Home    General Stuff    General Chat
#1

An Egyptian Revolution

Archive: 100 posts

Egypt, if you somehow didn't know, is currently in a revolt against it's government and 30 year president Mubarak. Recently, the president "shut down the internet, disrupting phone service as well (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110128/ap_on_bi_ge/ml_egypt_protest)" and has even ordered the Egyptian army to back the police (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/28/us-egypt-protest-idUSTRE70O3UW20110128) in countering the protests.

Personally think just about every place under an openly oppressive and corrupt regime probably is taking notice and trying to hide these recent happenings.
Also think Facebook and Twitter get too much credit for the revolutions, helping, but not being the number one source of organizing.
Anyway, here's wishing the people come out on top over the oppressors and that the Tunisian people also pull through and actually take over, instead of just another corrupt dictatorship.
Think it's insane what's happening and even that it's continuing, despite the attempted communication shutdown and heavy resistance. Anyone have any thoughts or feelings on this whole mess?

Also related, good Gawker write up (http://gawker.com/5746012/) on the revolution. They also have great compilation of news on the issue.		2011-01-28 22:56:00

Author:
KoingWolf
Posts: 386

Viva la Revolution!

Now if only we in the U.S would do this towards the people in DC...

Politics! *flails* But seriously, even though I'm infinitely patient when it comes to politics and all the bs it comes with, I'm so sick of Congress and the Senate. Almost all of them. With the only good ones being these completely obscure people who probably will be out next time there's some AstroTurf'd fake uprising.
So.. I'll be on penn ave with my sign... 		2011-01-28 23:09:00

Author:
KoingWolf
Posts: 386

I'm for a partial overhaul for our country. It has positions that are stupid, people that are stupid, and some corruption, but a complete overhaul? Nah I'm good.. Don't look forward to that momentary anarchy.2011-01-28 23:58:00

Author:
KoingWolf
Posts: 386

Wow, it's just as bad as what happened in Iran a couple months ago. And looking back on that, It's only going to get worse.2011-01-29 05:21:00

Author:
dragonember
Posts: 607

I'd heard some of the policemen sent to opress were actually convinced to join the protests. If that isn't awesome, I'm not sure what is.2011-01-29 05:29:00

Author:
Astrosimi
Posts: 2046

http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/2011-01-29 12:21:00

Author:
BasketSnake
Posts: 2391

I'd heard some of the policemen sent to opress were actually convinced to join the protests. If that isn't awesome, I'm not sure what is.
Correct, and now even some top army officials are going with the will of the people. In Tahrir square they are joining them in their chants, holding flags, and supporting anti-Mubarak graffiti.
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/DoubleSwordz/108522713.jpg

Meanwhile the President's attempt at reaching a "middle ground" was basically laughed at, as it should have been. (Firing his cabinet, but remaining in charge) And his appointment of the first ever Vice President is also falling on deaf ears. Since that VP is a strong supporter of him.


http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/

This is nice, thanks for the link Basket.		2011-01-29 19:51:00

Author:
KoingWolf
Posts: 386

well thats nice, i just need to do a few more anti government speeches and the thee rest of the world will be mine!2011-01-29 23:50:00

Author:
unXpectiD
Posts: 1132

Don't forget that Mubarak only stayed in power for 30 years with American support. They payrolled his regime to the tune of $1.5 billion a year, mostly spent on military and security services used to oppress the people. The tear gas used on the protesters was "made in America".

America supporting the protesters is the ultimate in hypocrisy, seeing as just the day before they were supporting the corrupt regime that the protesters are now rebelling against.		2011-01-30 14:01:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

Macnme...
Egypt is our close, probably closest, ally in that part of the world. We supplied them with money (I'd like to see your 1.5B a year source), food, and means to protect themselves. But we didn't payroll them, they were doing a fine job of that themselves through corruption. We didn't at all supply Mubarak for the purposes of oppression either and to think so is down right wrong on a couple of levels.
If we HAD done what you are saying we did and how, we'd be like the Saudi's currently, denouncing protesters and showing our oh so strong support for Mubarak, but we're not. And we're not doing it out of some western hypocrisy people like you like to invent, seemingly out of everything. The reason we've gone with the will of the people is because our country supports open Democracy, and as made obvious by, I don't know, Iraq and Afghanistan, you cannot just go into a country and MAKE it change. It has to be done by the people.

So basically, Egpyt helped us in the wars, we helped them be stable while doing the diplomatic thing of fake smiling and the like, but now the people are taking control and we're happy to express our feelings about the issue at hand. (Mubarak's and company's corruption)
Now the Saudi's on the other hand.. that is what you should be replacing in that post instead of the United States. Then getting rid of the part about hypocrisy, because their leaders are loudly supporting Mubarak. All while their people begin to show unrest as well....		2011-01-30 16:05:00

Author:
KoingWolf
Posts: 386

Macnme...
Egypt is our close, probably closest, ally in that part of the world. We supplied them with money (I'd like to see your 1.5B a year source), food, and means to protect themselves. But we didn't payroll them, they were doing a fine job of that themselves through corruption. We didn't at all supply Mubarak for the purposes of oppression either and to think so is down right wrong on a couple of levels.
If we HAD done what you are saying we did and how, we'd be like the Saudi's currently, denouncing protesters and showing our oh so strong support for Mubarak, but we're not. And we're not doing it out of some western hypocrisy people like you like to invent, seemingly out of everything. The reason we've gone with the will of the people is because our country supports open Democracy, and as made obvious by, I don't know, Iraq and Afghanistan, you cannot just go into a country and MAKE it change. It has to be done by the people.

So basically, Egpyt helped us in the wars, we helped them be stable while doing the diplomatic thing of fake smiling and the like, but now the people are taking control and we're happy to express our feelings about the issue at hand. (Mubarak's and company's corruption)
Now the Saudi's on the other hand.. that is what you should be replacing in that post instead of the United States. Then getting rid of the part about hypocrisy, because their leaders are loudly supporting Mubarak. All while their people begin to show unrest as well....

And now would probably be a good time to point out that America implicitly supports Saudi Arabia aswell, another dictatorship that America is happy to supply with weapons and ignore the oppression - because they are "friends".
Egypt was the biggest recipient of American aid in the middle east, because they were your "friends" - and you were happy to ignore Mubarak acting like a dictator for 20+ years, so long as you retained influence by providing him with military and financial support.

