Egypt to follow Tunisia?

gurramok

If you watched last nights violence, the crowd on the bridge were pro-Mubarek supporters firing all sorts at people in the square. They ended up killing 5 people overnight using gunfire, petrol bombs and stones. They should not be allowed near the pro-democracy protesters at all.

Egyptian health ministry(are they reliable?!) report 8 dead, 900 injured from yesterdays mayhem in the square. That's bloodshed BlaasForRafa.

BluePlanet

The Muslim Brotherhood has been very low key yet they have about 20-30% support of the public.
Time could be ripe for they to enter the fray.
Imagine if they came out in numbers in support of and to protect the pro-democracy protesters?

Shepherds for democracy against a western-backed dictator and his violent thugs. That could play very nicely for them.

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

If you watched last nights violence, the crowd on the bridge were pro-Mubarek supporters firing all sorts at people in the square. They ended up killing 5 people overnight using gunfire, petrol bombs and stones. They should not be allowed near the pro-democracy protesters at all.

How exactly did you identify the ones standing on the 6th October as being pro-Mubarak supporters? Or are you just adding little details to what you saw to suit your post?

In any case all parties involved were violent. It wasn't as if the big bad pro-Mubarak supporters came barging in on horseback with swords to slaughter the peaceful lambs that were anti-Mubarak. Far from it.

What actually happened was as follows in a short timeline of two days (According to Al-Arabiyah, other arabic news channels and family of mine in Egypt)

1 February
Pro-Mubarak supporters begin to appear and become vocal in the protests. Neither side at this point had been violent but they were certainly hostile towards each other. I remember seeing a video where a pro-Mubarak supporter merely said "We should give him the chance to hand over power and should abate the protests for Egypt's stability" and he was swarmed by people insulting him. He looked pretty frightened by the crowd's response.

As the day went on more pro-Mubarak supporters took courage and took to the streets to join the as of then peaceful protest and counter-protest.

2 February

No one knows how it happened. Hand to hand fighting starts between both sides and as the day went on it progressed to sword fights, acid attacks, gunfire and people on horseback as well the barrage of stones being thrown by both sides. People suspect the use of paid agent provocateurs to start the riot but personally I wouldn't be too sure as the government serve only to lose by a riot.


Another thing that people don't realise about Egypt is that in Egypt people have a strong sense of community even towards people they don't know. For example, if someone shouts "pickpocket" or "robber" they quite literally get the entire street chasing after the pickpocket. If two people get in to a fight random people join and start fighting with them even if they don't know the two fighting. In fact, the above trait is ridiculed from time to time in films. Two people start a fight and get a riot going, then the two who started the fighting could just leave the fight and no one would notice.

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

How exactly did you identify the ones standing on the 6th October as being pro-Mubarak supporters? Or are you just adding little details to what you saw to suit your post?

Are you actually watching the news reports? Tune into BBC news and Sky news.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12351831

bbc wrote:

One tank turned its turret towards pro-Mubarak demonstrators who were throwing stones at protesters from a road above Tahrir Square on Thursday afternoon, before advancing towards them along with footsoldiers to help clear the overpass.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/03/tahrir-square-battleground-protesters

guardian wrote:

They were barely visible at first, a glimmer of tan clothing among the ranks of pro-Mubarak fighters lined on a low overpass above the entrance to Tahrir Square. It was from here that rocks, petrol bombs and bullets had been raining down on the anti-regime opposition defending their barricades below.

People behind the barricades are anti-Mubarak supporters, that is actually in the square.

One wonders where you are getting your info from to suit your post.

BlaasForRafa

gurramok wrote: »

If you watched last nights violence, the crowd on the bridge were pro-Mubarek supporters firing all sorts at people in the square. They ended up killing 5 people overnight using gunfire, petrol bombs and stones. They should not be allowed near the pro-democracy protesters at all.

Egyptian health ministry(are they reliable?!) report 8 dead, 900 injured from yesterdays mayhem in the square. That's bloodshed BlaasForRafa.

And if the army had stepped in, more would have been killed. You really just don't get it do you. :rolleyes:

eamo12

BluePlanet wrote: »

The Muslim Brotherhood has been very low key yet they have about 20-30% support of the public.
Time could be ripe for they to enter the fray.
Imagine if they came out in numbers in support of and to protect the pro-democracy protesters?

