myPlanetGanja.com

If so, it's being born in a manger to desperate refugee parents with a price already on it's head. Not much of a chance....... yet .......

Nice analogy Bubba, I like that. Mind if I nick it to use elsewhere?? No, you don't mind at all?? Thanks.

I am liking watching how the US State Department and EU Foreign Ministy 'regime props' are flapping and 'wait out' on the comms until they see who, or what, is born out of this. Can not condemn the man Mubarak too much just in case the 0.1% chance that he gets through this with his buttocks still in the seat comes in. Fence sitting.inc.

Bubba will know more than me what happened post-Shah in Persia.

That said, anarchy is not fun. I hope it is resolved soon peacefully and Egyptians get the outcome that is good for Egyptians. All very fluffy of me. My friend is working in the British Embassy in Cairo, so am hoping nothing crazy happens to her, she is one of the good guys. All the embassy locally employed security staff have thinned out I think.

There is also the Christian Bible prophecies

egypt will join with iran and russia in their attack on Israel
ethiopia. sudan Turkey

If it and turkey switched to muslim countrys it should agree with a uniteing of nations to destroy Israel and rule Jerusalem!

All the way back to Abraham had 2 sons by two different women.

Isaac Ismael

jew arab

There is allways this fight and tension in the Bible

Good vs Evil

Of course Good prevails in the end

He wrote the book being everlasting

They should make you President of Egypt and the Arab Alliance MadMoonMan, not necessarily to destroy Israel per se, but just because the news would be properly funny for once.

President MadMoonMan has a certain ooh-la-la about it.

now that time is short, what needs to happen,
is for all the good people, who have friends and family in the secret police and special forces...

to wait until they come home and go to bed. then wake them up with a hood and gag and beat them real good, drag them out of the house and leave them tied up in barns and empty buildings all over.

this is the cheapest way to destroy their force rediness and spirit... TAKING their organization out of the fight... out of the ability to do as the state directs.


remember folks ,
these institutions use terrorism against the public because it works.

because it work, the public needs to know when to apply it back...


and that is NOT when their lined up toe to toe and the cameras are watching...


they need to do it at home when these fuckers are helpless...



thats how you cinch the easiest win in these situations

"anarchy is not fun" Perhaps, but it beats chaos.

~O~

the longer we wait to start cracking state skulls here,
the more french our revolt is gonna be...

Revolutions. It's almost never the people who start them that end up on top of the pile when the dust settles; that's generally someone else who was waiting and organized. That's why all successfully consolidated revolutions start by bumping off all of the revolutionaries; they're no good for anything but bringing down governments.

~O~

See, most ordinary folks, in midst of the chaos of revolution just want a little security; to know that grandma's not going to be gang-raped on the veranda by roving thugs high on painthinner; that their children can safely go to school, their wives to market without risk of being enslaved, killed, mutilated or conscripted and that they can earn a living. The one selling that wins the successful revolution, not the one selling chaos. Chaos is failure to ordinary folks.

~O~

Which is why the 'Muslim Brotherhood' waits?? And does nothing yet.

the brotherhood was a western creation from the getgo...

counter revolutionaries are who usually end up on top...

the non uniformed state assets called up to run wild raping and piliaging the public, when the security establishment withdraws under the onslaught of the revolutionary forces...

mubaracks team is busy in plaincloth guise, attacking the friends and families of anyone associated with anyone ORGANIZING the protests and resistance.

unleashing a wave of violent terrorism it gets to blame on the protestors...

in the underhanded "see what you made us do?" marketting phase of trying to hold onto power

time for the islamic caliphate to make a return......

Bonehead Biden (January 28, 2011): Mubarak Not a Dictator...



Mubarak not a dictator...



,
WHAB

Flashback: U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice Calls for Freedom and Democracy in Egypt

Remarks of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

At the American University of Cairo

Monday, June 20, 2005

Thank you, Dr. Mustafa, for that kind introduction. I am honored to be here in the great and ancient city of Cairo.

The United States values our strategic relationship and our strengthening economic ties with Egypt.

And American presidents since Ronald Reagan have benefited from the wisdom and counsel of President Mubarak, whom I had the pleasure of meeting again today.

The people of America and Egypt have always desired to visit one another and learn from one another.

The highest ideals of our partnership are embodied here, at the American University of Cairo.

This great center of learning has endured and thrived -- from the days when our friendship was stormy, to today, when it is strong.

Throughout its history, Egypt has always led this region through its moments of greatest decision.

In the early 19th century, it was the reform-minded dynasty of Muhammad Ali that distinguished Egypt from the Ottoman Empire and began to transform it into the region’s first modern nation.

In the early 20th century, it was the forward-looking Wafd Party that rose in the aftermath of the First World War and established Cairo as the liberal heart of the “Arab Awakening.”

And just three decades ago, it was Anwar Sadat who showed the way forward for the entire Middle East -- beginning difficult economic reforms and making peace with Israel.

In these periods of historic decision, Egypt’s leadership was as visionary as it was essential for progress. In our own time, we are faced with equally momentous choices -- choices that will echo for generations to come.

In this time of great decision, I have come to Cairo not to talk about the past, but to look to the future -- a future that Egyptians can lead and define.

Ladies and Gentlemen: In our world today, a growing number of men and women are securing their liberty.

And as these people gain the power to choose, they create democratic governments to protect their natural rights.

We should all look to a future when every government respects the will of its citizens -- because the ideal of democracy is universal.

For 60 years, the United States pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the Middle East -- and we achieved neither.

Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people.

As President Bush said in his Second Inaugural Address: “America will not impose our style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.”

We know these advances will not come easily, or all at once.

We know that different societies will find forms of democracy that work for them.

Our goals are idealistic. But our policies must be practical. And progress must be evident.

When we talk about democracy, we are referring to governments that protect certain basic rights for all their citizens -- among these, the right to speak freely. The right to associate. The right to worship as you wish. The freedom to educate your children -- boys and girls. And freedom from the midnight knock of the secret police.

Securing these rights is the hope of every citizen, and the duty of every government.

In my own country, the progress of democracy has been long and difficult. And given our history, the United States has no cause for false pride and every reason for humility.

America was founded by individuals who knew that all human beings -- and the governments they create -- are inherently imperfect. After all, the United States was born half free and half slave. And it was only in my lifetime that my government guaranteed the right to vote for all of its people.

Nevertheless, the principles enshrined in our Constitution enable citizens of conviction to move us ever closer to the ideal of democracy.

Here in the Middle East, the long hopeful process of democratic change is now beginning to unfold.

Millions of people are demanding freedom for themselves and democracy for their countries.

To these courageous men and women, I say today: All free nations will stand with you as you secure the blessings of your own liberty.

I just came from Jordan, where I met with the King and Queen -- two leaders who have embraced reform for many years.
Jordan’s education reforms are an example for the region. And the government is moving toward political reforms that will decentralize power and give Jordanians a greater stake in their future.

In Iraq, millions of citizens are refusing to surrender to terror their dream of freedom and democracy.

When Baghdad was first designed, over twelve-hundred years ago, it was conceived as the “Round City” -- a city in which no citizen would be closer to the center of justice than any other.

Today -- after decades of murder, and tyranny, and injustice -- the citizens of Iraq are again reaching for the ideals of the Round City.

Despite the violent attacks of evil men, ordinary Iraqis are displaying great personal courage and remarkable resolve. And every step of the way -- from regaining sovereignty, to holding elections, to now writing a constitution -- the people of Iraq are exceeding all expectations.

The Palestinian people have also spoken. And their freely-elected government is working to seize the best opportunity in years to fulfill their historic dream of statehood.

Courageous leaders, both Palestinians and Israelis, are dedicated to the cause of peace.

And they are working to build shared trust.

The Palestinian Authority will soon take control of Gaza -- a first step toward realizing the vision of two democratic states living side by side in peace and security.

As the Palestinians fight terror, and the Israelis fulfill their responsibilities to help create the conditions for a viable state, the entire world -- especially Egypt and the United States -- will continue to offer its full support.

In Lebanon, supporters of democracy are demanding independence from foreign masters.

After the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, thousands of Lebanese citizens called for change.

And when the murder of journalist Samir Qaseer reminded everyone of the reach and brutality of terror, the Lebanese people still were not afraid.

They mourned their fellow patriot by uniting publicly with pens and pencils held aloft.

It is not only the Lebanese people who desire freedom from Syria’s police state. The Syrian people themselves share that aspiration.

One hundred and seventy-nine Syrian academics and human rights activists are calling upon their government to “let the Damascus spring flower, and let its flowers bloom.” Syria’s leaders should embrace this call -- and learn to trust their people.

The case of Syria is especially serious, because as its neighbors embrace democracy or other political reforms, Syria is harboring or directly supporting groups committed to violence -- in Lebanon, in Israel, in Iraq, and in the Palestinian territories.

It is time for Syria to make a strategic choice to join the progress all around it.

In Iran, people are losing patience with an oppressive regime that denies them their liberty and their rights.

The appearance of elections does not mask the organized cruelty of Iran’s theocratic state.

The Iranian people are capable of liberty. They desire liberty. And they deserve liberty.

The time has come for the unelected few to release their grip on the aspirations of the proud people of Iran.

In Saudi Arabia, brave citizens are demanding accountable government. And some first steps toward openness have been taken with recent municipal elections.

Yet many people still pay an unfair price for exercising their basic rights.

Three individuals in particular are currently imprisoned for peacefully petitioning their government -- and this should not be a crime in any country.

Here in Cairo, President Mubarak’s decision to amend his country’s constitution and hold multiparty elections is encouraging.

President Mubarak has unlocked the door for change. But now, the Egyptian government must put its faith in its own people.

We are all concerned for the future of Egypt’s reforms when peaceful supporters of democracy -- men and women -- are not free from violence. The day must come when the rule of law replaces emergency decrees -- and when the independent judiciary replaces arbitrary justice.

The Egyptian government must fulfill the promise it has made to its people -- and to the entire world -- by giving its citizens the freedom to choose.

Egypt’s elections, including the Parliamentary elections, must meet objective standards that define every free election.

Opposition groups must be free to assemble, and participate, and speak to the media.
Voting should occur without violence or intimidation.

And international election monitors and observers must have unrestricted access to do their jobs.

Those who would participate in elections, both supporters and opponents of the government, also have responsibilities.

They must accept the rule of law, reject violence, respect the standards of free elections, and peacefully accept the results.

Throughout the Middle East, the fear of free choices can no longer justify the denial of liberty. It is time to abandon the excuses that are made to avoid the hard work of democracy.

There are those who say that democracy is being imposed. In fact, the opposite is true: Democracy is never imposed. It is tyranny that is imposed.

People choose democracy freely. And successful reform is always homegrown.

Just look around the world today.

For the first time in history, more people are citizens of democracies than of any other form of government.

This is the result of choice, not coercion.

There are those who say that democracy leads to chaos, conflict, and terror.

In fact, the opposite is true: Freedom and democracy are the only ideas powerful enough to overcome hatred, division, and violence.

For people of diverse races and religions, the inclusive nature of democracy can lift the fear of difference that some believe is a license to kill.

But people of goodwill must choose to embrace the challenge of listening, and debating, and cooperating with one another.

For neighboring countries with turbulent histories, democracy can help to build trust and settle old disputes with dignity.

But leaders of vision and character must commit themselves to the difficult work that nurtures the hope of peace.

And for all citizens with grievances, democracy can be a path to lasting justice.

But the democratic system cannot function if certain groups have one foot in the realm of politics and one foot in the camp of terror.

There are those who say that democracy destroys social institutions and erodes moral standards. In fact, the opposite is true: The success of democracy depends on public character and private virtue.

For democracy to thrive, free citizens must work every day to strengthen their families, to care for their neighbors, and to support their communities.

There are those who say that long-term economic and social progress can be achieved without free minds and free markets.

In fact, human potential and creativity are only fully released when governments trust their people’s decisions and invest in their people’s future.

Education -- for men and for women -- transforms their dreams into reality and enables them to overcome poverty.

There are those who say that democracy is for men alone. In fact, the opposite is true: Half a democracy is not a democracy.

As one Muslim woman leader has said, “Society is like a bird. It has two wings. And a bird cannot fly if one wing is broken.”

Across the Middle East, women are inspiring us all.

In Kuwait, women protested to win their right to vote, carrying signs that declared: “Women are Kuwaitis, too.” Last month, Kuwait’s legislature voiced its agreement.

In Saudi Arabia, the promise of dignity is awakening in some young women. During the recent municipal elections, I saw a father go to vote with his daughter.

Rather than cast his vote himself, he gave it to his daughter, and she placed it in the ballot box. This small act of hope reveals one man’s dream for his daughter. And he is not alone.

Ladies and Gentlemen: Across the Middle East today, millions of citizens are voicing their aspirations for liberty and democracy.

These men and women are expanding boundaries in ways many thought impossible just one year ago.

They are demonstrating that all great moral achievements begin with individuals who do not accept that the reality of today must also be the reality of tomorrow.

There was a time, not long ago, when liberty was threatened by slavery.

The moral worth of my ancestors, it was thought, should be valued by the demand of the market, not by the dignity of the soul.

This practice was sustained through violence.

But the crime of human slavery could not withstand the power of human liberty.

What seemed impossible in one century became inevitable in the next.

There was also a time, even more recently, when liberty was threatened by colonialism.

It was believed that certain peoples required foreign masters to rule their lands and run their lives.

Like slavery, this ideology of injustice was enforced through oppression.

But when brave people demanded their rights, the truth that freedom is the destiny of every nation rang throughout the world.

What seemed impossible in one decade became inevitable in the next.

Today, liberty is threatened by undemocratic governments. Some believe this is a permanent fact of history.

But, Ladies and Gentlemen, there are others who know better.

These impatient patriots can be found in Baghdad and Beirut, in Riyadh and Ramallah, in Amman and Tehran and right here in Cairo.

Together, they are defining a new standard of justice for our time -- a standard that is clear, and powerful, and inspiring: Liberty is the universal longing of every soul, and democracy is the ideal path for every nation.

The day is coming when the promise of a fully free and democratic world, once thought impossible, will also seem inevitable.

The people of Egypt should be at the forefront of this great journey, just as you have led this region through the great journeys of the past.

A hopeful future is within reach of every Egyptian citizen -- and every man and woman in the Middle East. The choice is yours to make. But you are not alone. All free nations are your allies.

So together, let us choose liberty and democracy -- for our nations, for our children, and for our future.

,
WHAB

fuck if that nigger wasnt a two faced bitch!

dill786 wrote:time for the islamic caliphate to make a return......

...because the world needs more governance by men who take their lead from make-believe friends that are a ~1000 years old.

Meanwhile WHAB slips in the merits or otherwise of the tired old American "left/right" clown show.

Sheesh.

Little Kate Chaos wrote:

dill786 wrote:time for the islamic caliphate to make a return......

...because the world needs more governance by men who take their lead from make-believe friends that are a ~1000 years old.

Meanwhile WHAB slips in the merits or otherwise of the tired old American "left/right" clown show.

Sheesh.

It sounds like you're a One World Government advocate, Kate. Are you?

1) Is Biden the Blunderer correct? Is Mubarak NOT a dictator?

2) Is Madam Secretary, Condoleezza Rice correct? Is it time for true Freedom and Democracy in Egypt?

,
WHAB

biden is doing the bidding of coservatives with that comment.
as if you can dismiss domestic policy, and merely refer to mubarakas role in supporting US international imperialism in making the determination...

and no whab,

democracy would be the worest thing to happen in egypt, if US INTERESTS are paramont

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:

Little Kate Chaos wrote:

dill786 wrote:time for the islamic caliphate to make a return......

