Comments:Egypt anti-government protests continue, Internet shut down
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Video||11||14:10, 6 April 2011|
|Comments from feedback form - "This artical i read after bbc...."||1||14:57, 31 January 2011|
|Could this happen in the UK/US/Europe?||4||14:47, 31 January 2011|
|Comments from feedback form - "I am missing official reaction..."||0||19:20, 29 January 2011|
|Internet shut down in Egypt||0||06:56, 29 January 2011|
Mubarak is going to leave Egyptby during this week and he will be heading to Saudi Arabia. The dumbest thing he did during the protest is ask the army to control the protesters. The army and police in Egypt could not be more different. The police are there to enforce the law of the government no-matter if the the law is right or wrong (Pro-government), and in Egypt they are as corrupt as they come (You can by them with 100 Egyptian bounds). The army of the other hand is their to protect the people and the country from all enemies (domestic or otherwise) so they tend to be more supportive of the people (Pro-Protesters); and in Egypt the army is highly respected throughout Egypt history.
That's content from a competing news source! No way!
Having said that, we allow PD sources such as VoA to be used as actual content; CC-BY-3.0 is a compatible licence with Wikinews. We're allowed to use it if we want, it's an editorial choice and not a legal one.
Did I mention that you appear to have accidentally used Papyrus in your signature, Mono?
And this is the wrong namespace for this sort of discussion :D
If you 'dare post VoA propaganda, I'll arrange an extraordinary rendition, and you can sit with that as your only news source before debating if they're unbiased.
We don't allow unfiltered VoA; some people have exploited the compatible licensing. Guess what? That 'hope of ignorance/unwariness' is intentional, or at least a most fortuitous side-effect of USA inc. publication policy.
Apologies for the unfortunate wording of my above post. My point was simply (meant to be) that we are allowed to post VoA drivel, but that we choose not to (for good reason). It's always fun when a "reliable and authorative" news source shows "objective" news features trying to imply that the fall of Saddam Hussein was the trigger of the Tunisian protests.
This artical i read after bbc.com and it has more links and info than on bbc.com 's news report .
Just wondering if anyone knows if the current UK/US/Europe leg. would allow same thing their?
Considering that none of the European, nor the United States governments are dictatorships, I'd say no, unless one of them goes mad, etc. Something very unlikely.
Also, the conditions we have here in the US or Western Nations are much better than their's. People are starving over there, we don't have people starving. The closest I would say we got to a revolution was in 2008 around the financial collaspe.
There are similarities between a capitailist (so called) democracy and dictatorships, once a political party/parties are in power they pretty much dictate what happens in that country. We may have things better here but since the financial collapse the gap between rich and poor has widened, less well paid working people are struggling to make ends meet due to job losses, rising fuel, energy and food prices. It may not be the same level of poverty as many other nations who have things much worse, but it is relative poverty. Still my orginal question not really answered, theortically at a time of political unrest ect....do the western nations goverments have the power to legally shut down the internet?