Shepherds for democracy against a western-backed dictator and his violent thugs. That could play very nicely for them.

Muslim brotherhood = Shepherds for democracy. Yeah right, democracy - just like their brethren have in Iran or hamas in gaza or hezbollah in Lebanon. Get real.

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

Are you actually watching the news reports? Tune into BBC news and Sky news.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12351831



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/03/tahrir-square-battleground-protesters


People behind the barricades are anti-Mubarak supporters, that is actually in the square.

One wonders where you are getting your info from to suit your post.

I'm getting it from Arabic news stations who are constantly live at the scene as well as family members who live very near to Midan Al-Tahrir. Far more reliable I trust than "Appeal to the masses" news stories who don't lie outright but twist the truth to suit the reporter's bias.

Are you actually watching the news reports? Tune into BBC news and Sky news.

Why would I do that when I can just watch things unfold on news channels like Al-Arabiyah who have had live coverage since the start of the protests?

The Saint

I find it strange that these pro-Mubarak protestors have suddenly appeared a week after the protests began. Maybe I'm cynical in thinking that these people are a rent-a-mob hired by the regime and its supporters to make as much trouble as possible in order to stoke civil unrest. I just don't get the feeling that it is a popular counter-reaction. However, it seems that the antis have strength in numbers.

It'll be interesting to see what the army does if violence increases. Perhaps it will expidite Mubarak's downfall with the army getting agitated by the rising tensions and increased violence.

gurramok

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

And if the army had stepped in, more would have been killed. You really just don't get it do you. :rolleyes:

You do not get it. The army partly intervened today, were there more killings in the square? They actually arrested some pro-Mubarak supporters bent on violence, bet that does not tally with you predicting mass bloodshed at the hands of the army.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I'm getting it from Arabic news stations who are constantly live at the scene as well as family members who live very near to Midan Al-Tahrir. Far more reliable I trust than "Appeal to the masses" news stories who don't lie outright but twist the truth to suit the reporter's bias.

Why would I do that when I can just watch things unfold on news channels like Al-Arabiyah who have had live coverage since the start of the protests?

Talk about conspiracy stuff there in that post. The BBC and Sky actually have interviews with dozens of protesters, eyewitnesses and Arab experts as well as members of the regime themselves. Same for the other English language stations. Tune in.

Oh and those 2 TV stations have had nearly constant live coverage of the battles as well.

A Dub in Glasgo

Looks like the regime is attacking journalists now

http://cpj.org/2011/02/mubarak-intensifies-press-attacks-with-assaults-de.php

http://en.rsf.org/egypt-all-out-witch-hunt-against-media-03-02-2011,39470.html

I find the live blogging on the BBC very good

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698

Nodin

eamo12 wrote: »

Muslim brotherhood = Shepherds for democracy. Yeah right, democracy - just like their brethren have in Iran or hamas in gaza or hezbollah in Lebanon. Get real.

The Iranians and Hezbollah are Shia.

Jonny7

partyatmygaff wrote: »

How exactly did you identify the ones standing on the 6th October as being pro-Mubarak supporters? Or are you just adding little details to what you saw to suit your post?

In any case all parties involved were violent. It wasn't as if the big bad pro-Mubarak supporters came barging in on horseback with swords to slaughter the peaceful lambs that were anti-Mubarak. Far from it.

What actually happened was as follows in a short timeline of two days (According to Al-Arabiyah, other arabic news channels and family of mine in Egypt)

1 February
Pro-Mubarak supporters begin to appear and become vocal in the protests. Neither side at this point had been violent but they were certainly hostile towards each other. I remember seeing a video where a pro-Mubarak supporter merely said "We should give him the chance to hand over power and should abate the protests for Egypt's stability" and he was swarmed by people insulting him. He looked pretty frightened by the crowd's response.

As the day went on more pro-Mubarak supporters took courage and took to the streets to join the as of then peaceful protest and counter-protest.

2 February

No one knows how it happened. Hand to hand fighting starts between both sides and as the day went on it progressed to sword fights, acid attacks, gunfire and people on horseback as well the barrage of stones being thrown by both sides. People suspect the use of paid agent provocateurs to start the riot but personally I wouldn't be too sure as the government serve only to lose by a riot.