Iraq also had a democratically elected leader before America deposed him and installed Saddam Hussain because you percieved him to be an ally against communism, only to have to install a new "American Friendly" government years later - & all you've done in Afghanistan is implant yet another "American Freindly" dictator while turning a blind eye to the fact that it's a corrupt regime because they are now your "friends".
The only reason you've stopped supporting Mubarak, is because you can see which way the tide is turning - Mubarak no longer has any political sway in Egypt and so is useless to America now, but America's name is mud in Egypt, thanks to their support of Mubarak for the last 30 years.

You can't finance a corrupt regime and supply it with weapons and training, like you do with Saudi Arabia, or did with Iraq, or Afghanistan. or Egypt and then claim not to have any responsibilty for it.

You pick & choose which are "bad" dictatorships which need to be invaded immediately and which are "good" dictatorships that can sit and fester for decades based on what is politically convenient for you at the time.
Either you support democracy, or you support dictatorships... but to do both is hypocritical.

Your definition of a "friendly" nation, is one that you supply weapons to


Source (http://carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=23282)
As for U.S. security and military aid to Egypt, which is about $1.3 billion annually, it does not aim to strengthen Egyptian military power against any external threat, as this would be contrary to the declared U.S. objective of ensuring Israeli security and maintaining Israeli military supremacy over its Arab neighbors, including Egypt. Instead, this aid is devoted mainly to strengthening the regime’s domestic security and its ability to confront popular movements.

Ergo: American Tax Dollars directly paid for Mubaraks oppression of the Egyption people		2011-01-30 16:14:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

Ok wait, before we spin this any further toward each of our views, can I ask where did this come from? Since the thread was primary Egypt related, with no mention of America or it's politics in the country. Or do you use any international news as a stepping stone for slanted anti-American rhetoric? Especially since America's role in all this is minimal, as stated even by that article.2011-01-30 17:01:00

Author:
KoingWolf
Posts: 386

You can't see how supplying Egypts corrupt regime with an annual one and a half billion dollar domestic security budget - with the explicit purpose to quell any populist uprisings and maintain a police state - has a bearing on this thread?

It's called "Cause & Effect" 		2011-01-30 17:03:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

...Well I'm lost.2011-01-30 17:19:00

Author:
dragonember
Posts: 607

...Well I'm lost.

Egypt is having a revolution or whatever, they're sending Army men and Police Officers to control the (protesting?) and instead they join the people and the president is like "lolz" and Macnme and Koing are going at it.		2011-01-30 17:21:00

Author:
Unknown User

and Macnme and Koing are going at it.

We've done no such thing... I have a girlfriend don't you know!

Oh wait... you meant "debating"?!

Carry on :blush:		2011-01-30 17:23:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

Ok, thanks for dumbing it down for me.2011-01-30 18:06:00

Author:
dragonember
Posts: 607

We've done no such thing... I have a girlfriend don't you know!

Oh wait... you meant "debating"?!

Carry on :blush:

<3 ya Macnme.

I'll debate you later though, work soon and I have to go clean the massive amount of snow off the car before anything else.		2011-01-30 18:33:00

Author:
KoingWolf
Posts: 386

Ya, Laters Sweetie <3

Err...

I mean..

DIE American Pig-Dog! 		2011-01-30 18:37:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

Well like or hate Mubaraks regime, the problem now is it's very likely that a more extreme and militant Egypt is the inevitable outcome of all this. That's worked out so well for us in the past If I were a member of the Saudi royal family I'd be freaking out, or picking an island to buy so I could get out of Saudi Arabia. Then again, they do own quite a large chunk of US interests.... maybe they don't need to worry. Guess time will tell.2011-01-30 19:02:00

Author:
Morgana25
Posts: 5983

Viva la Revolution!

Now if only we in the U.S would do this towards the people in DC...

It always has to be about America, doesn't it?
I wouldn't call what's happening in Egypt a "revolution"; it seems to me to just be large scale protests. I hope that Egypt becomes more Democratic. The only bad think that could happen to the U.S.--
Yes, it does.
--is that the Egyptians blame the United States' political support of their oppressive leader for the political support of their oppressive leader.		2011-01-30 20:55:00

Author:
Stoicrow
Posts: 276

well i feel sorry for the egyptian government in a way...
but on the othe hand the lucky *Ahem* dictator still has the army on HIS side!

i wish MY army had been on MY side when MY contry's revolt started...		2011-01-30 22:25:00

Author:
unXpectiD
Posts: 1132

yeah i know!
after i was overthrown, the new government was dissolved and my country was taken over by surrounding countries.
all governments involved did a good cover up to stop the public from forming a negative opinion of them.
they are trying to do the same with egypt but due to mass publicity, it is not gointg as well for them.		2011-01-30 23:33:00

Author:
unXpectiD
Posts: 1132

Wow.
The U.S government isn't taking a stance on either Mubarak or the peoples side, because they don't want to admit they've been funding a dictator with billions of dollors for the past 30 years. Hilary Clinton said she believes the U.S has been funding peace by funding Mubarak.

Obama came out on the people's side (Democracy) and urged Mubarak to show restrain toward protesters.. Clinton's response that you're referring to is old.
Give it another week and we'll be publicity and officially fully on their side. Just have to take it slow and steady is all. Diplomacy.		2011-01-31 03:05:00

Author:
KoingWolf
Posts: 386

Obama came out on the people's side (Democracy) and urged Mubarak to show restrain toward protesters.. Clinton's response that you're referring to is old.
Give it another week and we'll be publicity and officially fully on their side. Just have to take it slow and steady is all. Diplomacy.

and then WE'LL start throwing 'Shoes of Shame' at people >8D

wait, that was bush nvm.

Lot's of news on the Egyptian Protests. I usually just change it to cartoon network or something.		2011-01-31 03:52:00

Author:
Unknown User

Well like or hate Mubaraks regime, the problem now is it's very likely that a more extreme and militant Egypt is the inevitable outcome of all this. That's worked out so well for us in the past If I were a member of the Saudi royal family I'd be freaking out, or picking an island to buy so I could get out of Saudi Arabia. ...
Lets hope not.. there have to be some smart people in Egypt who can take over from the current President and step in to lead a proper government.
As for the Saudi's, I wouldn't be surprised if they are slowly, but surely, moving their billion dollar mansions somewhere else. If the minor protests there turn like the last few have, looters will have a lot more to take with them than museum gift toys.
On that note, here's a video of Tunisia's deposed leader's Ferrari being looted by forklift.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqkSJ9MUwXs&feature=player_embedded


... I usually just change it to cartoon network or something.

What time is it?! God I love that show... haven't seen it since I got back from Florida though.		2011-01-31 22:20:00

Author:
KoingWolf
Posts: 386

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41363935/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa

Seems like the president of Egypt isn't going to run for reelection in the Fall. Says that was always his plan but somehow I doubt that.		2011-02-02 00:27:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882

Seems like the president of Egypt isn't going to run for reelection in the Fall. Says that was always his plan but somehow I doubt that.