...because the world needs more governance by men who take their lead from make-believe friends that are a ~1000 years old.

Meanwhile WHAB slips in the merits or otherwise of the tired old American "left/right" clown show.

Sheesh.

It sounds like you're a One World Government advocate, Kate. Are you?

1) Is Biden the Blunderer correct? Is Mubarak NOT a dictator?

2) Is Madam Secretary, Condoleezza Rice correct? Is it time for true Freedom and Democracy in Egypt?

,
WHAB

Puuuuhleeeeese. I've got less interest in what those two clowns say or spin than I have in your pointless repeated ad nauseum fluff you talk in regards to the left/right American clown show.

I am following this Egypt story though.

Little Kate Chaos wrote:

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:

Little Kate Chaos wrote: ...because the world needs more governance by men who take their lead from make-believe friends that are a ~1000 years old.

Meanwhile WHAB slips in the merits or otherwise of the tired old American "left/right" clown show.

Sheesh.

It sounds like you're a One World Government advocate, Kate. Are you?

1) Is Biden the Blunderer correct? Is Mubarak NOT a dictator?

2) Is Madam Secretary, Condoleezza Rice correct? Is it time for true Freedom and Democracy in Egypt?

,
WHAB

Puuuuhleeeeese. I've got less interest in what those two clowns say or spin than I have in your pointless repeated ad nauseum fluff you talk in regards to the left/right American clown show.

I am following this Egypt story though.

But one IS correct, and one IS NOT correct, Kate. And therein lies the difference between Left and Right.

I am following this Egypt story though.

In which clown tent, Kate?

*Honks Kate's bulbous red nose*

,
WHAB

Please read a post I made a few days ago....

Little Kate Chaos wrote:It never ceases to amaze me how partisan some people are regarding politics. It's almost like "Two legs bad, four legs good" out of some George Orwell 21st Century mutation and that is all that matters. Well no it doesn't.

It's completely missing the point to argue over the merits of two remarkably similar entities as is the case with mainstream political parties.

That the parties in question squabble and point score is for their own individual self-interest and it creates the illusion that we have meaningful choices come election time. We don't.

I never see the difference between Labour and Conservative (in the UK) and Democrat and Republican in the US and ---------* (*insert your favourite western democracy). If you reach the top of the political tree you are one and the same to me looking after exactly the same lobby.

It was almost as laughable to see Americans thinking Obama would mean change as it was to see Americans vote for Bush in the first place. Ditto on the UK with Old Tory, New Labour, New Tory.

There's your answer.

If you think there is change in US policy from head clown to head clown then please see the US use of it's veto on the UN Security Council from decade to decade. Or it's attitude to Pakistan, Saudi and Egypt.

The left/right mudsling-fest is your playground. Not mine.

Back to 'Arabian Democracy'....or not.

Little Kate Chaos wrote:Please read a post I made a few days ago....

Little Kate Chaos wrote:It never ceases to amaze me how partisan some people are regarding politics. It's almost like "Two legs bad, four legs good" out of some George Orwell 21st Century mutation and that is all that matters. Well no it doesn't.

It's completely missing the point to argue over the merits of two remarkably similar entities as is the case with mainstream political parties.

That the parties in question squabble and point score is for their own individual self-interest and it creates the illusion that we have meaningful choices come election time. We don't.

I never see the difference between Labour and Conservative (in the UK) and Democrat and Republican in the US and ---------* (*insert your favourite western democracy). If you reach the top of the political tree you are one and the same to me looking after exactly the same lobby.

It was almost as laughable to see Americans thinking Obama would mean change as it was to see Americans vote for Bush in the first place. Ditto on the UK with Old Tory, New Labour, New Tory.

There's your answer.

If you think there is change in US policy from head clown to head clown then please see the US use of it's veto on the UN Security Council from decade to decade. Or it's attitude to Pakistan, Saudi and Egypt.

The left/right mudsling-fest is your playground. Not mine.

Back to 'Arabian Democracy'....or not.

I've read it, Kate. Are you insisting I read it AGAIN? Kind of authoritarian, isn't it, Kate?

So, to boil it down...do you believe in One Party Rule and therefore by extension One World Government?

IF you don't believe in One Party Rule (and therefore by extension One World Government), then there will ALWAYS be one school of thought in opposition to another school of thought.

One Party Rule, Kate?

,
WHAB

Umm, yeah. Or rather two subtle flavours of the same thing.

That aside, Politicians do nothing for me. I don't vote....so by default apparently lose the right to bump my gums about them (that means whinge...or complain). Which suits really.

This Egypt thingy though.....

Little Kate Chaos wrote:Umm, yeah. Or rather two subtle flavours of the same thing.

That aside, Politicians do nothing for me. I don't vote....so by default apparently lose the right to bump my gums about them (that means whinge...or complain). Which suits really.

This Egypt thingy though.....

IF you lived under One Party Rule you would begin to vote again. It is what directly created our individual Tea Party groups.

And I wouldn't say that "by default apparently [you] lose the right to bump my gums about them" (I know what it means, I use the term quite frequently).

I would, however, implore you to utilize your franchise rights. By not voting you automatically give the opposition your vote....because they are surely to vote where you are not.

,
WHAB

By abstaining, which is a vote in itself by saying "None of the Above", I make a point. Abstentions are recorded and given as a % of the vote. That's fine by me. Each to their own and all that. It's called 'Democracy'.

We have a coalition in the UK, because no one party gained enough seats to form a Government, which meant the two main parties needed to win the support of the 3rd party in UK politics.

To do so, i.e. for the 3rd party to be suddenly elevated in to Government....that 3rd party sold out. Who wouldn't if you were a big time player in the 3rd party with the chance to suddenly become important??

Follow me?? No?? I didn't think so.

Politicians care about one thing: Being elected or re-elected. Meanwhile the same policy rides out because the promises they make on actual policy are unacheivable. I read Blair's book, and it's insightful in it's own right where he freely admits that what he promised in opposition was not able to be the reality once elected. Quite fascinating seeing a glimpse of the dynamics of how democracy actually is.

Come the next election in the US and UK the policy on big banks, the EU, Israel, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi won't change. Why do you think that is??

Ireland risked a referendum on the EU Lisbon Charter and when the people spoke on one policy in isolation guess what they did?? Silly Irish politicians going to referendum, way too risky to actually see democracy in it's purest form!!

But this situation in Egypt....??

dill786 wrote:time for the islamic caliphate to make a return......

What brave, admirable Islamic men

There's your vaunted Islamic Law in action, dill....

and you want more of it...

Fuck an Islamic Caliphate, anywhere!...

,
WHAB

Little Kate Chaos wrote:By abstaining, which is a vote in itself by saying "None of the Above", I make a point. Abstentions are recorded and given as a % of the vote. That's fine by me. Each to their own and all that. It's called 'Democracy'.

We have a coalition in the UK, because no one party gained enough seats to form a Government, which meant the two main parties needed to win the support of the 3rd party in UK politics.

To do so, i.e. for the 3rd party to be suddenly elevated in to Government....that 3rd party sold out. Who wouldn't if you were a big time player in the 3rd party with the chance to suddenly become important??

Follow me?? No?? I didn't think so.

Politicians care about one thing: Being elected or re-elected. Meanwhile the same policy rides out because the promises they make on actual policy are unacheivable. I read Blair's book, and it's insightful in it's own right where he freely admits that what he promised in opposition was not able to be the reality once elected. Quite fascinating seeing a glimpse of the dynamics of how democracy actually is.

Come the next election in the US and UK the policy on big banks, the EU, Israel, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi won't change. Why do you think that is??

Ireland risked a referendum on the EU Lisbon Charter and when the people spoke on one policy in isolation guess what they did?? Silly Irish politicians going to referendum, way too risky to actually see democracy in it's purest form!!

But this situation in Egypt....??

I know how you're system works, Kate (Follow me?? No?? I didn't think so ).

Kate wrote:By abstaining, which is a vote in itself by saying "None of the Above", I make a point.

ONLY IF you strike a ballot "None of the above", Kate....NOT IF YOU DO NOT.

Kate wrote:Abstentions are recorded and given as a % of the vote.

See above

Kate wrote:Come the next election in the US and UK the policy on big banks, the EU, Israel, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi won't change. Why do you think that is??

Why do I think that is? It is because I think you're wrong. Monumentally so.

I can name several policy issues that were dramatically altered in this country since Jan. 2009. Can you? (Follow me?? No?? I didn't think so )

But this situation in Egypt....??

You can't (WON'T) make a difference in your burb, county, district, city/town or nation (you've voluntarily ceded your franchise ), and you think you can make a difference across a vast expanse of water and earth?



I've given my opinion on the matter of "this situation in Egypt", Kate. Do you want to hear it again?

You'd fit right in any Islamic/Totalitarian nation....they don't vote either

Follow me?? No?? I didn't think so



Kate!,
WHAB

No, really, abstentions are shown by each constituency as a % of the vote. Kind of groovy, no?? Or maybe not.

I, obviously, know my interest in the subject of this thread (Egypt) will not make a jot of difference, but that was never my point.

I am interested in current affairs, not politicans or any sort of left/right mud-sling where you argue your team is best, the other team isn't....and then a clone of you argues the same thing....and neither of you are really caring or listening but to point score or lead a debate trap playing on the words used. Not unlike the politicians you cheer/jeer.

It's all cool though. Horses for courses.

The "Do you follow me?? No, I didn't think so" was not meant as a personal slur on you, but as a royal 'we' on nobody follows it, it's the scam of democracy.....

....unless the whole shebang implodes when peeps have said "Enough is enough".

....as per Egypt in January 2011. Even if Egypt was/is not a democracy. Yet anyway.

Alternatives to democracy are worse though. I will qualify my statement, or rather; opinion, that much.

Human nature is screwed up; Animal Farm by Orwell nails it perfectly, if a little extreme, no?? In that the next generation of leaders of Egypt will already be seeing the anarchy there as their opportunity for purely selfish reasons.

Which is what made Bubba's analogy in the OP so good imvho.

Little Kate Chaos wrote:No, really, abstentions are shown by each constituency as a % of the vote. Kind of groovy, no?? Or maybe not.

I, obviously, know my interest in the subject of this thread (Egypt) will not make a jot of difference, but that was never my point.

I am interested in current affairs, not politicans or any sort of left/right mud-sling where you argue your team is best, the other team isn't....and then a clone of you argues the same thing....and neither of you are really caring or listening but to point score or lead a debate trap playing on the words used. Not unlike the politicians you cheer/jeer.

It's all cool though. Horses for courses.

No, really, abstentions are shown by each constituency as a % of the vote.

How can it? If they don't have a ballot in hand (Yea, Nay, or None of the above) then they don't know you exist or not, never mind didn't vote. They don't know if you are alive or dead or on holiday visiting (or even permanently moved to) one those non-voting Totalitarian regimes you so admire that you emulate their policy in regards voting

,
WHAB

Because each individual eligible to vote is physically sent a hard copy voting card which you have to produce at the polling station when you turn up to vote with your name, address and details on it. You are then given a voting slip with the names of the candidates on it, then go in to a little booth, put a cross in the box of your choice and put the slip (folded) in to a sealed box.

If they issue say 43,012 voting cards for your constituency and only 31,825 cards are used they make the effort to count the non-voters as a %.

I'm not lying.

Little Kate Chaos wrote:Because each individual eligible to vote is physically sent a hard copy voting card which you have to produce at the polling station when you turn up to vote with your name, address and details on it. You are then given a voting slip with the names of the candidates on it, then go in to a little booth, put a cross in the box of your choice and put the slip (folded) in to a sealed box.

If they issue say 43,012 voting cards for your constituency and only 31,825 cards are used they make the effort to count the non-voters as a %.

I'm not lying.

So they count dead people, those on business trips, those that are on holiday, and people that have permanently moved to another country as "None of the above"?

You may not be lying, but you're not telling the whole truth, either.

IF they do count dead people, those on business trips, those that are on holiday, and people that have permanently moved to another country as "None of the above", then your system is more fucked up than I could have ever imagined...

,
WHAB

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:

Little Kate Chaos wrote:Because each individual eligible to vote is physically sent a hard copy voting card which you have to produce at the polling station when you turn up to vote with your name, address and details on it. You are then given a voting slip with the names of the candidates on it, then go in to a little booth, put a cross in the box of your choice and put the slip (folded) in to a sealed box.

If they issue say 43,012 voting cards for your constituency and only 31,825 cards are used they make the effort to count the non-voters as a %.

I'm not lying.

So they count dead people, those on business trips, those that are on holiday, and people that have permanently moved to another country as "None of the above"?

You may not be lying, but you're not telling the whole truth, either.

IF they do count dead people, those on business trips, those that are on holiday, and people that have permanently moved to another country as "None of the above", then your system is more fucked up than I could have ever imagined...

,
WHAB

No, because cleverly the electoral roll or register is tied in to the Council Tax which registers the dweller's details of every single residential property in the UK.

Council Tax is a monthly local tax Brits pay (not an inconsiderable amount; mine is ~$160 per month), so if you were dead you would obviously not be registered to vote (because you would not be paying that monthly tax). Likewise if you were no longer living there (had moved, away in the military/at college) you would not be registered. Unless you wanted to be liable for a quite large tax bill for somewhere you did not live.

And if you are going to be on holiday, or out of the area/country, you still can vote by post before you go. It's up to you to get the correct form to fill in. And if you don't want to/can't be bothered then you are registered as an abstention come vote day.

I am not winding you up WHAB.

You can see the list (down to 1/100th of a %) for every constituency of turnout for last year's election, and by default the % that abstained, at this link (it's safe!! ).

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout10.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This nation is pretty f-----d up, yeah, but all I say is true.

Actually my Council Tax is $224 USD per month (at £1=$1.6) so as you can see, it is in anyone's interests to make sure they are registered correctly and not paying a rate for somewhere they are not.

You can not get away with not registering for council tax (and by default to vote) if you are paying income tax (basically if you are working legally).

Little Kate Chaos wrote:

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:

Little Kate Chaos wrote:Because each individual eligible to vote is physically sent a hard copy voting card which you have to produce at the polling station when you turn up to vote with your name, address and details on it. You are then given a voting slip with the names of the candidates on it, then go in to a little booth, put a cross in the box of your choice and put the slip (folded) in to a sealed box.

If they issue say 43,012 voting cards for your constituency and only 31,825 cards are used they make the effort to count the non-voters as a %.

I'm not lying.

So they count dead people, those on business trips, those that are on holiday, and people that have permanently moved to another country as "None of the above"?

You may not be lying, but you're not telling the whole truth, either.

IF they do count dead people, those on business trips, those that are on holiday, and people that have permanently moved to another country as "None of the above", then your system is more fucked up than I could have ever imagined...

,
WHAB

No, because cleverly the electoral roll or register is tied in to the Council Tax which registers the dweller's details of every single residential property in the UK.

Council Tax is a monthly local tax Brits pay (not an inconsiderable amount; mine is ~$160 per month), so if you were dead you would obviously not be registered to vote (because you would not be paying that monthly tax). Likewise if you were no longer living there (had moved, away in the military/at college) you would not be registered. Unless you wanted to be liable for a quite large tax bill for somewhere you did not live.

And if you are going to be on holiday, or out of the area/country, you still can vote by post before you go. It's up to you to get the correct form to fill in. And if you don't want to/can't be bothered then you are registered as an abstention come vote day.