Another thing that people don't realise about Egypt is that in Egypt people have a strong sense of community even towards people they don't know. For example, if someone shouts "pickpocket" or "robber" they quite literally get the entire street chasing after the pickpocket. If two people get in to a fight random people join and start fighting with them even if they don't know the two fighting. In fact, the above trait is ridiculed from time to time in films. Two people start a fight and get a riot going, then the two who started the fighting could just leave the fight and no one would notice.

The state TV in Egypt, which is controlled by Mubarak, is blaming the anti-government protesters for everything from fuelling the violence, to being part of a pro-West conspiracy, etc, etc.

Pro-Mubarak supporters are surrounding, threatening and even attacking reporters and journalists.. for being part of everything from the cause of the protests, to being part of a pro-West conspiracy... etc... etc

The reporters and journalists who were being targeted before the mass demonstrations are under much more threat than before, even being hunted down in their hotel rooms. Before they were being directly confronted by the police and security services, after they are being confronted by pro-Mubarak supporters..

Police have been filmed multiple times encouraging pro-Mubarak demonstrations and supporters

It was crystal clear what happened in Iran, and its getting pretty clear what is happening in Egypt. After the propaganda that was Yugoslavia, I get my facts from as many sites as possible. When just about every news site is almost in unison and saying the almost exact opposite of what Egyptian state TV is saying... we get a pretty clear picture.

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

Talk about conspiracy stuff there in that post.

Ah... Making random allegations. Reminds me of a certain AH thread back in November.

The BBC and Sky actually have interviews with dozens of protesters, eyewitnesses and Arab experts as well as members of the regime themselves. Same for the other English language stations. Tune in.

No thanks. I'll take the news station dedicated to the region that shows both sides of the story rather than the BBC or Sky. Al-Arabiyah get phone calls almost every minute by people actually involved in the protest in the square as well as opposition and governmental leaders. Not just the occasional textual translated interview that Sky and the BBC have to offer.

partyatmygaff

Jonny7 wrote: »

The state TV in Egypt, which is controlled by Mubarak, is blaming the anti-government protesters for everything from fuelling the violence, to being part of a pro-West conspiracy, etc, etc.

Pro-Mubarak supporters are surrounding, threatening and even attacking reporters and journalists.. for being part of everything from the cause of the protests, to being part of a pro-West conspiracy... etc... etc

The reporters and journalists who were being targeted before the mass demonstrations are under much more threat than before, even being hunted down in their hotel rooms. Before they were being directly confronted by the police and security services, after they are being confronted by pro-Mubarak supporters..

Police have been filmed multiple times encouraging pro-Mubarak demonstrations and supporters

It was crystal clear what happened in Iran, and its getting pretty clear what is happening in Egypt. After the propaganda that was Yugoslavia, I get my facts from as many sites as possible. When just about every news site is almost in unison and saying the almost exact opposite of what Egyptian state TV is saying... we get a pretty clear picture.

I know all of this already. Why did you quote my post?

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Ah... Making random allegations. Reminds me of a certain AH thread back in November.

What's a previous thread about your false allegations on a totally different subject got to do with the topic?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

No thanks. I'll take the news station dedicated to the region that shows both sides of the story rather than the BBC or Sky. Al-Arabiyah get phone calls almost every minute by people actually involved in the protest in the square as well as opposition and governmental leaders. Not just the occasional textual translated interview that Sky and the BBC have to offer.

So the major British stations as well as Continental ones nevermind the American ones have it all wrong then. Those Arab people interviewed speak good English but then again as you have extensive knowledge of Egypt you would have known that English is spoken by a considerable number of people there.

Tell us, are Al-Arabiyah telling you the truth about the repression by Mubarak?

A Dub in Glasgo

#
2002: BBC Arabic Correspondent Khaled Ezzelarab says military police have arrested representatives of both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

What's a previous thread about your false allegations on a totally different subject got to do with the topic?

Quite a bit.

So the major British stations as well as Continental ones nevermind the American ones have it all wrong then.

Not wrong. They just pick and choose what to report to present biased reports that appeal best to their readers.

Those Arab people interviewed speak good English but then again as you have extensive knowledge of Egypt you would have known that English is spoken by a considerable number of people there.