It's bad that the president of a country is putting out the kind of statement that you would normally get from a child that wants something but finds they can't have it.		2011-02-02 00:38:00

Author:
Rabid-Coot
Posts: 6728

I'll be there with my rif...*sign*, yea... my sign.. lol

We need a real president for starters. So Obama has to go. Bush needs to be barred from going near D.C. MCA and Patriot act need to be abolished. Supreme Court needs to get their stuff together. Sarah Palin needs to be banned from politics. Conservative 'Pro-lifers' who support the death penalty need to be kicked out of office. We need a complete overhaul of who is running this country. They work for us, not the other way around.

I was going to write up a huge post to reply to this, but then it hit me that to even write such a thing you'd have to be completely immune to any argument that doesn't come out of your own mouth.

Instead, I'll leave it at this: Every time someone needs to silence their opponent, it's because they can't win otherwise. You only make a monumental fool out of yourself by writing things like this. Also, it's extremely ironic that someone who supports political ideas that have been banned in times throughout history would wish that fate upon someone else.

It's as simple as that, soz.		2011-02-02 00:51:00

Author:
Voltergeist
Posts: 1702

Protests are turning ugly as Pro-Mubarak groups (possible plain cloth police) clash with anti Mubarak protests. You can watch it live on Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/)2011-02-02 13:22:00

Author:
Syroc
Posts: 3193

I think I saw Old Snake crawl along the second floor on one of those buildings. "Avoid enemy contact at all costs Snake!"

"How many are injured? Sir....HOW many are injured....?" "YEEES YEES THEY ATTACK US WITH STICKS AND KNIVES!"

"How many are injured?" YES AND WE DEFEND OURSELVES YEES YES!"

Tense as the situation is I couldn't help but laugh as I just spotted one guy wearing one of those orange traffic cones as a helmet while throwing rocks.		2011-02-02 14:24:00

Author:
BasketSnake
Posts: 2391

I do believe that those protests can start a war. (At least that's what my Social Studies teacher says.)2011-02-02 15:34:00

Author:
ConverseFox
Posts: 2333

America doesn't want what is best for Egypt... America wants what is best for America.The United States has picked and chosen the dictators it wants to support - and closed its eyes to human rights abuses under those it's propped up as strategic allies.

America doesn't want free & open elections in Egypt - hence why they funded a police state in egypt for the past 30 years (in exchange for a peace deal with Isreal), and ignored the human rights abuses ;

If Democracy was installed tomorrow and the people of Egypt were to democratically choose their own leadership - it would undoubtedly be a Pro-Muslim/Anti-Israel government - Again thanks to America's unequal partnership with Israel at the expense of it's Arab neighbours.

America will only support a democratic government in Egypt if they are willing to be America's lapdog and do as it says.
So, if a radical Islamist government is installed after Mubarak is finally hounded out of office - again, we know exactly who to blame.

The phrase "You reap what you sow" comes to mind. 		2011-02-02 15:43:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

A slightly crazy update to the situation, and building on Syroc's Al Jazeera feed, reporters cannot seem to be able to cover the situation in relative safety anymore.
CNN has had multiple incidents with it's reporters, particularly Anderson Cooper. Him and his group were attacked, with Cooper getting punched in the head about 10 times. They are far from alone, but they've got a few stories to tell about the violence against journalist that's happening as the situation turns even worse.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/02/02/ac.egypt.crew.hit.cnn?hpt=T1		2011-02-02 16:59:00

Author:
KoingWolf
Posts: 386

Same happened to a BBC reporter who drove past the ruling elites housing compound.
They were blindfolded & handcuffed and then interrogated by the secret police for 3 hours before being released.
Seems that the authorities are cracking down.		2011-02-03 07:42:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

America doesn't want what is best for Egypt... America wants what is best for America.
You mean Israel. 		2011-02-03 07:46:00

Author:
Ayneh
Posts: 2454

You mean Israel.

lol.. I stand corrected

We really are seeing history in the making (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/03/yemen-protests-sanaa-saleh).
We live in interesting times.

Also another American backed military dictator.		2011-02-03 09:50:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

lol.. I stand corrected

We really are seeing history in the making (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/03/yemen-protests-sanaa-saleh).
We live in interesting times.

Also another American backed military dictator.

It's hard to believe that you're putting Yemen on America what so ever, considering that place has been with issues for, what? A hundred years? It's not the Somali area, but come on? America has very little to do with that.
And when it comes to constantly saying America is responsible for these dictators and America doesn't want what's right, that's just plain wrong.

I'd like a list of the bleeding hearts of the world that have been long outspoken, publicly, about these dictators. Because I'm going to go out on a limb and say that unless you come back with somewhere like Switzerland, that's in the middle of nowhere and has nothing (diplomatic) to worry about, you wont come back with any relevant countries. It's not just America, it's the entire world that backs these people, because they know the cold hard fact. A dictator that you're friends with will at least be a reliable ally. It's like that everywhere and is part of world Diplomacy.

Now, it's true, the Egyptian Army is using a mighty familiar tank there to break up violence. It's not possible to claim that Britain or China gave them that there M1 Abrams. At the same time though, it helps proves why we gave them such equipment. Not to oppress the people, but to help keep order, one way or the other. As tough as that is for me personally to swallow.

In the end though, can we agree that what we are doing good when it comes to the present, specifically Obama and his comments on the matter ("A peaceful transition now," in response to Mubarak saying he'll leave in the Fall) are to be at least praised, if not applauded. It helps show how different this administration is to the previous that, I sincerely believe, killed us when it comes to how we are viewed throughout the world. Bush in his 8 years of office did more damage for the US than just about any other thing that is imaginable. But we are past that, he's gone even after stealing that second term, and we're turning a new page.

**** I miss debating! Bad week for me to reply to threads seriously, but things are clearing up and got a day off.. ready to fight!		2011-02-03 21:22:00

Author:
KoingWolf
Posts: 386

America bank rolls Yemen security forces to the tune of roughly $70 million a year. Not as much as Egypt, but still significant.

You can't keep funding these dictators police states and then claim that "it's got nothing to do with America";Buying a Dictators loyalty and then claiming that they "don't want to interfere with how they run their government". Especially when you provide them funds for their security service only if they buy all of their equipment and ammunition from America.

But I can see how America is in a "****ed if you do, ****ed if you don't" position.
They would be demonised just as much for not intervening as they do for intervening. So America may aswell just do what-ever it wants and stick it's fingers in it's ears and go "lalala" to any criticism.