I am not winding you up WHAB.

You can see the list (down to 1/100th of a %) for every constituency of turnout for last year's election, and by default the % that abstained, at this link (it's safe!! ).

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout10.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This nation is pretty f-----d up, yeah, but all I say is true.

So, for instance...

(Constituency) Aberavon--(Turnout %) 60.90--(Electorate) 50,838

They count that as a 39.1% "None of the above"?

As I said, I do know how your Parliamentary system works, but not down to individual voting.

There is too much room for error in what you describe. People in hospital, people not feeling well that day, but feeling very well every other day of the year (I have those days...except for the "every other day of the year" part ), people that didn't follow procedure and people that have paid their taxes then died are all counted as "None of the above"? When that doesn't necessarily represent their intentions or beliefs.

Sounds like a screwed up (and costly) method of accomplishing a vote to me...

(I do not like how the ninja edits get in here and if you're not paying close attention you'll never, ever notice them )

,
WHAB

Well obviously with the numbers involved (population of the UK being 10's of millions) it is not an exact science (despite my 1/100th of a % saying it shows the abstentions).

As you point out, there could be 101 reasons why somebody did not vote on the given day (their cat might have died etc etc) but would have wanted to.

But turnout %'s as a cross-section are a factor in UK elections and are analysed. On that basis my abstention sends as much a message as the person who makes the effort to vote.

In local elections (those responsible for spending my $220 per month tax bill) the turnout might be as low as 20%, which is something that is seen as a bad thing. General Elections below 60% turn out (look at Belfast in the list where there are political reasons why the turn out is low) and somebody is going to ask why.

And the actual votes cast are not an exact science either. They are manually counted by a team of volunteers in hours. If one candidate has a majority of say 20,123 over the 2nd best candidate then nobody is going to say much, but if the majority is in the 100's or 10's then you can bet the losing candidate is going to ask for a much more careful, considered count of every single vote....just in case!! And that is his/her right and a far more concentrated recount will follow.

Little Kate Chaos wrote:Well obviously with the numbers involved (population of the UK being 10's of millions) it is not an exact science (despite my 1/100th of a % saying it shows the abstentions).

As you point out, there could be 101 reasons why somebody did not vote on the given day (their cat might have died etc etc) but would have wanted to.

But turnout %'s as a cross-section are a factor in UK elections and are analysed. On that basis my abstention sends as much a message as the person who makes the effort to vote.

In local elections (those responsible for spending my $220 per month tax bill) the turnout might be as low as 20%, which is something that is seen as a bad thing. General Elections below 60% turn out (look at Belfast in the list where there are political reasons why the turn out is low) and somebody is going to ask why.

And the actual votes cast are not an exact science either. They are manually counted by a team of volunteers in hours. If one candidate has a majority of say 20,123 over the 2nd best candidate then nobody is going to say much, but if the majority is in the 100's or 10's then you can bet the losing candidate is going to ask for a much more careful, considered count of every single vote....just in case!! And that is his/her right and a far more concentrated recount will follow.

So, in my example...

(Constituency) Aberavon--(Turnout %) 60.90--(Electorate) 50,838

They count that as a 39.1% "None of the above"?

AND, IF the Yea's (may be a person's name or a policy issue) are 31.2% and the Nay's (may be a person's name or a policy issue) are 29.7% then "None of the above" wins that decision?

"None of the above" has the majority...

?,
WHAB

ben ttech wrote:the brotherhood was a western creation from the getgo...

counter revolutionaries are who usually end up on top...

the non uniformed state assets called up to run wild raping and piliaging the public, when the security establishment withdraws under the onslaught of the revolutionary forces...

mubaracks team is busy in plaincloth guise, attacking the friends and families of anyone associated with anyone ORGANIZING the protests and resistance.

unleashing a wave of violent terrorism it gets to blame on the protestors...

in the underhanded "see what you made us do?" marketting phase of trying to hold onto power

Right on all counts and particulars. Very good, very perceptive Ben. That and a few thousand released criminals can sow havoc amongst simple honest folk; have them begging for the popo.

~O~

dill786 wrote:time for the islamic caliphate to make a return......

That's just reaching back for the golden age. It's time now for Islam to co-opt rather than confront modernity. This boom cohort of young Muslims (50% under 30) are starving for a future, not a past.

~O~

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:So, in my example...

(Constituency) Aberavon--(Turnout %) 60.90--(Electorate) 50,838

They count that as a 39.1% "None of the above"?

AND, IF the Yea's (may be a person's name or a policy issue) are 31.2% and the Nay's (may be a person's name or a policy issue) are 29.7% then "None of the above" wins that decision?

"None of the above" has the majority...

?,
WHAB

No, because it's a "first past the post" voting system for each candidate. The 'none of the above' vote (abstentions) are analysed only as to why people are so disaffected as to not vote. That's all. Traditionally poorer, inner-city, less affluent areas with higher social/economical problems will have a lower turnout. It makes no difference as to who forms the Government.

My abstention makes as much a point as the rest of the 79% who didn't back the winner.

So for example it could be in any one constituency...

John Smith....21%
Margaret Sellout....19%
Bob Fascist....11%
Jimmy Tree Hugger....9%

No shows/None of the above....35%

No shows/none of the above don't win anything (hey I back a loser ), John Smith wins that seat, everyone else becomes irrelevant in forming a government, their % and votes do not count even though that is 10's of 1000's of people's wishes written off in each seat.

A party needs to win more than half of the 650 seats to be asked to form a Government by the Queen.

Poo, isn't it??

bubbabush wrote:

ben ttech wrote:the brotherhood was a western creation from the getgo...

Right on all counts and particulars.

~O~

And, of course, naturally--much like your linking Governor Palin (the Right) to the Tucson Massacre (which you have yet to acknowledge, amend or correct, big man )--BULLSHIT!!!

,
WHAB

Well done, if off topic WHAB and Kate. A semi-civil informative discussion in a PG politics thread!

~O~

Little Kate Chaos wrote:

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:So, in my example...

(Constituency) Aberavon--(Turnout %) 60.90--(Electorate) 50,838

They count that as a 39.1% "None of the above"?

AND, IF the Yea's (may be a person's name or a policy issue) are 31.2% and the Nay's (may be a person's name or a policy issue) are 29.7% then "None of the above" wins that decision?

"None of the above" has the majority...

?,
WHAB

No, because it's a "first past the post" voting system for each candidate. The 'none of the above' vote (abstentions) are analysed only as to why people are so disaffected as to not vote. That's all. Traditionally poorer, inner-city, less affluent areas with higher social/economical problems will have a lower turnout. It makes no difference as to who forms the Government.

My abstention makes as much a point as the rest of the 79% who didn't back the winner.

So for example it could be in any one constituency...

John Smith....21%
Margaret Sellout....19%
Bob Fascist....11%
Jimmy Tree Hugger....9%

No shows/None of the above....35%

No shows/none of the above don't win anything (hey I back a loser ), John Smith wins that seat, everyone else becomes irrelevant in forming a government, their % and votes do not count even though that is 10's of 1000's of people's wishes written off in each seat.

A party needs to win more than half of the 650 seats to be asked to form a Government by the Queen.

Poo, isn't it??

It's worse than "Poo".

And, your abstention allows John Smith to win and brings us back to my original point....your abstention is a vote for someone else....someone you may not want to win at all...

it's Poo that you Piffle in, Kate

,
WHAB

A party, in theory, can win 80% of the nationwide vote but win 0 of the 650 seats if their candidate comes 2nd in every seat in the land.

It's why the Lib Dems are trying to change from first past the post to proportional representation and why the two main parties are fighting tooth and nail to keep it as it is.

And why Gerrymeandering was an issue in the North of Ireland. Catholics could get 80% of the vote but lose every seat if the ruling Protestants are cute with the 'seat' physical boundaries (that's a little hypothetical, but you get the idea).

My abstention counts. Or as much as any other vote does. We've just gone the long way round to convince myself that that is actually the case!!

Now....about this Egypt shabang....??

Little Kate Chaos wrote:A party, in theory, can win 80% of the nationwide vote but win 0 of the 650 seats if their candidate comes 2nd in every seat in the land.

It's why the Lib Dems are trying to change from first past the post to proportional representation and why the two main parties are fighting tooth and nail to keep it as it is.

And why Gerrymeandering was an issue in the North of Ireland. Catholics could get 80% of the vote but lose every seat (that's hypothetical and not actually the case, but you get the idea).

My abstention counts. Or as much as any other vote does. We've just gone the long way round to convince myself that that is actually the case!!

Now....about this Egypt shabang....??

I vote. I'll not voluntarily cede my rights--any of them. You do as you wish, though, I would still implore you to exercise your franchise affirmatively.

President Hosni Mubarak will step aside (voluntarily or otherwise). Egypt will become a true Democracy. The radicals do not maintain enough of a percentage to make a big move there...reasonable people of Egypt will not allow it. Mohamed ElBaradei will not be in that Democratic government as President.

,
WHAB

trashing the guy who has the mandate right now to negociate with mubarak???

,
WHAB

The joke bouncing around internet culture sites is:

#USA and #Israel just changed their facebook relationship status with #Egypt to "It's complicated."


#Iran, #Palestine, #Syria, and #Lebanon like this.

~O~

ElBaradei makes first (and last) official political blunder in effort to lead Egypt.

ElBaradei demands president step down...opposition leader calls for Mubarak to 'leave today' (yesterday). Mubarak is still there Neither of which happened

Of course, IF he had any brains AND pull at all he would have waited until he knew Mubarak was in the process of walking out the door before making public demands....now he just looks like another weak Arab fool...

,
WHAB

your such a fucking racist whab...

mubarak is negociating with the military as per to his graceful exit...
ie, hes is shredding records as fast as his american embassy staff can run those machines...

his kid he was setting up to take his place has already fled the countrym


and the torturer chief who wanted the job has been marginalized soas to ensure he never gets it...


ok whab,
back to the anti democracy rant YOU WERE TAUGHT in racist school...

Egypt will become a true Democracy.

Nitpicking alert:
If it did it would be the first. But Shirley you meant a democratic republic. And stop calling me Shirley.

[Tangent Alert: With the Internet connectives now, a true democracy is possible (probably don’t want it). Instead of ones representatives voting on matters for us, we can eliminate thier representation of us and the citizens vote on all the bills and legislation directly.]

if its anything like the "true democracy" we just supported militarially overthrowing the elected government of honduras...

im sure the egyptians would rather have their dictator back instead of suffering a faux liberation...

I wouldn’t expect any kind of democratic republic to emerge when the dust settles.

Egypt is a very Muslim nation, official religion and all, I see a mild theocracy as much more a likely phoenix to emerge from the ashes after testing with some democratic ideas.

82 year old authoritarians are a stubborn lot. It comes down to the Army who's officer & nco corps might be pro-regime, but whose conscripts are more likely to off them and desert than shoot their kinfolk in the crowds. I watched the mighty almost million-man Iranian conscript army melt into thin air in the late Fall of '78 under similar circumstances.

~O~


http://www.arabist.net/blog/2011/1/30/the-officer.html

From the oddly Ben-like early 20th century Tunisian poet Abu al-Qasim al-Shabihas, a poem that has become a rallying cry in both Tunisia and Egypt. Listen to it here
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlaye ... =133354628" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hey you, the unfair tyrants...
You the lovers of the darkness...
You the enemies of life...
You've made fun of innocent people's wounds; and your palm covered with their blood
You kept walking while you were deforming the charm of existence and growing seeds of sadness in their land

Wait, don't let the spring, the clearness of the sky and the shine of the morning light fool you...
Because the darkness, the thunder rumble and the blowing of the wind are coming toward you from the horizon
Beware because there is a fire underneath the ash

Who grows thorns will reap wounds
You've taken off heads of people and the flowers of hope; and watered the cure of the sand with blood and tears until it was drunk
The blood's river will sweep you away and you will be burned by the fiery storm.

The Army's statement:

"The presence of the army in the streets is for your sake and to ensure your safety and wellbeing. The armed forces will not resort to use of force against our great people," the army statement said.

"Your armed forces, who are aware of the legitimacy of your demands and are keen to assume their responsibility in protecting the nation and the citizens, affirms that freedom of expression through peaceful means is guaranteed to everybody."

It urged people not resort to acts of sabotage that violate security and destroy public and private property. It warned that it would not allow outlaws and to loot, attack and "terrorise citizens".

I'd say thet settles the Army's position. They know they'd disintegrate if they began a Hama-like crackdown. That would kill the Army as an institution, and they're pretty much acknowledging it.

Now it's down to negotiations. Rumor has it we're dispatching a special envoy to Mubarak break the hard news that from our perspective he's fucked, and not in a good way. Solimon is the Army's choice over baby-doc Mubarak who's already relocated to Knightsbridge with most of the rest of the fam anyway, so it seems to be between Solimon and El Baradi, the general/intel chief or the technocrat as an interim president. Or... it gets really ugly and exponentially less predictable.

~O~

not good,

wall street interest OWN foreign governments due to controling their militaries DUE to investing high dollars in their training and command infraastructures...

so,

not that the egyptian military isnt doing the people a nicity in not aligning with the dictators special police in attacking the public...

but its obeying overseas master control excercised by the US military... in how it guides it weight...

there is more to supporting a revolt than simply refusing to attack the masses of protestors...

facts are being burned out of site...

reasons to not support whom supposedly leading revolt authorities will offer up are being disappeared by murbaraks people as we speak...

as the good egyptians revolt


the candidates of the revolters,
the options those candidates have to choose from

are entirely being dictated...

but the owners of the dictator being shown the door

"_

Once again an insightful and accurate analyses and description of the facts Ben. Thats how revolutions become revolts.

~O~

viva sufism!!!

bubbabush wrote:Once again an insightful and accurate analyses and description of the facts Ben. Thats how revolutions become revolts.

~O~

What do you mean "Once again"? One must have gotten a first something correct to then follow on with a second correct something

bubbabush wrote:

ben ttech wrote:the brotherhood was a western creation from the getgo...

Right on all counts and particulars.

~O~

Can you clarify? Is it both of you that have your heads firmly planted, or is it just ben?

And, of course, naturally--much like your linking Governor Palin (the Right) to the Tucson Massacre (which you have yet to acknowledge, amend or correct, big man )--BULLSHIT!!!

,
WHAB

The amoral equivocation and craven calculation of statements coming from US State and Administration are shameful. The universality of our professed principles of democracy should not be conditioned on geopolitical gamesmanship or compromised by cynical expedience.

Fuck Mubarak, fuck Israel, fuck the US.

bubbabush wrote:Once again an insightful and accurate analyses and description of the facts Ben. Thats how revolutions become revolts.

~O~

Huh! It turns out it's both of you with your heads firmly planted up each others ass...

Anal Barnacle wrote:...Hama-like crackdown. That would kill the Army as an institution, and they're pretty much acknowledging it.

Now it's down to negotiations. Rumor has it we're dispatching a special envoy to Mubarak break the hard news that from our perspective he's fucked, and not in a good way. Solimon is the Army's choice over baby-doc Mubarak who's already relocated to Knightsbridge with most of the rest of the fam anyway, so it seems to be between Solimon and El Baradi,

There is NOTHING that is "Hama-like", unless it's your Mama-like?

There is NO "Solimon".

There is NO "El Baradi".

Did bubba give ben his handle? Loan it to him?

,
WHAB

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote: Can you clarify?

No, there is no mere human effort capable of clarifying this or anything else for you; thus I will extend no such effort.

