2]He's been in politics since he was 18...62 yrs ago. He's been president for 30 years. Enough is enough Mubarak. [/font][font=arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif][size=2]
[/font]

The underlying cause is fairly mundane - economy.

Recession, rising prices, poor job and life prospects, low income and income opportunities, sub-par civil liberties. There was no "that one thing" and it wasn't about overthrowing the government - all governments screw their people in one way or another, everywhere.

These classify as causes. Unrest however needs a spark and this is what happened here.

If people want change, they need power. And in a country, government has power. So by consequence, to illicit change, change government. In a democratic regime this would mean elections. Lacking that option ...

The underlying cause is fairly mundane - economy.

Recession, rising prices, poor job and life prospects, low income and income opportunities, sub-par civil liberties. There was no "that one thing" and it wasn't about overthrowing the government - all governments screw their people in one way or another, everywhere.

These classify as causes. Unrest however needs a spark and this is what happened here.

If people want change, they need power. And in a country, government has power. So by consequence, to illicit change, change government. In a democratic regime this would mean elections. Lacking that option ...

After reading more it does seem more like a lot of bad stuff that just finally snapped.

I will say that the government is not handling it very well at all though. Seems almost like they're thinking, "Well we already look horrible, so we may as well look REALLY REALLY horrible before they kick us out."