But there is a disconnect between what America says and what America does - which is why the rest of the world doesn't trust their intentions.
You'll look at one military dictator and say "We like you, here's a bunch of cash, so long as you do as we say" - and look at another dictator (normally one that was installed by America, but no longer does what they say) and decide "You've got to go now - time to invade!".
And what constitutes a "good" dictator and a "bad" dictator seems to be their willingness to buy weapons from America
America is the biggest arms dealer in the world - by a large margin... America would say "Ah, but selling them weapons increases their security" - and point at the Egyptian army as an example - ignoring the fact the whole reason Egypt is now unstable is because they've propped up a dictator for 30 years.
And a "Peacefull transition of power" is a nice bit of diplomatic double-talk;
They can present that line to the American public as "See, we told him to leave!" - where as Mubarak can interpret that same statement as "Leave whenever you like"; But America doesn't really want him to go, though they realise that he must go - because there's no guarantee that a government actualy chosen by the Egyptians would be freindly to American interests in the Middle-East.
America are not the "Champions of Democracy" that they purport themselves to be.

America wanted "the Top Job" of the worlds only Super-Power - they currently have the largest foriegn deployed army of any nation - and like every Empire before it, they'll learn that it's an impossible job that no-one is going to thank you for.
Britian during it's Empire years was full of good intention (verbally), but acted duplicitously - there is a clear parrallel. Britian's also involved in the political mess that is the middle-east... I complain veciforously about Britains role in other forums.

You can't have your cake and eat it though - America can't have their sticky fingers in all of these dirty pies and then claim their hands are clean.

Edit: So Mubarak is saying "I want to go but I can't leave office because Egypt would descend into chaos!" - as opposed to the total stability it currently has. You can't argue with that logic

This Picture is about as random and chaotic as it gets
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/02/03/article-1353166-0D078E92000005DC-673_306x390.jpg		2011-02-04 05:49:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

Koing, Obama hasn't done anything positive for us.
The Military Commissions act and Patriot act are still in effect.

Oh Bremnen, you're negativity shall summon back the Negativitron if you are not careful!
Obama might not have done anything for you, but he has done and plans on doing plenty of things that are good for people I know and even some family members. So you, doesn't translate to us.
You also can't hold him accountable for the things that have happened in the past, from even before he was a Senator. That's just sillyness, and what makes it even more dumb is the left behind context of the events, such as just what happened before and after, politically.

As for the MC and Patriot acts, it's always almost funny to me when people use this against Obama. For the main reason being that he's just President. He isn't a dictator, and didn't install these crooked ideals. So, as President he must go through Congress, the Senate, and the American people to get it repealed. And guess what? Congress and the Senate wont touch it with a 10 foot pole, because they have their heads too far in their own rear ends to even look at those "Bills." Hell they wont even agree to ban extended mags for public use and put up a huge fight just to ban things like plastic guns and cop killer bullets. As well just even glancing at the Second Amendment, which badly needs updating, since I'm pretty sure the founding fathers had no clue that electric toothbrushes were ever coming, let alone a gun that fires 30 rounds in two seconds with amazing power and accuracy.

Oh and the people, for the most part, don't care or support the actions. While the minority actually completely opposes it. Even with a 10,000 person poll, guess what? 80% of that national tally is nothing compared to just 2mil in a select area that support it. Which is why polls mean nothing, no matter how good or bad their results are.


...
Funding someone's army is far from the same as funding their actions though. So while we might help keep a country's ability to protect itself from any enemies, it doesn't immediately translate to keeping a cushion under a dictator's butt.
Now usually when we turn on a dictator or other not so fair leader, it's because they actually did something different from just regular 'ol corruption and lies. Sadam committed war crimes, for instance. He didn't have that conjured up bull of a nuke program, but at that point the American people were led to believe anything the president at the time wanted. And Bush wanted to finish his father's war, but for all the wrong reasons. Strongly believe we were not a democracy for a few years after 9-11.

Claiming we're the biggest arms dealer, as much as I'd like to agree, for some reason I think we are not. Does China not have us beat in terms in the numbers department? I know we make the best death machines and the best weapons, but China is able to pump out stupid amounts of exports, even if in lesser quality, yes? You don't see Somali pirates wielding M-16s or Rugers. Their not even holding real Kalashnikovs, but the Chinese knock off version of it. We certainly didn't export that or many of the other weapons currently being used to help the chaos. That said, we do of course deal arms in a stupid amount and are guilty of helping chaos reign, just not the sole one responsible for it.

And it's been confirmed that there are talks between the State Department, Obama, and Mubarak that are trying to get together a plan that would involve him leaving immediately. There is no double talk happening with Egypt, not this time. They want him out and we want him out. This is one of those times we start showing that we really are trying to change.
As for the largest deployed foreign army, well that's an obvious one. We're in a war no one in our country wants anymore, even if Osama and company never get caught, we have multiple overseas interest that probably do need protecting, and we have deals from WW2 and beyond like Japan, were we constantly station personnel. You're gonna end up with a lot of off shore firepower.


EDIT: Yikes, almost forgot. Al Jazeera might be a great source, but here's an American event that happened live on the Rachel Maddow show yesterday or the day before. Maddow being the last political news person left that I completely enjoy and try to watch every night. Even if it's on the computer, since I do not have cable anymore.
Anyway, you have two great foreign reporters/ correspondents covering a battle in Tahrir Square.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show#41398817
You can watch the whole episode by going to latest programs and selecting Thursday's broadcast.		2011-02-04 14:23:00

Author:
KoingWolf
Posts: 386

I think it's rather hypocritical of both America and Britain to want to stop Egypt from sliding into a civil war.
Both of our democracies were only allowed to flourish because we engaged in a long and bitter civil war, that eventually led to one side being silenced.
Both of our countries current political stability is as a direct result of the outcomes of these civil wars.

Not that I want Egypt to descend into a civil war - but it's not our decision to make.		2011-02-04 15:05:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

I suppose it's all because of a sense of some sort of need to keep violence from happening everywhere. It's been like that since the hippies and The Beatles. Gotta keep world peace, man.
Yeah.. sure.. Ignore what happens when the sensible side wins, much like you pointed out. Action is sometimes necessary, sit ins do not change the world.
Think it's a completely reasonable thing to assume a civil war might be needed, but then again only if these "pro-Mubarak" groups are not in fact civilian dressed police, as the demonstrators are claiming. The deaths even now seem to be quite low too, since the Army has taken an almost completely hands off approach. Protecting both sides when they need it, but not directly interfering in most instances.