Considering I have quite a few family members from Egypt I do know that people in Egypt have good English. Being particular, Egyptians aren't Arabs either.

Tell us, are Al-Arabiyah telling you the truth about the repression by Mubarak?

No they simply report the news, all of it, as they should.

Unlike the majority of people who have overnight become experts with indepth knowledge of Egypt, I have known of Mubarak's repression for many years.

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Quite a bit.

Irrelevant to this topic or this forum.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Not wrong. They just pick and choose what to report to present biased reports that appeal best to their readers.

Which bits are wrong?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Considering I have quite a few family members from Egypt I do know that people in Egypt have good English. Being particular, Egyptians aren't Arabs either.

Any political affiliations we should know about in order to get a balanced view?

This?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

1 February
Pro-Mubarak supporters begin to appear and become vocal in the protests. Neither side at this point had been violent but they were certainly hostile towards each other. I remember seeing a video where a pro-Mubarak supporter merely said "We should give him the chance to hand over power and should abate the protests for Egypt's stability" and he was swarmed by people insulting him. He looked pretty frightened by the crowd's response.

As the day went on more pro-Mubarak supporters took courage and took to the streets to join the as of then peaceful protest and counter-protest.

2 February

No one knows how it happened. Hand to hand fighting starts between both sides and as the day went on it progressed to sword fights, acid attacks, gunfire and people on horseback as well the barrage of stones being thrown by both sides. People suspect the use of paid agent provocateurs to start the riot but personally I wouldn't be too sure as the government serve only to lose by a riot.

1 - agreed.

2 - No. They marched to the square intent on evicting the democracy protesters and were violent. That cavalry charge by Mubarak thugs sparked it all off. And then we had last night when they returned with guns and petrol bombs throwing stuff from the flyover. The riot serves Mubarak well in order to show what happens wit no stability, like using fear of instability to keep him in power.

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

Which bits are wrong?

None of it is wrong. It's not what they've included in their reports. It's what they've omitted.

Any political affiliations we should know about in order to get a balanced view?

Me? None in particular. I only hope for a secular government that is fair to all its citizens and for stability to return to Egypt.

On a side note, what does your question have to do with the part you quoted?

2 - No. They marched to the square intent on evicting the democracy protesters and were violent. That cavalry charge by Mubarak thugs sparked it all off. And then we had last night when they returned with guns and petrol bombs throwing stuff from the flyover. The riot serves Mubarak well in order to show what happens wit no stability, like using fear of instability to keep him in power.

The anti-Mubarak protestors responded back in kind with equal violence.

What I think actually happened was that someone sent in some agent provocateurs to start a riot. Whether governmental or not, I can't say for certain. However what I can say is that whoever started the riot left soon after it began. In Egypt, you only need someone to say "fight" in the middle of a busy street for the entire street to come running to your aid.

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

None of it is wrong. It's not what they've included in their reports. It's what they've omitted.

What did they omit? If they omitted anything, was it big news?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Me? None in particular. I only hope for a secular government that is fair to all its citizens and for stability to return to Egypt.

Thats good.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

On a side note, what does your question have to do with the part you quoted?

Helpful to know what side of the fence you are coming from.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The anti-Mubarak protestors responded back in kind with equal violence.

What I think actually happened was that someone sent in some agent provocateurs to start a riot. Whether governmental or not, I can't say for certain. However what I can say is that whoever started the riot left soon after it began. In Egypt, you only need someone to say "fight" in the middle of a busy street for the entire street to come running to your aid.

They were severely provoked.

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

What did they omit? If they omitted anything, was it big news?

The little details that I mentioned earlier with regard to the pro-Mubarak side. They are making them out to be all evil henchmen of Mubarak which is not the case. Some of them merely want a return back to stability. I have no doubt that some may have been hired to instigate the riot however. Western media making out the Pro-Mubarak side to be all evil henchmen is inflaming tensions in Egypt and could result in a true civil war.

A Dub in Glasgo

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Western media making out the Pro-Mubarak side to be all evil henchmen is inflaming tensions in Egypt and could result in a true civil war.

The attack on protesters and the the state doing nothing to protect them yesterday is more likely to do that

Playboy

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Not wrong. They just pick and choose what to report to present biased reports that appeal best to their readers.