~O~

bubbabush wrote:

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote: Can you clarify?

No, there is no mere human effort capable of clarifying this or anything else for you; thus I will extend no such effort.

~O~

You already have. Look up at the subject line in your response to my post.

I'm glad we could settle that, thanks!

,
WHAB

Whatever you say onan.

~O~

mabe for the readers, a cliffnotes would be appropo

Raise your hand if you think whatever entity replaces Mubarak will be an improvement.

explain

bubbabush wrote:Whatever you say onan.

~O~

What, you want me to fuck your wife?

After Onan's brother Er died, his father Judah told him to fulfill his duty as a brother-in-law to Tamar, by giving her offspring. Centuries later, in the days of Moses, this practice was formulated into a law of a Levirate marriage, where the brother of the deceased would provide offspring to the childless widow to preserve the family line

Ok, if you insist, but you should give her a book on what an orgasm is beforehand (with pictures)...It's sure to scare her when she has her first one...

While we're here. Why don't you tell us all who those folks are in that story you were spinning?

"Hama-like", "Solimon" and "El Baradi".

They way you spin a story I'm sure they're much more interesting than the actual parties in this Arabian tale...

,
WHAB

ben ttech wrote:mabe for the readers, a cliffnotes would be appropo

I can't hold the whole thread up for one jerkoff.

~O~

Well, since you don't want to clear that up, I had to go searching for them...

http://www.facebook.com/people/Liliane- ... /729090379" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.facebook.com/people/Solimon- ... /587381054" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are those the folks of the web you weave? Are they Hama-like?

,
WHAB

any westerner who uses facebook has agreed with the dictators to fail whab...

bubbabush wrote:

dill786 wrote:time for the islamic caliphate to make a return......

That's just reaching back for the golden age. It's time now for Islam to co-opt rather than confront modernity. This boom cohort of young Muslims (50% under 30) are starving for a future, not a past.

~O~

No!
its just dilldo pretending to be a muslim ,trying to ensure a voice in the crowd ...

You have to stand out you know!

oh, look whos back...

ben ttech wrote:oh, look whos back...

Look who's more fucked up and still fucking around here

you were slumming her yesterday...

and just so you know,
here is how these fuckers news is framing this event...


Egypt revolt is 'step towards Islamic Middle East'...

Tunisia synagogue set on fire by arsonists...

Muslim Brotherhood: 'Prepare for war with Israel'...

Jerry Brown cites Egypt unrest to make case for tax hikes!

Israel shocked by Obama's betrayal of Mubarak...

Netanyahu fears Islamist takeover...

even npr is hard on the gop tit on this...

they broadcast an interview from the cario airport... talking to westerners who were quaking in their pussy boots...

fuck if they couldnt have found more imperialist pigs to get opinions from...


" im so scared and unhappy... this isnt my egypt... im having to leave my driver and my housekeeper behind"


fasist pigs getting the mike cuz their scared...

ben ttech wrote:and just so you know,
here is how these fuckers news is framing this event...


Egypt revolt is 'step towards Islamic Middle East'...

Tunisia synagogue set on fire by arsonists...

Muslim Brotherhood: 'Prepare for war with Israel'...

Jerry Brown cites Egypt unrest to make case for tax hikes!

Israel shocked by Obama's betrayal of Mubarak...

Netanyahu fears Islamist takeover

...

Just so you ALL know ALL...

Egypt revolt is 'step towards Islamic Middle East'...
http://www.afp.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (Agence France-Presse)

Tunisia synagogue set on fire by arsonists...
http://www.afp.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (Agence France-Presse)

Muslim Brotherhood: 'Prepare for war with Israel'...
Jerusalem Post (couldn't include the url, it exceeded the limit of 5 by 1)

Jerry Brown cites Egypt unrest to make case for tax hikes!
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/califor ... -vote.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Israel shocked by Obama's betrayal of Mubarak...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/ ... 3720110131" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Netanyahu fears Islamist takeover
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011 ... 126360.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Except for JPost not a one of the originators of those stories could every be considered or construed as a mouthpiece of the Right...(except by ben, of course )

So, they MAY be (and most likely are) "framing" those news "events" accurately...



,
WHAB

It's not really any of America's business who rules Egypt?? In a fluffy world anyway.

And look on the bright side WHAB, if there is an Islamic Fundamentalist ruling regime next in Egypt (which I don't think will be the case).....think of all the money the American tax payer will save not funding the Egyptian military machine and aid. You could pay for healthcare for how many with those billions??

I think Mubarek is going to pull it off. In until September??

Bubba....did the Shah of Iran take give or take a year to be rolled over??

Little Kate Chaos wrote:It's not really any of America's business who rules Egypt?? In a fluffy world anyway.

And look on the bright side WHAB, if there is an Islamic Fundamentalist ruling regime next in Egypt (which I don't think will be the case).....think of all the money the American tax payer will save not funding the Egyptian military machine and aid. You could pay for healthcare for how many with those billions??

In the interest of geopolitics, it most certainly is our business, Kate. Just as it is your nation's.

$1.5 Billion annually, Kate. TOTUS pisses that away on do-nothing unions and even worse teachers every day(?) (I'm not sure of the exact math, and don't really care on the exact math--suffice to say it's a fucking butt-load)---over a Trillion to date (in two years)

You think we should pay (more) for those that already get the medical care they need, those that don't want medical care?

Research the topic, Kate.

,
WHAB

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote: Research the topic, Kate.

whab started here...

MSNBC’s Maddow Reports Internet Spoof Story as Fact



In their zeal to slam Sarah Palin, Christians and conservatives, MSNBC and Rachel Maddow reported a story from a satire website called ChristWire.org. It doesn't take too much research to discover that the site is like "The Onion" and everything on it is a lampoon-style story.

MSNBC has scrubbed the segment from their website.

Not to mention MadCow says "North America" when the text clearly states "North Africa", but that's besides the point...

this MadCow is fucking loopy...

,
WHAB

almost enough to validate your systemic torture of innocent americans eh???

heh

the local npr station advertising itself as "no rant no slant" just ran a "news" piece in advocate demonstration of what a decent guy mubarack has been...

listed the economic and social indicators which should improvement under his reign...


it thats the new high bar for civility...


they should be honoring chavez tomorrow with a trophy for exceeding mubaracks achievements by several hundred percent...



npr...
gop fuckin radio...

of course he knows,
if there wernt our dictators, who whould he sell dogs to!??!!?

Damn near pissed my pants laughing when I read this gem:

Global warming, or the more politically-correct ‘climate change’, is now being blamed for the riots taking place in Egypt, according to a report at Climate Progress.

Seems this is going to be profitable for the oil companies as if they needed more. Fear not 'Mubarak to announce he'll step down after next election'
http://www.haaretz.com/news/internation ... n-1.340638" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



[image]http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/WA ... YPTIAN.jpg[/image]

They are taking to the streets in Jordan as well. Perhaps this March on the anniversary of the Iraq war we can get Americans to do the same in DC. It's a foothold presenting itself. Time for American revolution and protests





Live Messages from Egypt
http://blogs.aljazeera.net/middle-east/ ... ages-egypt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

the evil forces mubarack used with US financing and training,
to run a dictatorship,

are being repackaged inorder to survive the change over and be immediately available to stand in for in representation of the powers which love mubarack

you can bet it was US INTERESTS which made sure that secret police deptment highrise was burnt to a crisp...

any egyptian would have insisted its preservation in order to mine it data for the prosecution of villians who killed and tortured innocent people last month...

thats where the most up to date evidence was...

america should immediately arrest all officials of US companies currently doing business with mubarack...

toss them into a months worth of sleep deprivation holding, the accepted treatment of anyone officially suggested to have coluded with terrorists...

you can bet youd get 10,000x better intel busting the balls of rich pampered fucks than you ever did abusing the poor with such tactics

Little Kate Chaos wrote:It's not really any of America's business who rules Egypt?? In a fluffy world anyway.

And look on the bright side WHAB, if there is an Islamic Fundamentalist ruling regime next in Egypt (which I don't think will be the case).....think of all the money the American tax payer will save not funding the Egyptian military machine and aid. You could pay for healthcare for how many with those billions??

I think Mubarek is going to pull it off. In until September??

Bubba....did the Shah of Iran take give or take a year to be rolled over??

Yeah, the first peaceful-demonstration turned police-riot on the 40-day Shia mourning cycle that I remember was in January of '78, a full year before the actual revolution. Time went slower back before even cable news in that pre-fax-machine (let alone pc) rotary-dial era though. (side note, rememeber that the fax machine was the "new media" portion of the Tienanmen uprising).

~O~

Che Bleu wrote:

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote: In the interest of imperialism, it most certainly is our business, Kate. Just as it is your nation's.

Fixed…
You're aware you've just used the Nazi definition of the "geopolitics" term ? Do you even know what geopolitics mean ?

You're interrogating a life support system for anal boils about political theory?

~O~

An Egyptian democracy activist on what Mubarak left out in his speech:

1. Emergency law is still effective, which means oppression, brutality, arrests, and torture will continue. How can you have any hope for fair democratic elections under emergency law where the police have absolute power?

2. Internet is still not working, no talks of lifting censorship.

3. No talks of allowing freedom of speech, freedom to create political parties, freedom to participate in politics without the risk of getting arrested. FYI to start a political party you need the government's permission. How do you expect democracy to come out of this?

4. He said he will put anyone responsible for corruption to trial right? What about putting the police who killed 300+ to trial? What about members of NDP who are the most corrupt businessmen/politicians in the country. Do you think he'll put those to trial? Think again.

5. He didn't even take responsibility for anything that went wrong in the last 30 years. Not even his condolences to the martyrs who have fallen in this revolution.

Imagine that, a stubborn old man dragging his heals.

~O~

bustered child molesters always argue that only THEY can take care of the kinds,
while refering to all the nice things they did for them in between sexual assaults...

typical US puppet...

demanding that only HE,
can properly arbitrate over his trial and conviction...


fucking OJ...

Egypt has been the second-largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid for decades. Where has the money gone? Mostly to U.S. corporations.


http://www.myplanetganja.com/viewtopic. ... 560#p90560" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Washington Whore is reporting that:

Looters included undercover Egyptian police, hospitals tell Human Rights Watch


By Leila Fadel
Tuesday, February 1, 2011; 8:36 AM
CAIRO - Human Rights Watch confirmed several cases of undercover police loyal to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's regime committing acts of violence and looting in an attempt to stoke fear of instability as demonstrations grew stronger Tuesday against the autocratic leader.

Peter Bouckaert, the emergency director at Human Rights Watch, said hospitals confirmed that they received several wounded looters shot by the army carrying police identification cards. They also found several cases of looters and vandals in Cairo and Alexandria with police identification cards. He added that it was "unexplainable" that thousands of prisoners escaped from prisons over the weekend.

"Mubarak's mantra to his own people was that he was the guarantor of the nation's stability. It would make sense that he would want to send the message that without him, there is no safety," Bouckaert said.

Over the past three days, state television has been reporting alarmist news about violence and criminals among the demonstrations in an attempt to discredit the democratic movement.

The rights group's findings came as pro-democracy demonstrators converged on Tahrir Square in Cairo, vowing to bring 1 million people to the streets of Egypt.

Al Jazera English had it on Sunday.

~O~

That would be a great pic if the statue was in the same position in both.

Mubarak's escalating, sending the cops in like jamjahweed. It's either a pretext for intervention or (less believably) spontaneous reactionary eruptions according to Al-Jazz. Either way, it's going to be a long bloody night in Egypt.

~O~

the people should have taken those thugs apart as i suggested, before they ever got the chance to lock step...

violence is effective when applied strategically...
its why there are colleges which teach it...
which is where the presidents cops out beating up women and children as we speak...
were trianed to believe it morally correct for them to be terorists

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:

Little Kate Chaos wrote:It's not really any of America's business who rules Egypt?? In a fluffy world anyway.

And look on the bright side WHAB, if there is an Islamic Fundamentalist ruling regime next in Egypt (which I don't think will be the case).....think of all the money the American tax payer will save not funding the Egyptian military machine and aid. You could pay for healthcare for how many with those billions??

In the interest of geopolitics, it most certainly is our business, Kate. Just as it is your nation's.

$1.5 Billion annually, Kate. TOTUS pisses that away on do-nothing unions and even worse teachers every day(?) (I'm not sure of the exact math, and don't really care on the exact math--suffice to say it's a fucking butt-load)---over a Trillion to date (in two years)

You think we should pay (more) for those that already get the medical care they need, those that don't want medical care?

Research the topic, Kate.

,
WHAB

Egypt should be no more America's business than you would accept any foreign nation playing a part in US business in your home. You would as happily accept to be treated how you feel others should be?? You hawks would never accept the interventionist policy coming back the other way.

Please do not use my nation as the yardstick for how I believe people should behave. Colonialism and the raping of indigenous peoples by the 100's of millions was still very much alive, engrained and flourishing in UK foreign policy only a generation past. The US need not act like that all. No nation should.

And in today's world the UK should not be paying anyone's costs, in aid or otherwise, nor getting involved in foreign lands too much. The empire died a generation ago and there are massive public spending cuts in the UK at the moment. The health care, or home public spending, of the US is all cool; whatever (not my business/care). Just thought you might be happy to have 1.5 billion spent on Americans, rather than Egyptians??

bubbabush wrote:

Little Kate Chaos wrote:It's not really any of America's business who rules Egypt?? In a fluffy world anyway.

And look on the bright side WHAB, if there is an Islamic Fundamentalist ruling regime next in Egypt (which I don't think will be the case).....think of all the money the American tax payer will save not funding the Egyptian military machine and aid. You could pay for healthcare for how many with those billions??

I think Mubarek is going to pull it off. In until September??

Bubba....did the Shah of Iran take give or take a year to be rolled over??

Yeah, the first peaceful-demonstration turned police-riot on the 40-day Shia mourning cycle that I remember was in January of '78, a full year before the actual revolution. Time went slower back before even cable news in that pre-fax-machine (let alone pc) rotary-dial era though. (side note, rememeber that the fax machine was the "new media" portion of the Tienanmen uprising).

~O~

I've been reading up on revolutions in the past week and the differing ways each regime dealt with them, the Communist Bloc in Europe, Tianneman Square (both of which I remember vaguely from school) and the overthrow of the Shah (which I don't remember). The whole 40 day mourning thing and how the Shah dealt with it and with the 40 day cycle just hitting the 'refresh' button on discontent.

Were you there post-revolution?? Were the rank and file Iranians initially happy post-revolution or was it a case of out of the frying pan in to the fire??

its works like this,

the powers that control the dictator, are more than willing to let the people oust the dictator...
PROVIDED the peoples next choice is willing to work with the infrastructure which is in place serving the interests of the powerful, not the people who want change.

america always invests in the dictator right up until the very end... trying to help him keep power... while damaging evidence is tiddied up internal should the public break in.

the dictator begins by assault the public with thugs causing civil strife.

you notice the army reneged on its promise to protect the people, abandoned their security duties in cario and waved the horse and camel riding bataan and whip weilding crazing into the square???

the president NOW will claim the duty of sending the military in to reestablish security...
at this point the military will be instructed to join with the attackers in clearing the public space and driving the protest out of site...

its at this point, that some percentage of the military will refuse to do this...

at which point, at which point mubarack will indicate them AS the source of the violence, and claim to have been on the side of the people the whole time as it confronts what he will claim as a military grab for power.

this is the revolution vs the counter revolution.

for the revolution to susceed,
it must preempt the state from acting on its own.