That's something I think should really be focused on more than anything. The army's willingness to ignore most of the President's orders and just do what they should be doing, protecting the Egyptian people, even if it's from themselves. The scene in that link I posted eventually turned into a tank providing a smokescreen cover to allow one side (pro-Mubarak) to escape safely and without harm, while later firing some tear gas and warning shots to disperse a "mob justice" incident with a pickup, that could have extremely easily turned deadly. That's amazing to me and gives me hope that Egypt will come out of this much better than it was. Instead of devolve into a third world country.		2011-02-04 15:32:00

Author:
KoingWolf
Posts: 386

Discovered this clip taken from a (riot?) in Egypt.

It shows a car ploughing through a crowd of people, killing and injuring many.
WARNING: Obviously, it's hard viewing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cWOK0Lfh7w&feature=topvideos&skipcontrinter=1

In my opinion. No one was doing the right thing here. I don't know the backstory as to why the crowd gathered, but this was no different than corning a frightened animal. You're going to get bit. Tragic nonetheless, RIP.

EDIT: Found this comment on the video. Sheds some light on the subject:

"ATTENTION: I'm currently living in Cairo. Here is the situation, this van is part of the NDP (national democratic party/Cairo police) The Van was making its way to Tahrir Square and purposely chose this route to create conflict for the protesters. This is NOT the only video proof of this happening and i can link you many more scenes where police cars are running over and KILLING innocent protesters

Please upvote so people can understand what the **** is going on"		2011-02-05 08:11:00

Author:
Mr_T-Shirt
Posts: 1477

Ok, so two things to report, one on topic, one off, but still wild in terms of US news.
The United States yesterday just repealed a lot of the Patriot Act. So.. yeah. Amazing step forward.
Politico's link to the story (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49126.html).

Egyptian news;
Hundreds of thousands of people continue to protest against the government, even after sundown thousands stayed.
Egyptian government had a bunch of concessions, but not the biggest thing that they wanted, Mubarak gone. Next major protests scheduled for Friday.
[Rachel Link because it's super summed up. Can always BBC it for more detailed information. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show#41483493)]
[BBC. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12394941)]		2011-02-10 03:31:00

Author:
KoingWolf
Posts: 386

Mubarak stepped down. Army is in charge for now.2011-02-11 16:27:00

Author:
Syroc
Posts: 3193

Mubarak stepped down. Army is in charge for now.

A surprising, but awesome turn of events. Considering that he also was saying just yesterday that he would not be stepping down, but instead giving some powers to his newly appointed VP.
Oh and this:
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/DoubleSwordz/Others/original.jpg

Now all we need is the military to hold control till real elections are held. Such a better outcome than what some people were predicting when Mubarak again refused yesterday.		2011-02-11 16:59:00

Author:
KoingWolf
Posts: 386

Yay! Now do my country...2011-02-11 17:23:00

Author:
KQuinn94Z
Posts: 1758

Wait... Mubarak was a military dictator... and now the Army have taken over.

"Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss"

I wouldn't start counting my chickens until they were actually hatched 		2011-02-13 12:30:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

Wait... Mubarak was a military dictator... and now the Army have taken over.

"Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss"

I wouldn't start counting my chickens until they were actually hatched

While it is true the military has stepped in, dissolved Parliament, and suspended the Constitution, it's all a necessary part of overturning the current regime and installing a completely different system of government. You need to have them in control, otherwise it would all go to hell and anarchy would reign. While you need to wipe out the last leaders, or you still have the same type of issues from before.

If they wanted to dispose of Mubarak and take over, they would have done it long ago when people first started protesting and I really don't think they would have helped keep people safe the way they did during the more violent times.
Now, if this were the police.. completely different story.		2011-02-13 20:51:00

Author:
KoingWolf
Posts: 386

Even though I usually try to maintain higher levels of optimism than some of my other politically-oriented colleagues, I'm still wary of it. Here's hoping things go along well.2011-02-13 20:54:00

Author:
Astrosimi
Posts: 2046

Has anyone here ever played Tropico 3?

The object of the game was to be a Dictator and squirrel away as much money into your Swiss Bank Account as you could while you were still in power.

Art Imitating life? or Life Imitating Art? 		2011-02-15 16:15:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/ Gadaffi you're next!2011-02-22 16:27:00

Author:
BasketSnake
Posts: 2391

Don't any of you kid yourselves.

The last thing the west wants is Democracy in the middle-east.
The (western supported) Dictators have been supressing the majority Shiite Muslim population, in favour of the Sunni muslims. The moment they have "free & open" elections, the majority will without question vote in an extremist islamist government - opposed to Israel's dominance of the middle east.

What we'll do, is pick a new warlord/dictator to back.

Would you care for some hypocricy with your international politics?		2011-02-22 16:55:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

I would love to discuss further but I'm going to watch The Reef! Or as "Deb" Morgan so well put it - "I'd rather put out a campfire with my FACE!"2011-02-22 17:14:00

Author:
BasketSnake
Posts: 2391

Macnme, I don't believe that for a second. The US and UK would without a doubt support a legit election in the middle east. The problems they run into is that, as a whole, the UN just does not want to get together and everyone at the same time denounce these dictators and ask them to listen to their people. While no one wants to be the first and only one to say anything against them, because if they don't get the international support, they risk getting cut off from the oil and natural gas output that these countries are so sickeningly rich off of. That in today's world would be catastrophic for that country that gets cut off.

So that's why I think you see all of this super mono tone, extremely carefully worded responses to these protests. That is, with the exception of Libya. Because Gaddafi took it to an entirely new level, and just committed genocide this week. No one is keeping the type of tone used with the Sudan and such.

Now, as for your second point, I see that entirely as a fabrication of the conservative side of politics. If you look at the facts beyond what the dictators put out, who want you to believe that if they get kicked out, something worse will come in, the stats change. In Egypt for example, people like Beck spread the lie that most Egyptians support the Muslim Brotherhood. When in actuality, only about 1 percent of Egyptians support them. If they ever tried to come in now, post Mubarak, most, if not all Egyptians would not support their ideals.
While the issues with Israel branch way out into the complicated and headache inducing politics of the middle east. If anything, I'd say Israel is the main tree trunk of issues in the middle east, one way or the other. That's not being anti-Israel, that's just looking at the facts.		2011-02-22 18:25:00

Author:
KoingWolf
Posts: 386

Can this thread be renamed "General multipurpose uprising and revolution" thread?