So all news stations in the west have the same bias including the right leaning ones who are afraid of Islamists getting into power?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Considering I have quite a few family members from Egypt I do know that people in Egypt have good English. Being particular, Egyptians aren't Arabs either.

So you have family members from Egypt so that makes you an expert? I'm married to an Egyptian lady, have been to Cairo many many times and I'm in contact with over 20 Egytpians in Cairo and at least 10 ex pats constantly over the last 9 days.

And what make you think Egyptians arent Arabs? The name of the country is the Arab Republic of Egypt? Some Egyptians refer to themselves as being pharonic but most will acknowledge their arab roots.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Unlike the majority of people who have overnight become experts with indepth knowledge of Egypt, I have known of Mubarak's repression for many years.

Really lol!? do you think you are the only one who knows anything about middle-eastern politics? Have a look at some of the threads on here to see detailed discussions on the middle east. Everyone and their granny knows about Mubaraks regime .. the guy has been in power for 30 years and came to power in very controversial way. Its widely knows that the americans have used Egypt as a base for torture and its second biggest recipient of US aid due to its stance on Israel.

The vast majority of people in Egypt want Mubarak out .. its quite clear that the Pro Mubarak protestors have been organised by the NDP.. lots of police, people with party ties, and hired thugs .. all working under the direction of the NDP.The only reason Mubarak and the NDP dont want to leave now is because they want to stitch the country up in the next 9 months .. The country is still under emergency law since Sadats assasination so the articles of the constitution that Mubarak talked about changing have changed many times as they do not need a referendum to change the constitution. These guys have killed, tortured and imprisioned countless people for just voicing an anti government opinion. I know people personally who have had their passport confiscated for writing an article that was marginally critical of the government.

To try and justify Mubaraks regime or infer that the pro mubarak protestors are representative of a large portion of the poulation is proposterous. If you have family members that feel that way in Egypt then i would safely say that they have probably some tie to the current regime and are afraid of what they are going to lose.

Have a look at what the pro mubarak protestors are up to in a Police Van

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wi3K8T3pPQ

Nodin

Playboy wrote: »

..............And what make you think Egyptians arent Arabs? The name of the country is the Arab Republic of Egypt? Some Egyptians refer to themselves as being pharonic but most will acknowledge their arab roots.

They're culturally Arab/Arabised, but they are not (genetically) Arabs.

partyatmygaff

Playboy wrote: »

So all news stations in the west have the same bias including the right leaning ones who are afraid of Islamists getting into power?

Did I say that...?

So you have family members from Egypt so that makes you an expert? I'm married to an Egyptian lady, have been to Cairo many many times and I'm in contact with over 20 Egytpians in Cairo and at least 10 ex pats constantly over the last 9 days.

My entire family is Egyptian. I was born here in Ireland to Egyptian parents and have visited Egypt many many times. I've been in contact with my entire family over the past few days and they amount to far more than 30 people.

And what make you think Egyptians arent Arabs?

Read my earlier post in this thread.

The name of the country is the Arab Republic of Egypt?

If I got in to power in Egypt I could name it the African-Asian Republic of Egypt. It means little more than the fact there are many people in Egypt of Arab ancestry.

Some Egyptians refer to themselves as being pharonic but most will acknowledge their arab roots.

There's a divide in Egypt between people who call themselves Arabs and those that do not. When it comes to culture then yes you could definitely argue that Egyptian culture has elements of Arab culture in it. But as for ancestry refer to my earlier post in this thread.

Really lol!? do you think you are the only one who knows anything about middle-eastern politics?

Note the word "majority". One month ago I would have bet that the majority of people now discussing Egypt on the internet knew little of Egypt other than that's it a country in Northern Africa with an interesting ancient history.

To try and justify Mubaraks regime

I would like you to prove that I ever attempted to justify his regime throughout this thread. I abhor certain elements of his regime.

or infer that the pro mubarak protestors are representative of a large portion of the poulation is proposterous.

Again refer to my above reply to your allegations.

If you have family members that feel that way in Egypt then i would safely say that they have probably some tie to the current regime and are afraid of what they are going to lose.

Lol... A fine joke. They all share a common distaste of the Mubarak regime much like most people in Egypt.