Pro-Mubarak Protesters Pledge to 'Liberate Tahrir Square with Blood'

""Our president, he served this country more than 30 years, he has mistakes, no problem. Everybody has mistakes," said Hassan, a general manager of a construction company who would only give his first name."

^^^^ quote from a fat cats pawn, who doesnt know how to take care of himself IF he doesnt work for someone screwing the public...

the fear an actual revolution which would weed out the systemic corruptions a western pet dictators demands... ie, THEIR JOBS...

only criminal enterpise is afraid of the people...





http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/02/02-0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

....the powers that control the dictator, are more than willing to let the people oust the dictator...
PROVIDED the peoples next choice is willing to work with the infrastructure which is in place serving the interests of the powerful, not the people who want change....

Then this is key, first sentence. If Mubarek is gone this week/month is that not more dangerous than if he waits until September whilst those whose opportunity this becomes jostle for position politcally to win the popular vote (by fair means or foul)??

Blood will spill or it need not. You see a solution in violence Ben, but where iron rule falls what comes out the other side can be hell. A subject close to my heart is the Former Yugoslavia (post-1989) and what happened there in the immediate aftermath of such totalitarian or authoritarian regimes or in Iraq (post-2003).

Power vacuums are dangerous. It's ok to see it as a necessary evil; the bloodletting and struggle thereafter, but I am not that way. I'm a young-ish mum that knew of the Former Yugoslavia. Men go mad imho. That better to be a tiger for a day than a sheep for a lifetime does not wash out quite so white for me.

Egypt is of such strategic importance to big players, that it makes me a little fearful.

Bordering the Gaza Strip and Israel and straddling the vital shipping way; Suez makes the stakes so high for the big global players that we not even need consider the potential knock on effect. It's easy to talk violence Ben, or rather the necessity of violent intervention if 'required', remember?? Especially from the US. WHAB does it. Hammer and tongs human conflict never hit US towns and cities after all.

Bubba's opening line in Post #1 is a good one. For sure.

and to be clear...
no foreign military gets a billion dollars plus of AID a year,
without having capitulated entirely
to taking its orders from the pentagon first...

as per to whether or not they do what their national president directs...



it was the army which allowed petrol bomb carring folks into the square and the museum...

Little Kate Chaos wrote:

Then this is key, first sentence. If Mubarek is gone this week/month is that not more dangerous than if he waits until September whilst those whose opportunity this becomes jostle for position politcally to win the popular vote (by fair means or foul)??

it all depends on WHOM actually deposes him,
and what the agreement is...

remember south africa, the apartied government was finally 'defeated' by the ANC's agreement to honor the international debts the apartied government had gotten into...

this was an extreme capitulation to the powers that controled the racist white south african regimes...

the revolutionaries leaders weenied out of the fight,

took a paper win, rather than an actual one, there were just about to actually achieve...



the longer the extracation of mubarack takes, the better insulated from its occurance, the power who ran him and the agents they empowered to prey upon the citizens, will be, from mubaracks exit.

taking the hood ornament off the tank doesnt help one bit, if the tank keeps rolling the same way...


they have to turn it around,

ie, NOT let mubaracks "drivers" arbitrate a deal.

mubaracks whole regime needs to be in irons, THEN and only then can a JUST COMPROMISE BE REACHED...

the indited have no business working the courtroom of their trial

Were you there post-revolution?? Were the rank and file Iranians initially happy post-revolution or was it a case of out of the frying pan in to the fire??

Little Kate Chaos

No, my exit's complicated, but I was out before the government fell. First it was hard to get to work, then impossible, then pointless -they stopped paying me. All there was to do was watch endless nature-documentaries on the telly with housebound friends and try to dent the duty-free liquor closets constantly being re-stocked by bug-outs leftovers. Once I wasn't getting paid, there wasn't much point anymore. My pop was considered essential, so he stayed until after the fall. In fact, he was in the first embassy takeover a couple of days later that lasted about 6 hours and was conducted by the same Pasdaren cells who did the big takeover in November.

~O~

I get what you are saying, but the strategic stakes are so high that US/EU and especially Israel will be very involved though, whether a good thing or not (dependent on one's views). Nothing will change that. We can all agree on that.

I just wonder what is the best solution for everyday people in Egypt, violent overthrow now or wait out until September. Mubarek is gone; endex. I do not think change now, violence and vengeance is a good path. Or the best way.

Whether now or in September though; the US, EU and Israel won't not be part of it.

EDIT ^^^ That was response to Ben.

i was a grade school kid at the time,
going to the first mega church in the states...

they had a HUGE scam going, sending packets of god knows what, to thousands of missionaries the world over, they had their congregations convinced this was doing gods work...

the pastors son was on of the hostages held when the american embassy was captured...

held for 444 days...

the pastors son was a CIA agent...

well well!!!

the fuckers dead!



he bragged about torturing insects while he was being held by the iranians...
you gotta be careful with these preacher kids,

anything they say is obviously suspect...

http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2010/oc ... ar-463600/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

bubbabush wrote:

Were you there post-revolution?? Were the rank and file Iranians initially happy post-revolution or was it a case of out of the frying pan in to the fire??

Little Kate Chaos

No, my exit's complicated, but I was out before the government fell. First it was hard to get to work, then impossible, then pointless -they stopped paying me. All there was to do was watch endless nature-documentaries on the telly with housebound friends and try to dent the duty-free liquor closets constantly being re-stocked by bug-outs leftovers. Once I wasn't getting paid, there wasn't much point anymore. My pop was considered essential, so he stayed until after the fall. In fact, he was in the first embassy takeover a couple of days later that lasted about 6 hours and was conducted by the same Pasdaren cells who did the big takeover in November.

~O~

Got you. Were you housebound because it was dangerous as a Westerner/American and your presence seen as Shah-regime?? Or was the whole country locked down??

how do "streets filled with revolting protestors the nation over" and "locked down" fit together in your mind kate?

One and the same I guess, but I don't know.

You must know though Ben, with a breakdown of law and order it is not all fervent like-minded people together for the greater good. Anarchy creates it's own breed of monster. Or rather 'facilitates' as opposed to 'creates'.

Just been watching the action on Al Jazeera
Looks like it's going to get ugly

In our own revolution, we honored pre-war colonial debts, public and private. That's the cost of doing international business. It's a question of prosperity verses the revolutionary principle of throwing off the oppressor in it's entirety. Ask the Cubans how 50 years of rice, beans and principle tastes. Those are not principled revolutionaries on the streets in Egypt; they're the middle class more than anything. They aren't out to liberate Palestine or anything else radical; they want jobs and access to consumer goods

~O~

PS, Housebound with military roadblocks, protest roadblocks, curfews that only let you out occasionally, the lack of anywhere to go (other than someone else's house) even if movement was possible. What had been my manageable hour to work at Mehrabad, near the airport, became an up to a 24 hour trec even with an Iranian friend's father driving who knows all the tricks. Not one single problem ever with being Amrakiee. Nothing but the personal respect, hospitality and near instant friendship for which Persians have been so rightfully famous for so long.

Little Kate Chaos wrote: Anarchy creates it's own breed of monster. Or rather 'facilitates' as opposed to 'creates'.

this is complete bullshit.
the regimes in existance previous to anarch creates these monsters...
anarchy simple cut their chains.

its another reason for pretend democracies to practice abhorantly imoral practices in private...

its an insurance policy for when if ever it gets caught or in a jam...

bubbabush wrote:In our own revolution, we honored pre-war colonial debts, public and private. That's the cost of doing international business. It's a question of prosperity verses the revolutionary principle of throwing off the oppressor in it's entirety. Ask the Cubans how 50 years of rice, beans and principle tastes. Those are not principled revolutionaries on the streets in Egypt; they're the middle class more than anything. They aren't out to liberate Palestine or anything else radical; they want jobs and access to consumer goods

~O~

PS, Housebound with military roadblocks, protest roadblocks, curfews that only let you out occasionally, the lack of anywhere to go (other than someone else's house) even if movement was possible. What had been my manageable hour to work at Mehrabad, near the airport, became an up to a 24 hour trec even with an Iranian friend's father driving who knows all the tricks. Not one single problem ever with being Amrakiee. Nothing but the personal respect, hospitality and near instant friendship for which Persians have been so rightfully famous for so long.

I spent my school holidays in the Riyadh (in the DQ admittedly) and people back on OG used to sneer when I tried to tell them of the whole Arab (ok, not Persian, but....) hospitality thing. If seeing somebody in an orange jumpsuit having their head sawed off on an internet video is your whole world of "the dirty A-Rab" then who can argue, but I am glad somebody else can confirm I was not imagining it.

ben ttech wrote:

Little Kate Chaos wrote: Anarchy creates it's own breed of monster. Or rather 'facilitates' as opposed to 'creates'.

this is complete bullshit.
the regimes in existance previous to anarch creates these monsters...
anarchy simple cut their chains.

its another reason for pretend democracies to practice abhorantly imoral practices in private...

its an insurance policy for when if ever it gets caught or in a jam...

Well sadly Ben, I know different.

But hey ho.

your like those fucks at he airport crying into their silk stockings...

" are the VIP's upset?!?!?!?" they clamour...

obama sends in his arm breaking oil man...


Frank Wisner in Cairo
The Empire's Bagman

Wisner comes out of the same nest as Holbrooke. He is the Democrat's version of James Baker, but without the pretend gravity of the Texan.

Wisner has a long lineage in the CIA family. His father, Frank Sr., helped overthrow Arbenz of Guatemala (1954) and Mossadeq of Iran (1953), before he was undone in mysterious circumstances in 1965. Frank Jr. is well known around Langley, with a career in the Defense and State Departments along with ambassadorial service in Egypt, the Philippines, and then India. In each of these places Wisner insinuated himself into the social and military branches of the power elite. He became their spokesperson. Wisner and Mubarak became close friends when he was in country (1986-1991), and many credit this friendship (and military aid) with Egypt's support of the US in the 1991 Gulf War. Not once did the US provide a criticism of Egypt's human rights record. As Human Rights Watch put it, the George H. W. Bush regime "refrained from any public expression of concern about human rights violations in Egypt." Instead, military aid increased, and the torture system continued. The moral turpitude (bad guys, aka the Muslim Brotherhood and democracy advocates need to be tortured) and the torture apparatus set up the system for the regime followed by Bush's son, George W. after 911, with the extraordinary rendition programs to these very Egyptian prisons. Wisner might be considered the architect of the framework for this policy.

Wisner remained loyal to Mubarak. In 2005, he celebrated the Egyptian (s)election (Mubarak "won" with 88.6% of the vote). It was a "historic day" he said, and went further, "There were no instances of repression; there wasn't heavy police presence on the streets. The atmosphere was not one of police intimidation." This is quite the opposite of what came out from election observers, human rights organizations and bloggers such as Karee Suleiman and Hossam el-Hamalawy. The Democratic and Republican ghouls came together in the James Baker Institute's working group on the Middle East. Wisner joined the Baker Institute's head Edward Djerejian and others to produce a report in 2003 that offers us a tasty statement, "Achieving security and stability in the Middle East will be made more difficult by the fact that short-term necessities will seem to contradict long-term goals." If the long-term goal is Democracy, then that is all very well because it has to be sacrificed to the short-term, namely support for the kind of Pharonic State embodied by Mubarak. Nothing more is on offer. No wonder that a "Washington Middle East hand" told The Cable, "[Wisner's] the exact wrong person to send. He is an apologist for Mubarak." But this is a wrong view. Wisner is just the exact person to send to protect the short-term, and so only-term, interests of Washington. The long-term has been set aside.

I first wrote about Wisner in 1997 when he joined the board of directors of Enron Corporation. Where Wisner had been, to Manila and New Delhi, Enron followed. As one of his staffers said, "if anybody asked the CIA to help promote US business in India, it was probably Frank." Without the CIA and the muscle of the US government, it is unlikely that the Subic Bay power station deal or the Dabhol deal would have gone to Enron. Here Wisner followed James Baker, who was hired by Enron to help it gain access to the Shuaiba power plant in Kuwait. Nor is he different from Holbrooke, who was in the upper circle of Credit Suisse First Boston, Lehman Brothers, Perseus and the American International Group. They used the full power of the US state to push the private interests of their firms, and then made money for themselves. This is the close nexus of Capital and Empire, and Wisner is the hinge between them.


http://counterpunch.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why the need to go so instantly on the attack Ben?? Do you speak this way to people you meet offline?? Are you suffering from NBPE?? Or are you insecure??

We disagree, that's all. You have your life experiences, I have mine. We speak opinion maybe as fact sometimes, but it's ok.

Whilst we are at it though, your opinion is based upon?? And I am not talking Blockbuster running out of your favourite DVD here.

Che Bleu, do not go all word semantics on me a la WHAB. You know full well what I mean.

You're all the big revolutionaries on here, sat with full bellies with 24/7 electricity supplies whilst the prison officers work, the police work, the supermarkets stocked, the water supply fresh, the petrol available.

Twist all that on the head and if you think people embrace a lovely, fluffy solidarity we will overcome whilst humming kum by yah around the camp fire who am I to argue. You guys rock.

ben ttech wrote:he bragged about torturing insects while he was being held by the iranians...

http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2010/oc ... ar-463600/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lee was kept in isolation for weeks at a time. He later told how he “made friends” with a salamander that crawled around his room and how he teased ants with a pistachio, nudging the nut along the floor to keep it out of their reach.

http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2010/oc ... ar-463600/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Torture"...





,
WHAB

Little Kate Chaos wrote:

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:

Little Kate Chaos wrote:It's not really any of America's business who rules Egypt?? In a fluffy world anyway.

And look on the bright side WHAB, if there is an Islamic Fundamentalist ruling regime next in Egypt (which I don't think will be the case).....think of all the money the American tax payer will save not funding the Egyptian military machine and aid. You could pay for healthcare for how many with those billions??

In the interest of geopolitics, it most certainly is our business, Kate. Just as it is your nation's.

$1.5 Billion annually, Kate. TOTUS pisses that away on do-nothing unions and even worse teachers every day(?) (I'm not sure of the exact math, and don't really care on the exact math--suffice to say it's a fucking butt-load)---over a Trillion to date (in two years)

You think we should pay (more) for those that already get the medical care they need, those that don't want medical care?

Research the topic, Kate.

,
WHAB

Egypt should be no more America's business than you would accept any foreign nation playing a part in US business in your home. You would as happily accept to be treated how you feel others should be?? You hawks would never accept the interventionist policy coming back the other way.

Please do not use my nation as the yardstick for how I believe people should behave. Colonialism and the raping of indigenous peoples by the 100's of millions was still very much alive, engrained and flourishing in UK foreign policy only a generation past. The US need not act like that all. No nation should.

And in today's world the UK should not be paying anyone's costs, in aid or otherwise, nor getting involved in foreign lands too much. The empire died a generation ago and there are massive public spending cuts in the UK at the moment. The health care, or home public spending, of the US is all cool; whatever (not my business/care). Just thought you might be happy to have 1.5 billion spent on Americans, rather than Egyptians??

Geopolitics is everyone's concern, Kate. To not be aware of and involved in geopolitics is to allow nefarious forces free rein. You're entitled to believe what you do, but you're wrong.

The U.N. has made attempts recently and in the not too distant past to get into U.S. domestic policies. I didn't pay too much attention to it as I knew we wouldn't allow it, but they have tried....and I didn't write them down or take note of them. I saw the news reports and dismissed them nearly as quickly as I scanned them.