@Macnme: It's not that they don't want democracy, it's rather that they don't want unpredictability.		2011-02-22 18:55:00

Author:
Syroc
Posts: 3193

We've seen it happen before, in Palestine, where they held free and open elections - and Hammas was voted in by a landslide - and then the west refused to acknowledge them or do any business with them - We 'talk' about Democracy - but we "act" very undemocratically.
Which is why we are (quite rightly) not to be trusted. We only have our own self interest at heart - and are only concerned with the steady supply of oil - all other concerns, like human rights or democracy take a back seat - despite what is publicly stated.

That is the Realpolitik		2011-02-23 12:20:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

.. hmm, you got me on the Palestine thing, so I'll give you a point there. The oil stuff is.. also regrettably true, but only give you half on that!
While in the end it's all about oil since with prices absurdly high or oil just not available, the west suffers immensely. While that country who refuses to supply becomes even poorer because they lose their main source of income.

But even with all that, I really think the world leaders would much rather have democracy and a stable, nonviolent regime. They really want that for the people, even if the people don't realize the benefits of keeping peace. It's not just about a bunch of greedy politicians ringing their hands about it, I really think most if not all have a conscious when it comes to the Middle East. No one really wants a dictator that uses Anti Aircraft missiles and calls in the air force to open fire on civilians like in Libya. While they also don't want something like Hammas, that could turn into that later down the road.

EDIT:


Can this thread be renamed "General multipurpose uprising and revolution" thread? ....

I agree with that. I can't change the thread title, but if a mod wants to I can edit the OP to change it for that.
"General Uprising/ Revolution Discussion" sounds right.		2011-02-23 16:20:00

Author:
KoingWolf
Posts: 386

So, as I've been saying - the Middle-east can have democracy, so long as they all vote exactly as America wants them to - otherwise they will make things very difficult for them.
That's hardly in keeping with the democratic principle.

You've obviously got a lot more faith in politicians than I have .
How can you tell a politician is lying? his lips are moving

If Gaddafi were to crush the opposition with brutal force and restore "stability" tomorrow - it would be business as usual with the West.
In short - we don't care as long as the oil keeps flowing.		2011-02-23 17:51:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

Ok, back to here. Been too busy to play politics.

lol, while politics and politicians can both be infuriating, I think I tend to see the best in things and try to see the better in people. Even when you have people like Walker in Wisconsin playing politics in a horribly inappropriate way.
People just tend to take a stance that all politicians are liars and whatnot, but even Wikileaks proves that our politicians are actually quite truthful. It completely stomped out the conspiracy theories of backrooms with dimly lit world leaders planning out things, but you don't really hear that part of those documents, just the silly things and the rather.. upsetting outings of spies all over. But that topic is for another time.

I was going to go against your claim that if Gaddafi were to come out on top, we would just act like it never happened, but then again he's committed other atrocities including what would normally be an act of war, with the bombing of that plane. All countries affected by that did nothing in the end and it took years before he gave billions, as if that changes anything. So unfortunately I do not really disagree with your recent statements Macnme, amazing. Or maybe one of us has turned into a pod person... 		2011-02-25 16:10:00

Author:
KoingWolf
Posts: 386

I was going to go against your claim that if Gaddafi were to come out on top, we would just act like it never happened, but then again he's committed other atrocities including what would normally be an act of war, with the bombing of that plane. All countries affected by that did nothing in the end and it took years before he gave billions, as if that changes anything. So unfortunately I do not really disagree with your recent statements Macnme, amazing. Or maybe one of us has turned into a pod person...

No, lets not even open that can of worms... I personally do not believe that Gadaffi was responsible for the Locherby Bombing... it's just yet another example of "Trial by Media" - the 'so-called' proof that the now diposed Justice minister of Libya claims to have, has not yet been made public - and yet papers all around the world are already calling for Gadaffi to be executed.

I will need to see this "proof" that Gadaffi was behind the Locherbie bombing before I accept it.

The truth behind the Locherbie bombings goes much deeper (http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/66187,news-comment,news-politics,how-abdelbaset-al-megrahi-and-libya-were-framed-for-lockerbie-bombing).

But I have to hang my head in shame at our elected leader David Cameron - currently touring the middle-east with an envoy of Arms Dealers.

Timing is everything Dave 		2011-02-25 16:55:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

So, UN adopted a resolution that puts into place a no-fly zone and enables government to take all actions necessary to protect civilians. So far it's only reported that the Egyptian military has started to deliver small arms to anti-government groups.

Meanwhile in Yemen, at least 30 people were shot and 200 injured during anti-government protests by security forces.

And in Ivory Coast, 25 people were killed as the government shelled a district that is mostly inhabited by people who are in support of the opposition, which, in case you didn't know, has won the last elections by most accounts but the president who refuses to leave.		2011-03-18 13:26:00

Author:
Syroc
Posts: 3193

Good point. It's good to be living in Norway.2011-03-18 13:38:00

Author:
BasketSnake
Posts: 2391

And how would any of the countries that we live in react to foriegn powers arming and equiping an opposition movement within the country?

I'm sure we'd all be fine with it, right? 		2011-03-18 13:50:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

There is a small difference between our government and the opposition here and what's going on over there, though.

If I wasn't on the government sides or part of the ruling elite I wouldn't mind at all to be honest.		2011-03-18 14:15:00

Author:
Syroc
Posts: 3193

You are only viewing this from the oppositions point of view - hardly a balanced view-point.

but if you were a supporter of the regime... not part of the "ruling elite"... but just a supporter of the current regime, then any foriegn interference completely diminishes the oppositions legitimacy, as they would be viewed simply as puppets for foriegn powers - which is exactly what Gadaffi was saying they were... and in seeking and recieving foriegn aid, they prove him right.

What if Iran had funded, armed and trained an islamist opposition in America, as a result of Bush stealing both elections?
Or say Africa did it during the civil rights movement?
Or Russia or China did it during the McArthy WitchHunt years?
I'm sure the American public "wouldn't mind"? 		2011-03-18 14:29:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

By making it conditional on being in the opposition I'm viewing it from both sites. 2011-03-18 14:39:00

Author:
Syroc
Posts: 3193

So , by inference, "If" you were supporting the current regime (which many libyans do) - you would agree that the opposition has no legitimacy?2011-03-18 14:51:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

No. I would be against foreign involvement. It all depends of course on the level of information I have. If I was normal supporter of Gaddafi in Tripoli with he same information that I have here right now I would say that the opposition is entirely legit and that my dear leader can't even keep his own stories together. So I would probably not show my support for him anymore (unless I was forced to come out and protest for him...)

Edit: Gaddafi speeches would make me doubt him even if all the information I had would come from his speeches and national TV.		2011-03-18 14:57:00

Author:
Syroc
Posts: 3193

Again, this is all dependant on the information we have.