Have a look at what the pro mubarak protestors are up to in a Police Van

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wi3K8T3pPQ

I've seen and heard it all. I don't need telling of the nastier aspects of the Mubarak regime. A cousin of mine was abducted by the secret police about two years ago. I don't see where everyone's getting the idea that I need informing of what's going on in Egypt. I don't.

Playboy

Nodin wrote: »

They're culturally Arab/Arabised, but they are not (genetically) Arabs.

I'm not really sure how you can say that with any certainty .. Egypt has been a centre of the Arab World for well over a 1000 years .. The indigenous populations have inter-married with Arabs over this period of time. Saying an Egyptian is not a Arab is like saying an Irish Person isnt Celtic .. for all intents and purposes it would be impossible to compare an entire population with a 'pure' arab dna sample. Certainly there would be a genetic influences as well as obvious cultural influences.

partyatmygaff

Playboy wrote: »

I'm not really sure how you can say that with any certainty .. Egypt has been a centre of the Arab World for well over a 1000 years .. The indigenous populations have inter-married with Arabs over this period of time. Saying an Egyptian is not a Arab is like saying an Irish Person isnt Celtic .. for all intents and purposes it would be impossible to compare an entire population with a 'pure' arab dna sample. Certainly there would be a genetic influences as well as obvious cultural influences.

Saudi Arabia is for example a true Arab country. They are the quintessential example of an Arab country. Compare Saudi Arabia to Egypt and you will notice that not only the people but their cultures differ wildly at times. Egypt only shares a language and some elements of culture with Arab countries. In Egypt there are people of many different ancestries. Egyptian people are of a mix of Arab, Ancient Egyptian, African, West Asian, Mediterranean and European heritage. For example, I have a young cousin who you could mistake for being Irish. He's white with blue eyes and ginger hair.

Playboy

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Egyptians today are not ethnically Arab, at least not everyone. The people of Egypt are unlike any other middle eastern country in that they have links to Mediterranean Europe, to Northern Africa and indeed to Arab countries. There was also an influx of British and French people in to Egypt as well during their respective colonizations. For example the first lady of Egypt Suzanne Mubarak's mother is Welsh.

That's why the Egyptians of today range from the very dark skinned with dark hair to those with pale "European" skin and blonde hair.


So to put it better, they're Egyptians. Just Egyptians.

There is a big difference between saying Egyptians are not arabs and saying at least all egyptians are not arabs. There has and is a major arab influence in Egypt both culturally and genetically that has far exceeded any other influence. To say Egyptians are not Arabs is a bit ridiculous .. like any country in the region and probably more so than others .. the Egyptians are a mix of a number of different races. Arab is more an identity than a race and Egyptians speak arabic, follow an arabic religion, and have many many arabic customs.

Playboy

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Saudi Arabia is for example a true Arab country. They are the quintessential example of an Arab country. Compare Saudi Arabia to Egypt and you will notice that not only the people but their cultures differ wildly at times. Egypt only shares a language and some elements of culture with Arab countries. In Egypt there are people of many different ancestries. Egyptian people are of a mix of Arab, Ancient Egyptian, African, West Asian, Mediterranean and European heritage. For example, I have a young cousin who you could mistake for being Irish. He's white with blue eyes and ginger hair.

I have met plenty of fair skinned Egyptains too but they are the exception and not the norm. I think we are defining Arab a little differently .. Many Irish consider themselves Celts because of our culture and identity even though in fact our DNA is a mish mash of lots of different races.

Nodin

Playboy wrote: »

I'm not really sure how you can say that with any certainty .. ........

Because people with far more brains than me have published peer reviewed studies on the subject over the years and its the current consenus view. Egyptians are a North African people, with some influences from the various population movements over the millenia. The idea of an Egyptian Arab state is more a cultural and political declaration than anything else.

The term 'Arab' in Africa is commonly used to refer to Arab speaking muslim peoples. This is why in Sudan you have references to "Arabs" by identical looking people who are clearly African.

Playboy wrote: »

Saying an Egyptian is not a Arab is like saying an Irish Person isnt Celtic ........

It actually is, in that we're apparently genetically linked to Iberian peoples, as opposed to France, but were culturally celtic.
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/7406.html