Having Egypt on our side at a cost of $1.5B annually is more than a fair price to pay for the peace in the region it provided. Peace with Israel alone was worth it and more. Mubarak contained much of the Islamism coming from that side of the region.

And, btw, many around here (I'm not saying you, Kate) were falling all over themselves proclaiming we should have left Saddam alone because he was keeping the extremists down. Why is there no such allowance for what Mubarak has accomplished in that regard?

Hypocrisy at work? I'm sure of it

IF extremism takes hold there, there will be another caliphate and that will only mean more wars. Don't you realize that, Kate? Don't you see that without Western involvement (resources) in that region what it WILL become?

Kate!,
WHAB

so you think we should invade egypt you racist fucking asshole???



of course, you protect the nation from a froeign war machine using whats available...
of course you attack "whats available" domestically, the second after the foreign war machine is turned aside...

No, I disagree with you completely WHAB, but am a bit tired of giving my opinion which you won't agree with...and will counter with your opinion which I won't agree with. And rinse and repeat.

It's ok to agree to disagree, I don't see either of us as being correct or incorrect (apart from I am right, you're not on this).

After all, in memory of the Bosnian War; who said "There is no truth, only perception". I don't know who said that originally but they were spot on the money.

But don't worry WHAB, tomorrow (or even later tonight!!) I will happily argue pointlessly with you!! It's a woman's perogative to change her mind.

the IDF said that after their occupations of lebanon in the 80's and mass genocides of them and the palistinians...

"the only mistake of the war, was loss of control of the media's perception of it"

The Israeli's definitely realise they have lost the media war in recent years, not just from the 80's, and by default the 'global perception of...', also more crucially have realised how important or vital it is and are working on rectifying that. Watch this space if we are still here in 3-5 years time.

Whereas before they might not care, I think now that is not the case. Such a small nation becoming such a big player did not happen because they were stupid after all??

The talk coming out of Israel re-Egypt after initial silence already seems to be "we are concerned, we are small, we are surrounded". Zero aggressive posturing. They allowed 2 battalions of Egyptian combat troops in to the Sinai this week. But some might say they have very good reason to be concerned.

I heard on a news site China blocked the google on searches for anything much to do with the happenings in Egypt as well.

Egypt is pornography for those with willies hard for geo-politic voyeurism WHAB, I will give you that.

Having Egypt on our side at a cost of $1.5B annually

It's 2 billion for the past 30 years and 1.3 goes to military (who knows what the true off the book numbers are).......I can name over a 125 countrys that don't spend a billion on military annually....Pure imperialism!

battle to control the news frame of things


On April 9 Washington demanded that Al Jazeera leave the city as a condition for a cease-fire.

On April 11 senior military spokesperson Mark Kimmitt declared, "The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources.

On April 15 Donald Rumsfeld echoed those remarks in distinctly undiplomatic terms, calling Al Jazeera's reporting "vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable.... It's disgraceful what that station is doing." It was the very next day, according to the Daily Mirror, that Bush told Blair of his plan. "He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere,"

"There's no doubt what Bush wanted to do--and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it."

Al Jazeera's real transgression during the "war on terror" was a simple one: being there. That is what Al Jazeera is doing today in Egypt and why it is so dangerous to the Mubarak regime. While critical of US policy, Al Jazeera is not anti-American—it is independent. In fact, it has angered almost every Arab government at one point or another and has been kicked out of or sanctioned by many Arab countries (the one country which Al Jazeera arguably does not cover independently is its host nation of Qatar). It was the first Arab station to broadcast interviews with Israeli officials and is hardly the Al Qaeda mouthpiece the Bush Administration wanted us to believe it was. Now that is abundantly clear to Americans who over the past week have come to depend on Al Jazeera for accurate news on the developments in Egypt.

The real threat Al Jazeera poses to authoritarian regimes is in its unembedded journalism. That is why the Bush Administration viewed Al Jazeera as a threat, it is why Mubarak's regime is trying to shut it down and that is why the network is so important to the unfolding revolutions in the Middle East. It is the same role the network plays in reporting on the disastrous US war in Afghanistan.

Part of why Al Jazeera has become acceptable is that, unlike throughout much of the Bush era, it now has a full 24-hour English language news channel filled with veteran reporters who came to the network from CNN, the BBC and other Western news outlets. When it was an Arabic language only network, it was a lot easier to demonize and malign because fact-checking US officials' fabrications and pronouncements required a real effort.

At the end of the day, the real test of whether there is a substantive change in Washington's stance toward independent, unembedded journalists and journalism will likely not involve Al Jazeera, but some other news outlet or journalist. And that test will be real only when that journalist or media outlets' rights are in direct conflict with Washington's agenda.



http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/02/01-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I spent my school holidays in the Riyadh (in the DQ admittedly) and people back on OG used to sneer when I tried to tell them of the whole Arab (ok, not Persian, but....) hospitality thing. If seeing somebody in an orange jumpsuit having their head sawed off on an internet video is your whole world of "the dirty A-Rab" then who can argue, but I am glad somebody else can confirm I was not imagining it.

I ran into pretty much the same thing in Afganistan, Egypt, Palestine, Turkey, wherever Islam permeates. Some fellow might not have anything to his name but a goat, but he'll kill and cook that goat for you; give you the first serving, and make sure that you're half stuffed before anyone else even takes a bite. Muslim cities were so safe it was a culture shock for me; I'd never experienced anything like it. You're right about explaining it though; it's like "they" always say: "You just had to be there."

~O~

Che Bleu wrote:

Sun wrote:

Having Egypt on our side at a cost of $1.5B annually

It's 2 billion for the past 30 years and 1.3 goes to military (who knows what the true off the book numbers are).......I can name over a 125 countrys that don't spend a billion on military annually....Pure imperialism!

Good question would be how much of those 1,3 billions are returned buying US war machines…

Hartung just published a book, “Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex.” He went on: “Lockheed Martin has been the leader in deals worth $3.8 billion over that period of the last 10 years; General Dynamics, $2.5 billion for tanks; Boeing, $1.7 billion for missiles, for helicopters; Raytheon for all manner of missiles for the armed forces. So, basically, this is a key element in propping up the regime, but a lot of the money is basically recycled. Taxpayers could just as easily be giving it directly to Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics.”

Likewise, Egypt’s Internet and cell phone “kill switch” was enabled only through collaboration with corporations. U.K.-based Vodafone, a global cellular-phone giant (which owns 45 percent of Verizon Wireless in the U.S.) attempted to justify its actions in a press release: “It has been clear to us that there were no legal or practical options open to Vodafone ... but to comply with the demands of the authorities.”

Narus, a U.S. subsidiary of Boeing Corp., sold Egypt equipment to allow “deep packet inspection,” according to Tim Karr of the media policy group Free Press. Karr said the Narus technology “allows the Egyptian telecommunications companies ... to look at texting via cell phones, and to identify the sort of dissident voices that are out there. ... It also gives them the technology to geographically locate them and track them down.”

http://www.myplanetganja.com/viewtopic. ... 560#p90560" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

bubbabush wrote:

I spent my school holidays in the Riyadh (in the DQ admittedly) and people conservatives and christians back on OG used to sneer when I tried to tell them of the whole Arab (ok, not Persian, but....) hospitality thing.

fixed

Che Bleu wrote:

Sun wrote:

Having Egypt on our side at a cost of $1.5B annually

It's 2 billion for the past 30 years and 1.3 goes to military (who knows what the true off the book numbers are).......I can name over a 125 countrys that don't spend a billion on military annually....Pure imperialism!

Good question would be how much of those 1,3 billions are returned buying US war machines…

All of it. We transfer credits redeemable with 'merkin weapons makers as "military aid", not cash. It buys hardware, log support, instruction and training, "other" services like intel, and that's not even counting the GWOT$$$ we've sprinkled liberally for about 9.5 years now and running. That $$$ is like "walking around $$$ in a political campaign, un-tracable only exponentially more.

~O~

Che Bleu wrote:

Sun wrote:

Having Egypt on our side at a cost of $1.5B annually

It's 2 billion for the past 30 years and 1.3 goes to military (who knows what the true off the book numbers are).......I can name over a 125 countrys that don't spend a billion on military annually....Pure imperialism!

Good question would be how much of those 1,3 billions are returned buying US war machines…

It really doesn't matter because it isn't returned to the tax payers...but I get your point.

Sun wrote:

Having Egypt on our side at a cost of $1.5B annually

It's 2 billion for the past 30 years and 1.3 goes to military...

No, it is not. Reread what you think you read...

,
WHAB

This isn't what I read it on but it works for me

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/ ... IN20110129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You can not argue the nitty gritty of the actual figure. It is unquantifiable. A ball park figure. As Bubba says, it's logistics, spares packages, storage offered up, training, post-design services, repair advice and manuals, IPR rights, administration staff, transport, warranties, staff exchanges, lunches, dinners, coffee, sugar, facilities available, information technology, interfacing between command systems set up's etc etc etc etc.

It would take you a year to audit the actual figure and by the time you had plucked one out of the air it would already be life-expired.

But the point is made. WHAB likes an argument. So do I.

Little Kate Chaos wrote: As Bubba says, it's logistics, spares packages, storage offered up, training, post-design services, repair advice and manuals, IPR rights, administration staff, transport, warranties, staff exchanges, lunches, dinners, coffee, sugar, facilities available, information technology, interfacing between command systems set up's etc etc etc etc.

all the parts and pieces it takes to run a resilent modern nazi gestapo...

Tip of the iceberg, the etc etc etc part is huge as well. Even WHAB can see the savings if the US kicks back at midnight tonight.

I have worked in and around the ITAR fluff. The admin cost on that 'little' regulation to the US taxpayer alone must huge. It's a monster.

Worth it though. Keeps you folks safe and secure, eh??

Little Kate Chaos wrote: Keeps you folks safe and secure shipping the goods looted from the world in, eh??

fixed!

More 'shipping out' but hey.

Little Kate Chaos wrote:You can not argue the nitty gritty of the actual figure. It is unquantifiable. A ball park figure.

I thought it was just a huge coincidence it was a nice even round number with 9 zeros in it.

Read this to see how eagerly the mainstream media are to pin acts of violence on peaceful protesters, instead of the thugs who actually committed them.

And if you don't know about agents provocateur, read this statement about Burma:

"They’ve ordered some soldiers in the military to shave their heads, so that they could pose as monks, and then those fake monks would attack soldiers to incite a military crackdown. The regime has done this before in Burma, and we believe they would do so again."

And see this news from Canada, and this Wikipedia discussion.

And as I pointed out last year:

* United Press International reported in June 2005:

U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

* Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers

* At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence

Similarly, an Indonesian fact-finding team investigated violent riots which occurred in 1998, and determined that "elements of the military had been involved in the riots, some of which were deliberately provoked".


http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl? ... /25/142252" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Securi ... 117829623/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAfzUOx53Rg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009 ... ovacateurs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sun wrote:This isn't what I read it on but it works for me

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/ ... IN20110129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know where you got it from. Why do you think I told you to "reread" it?

The United States has given Egypt an average of $2 billion annually since 1979...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/ ... IN20110129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do you know what "average" means in this regard?

Now, in light of the source material and the actual wording of that source material, is your original statement accurate?

,
WHAB

Having Egypt on our side at a cost of $1.5B annually

Do you know what "average" means in this regard?

Sure do, it means the same as the way you used annually.......So how is your 1.5 right and my 2 wrong...?

You used the word annually but didn't give any time reference....annually since when...?....For you're number to be right you would have to go back another 50 years.....My number is 2 billion annually for the past 30 years.

Sun wrote:

Having Egypt on our side at a cost of $1.5B annually

Do you know what "average" means in this regard?

Sure do, it means the same as the way you used annually.......So how is your 1.5 right and my 2 wrong...?

You used the word annually but didn't give any time reference....annually since when...?....For you're number to be right you would have to go back another 50 years.....My number is 2 billion annually for the past 30 years.

Because $1.5B is accurate, current and will continue at least one more year IF TOTUS gets his proposal passed.

February 2, 2011

For fiscal 2010, the United States provided Egypt with $1.552 billion in total assistance, including $1.29 billion in economic and military assistance. And the Obama administration can continue to provide aid at 2010 levels until March 4, when the current CR for fiscal 2011 is set to expire, or if there is passage of another CR or superseding appropriations legislation before that.

For fiscal 2011, the administration had said it was seeking $1.552 billion—the same amount requested for 2010. That included $1.3 billion in military assistance and $250 million in economic aid.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/po ... d-20110202" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hence "annually" and not "average".

WHAB

You're arguing over fluff.

Consider the 3rd party assurance of all those shiny Abramms and F15's should Egypt want to not be your friend anymore post-Mubarek or can not afford the support package that is always more costly than the initial procurement. Or the disposal of.

All that reverse engineering if one day Cairo prefers Tehran or NK over Washington.

WHAB, your DoD have been having kittens on standby for years over where all those Stingers went you paid for to be sent to the Mujihadeen in Soviet occupied Afghanistan which at the time were so state of the art that US soldiers themselves had never fired in anger. All unaccounted for.

You're playing over fun figures and monopoly money in this geo-political game you have a hard on for WHAB.

Get a grip and screw your lid on!!

You said

Having Egypt on our side at a cost of $1.5B annually

Thats very misleading and vague if you are only using 2010 and projections for 2011 and leaving the time reference out of your statement....That isn't the cost of having Egypt on "our" side....To say "$2 billion annually for the past 30 years" it should kind of be a given that it's an avg, but play semantics all you want.....My point still stands!

Little Kate Chaos wrote:You're arguing over fluff.

Consider the 3rd party assurance of all those shiny Abramms and F15's should Egypt want to not be your friend anymore post-Mubarek or can not afford the support package that is always more costly than the initial procurement. Or the disposal of.

All that reverse engineering if one day Cairo prefers Tehran or NK over Washington.

WHAB, your DoD have been having kittens on standby for years over where all those Stingers went you paid for to be sent to the Mujihadeen in Soviet occupied Afghanistan which at the time were so state of the art that US soldiers themselves had never fired in anger. All unaccounted for.

You're playing over fun figures and monopoly money in this geo-political game you have a hard on for WHAB.

Get a grip and screw your lid on!!

$2B average implies that there were years that exceeded $2B, Kate.

I don't think that is accurate. I doubt that that has ever been accurate.

And then one must consider what Egypt was getting in 1975. I don't know that number, but I'll bet it wasn't anywhere close to $2B, Kate. I'd bet it wasn't anywhere near $1B...since we've been assisting them for more than 30 years.

$2B is a number he never should have used. Especially without mentioning it was an "average", which he did not, in fact, state.

Egypt doesn't have any F-15's. They have F-16's.

And, I was going to mention precisely what you've just mentioned, but now I'll just leave it at...

What happened to all that shiny armament Iran procured from us?

Money well earned in my book

IF those Stingers were still around they would have used them by now, Kate. They're not saving them waiting for the 12th Imam. They're getting their asses kicked daily and if they had ANY way to prevent that they would have utilized it years ago. I believe they are in such disrepair as to render them useless. You can't just leave them laying around in a desert environment for 20 years and expect them to work.

You keep treating geopolitics like a game, Kate It is serious business.

Unless you like war where politics could have prevented it? Without intergovernmental relations there would be, no doubt, more war.

Good morning, Kate!,
WHAB

Sun wrote:You said

Having Egypt on our side at a cost of $1.5B annually

Thats very misleading and vague if you are only using 2010 and projections for 2011 and leaving the time reference out of your statement....That isn't the cost of having Egypt on "our" side....To say "$2 billion annually for the past 30 years" it should kind of be a given that it's an avg, but play semantics all you want.....My point still stands!