We have a charicatured view of what's going on in Libya... what we are being told is that overwhelmingly, the Libyan people rose up against Gadaffi, and that he then employed foriegn mercenaries to brutally crush the opposition.

You assume that everyone that is supporting Gadaffi is "being forced to"... which just isn't true. If you were a 'normal' supporter of Gadaffi, you would be incredibly suspicious of the motives of any foriegn government taking an interest in toppling your beloved regime.

And if you look at a map of oil fields, overlaid with a map of army strength... it becomes pretty clear that in Libya you have very large oil fields being protected by a very small army. If it were a game of Risk (which sadly the world actually is) then your next move would be to invade Libya (or destabalise it by funding an opposition movement, then install your own preferred dictator)

Who's go it is next?
Oh, yes, Our Move. 		2011-03-18 15:15:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

Again, this is all dependant on the information we have.

That's pretty much what I said.

Your ability to read between the lines doesn't seem very good today. 		2011-03-18 15:32:00

Author:
Syroc
Posts: 3193

No, I was agreeing with you - Not like me I know

Of course... while aiding these opposition movements - we are unthinkingly setting up the next Gadaffi - the leaders of these disperate opposition movements (there is no central leader to the opposition) are tribal warlords, not the "plucky little freedom fighters" charicature we have also been fed.
before we go blindly providing them with weapons, we should maybe find out a little about their policies etc.		2011-03-18 15:56:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

No, I was agreeing with you - Not like me I know
Oh!

Yes, I agree and that's at least part of the reason why the international "community" has been so reluctant to act or even respond. The evil you know is almost always preferable to uncertainty. Especially if it might lead to long-term instability.

Whatever happens, it will be interesting.

(And probably quite terrifying if you happen to live there. :/)		2011-03-18 16:27:00

Author:
Syroc
Posts: 3193

Benghazi less than an hour ago.
http://gyazo.com/74b1e2c1a600d9232098b4fb45c3d49e.png
It is said that that is a plane of Gaddafi's forces shot down by the so-called rebels.		2011-03-19 09:32:00

Author:
Syroc
Posts: 3193

See that thing on the left..is that the pilot ejecting with his chute? Who knows.2011-03-19 10:32:00

Author:
BasketSnake
Posts: 2391

It's nice to know that (so long as the nation has oil) the international community is willing to get it's hands dirty in a Civil War.

It's sad to think of all of the Civil Wars that the international community completely ignored - like Darfur, Rwanda, Congo, Kenya etc - that resulted in FAR more deaths than has happened so far in Libya - and they all stood by and did nothing - in fact we told them there was nothing that we 'could' do, just because they didn't happen to have a massive oil reserve.

Nice to know we have our priorities sorted out (Oil before Injustice) 		2011-03-21 12:46:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

Yeah, I know that is a popular argument, but considering that Libya sold most of its oil (85%) to Europe anyway and that getting involved not only disrupts oil production but also cost a lot of money, it would have been a lot cheaper to just let it play out. After all it looked like Gaddafi forces were very close to taking Benghazi before the UN resolution was adopted.2011-03-21 13:00:00

Author:
Syroc
Posts: 3193

& That is the popular counter-argument. The truth is, they want Gadaffi gone.

This is called "getting in on the ground floor" - If we back a specific warlord - provide him with weapons and support - and encourage him to overthrow Gadaffi ; Then we can pretend that it is a legitmate revolt, and not a forcefull regime change (which is illegal under international law).
And just like the current round of dictators that are being ousted by their own people - we will set up a new set of western backed dictators.

Ask yourself why we are acting in this one specific instance, when we did not act in any number of similar cirsumstances around the world in the past?

What's the difference between the circumstances, when there were civil wars with a much higher civilian casualty rate - but no large oil reserves?

There is a whole host of hidden political motivations behind these manouvres that will only come to light once they are leaked by the likes of Julian Assange.
It stinks to high heaven.

Why aren't we acting in Saudi Arabia - or Bahrain?! (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2011/0321/Bahrain-s-king-thanks-Saudi-troops-for-thwarting-external-plot)- If it's political freedoms that we are 'really' fighting for?		2011-03-21 13:32:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

In general I agree with everything you say, the world should have acted in the cases you mentioned and it probably would have been a lot better if any kind of intervention happened one or two weeks ago, but the one thing that does annoy me in your argumentation is the the fact that according to you (and many other, sometimes even me!) it all boils down to some ulterior motive, be it access to oil or just sheer lust for regional hegemony. It may be true (we will probably never know for sure), but I prefer to believe that not everything is about power and wealth. Sometimes, just sometimes, governments may act simply because it is the right thing do to.
It may not be the wisest or even the most efficient solution, but at least it happens for the right reasons.

I fully expect you to disagree with me on that, and I respect that, but I don't believe it is all just a simple cost-benefit analysis.		2011-03-21 14:47:00

Author:
Syroc
Posts: 3193

I prefer to believe that not everything is about power and wealth. Sometimes, just sometimes, governments may act simply because it is the right thing do to.
It may not be the wisest or even the most efficient solution, but at least it happens for the right reasons.

I fully expect you to disagree with me on that, and I respect that, but I don't believe it is all just a simple cost-benefit analysis.

I would also "like" to believe that our governments are acting out of our best interests... but unfortunately, that's just not the case.
No government acts unless it is specifically in it's own self-interest.

Politicians know that humans are violently aggressive, territorial apes who are out to secure as many fruit trees as possible, who will smile and shake your hand to your face - and plot and scheme behind your back - they know this because they know themselves. To suggest anything else is to deny human nature. That's why the first thing they spend tax money on is Weapons (for your own security against all of those other aggressive, territorial apes).
There is always an ulterior motive in all but the most uncommon of circumstances.
And given the wests history with Gadaffi - there is definately more to this than meets the eye.

Especially when you consider that we are ignoring identical circumstances (the violent suppression of a popular uprising) in other Middle-Eastern countries, like Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

The only difference there is, we are friends with the Saudi Royal family and the King of Bahrain 		2011-03-21 15:24:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

Hope no-one minds the double-post;

So, it turns out Ex-Justice Minister Mustafa Abdul Jalil is now making a bid for leadership in Libya.
Incidentally, the 'supposed' proof that Gadaffi was behind the Locherbie bombing has still not been released - and seeing as the claims were made exclusively in the Expressen (one of the most lurid publications in the world - they also orchestrated the character assasination on Julian Assange) the claims are clearly fraudelent at worst, thread bare at best - otherwise - why not provide the proof right away in order to verify your claims?

The whole thing stinks to high heaven... (http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2011/02/lockerbie-scoundrel-time.html)if Mustafa Abdul Jalil becomes the new ipso-facto ruler of Libya.

