protestor response to Suleiman’s martial law threat

I’d call his bluff. There are big differences between Tahrir and Tiananmen, one of them being that the Egyptian Army gets $1.5 billion per year from the U.S. Can we really imagine Obama staying soft on a Tiananmen-type crackdown? “Hey, no problem. You can keep your $1.5 billion this year. Sh*t happens.” No, I can’t imagine that. [ADDENDUM: For the record, the protestors have every right to be disappointed in the U.S. Administration so far. I’m just saying there are certain lines they won’t ever allow to be crossed in this situation. A panicky crackdown would be unlikely to save these people.]

And quite aside from the money, there is international opinion as well. Does Egypt, a tourist-heavy country, really want a reputation for using open military force on peaceful protestors in the middle of the city? And finally (and most importantly) perhaps the army wouldn’t go along with it anyway.

And I love this part: “However, he warned that if dialogue with the protesters failed, the alternative was ‘that a coup happens, which would mean uncalculated and hasty steps, including lots of irrationalities.'”

It would sure be a shame if your business burnt down by accident.

“Abdul-Rahman Samir, a spokesman for a coalition of youth protest groups, accused Mr Suleiman of creating a ‘disastrous scenario’, according to the Associated Press news agency.

He is threatening to impose martial law, which means everybody in the square will be smashed,” AP quoted Mr Samir as saying. ‘But what would he do with the rest of 70 million Egyptians who will follow us afterward?'”