You think we're having a discussion. We are not...


WHAB

again,
whab rests assuradely, on his dumb shit...

dig up the back end of one of those stingers used to make a campfire somewhere 20 years ago and whabs forces could have colon powell live on ever channel explaining that wmd had been found...


heh...




pro democracy forces in cario have suffered gravely through the night...
assaulted with rifle fire and petrol bombs all through the night...

assaulted by the people the army waved through the lines it said it established to ensure peace and security...


the curfew is over in 35 minutes...

it remains to be seen which side is reinforced by the dawns crowd...

$2B is a number he never should have used. Especially without mentioning it was an "average",

And yet it's all gravy for you to leave out that you were only talking about 2010 and a projection for 2011.....you should have never used the word annually.

I've been staying out of this thread and I say one little thing and now we've wasted post after post on semantics.....fucking sad.

Why Did Mubarak's Thugs Ride In On Camels?


the guy riding on a camel has a very Arab-looking headscarf, and a wildly bright and eye-catching orange camel blanket.

That's a "look at me" get-up if there ever was one.

But why camels - a uniquely Arab symbol? And why such blatantly Arab looking head-covering?

Well, pictures of millions of peaceful protesters wearing largely Western clothing is a universal image of people power.

Mubarak and his backers couldn't have that, could they?

Instead, most Western media is now showing the camel shots and saying "Pro- and Anti-Mubarak forces clash", without providing any explanation that the pro-Mubark forces did all of the attacking.

Moreover, many consumers of Western news will see the camel pictures and think to themselves:

There go those camel jockeys again.

("Camel jockey" is a racist slur for Arabs used by Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and their ilk.)

In other words, people who get their news from Limbaugh, Coulter, Fox News and the like will see the pictures and decide that the entire Egyptian struggle for freedom can be written off as dusky Arabs fighting other dusky Arabs.

Maybe I'm taking it too far. Maybe there wasn't a decision to use propaganda in such a scripted manner.

But - at the very least - it is important to understand how these images will be interpreted by many busy people in the West who have no time to learn the facts.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23059" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

pro mubarack forces spent hours gathering equipment and assembling supplies just outside the square on the side streets as they prepared to attack the civilian democracy protestors...

they shouted to the balconies of people overlooking their preparations to go indoors and hide because there was about to be a battle...

mubarack supporters = tea party patriots


"we love the dictator!!!" they join in screaming

Our Vets are getting shitty medical care in the VA system, and many die from ailments that could be solved if the government would give the VA a little more money, but we can send 2 billion to egypt, why do the military boys in the USA continue to take this abuse? RIP hellboy

So we've given Egypt at least $20,000,000,000 over the past decade, and all we've gotten for it is a shorter wait in line at the Suez Canal?

pro mubarack supports have been witnessed in point blank execution of democracy protestors in this assault of the square...

do you honestly think the white house doesnt have a better live feed from liberty square...

and that it isnt piping it into mubarack just so he has it???

pro democracy protestors have over 150 captured insurgents confined in a cage...

all were stopped while assaulting the protestors with weapons and found to be in possession of police and military identification...

have have been beaten appropriately,

and their cage reeks of urine and feces


yay!

the military security of the past weeks was in fact,

the military preventing the anti mubarack protestors from assembling the tools that would be necessary to protect themselves from the pro mubarack terrorists that were being assembled and outfitted for a grand assault on an unarmed public

Meet The New Boss
Same As The Old Boss
Literally

more argueable, each and every day

pro mubarack thugs have surrounded the offices of amnesty international and human rights watch... who shared an office with a egyptian legal council organization...

military police have entered the office, told everyone to take their sim cards out of their phones and lay on the floor...

Egyptian center for social and economic rights

http://www.anhri.net/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

protestors have assembled a stage with public address system,
they are currently uelogizing all those who were killed by government thugs last night and rallying the protestors for the next coming attack...

Journalists in Egypt – domestic and foreign – are increasingly under siege, with Egyptian authorities detaining reporters and gangs of young men roaming the streets looking for anyone with camera equipment.

Some of the pressure has come from the government: Six Al Jazeera journalists were detained for several hours earlier this week, and while they were eventually released, their equipment remains with the police.

Two New York Times reporters were reportedly arrested – or "taken into protective custody", as the government termed it.

Spotters stand outside many hotels, watching balconies with high-powered binoculars. When they see balconies with camera equipment or photographers, they use radios to call in the details.

Egyptian police sources say that information from those spotters has been used to conduct several raids on journalists’ hotel rooms in recent days.

And the government has reportedly pressured several hotels not to extend the reservations of foreign journalists.

But most of the intimidation and violence has come from unofficial sources: Young men loiter outside the hotels where many reporters are staying, shouting at (and sometimes attacking) anyone with equipment.

Hotel lobbies are filled with journalists and camera crews wearing bandages, and many have been restricted to watching the events in Tahrir Square from their hotel balconies.

Egyptian state television has actively tried to foment the unrest by reporting that "Israeli spies" have infiltrated the city – which explains why many of the gangs who attack reporters shout "yehudi!" (“Jew!”).

The area around Tahrir Square has become a virtual no-go zone for camera crews, which were assaulted on Wednesday almost as soon as they entered the area controlled by supporters of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak.

Several of them were mistaken for Al Jazeera crews, and were chased off by young men wielding sticks and chanting, "Jazeera! Jazeera!".

CNN anchor Anderson Cooper said his crew was also assaulted on Tuesday night after being mistaken for an Al Jazeera crew.

A reporter for the Al Arabiya network was kidnapped for several hours during Wednesday’s protest.
The violence has come exclusively from the Mubarak supporters: There have been no reports of pro-democracy demonstrators attacking or intimidating the media.

Egyptian journalists, too, have been the victims of angry mobs, all of them affiliated with the pro-Mubarak crowd. Sarah El Sirgany, an editor with the Daily News Egypt, tweeted that her brother was assaulted while trying to protect a group of reporters attacked by an angry mob.

An Al Jazeera reporter was held at knifepoint by a group of young men on Thursday morning. One man’s face was still bloodied from the previous night’s fighting.

Bloggers, too, have become targets: The popular Egyptian blogger Sandmonkey has reportedly been arrested (it’s unclear by who).


http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/02/03-8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They're idiots for making it 'personal' with the international/own national press corps, it's lose-lose to go out of your way to pee these people off. At worst ignore them, at best work on a strategy to use them for your own ends, but to actively go after them is stupid.

not idiots,
cogs in the big wheel...

american has been OK'ing all manner of physical assault and arrest of journalists; both domestically, and whereever it excercises control.

the rest of the world has fallen in line with this direction, and are running with it as the new normal.

obama told mubarack " take all the time you like BUT MAKE SURE!!! you get in their and kick the shit out of the media and smash all their cameras... in the meantime... got to make sure this is worth something"




The Right Smears ElBaradei

Posted on Feb 2, 2011

By Joe Conason

To his fellow Egyptians and to most observers across the world, Mohamed ElBaradei looks like a hero—an international diplomat who might well have lived out his days in the comforts of Geneva and New York but instead returned home to provide leadership despite serious personal peril. But to leading figures on the American right, ElBaradei is a figure to be mocked, scorned and dismissed as a stooge of darker forces in Egyptian politics and the Mideast.

Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for his years of stewardship of the International Atomic Energy Agency, he is suddenly the target of insults and attacks from Republicans who deem themselves expert on the politics of the Middle East. Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton calls ElBaradei a “dilettante,” and former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer goes further, calling him “a bad guy.”

The opinions of these veterans of the Bush White House, perhaps the least successful U.S. government since the Herbert Hoover years, are not worth much—except as a reminder of the continuing ill wind blowing from that defunct administration and its policies. Their hostility to ElBaradei and to the mass civic movement in Egypt reveals the hollowness and uselessness of the neoconservative worldview at a moment of intense crisis for American diplomacy.

To everyone else, it is obvious that Hosni Mubarak cannot abide much longer as president of Egypt, despite the billions in aid that we have lavished on him these past three decades. And to everyone else, it is also obvious that whenever he goes, the most promising alternative is ElBaradei, a secular liberal with strong ties to the West.

But to the neoconservatives, the possibility that ElBaradei might help preserve his country’s 80 million souls from bloody chaos matters much less than the fact that he disagreed with them about the invasion of Iraq and that he still disagrees with them about a pre-emptive strike against Iran. He committed the unforgivable sin of being right when they were wrong about Iraq’s mythical nuclear weapons program, and he has insisted on pursuing a peaceful resolution of Iran’s atomic ambitions as well.

Advertisement
With their peculiar belief that what we always need is more armed conflict in the Mideast, the neoconservatives despise ElBaradei—although the U.S. would have saved thousands of lives and trillions of dollars if only we had listened to his truth rather than their lies.

Among those lies, of course, was the notion that “regime change” in Baghdad would spark a democratic renaissance across the Mideast beneficial to America and Israel as well as the people of the region. That didn’t happen, but today a burgeoning movement of youths demanding democracy and human rights has appeared—and the neoconservatives now warn us to fear and reject them.

Let us hope that the Obama administration is sufficiently sensible to ignore such awful advice. Balancing our national security interests against the complexities of places like Egypt and Jordan, with strong Islamic political movements, will be difficult to say the least. But there is no point in nostalgia for the friendly dictators of the past and the arrangements we once made with them. Hysteria over the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood should be assuaged by the example of Turkey, where the ruling Islamist party is seeking even now to restore ties with Israel and join the European Union.

Neglect, arrogance and cynicism have left us with little knowledge and few relationships that will be useful as we cope with momentous changes in the Mideast. If we face that fact, then the last thing we should do is undermine those, like ElBaradei, who might help us negotiate this challenging course.


http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the ... _20110202/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Published on Wednesday, February 2, 2011 by Inter Press Service
Egypt: Litany of Abuses Fueled Protesters' Fury

by Jasmin Ramsey and Aprille Muscara

WASHINGTON - In Egypt, where protestors continued to demonstrate Tuesday for the eighth day in a row, the use of torture by law enforcement officials over the past two decades has contributed to the growing unrest, rights groups say.

In a new report by Human Rights Watch (HRW), the international advocacy group claims the practice is endemic and often practiced with impunity.

"Egyptians deserve a clean break from the incredibly entrenched practice of torture," said Joe Stork, deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa Division at HRW, in a statement. "The Egyptian government's foul record on this issue is a huge part of what is still bringing crowds onto the streets today."

Mubarak's appointment on Sunday of Omar Suleiman as his vice president – his first – has largely been received with disapproval by Egyptian protesters, as allegations of his involvement with torture are publicized by critics. As the head of the Egyptian General Intelligence Service (GIS), Suleiman worked with the CIA's renditions program.

Torture and Terror

According to another HRW report from six years ago, from the 1990s through 2005, Egypt received the largest number of CIA detainees under the U.S. intelligence agency's controversial extraordinary renditions program, which delivered suspected terrorists to governments with questionable rights records for interrogation.

HRW's latest report, titled 'Work on Him Until He Confesses': Impunity for Torture in Egypt", claims that the country's State Security Investigations (SSI) – which is responsible for monitoring political dissidents and opposition forces and is a leg of the country's intelligence community along with Suleiman's GIS – is Egypt's most notorious perpetrator of abuses, including routine forced disappearances.

Nasr al-Sayed Hassan Nasr, a former Muslim Brotherhood member, told HRW about his 60-day detention, where a SSI officer told him that "[t]his is the biggest citadel in the Middle East for extracting information. You are 35 meters below the ground in a place that nobody except the minister of interior knows about."

Nasr says he was blind-folded the entire time, beaten, electro-shocked and threatened with sexual abuse and humiliation. Laurence Wright, author of "The Looming Tower", a history of al Qaeda, suggests that a connection exists between the abuses of Egypt's jails, where al Qaeda's number two, Ayman Zawahiri, was tortured, and the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon.

"By visiting imprisonment, torture and exile upon Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, Mubarak foreclosed any possibility of an Islamic revolution in his own country," wrote conservative columnist Ross Douthat in the New York Times Monday, citing Wright. "But he also helped radicalize and internationalize his country's Islamists, pushing men& out of Egyptian politics and into the global jihad."

A state of emergency, which essentially allows security forces to operate outside the law, has been in place in Egypt since 1967. Hosni Mubarak, who became president in 1981, has justified the extension, despite international denunciation, on the basis of a continued threat of terrorism.

With some two billion dollars in U.S. military and economic aid pouring into Egypt every year, Washington has had to balance its longstanding support of the Mubarak regime against public criticisms of Cairo's repression of citizens and abuses of power.

A January 2009 Wikileaks cable from U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Margaret Scobey to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted that Mubarak's government "has not begun serious work on trying to transform the police and security services from instruments of power that serve and protect the regime into institutions operating in the public interest, despite official slogans to the contrary."

In March of that year, Clinton responded to a question about a State Department report on Egypt's human rights record by saying, "We consider Egypt to be a friend and& we all have room for improvement."

Impunity and Injustice

Over the past 20 years, Egyptian authorities have shifted from denying the pervasiveness of allegations of torture to conceding that while abuse does occur, complaints are investigated and brought to trial if there is enough evidence.

But the 95-page HRW report states that factors within Egypt's legal and institutional framework impede torture victims from holding the authorities accountable and discourage them from lodging complaints or following through with them. These include a lack of prosecutorial independence, conflicts of interest within police ranks, and witness intimidation.

Last summer, the issue of police brutality peaked in the public's consciousness when the death of Khaled Said gained widespread publicity. Witnesses claim Said was arrested by police in an Internet café, dragged out into the street and beaten to death. Khaled's family believes the authorities wanted to punish the 28-year-old for circulating a video recording of police corruption, HRW says.

According to the report, an investigation into Said's case was closed after claims of "false allegations" by the Ministry of Interior, but re-opened after organized protests and an unusual amount of press coverage.

HRW also cited the example of Imad al-Kabir, a microbus driver from Giza who was tortured by police in 2006. A video of his abuse reached the Internet and sparked public outcry and press interest, which ultimately resulted in the prosecution and sentencing of an officer.

But human rights groups claim the amount of attention paid to Said's case by authorities and the conviction and sentencing which resulted from al-Kabir's case are rare in Egypt.

According to the HRW report, government statistics show that between 2006 and 2010, citizens filed hundreds of charges of deaths and abuse in police custody. Egyptian courts only convicted a handful of officers for torture and inhumane treatment.

"In a country where torture remains a serious and systemic problem, the conviction of a mere seven police officers over four years reflects a huge disconnect from reality and leaves hundreds of victims and families without justice," Stork said.


http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/02/02-8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I just saw some news on TV. I can't find the video on the net.

What a bunch of mother fucking knob-polishers....wow! An absolutely stunning display

They're (4 or 5 of the Lefty channels including Dan-Fraudulent Docs-Rather and Chris-Thrill Up My Leg-Matthews) actually falling over themselves giving TOTUS CREDIT for the uprising in Egypt because of his stirring oratory of TWENTY MONTHS ago...



I'll bet TOTUS' knob is skinless now after they were done with it!



FLOTUS better watch out or one of those supplicant son-of-a-bitches are going to take her man away from her...