I smell political manouvering - and I've got a nose for this kind of thing		2011-03-24 14:20:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

He spoke out against the political prisoners Gaddafi had locked up, so I'm assuming he's more or less on the good side.2011-03-27 00:04:00

Author:
Astrosimi
Posts: 2046

Yeah, I mean, he was only the justice minister of a corrupt regime.... I'm sure all of the injustices had absolutely nothing to do with him at all. Gadaffi did them all personally with his bare hands 2011-03-27 08:44:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

You got that. Gadaffi just does not listen. The fool is wanting complete power. He is just using a standard fear me or die approach but, he is far to blunt and he picked the wrong time to do it.
Sorry, but he is an ignorant fool. The regeme should collapse pretty soon though.		2011-03-27 22:24:00

Author:
unXpectiD
Posts: 1132

You got that. Gadaffi just does not listen. The fool is wanting complete power. He is just using a standard fear me or die approach but, he is far to blunt and he picked the wrong time to do it.
Sorry, but he is an ignorant fool. The regeme should collapse pretty soon though.

I was being Ironic... there is no way that one man can have that level of control - he needs a support structure underneath him to carry out his orders or he's just some loon in a chair barking orders at no-one;
The likes of the now ex-justice minister was one such underling - who has now seen which way the wind is blowing and decided to go with it - this doesn't absolve him of any responsibilty for the injustices that happened while he was in the old regime. He's just power-playing to try and set himself up as the new Gadaffi - and we are enabling him to do so.
It's akin to a guard at Auschwitz jumping the fence as soon as he see's the Allies coming over the hill - and then claiming that he is the one who is 'liberating' the prisoners.

Also, it's not NATO's job to pick sides in a Civil War.

How do you think civilian pro-Gadaffi supporters are being treated by the revolutionaries as they sweep through these towns? - Fairly?- The revolutionaries don't have a police force, or prisons, or a judicial system (yet) - So it's summary executions for all!
These are the people we are providing support to 		2011-03-28 14:48:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

Yes, I get what you are saying but, he is the one barking the orders and he is trying to get a totalitarianist system going. Or rather, he would like to.2011-03-28 19:14:00

Author:
unXpectiD
Posts: 1132

What do you mean "get going"? He has been at it for many, many years.2011-03-29 08:08:00

Author:
Syroc
Posts: 3193

What do you mean "get going"? He has been at it for many, many years.

And We've been selling him weapons for as many

That's the reason we are so confident about engaging him militarily - we know exactly what weapons he's got and we've got the reciepts to prove it 		2011-03-29 10:29:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

aw, why can't they do it Gandhi style :tophat:2011-03-29 11:21:00

Author:
jimydog000
Posts: 813

And We've been selling him weapons for as many

That's the reason we are so confident about engaging him militarily - we know exactly what weapons he's got and we've got the reciepts to prove it
Yep, hence the night time attacks. Apparently no one sold them night-vision tech.


aw, why can't they do it Gandhi style :tophat:
As in Ghandi from Civilization or the real Ghandi? 		2011-03-29 12:53:00

Author:
Syroc
Posts: 3193

Mustafa Abdul Jalil has now set himself up as a "Rebel" leader - and Britian and France have officially recognised them.

Incidentally - the 'proof' that Gadaffi was behind the Lockerbie bombing is still not forthcoming. It's obvious to me that Mustafa Abdul Jalil has accepted a bribe from America in order to propegate this lie (as it distracts from the 'real' reason behind the Lockerbie bombing - which was IR655 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655)) and forever bury the miscarriage of justice in framing of Al Megrahi (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n18/gareth-peirce/the-framing-of-al-megrahi).
It's worth noting how quickly (and with a total absence of proof) the worlds media spread the lie that Gadaffi was behind the Lockerbie bombing.

And remember when Gadaffi said that the protests were being orchestrated by members of Al Qeada - and the western media mocked him and called him crazy ; well it turns out he was telling the truth (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html), and a sizeable part of the fighting force of the Rebels are Al Qeada fighters. But of course, there's no hypocricy in backing Islamist Militants, who yesterday we branded as terrorists and today brand as 'freedom fighters', in order to depose a Dictator (who yesterday was an ally and favoured business partner). No hypocricy at all 		2011-03-29 15:23:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

You remind me of Imtiaz Dharker and one of her poems "The right word" to be presise.
Give it a read.		2011-03-29 16:33:00

Author:
unXpectiD
Posts: 1132

A rather sweet little poem about terrorists.

!!!

Didn't think I'd ever hear myself say that 		2011-03-29 16:40:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

I think you mean freedom fighters...
However yes, it is rather sweet and dispays how the actions of such people are veiwed.		2011-03-29 16:45:00

Author:
unXpectiD
Posts: 1132

I think you mean freedom fighters...
However yes, it is rather sweet and dispays how the actions of such people are veiwed.

Well, that's the point isn;t it?
One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.


I just wonder how any of our governments would react to a foriegn backed armed islamist uprising in their own country?
I'm sure it would be "moderately" 		2011-03-29 17:10:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

I don't know, they have avoided that that topic so they do not appear to steriotype or offend or anything.
I may bring it up though just to see what reaction I get.		2011-03-29 18:39:00

Author:
unXpectiD
Posts: 1132

Hello, I bring comic relief

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0i9acHS_zQ		2011-03-29 19:38:00

Author:
Syroc
Posts: 3193

aw, why can't they do it Gandhi style :tophat:


The greater our innocence, the greater our strength and the swifter our victory

You're right you know, if all sides did it Gandhi style there would be no problems in this world at all.		2011-03-30 21:27:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

Macnme, there are some truths in your arguments, but where the heck are you getting that the rebels are executing civilians? I saw on CNN that the rebels had actually published pamphlets that urged the revolutionaries to maintain the order and to not vandalize or loot so that it doesn't look to the world as if they're just another peasant uprising. I mean, I see how you could formulate your arguments on the former government officials + U.S. interests (although I maintain that they're in good heart, and U.S. is really trying to stay away from the revolution anyways), but I'm really not seeing how you could go ahead and make such a blatant accusation.

Unless, of course, you DO have sources, in which case I'll be glad to yield if it's something reliable.

On a lighter note, true that about the Gandhi style.		2011-03-30 22:15:00

Author:
Astrosimi
Posts: 2046

I don't know on that one. Its harder to meet up and chat with a rebel aliance than it is to chat to a world leader.
However if word gets to me, then I will let you know		2011-03-30 23:10:00

Author:
unXpectiD
Posts: 1132


LBPCentral Archive Statistics
Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Datenschutz
Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.