Video: Egyptian protests turning violent; Update: Shots fired?

posted at 9:30 am on February 2, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

What happens when pro-government protesters meet anti-government protesters in the streets of Cairo? Predictably, both sides get violent. CNN reports that for the moment the violence consists mostly of throwing shoes and rocks, but with no security to be seen at Tahrir Square, the violence is starting to spread:

This appears to be Hosni Mubarak’s answer to demands that he leave office immediately. Until yesterday, pro-government rallies had either not materialized or had been so low-key as to not attract much attention. Suddenly these rallies have begun appearing, and Tahrir Square is a high-profile location for them.

Why now? The army had already said that it would not intervene in the demonstrations as long as they remained peaceful and supported the “legitimate demands” of the people. If Mubarak wanted to get the army off the sidelines, the best way to do so would be to instigate violence and force the army’s hand.

However, that’s a dangerous game. Once violence starts, the leaders on the streets will be those most accustomed to it and most steeled against concerns over collateral damage. If the army doesn’t take the bait, what had been a pro-democracy push on the streets could easily turn into a radical Islamist putsch.

Update (AP): Your understatement of the day, courtesy of the Times: “President Obama’s calls for a rapid transition to a new order in Egypt seemed eclipsed on Wednesday as thousands of demonstrators for and against President Hosni Mubarak, some on horses and camels, fought running battles in and around Cairo’s Tahrir Square.” What’s the White House going to say about Mubarak rolling out his goon squad to clear the Square? Are we still in “orderly transition” mode, or is it now time for “Mubarak must go”?

Update (AP): Also, where’s the allegedly heroic Egyptian army while this is going on? Quote:

What about the Egyptian Army, which won accolades from the U.S. for not suppressing the anti-government demonstrations? It’s taking a hands-off approach, telling demonstrators that since everyone involved is a civilian, soldiers are not going to take sides. That’s according to anti-regime demonstrator Salma Eltarzi, who told Al Jazeera that she sees Mubarak’s game plan at work…

Al Jazeera reports that at least one building by the square has been set on fire. Coverage of the Army is now extremely critical: while soldiers have apparently set up some personnel carriers as barriers between the two sides, they haven’t stopped what the network described as a pro-government mob from pulling someone into its crowd and evidently beating him. Sultan al-Qassemi of The National tweets, referring to the defense minister and Army chief of staff, “Shame on the Egyptian Army. This is as low as they can get. What are Tantawi & Anan waiting for, a massacre or a stampede? Disgusting.”

Update (AP): Did the army know this was coming? A military spokesman went on TV this morning to tell protesters that their voices have been heard and that it’s now time to go home and restore “stability.” Maybe that was their way of trying to clear the Square peacefully before the goons rolled in and tried to do it by force.

Update (Ed): Reuters reports that shots have been fired in Tahrir Square, although no one knows by whom; the army denies firing any shots.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

And rather than tamping down the scandal situation, they’ve only fanned with flames with another week’s worth of questions and denials to come.

Sweet. How sweet it is.

Finally, Obama’s chikkinzzz are coming home to roost.

petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:22 PM

“We’re not crooks – we’re incompetent” is their battlecry. The water is circling the drain, Barry.

Philly on May 19, 2013 at 3:46 PM

This.

When you have to plead incompetence to defend against charges of malfeasance, you know you might be in trouble.

petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:36 PM

ear relevant…

driguana on May 19, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Flush this lying tudd down the drain with the rest of the Obamacrap.

kemojr on May 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM

This was Dan Pfeiffer’s week in the barrel, like Susan Rice he was given the White House talking points and sent on a mission. He really needs to get copies of these tapes and watch them and see how foolish and unbelievable he looked and sounded. The White House is losing the little credibility it still had by sending these shills out every week trying to do damage control. Community organizers make poor leaders.

savage24 on May 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM

Pfeiffer’s statement that the law is irrelevant because the IRS conduct was “outrageous” and “inexcusable”, tells us all we need to know about this administration.

However, the follow-up should have been, “On what standard do you judge their conduct to be outrageous and inexcusable since the law is apparently not an appropriate standard?” (At least in Pfeiffer’s mind.)

What this comes down to is this: “if the Administrative deems something “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such. As we have seen in so many other areas, if the Administrative deems something to not be “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such.

In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.

It’s not socialism. It’s worse.

EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”

jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM

In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.

It’s not socialism. It’s worse.

EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM

A fitting capstone to Ed’s story about loss-prevention (aka employee theft) and management’s “permission structure” in this post.

(Not to mention the jaw-dropping statements of Eleanor Clift in this one.)

AesopFan on May 19, 2013 at 11:40 PM

I enjoy popcorn and hope it is a long week.

Drill and Fill on May 20, 2013 at 12:41 AM

Hey give Barky a break. He had to get his sorry ass out to Vegas.

tbear44 on May 20, 2013 at 4:49 AM

Of course they sent Pfeiffer out to do the Sunday shows. He was the most senior expendable staff member they had . . .

BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM

BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM

Pfeiffer… The guy with the red shirt in the landing party…

Boudica on May 20, 2013 at 5:53 AM

Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”

jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM

Perfect!

lea on May 20, 2013 at 7:11 AM

Does anybody else remember the campaign in 2008 when Obama defended his lack of administrative experience by saying he was just so smart and tuned in that his instincts were better than experience. Someone needs to dredge up these sound bites and play then with the current line about the government being too large to control and that the White House only knows what it reads in the newspaper.

bartbeast on May 20, 2013 at 8:43 AM

If where the president was during the Benghazi crisis is “irrelevant”, then he wasn’t where one would expect the Commander-in-Chief to be. So, where was he? Was he watching a movie in the residence? Was he bowling? Or was he having a bi-curious outing with his good buddy Reggie Love? If Obama was AWOL, as I suspect he was, it is he who is irrelevant. This entire stinkin’ criminal Obama Regime must go and now!

SpiderMike on May 20, 2013 at 9:31 AM

If this continues all week, it will be ‘O’ himself doing the rounds on the Sunday talk shows – except for Fox, of course. (‘O’ can do everything better than everyone else as he has been known to say.)

He then gets the extra benefit that no one will challenge him like they have begun to do with his minions.

Carnac on May 20, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Comment pages: 1 2