,
WHAB

The Egyptian Uprising Is a Direct Response to Ruthless Global Capitalism
Economic decline at the hands of 'hot' money has driven Egyptians' discontent.
February 4, 2011 |



Petitions by Change.org|Get Widget|Start a Petition �


The revolution in Egypt is as much a rebellion against the painful deterioration of economic conditions as it is about opposing a dictator, though they are linked. That's why President Hosni Mubarak's announcement that he intends to stick around until September was met with an outpouring of rage.

When people are facing a dim future, in a country hijacked by a corrupt regime that destabilized its economy through what the CIA termed, "aggressively pursuing economic reforms to attract foreign investment” (in other words, the privatization and sale of its country’s financial system to international sharks), waiting doesn’t cut it.

Mohamed Bouazizi, the 26-year-old Tunisian who catalyzed this revolution, didn’t set himself on fire in protest of his inability to vote, but because of anguish over his job status in a country with 15.7 percent unemployment. The six other men in Algeria, Egypt and Mauritania who followed suit were also unemployed.

Tunisia’s dismal economic environment was a direct result of its increasingly “liberal” policy toward foreign speculators. Of the five countries covered by the World Bank’s, Investment Across Sectors Indicator, Tunisia had the fewest limits on foreign investment. It had opened all areas of its economy to foreign equity ownership, except the electricity sector.

Egypt adopted a similar come-and-get-it policy, on steroids. From 2004 to 2008, as the world economic crisis was being stoked by the U.S. banking system and its rapacious toxic asset machine, Mubarak’s regime was participating in a different way. Mubarak wasn’t pushing subprime loans onto Egyptians; instead, he was embarking on an economic strategy that entailed selling large pieces of Egypt’s banks to the highest international bidder.

The result was a veritable grab-fest of foreign bank takeovers in the heart of Cairo. The raid began with Greek bank, Piraeus, taking a 70 percent stake in the Egyptian Commercial Bank in 2005, and included the sale of Bank of Alexandria, one of the four largest state-run banks, to the Italian bank, Gruppo Sanpaolo IMI in 2006. For the next two years, "hot" money poured into Egypt, as international banks muscled into Egypt and its financial system, before the intensity leveled off in 2008.

While foreign banks were setting up shop, Egypt also eliminated the red tape that came with foreign property investment, through decree number 583. This transformed the country, already a tourist hotspot, into a magnet for global real estate speculation. (Something that worked out really well for Ireland.) Even one of Goldman Sachs’ funds got in on the game, buying a $70 million chunk of Palm Hills Development SAE, a luxury real estate developer.

Other countries in the region, such as Jordan, where the unemployment rate is 13.4 percent, and the poverty rate 14.2 percent (as in the U.S.), tried to mimic Egypt’s “open” policies, in varying degrees. That’s why eight of the 21 banks operating in Jordan are now foreign-owned, and its insurance market is dominated by U.S.-based, MetLife American Life Insurance Company. But it was Egypt that did it best.

From 2004 to 2009, Egypt attracted $42 billion worth of foreign capital into its borders, as one of the top investment “destinations” in the Middle East and Africa. “Hot” money entry was made easy, with no restrictions on foreign investment or repatriation of profits, and no taxes on dividends, capital gains or corporate bond interest. As a result, volume on the Egyptian stock market swelled more than twelve-fold between 2004 and the first half of 2009.

Egypt and the United Arab Emirates even eliminated minimum capital requirements for investment, meaning that speculators could buy whatever they wanted, with no money down, a practice that didn’t exactly impel them to stick around for long.

But, as we learned in the U.S., what goes up with artificial helium plummets under real gravity. Starting in the second half of 2009, oil prices fell and foreign banks slashed their capital holdings in Arabic nations. The hot money was cooling off. Even in the oil-rich UAE, the speed of capital outflow set foreign capital levels back to where they were in 2004, demonstrating how temporal, deceptive, fickle and irresponsible international speculative capital is. When hot money gets cold, it moves on, leaving vast economic devastation in its wake.

Not surprisingly, those foreign speculation strategies didn’t bring less poverty or more jobs either. Indeed, the insatiable hunt for great deals, whether by banks, hedge funds, or private equity funds, as it inevitably does, had the opposite effect.

Whenever hot money hones in on a geographical location or financial product, it creates the appearance of economic enhancement (such as with our GDP growth based on financial services, for instance). But, on its way out the door, that mirage is replaced with harsh decline.

In March 2010, in an effort to keep foreign capital coming in, Egypt’s Ministry of Investment presented the country's virtues to investors in a glossy “Invest in Egypt” brochure. The document proudly cited Egypt as being one of the world’s top 10 “Reformers,” as reported by the World Bank and International Finance Corporation’s (IFC). The World Bank’s definition of "reformer" has nothing to do with conditions for citizens, and everything to do with the degree and speed to which “hot” international money can zoom in and out of a country. Egypt had made the top 10 “Reformers” list for four out of the past five years (a distinction shared with Colombia, where urban unemployment has risen to over 13 percent).

Ironically, the Ministry’s brochure touted the large college graduate population entering the job market each year -- 325,000. The same graduates are the core of the current revolution. They failed to find adequate jobs and are faced with an official unemployment rate of just below 10 percent (though, similar to the U.S., that figure doesn’t account for underemployment, poor job quality or long-term prospects). Meanwhile, 20 percent of Egypt lives in poverty (compared to 14 percent and growing in the U.S.) and 10 percent of the population controls 28 percent of household income (compared to 30 percent in the U.S.).

When a country relinquishes its financial system and population's economic well-being to everyone else’s pursuit of "good deals," the fallout will be substantial. Sub-prime lending may not have been one of Egypt's problems as it was in the United States, but soured foreign real estate investment was. Also, foreign banks persuaded Egypt to issue complex securities with crazy derivatives in them (shades of Greece). Those securities plummeted in value as foreign speculators shunned them. Today, credit default swap spreads on Egyptian debt (and that of other Arabic countries) have substantially dropped in value, as international speculators are betting on further upheaval, targeting Egypt like just another number on a dartboard.

Citizens protesting in the streets from Greece to England, and more demonstrably, from Tunisia to Egypt, may be revolting for national reasons and against individual governments, but they share a common bond. They are revolting against a world that lines the pockets of rich deal-makers while sticking the tab to ordinary people. That bond is global. Related protests could reach Colombia and Ghana -- and maybe someday, the United States.

For in the United States, economic statistics are no better. By certain measures, like income inequality, they are worse than in Egypt. But we have no evil dictator to be a common focus for, say, an American economic revolution. Here, we freely elect the politicians who campaign with corporate funds and deregulate our financial system, who bail out entire banks instead of individual mortgage holders, and who keep corporate tax receipts low while increasing audits on small businesses and struggling individuals. Here, we elect the leaders who govern our growing income inequality, and wonder how Wall Street can pay itself another round of record bonuses.

In that respect, as difficult as conditions are in the Middle East, there may be more hope for economic change to rise from those revolting populations. It may not come from simply overthrowing the current regime, given the entrenched “liberalization” strategies, but it is certainly an excellent start.


http://www.alternet.org/world/149793/th ... age=entire" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mubarak's third force terror tactic
President Mubarak unleashed his 'personal' thugs in a failed attempt to silence protestors seeking an end to his regime.

The apparently sudden and unexpected violence against Egyptian protesters that started on February 2 has an interesting historical ring to it. The date marks the unbanning of liberation movements in South Africa in 1990, and the start of political negotiations between the apartheid regime and the African National Congress. It also marks the start of the most violent period in South Africa’s turbulent political history.

The parallels with Egypt start with Mubarak’s speech to the nation on February 1, ostensibly making a significant concession to the protesters and a commitment to Egypt’s democratic future. The next day thugs, many now clearly identified as members of the security forces, rallied in central Cairo and launched attacks on hitherto peaceful demonstrators.

The tactics of deploying so-called third forces is a tried and tested method of autocratic regimes, usually utilised when the regime realises that it is on the strategic defencive politically. The focus of the regime then shifts from merely ruling as usual to extending its reign as long as possible, while at the same time sapping the material and political energy of its opponents.

In South Africa this tactic was intended to legitimise the regime as the only thing standing between an orderly transition to democracy on the one hand, and chaos on the other. At the same time it sought to drain the energy of the liberation movement by killing some of its leaders, forcing it into a defencive mode of thinking and compelling it to accept a compromise favourable to the regime. Mubarak’s statements prior to the unleashing of his ‘police-in-civilian clothing’, the inaction of the army and the apparently reasonable response of his Prime Minister after the fact that they will vigorously investigate the violence and bring the perpetrators to book, are well rehearsed elements of a ‘third force’ strategy.

Like in South Africa, the Egyptian ‘third force’ will be constituted of a variety of elements, including members of the security services operating as civilians, party loyalists and some civilians who are attracted by financial incentives. Even criminal gangs will be increasingly utilised, providing further ‘evidence’ that the violence is not perpetrated by the regime but plainly criminal. In the end the entire effort is neither spontaneous nor independent.

Any decent investigation will find that this force is organised, resourced and directed by elements within the Mubarak regime. The Tahrir Square protesters have already collected ample evidence to this effect. In South Africa it took the brave Justice Richard Goldstone (of the UN Gaza Report fame) to expose a similar and wide-ranging network of regime instruments masquerading as various independent third forces.

Unless the army intervenes on the side of the Egyptian democracy movement, this ‘third force’ will continue to strike, not only in Cairo and other cities but increasingly also in the rural parts of the country. In South Africa the third force violence lasted from 1990 to 1994. In Egypt Mubarak’s regime has until September to produce a disorganised, leaderless and desperate opposition unable to execute a proper election campaign. The lessons of South Africa are instructive in how to defeat this effort by a desperate regime.

The continued unity of South Africans, in protest, was the central element that defeated the efforts of the apartheid regime to continue governing. If the Egyptian people continue protesting, as they have for the last two weeks, any claims of legitimacy by the regime are transparently ridiculous. In South Africa the central demand of the liberation movement at the height of third force violence became one for a transitional government.

No autocratic regime can oversee its own demise, and a real election could only take place if the entire state apparatus, including its security forces, were placed under the control of an interim government. The South African Transitional Executive Council established in 1993 and acting as an interim government, ensured the holding of free and fair elections in April 1994.

Anything less than the departure of Mubarak and his key allies will mean a transition always under threat of violence by a so-called third force, and an election that might disappear amidst the violence visited upon the Egyptian resistance.

David Africa is an independent security analyst based in South Africa. He has previously worked in counter-terrorism intelligence and research, and served in the underground of the then-banned African National Congress in South Africa.


http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/op ... 63387.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Torturers, Jailers, Spies Lead Egypt’s ‘New’ Government

Dissidents demanding the end of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s regime had better hope they don’t end up under arrest. The first members of Mubarak’s new cabinet — a face-lift so he can stay in power — are heavily involved in the apparatus of state repression, including a spymaster who worked with the U.S. to torture terrorist suspects.

New prime minister Ahmed Shafik is a long-time deputy of Mubarak with a reputation for toughness. (Title of a 2005 profile: “With an Iron Fist.”) The new interior minister was the top jailer. And the new vice president is the Middle East’s most powerful intelligence chief. That looks less like the kind of government demanded by the protesters and more like a government designed to crack down on them.

Let’s start with the new internal-security chief, Gen. Mahmoud Wagdy, the former head of prisons. What happens in an Egyptian prison? The U.S. State Department’s annual human rights report explains: “[P]rison cells were overcrowded, with a lack of medical care, proper hygiene, food, clean water and proper ventilation. Tuberculosis was widespread; abuse was common, especially of juveniles in adult facilities; and guards brutalized prisoners.”

As interior minister, Wagdy will run the police forces responsible for keeping the regime in power. After a brief disappearance over the weekend, when several cities saw riots break out amidst the protests, the police returned to the streets Sunday. That prompted many Egyptians to wonder if Mubarak pulled the police back to tell the country that the alternative to his regime is chaos. Wegdy’s ascension would place someone familiar with crackdowns at the helm of those forces.

The most striking appointment is the new vice president: Omar Suleiman, Egypt’s top spy. Egypt’s intelligence services are considered the most robust in the Arab world — and a crucial asset to the west. When the Clinton and Bush administrations sought to hold terror suspects in foreign countries — where the United States could turn a blind eye to how they were treated — Egypt was the “obvious choice,” according to Jane Mayer’s 2008 book The Dark Side.

Torture against dissidents is widespread in Egypt, especially against the country’s Islamic militants — several of which joined al-Qaeda, including its deputy leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Suleiman “negotiated directly with top [CIA] officials,” Meyer reports, to take control of captured terrorists. The first, an Egyptian named Talaat Fouad Qassem, was captured by the United States in 1995 in Croatia and simply “disappeared” after the Egyptians took custody of him. The then-U.S. ambassador to Egypt described Suleiman as “very bright, very realistic” about “the negative things that the Egyptians were engaged in, of torture and so on. But he was not squeamish.”

That lack of squeamishness has yet to characterize Mubarak’s response to the protests. Mubarak wants to hold on to power, and so he’s not yet engaged in a bloodletting. But dissidents are calling for a general strike and a million-strong protest march Tuesday to force Mubarak out. With his new security officials in place, Mubarak would be well-positioned to crack down.

A journalist in Alexandria, Sharif Kouddous of the “Democracy Now” radio program, reported Sunday that protesters chanted against Suleiman and Shafik, “calling them collaborators with the U.S.” So much for mollifying the reform movement with a new cabinet.


http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/01 ... overnment/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Protest Movement in Egypt: "Dictators" do not Dictate, They Obey Orders


The Mubarak regime could collapse in the a face of a nationwide protest movement... What prospects for Egypt and the Arab World?

"Dictators" do not dictate, they obey orders. This is true in Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria.

Dictators are invariably political puppets. Dictators do not decide.

President Hosni Mubarak was a faithful servant of Western economic interests and so was Ben Ali.

The national government is the object of the protest movement.

The objective is to unseat the puppet rather than the puppet-master.

The slogans in Egypt are "Down with Mubarak, Down with the Regime". No anti-American posters have been reported... The overriding and destructive influence of the USA in Egypt and throughout the Middle East remains unheralded.

The foreign powers which operate behind the scenes are shielded from the protest movement.

No significant political change will occur unless the issue of foreign interference is meaningfully addressed by the protest movement.

The US embassy in Cairo is an important political entity, invariably overshadowing the national government. The Embassy is not a target of the protest movement.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22993" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In Egypt, a devastating IMF program was imposed in 1991 at the height of the Gulf War. It was negotiated in exchange for the annulment of Egypt's multibillion dollar military debt to the US as well as its participation in the war. The resulting deregulation of food prices, sweeping privatisation and massive austerity measures led to the impoverishment of the Egyptian population and the destabilization of its economy. The Mubarak government was praised as a model "IMF pupil".

The role of Ben Ali's government in Tunisia was to enforce the IMF's deadly economic medicine, which over a period of more than twenty years served to destabilize the national economy and impoverish the Tunisian population. Over the last 23 years, economic and social policy in Tunisia has been dictated by the Washington Consensus.

Both Hosni Mubarak and Ben Ali stayed in power because their governments obeyed and effectively enforced the diktats of the IMF.

From Pinochet and Videla to Baby Doc, Ben Ali and Mubarak, dictators have been installed by Washington. Historically in Latin America, dictators were instated through a series of US sponsored military coups. In todays World, they are installed through "free and fair elections" under the surveillance of the "international community".

Our message to the protest movement:

Actual decisions are taken in Washington DC, at the US State Department, at the Pentagon, at Langley, headquarters of the CIA. at H Street NW, the headquarters of the World Bank and the IMF.

The relationship of "the dictator" to foreign interests must be addressed. Unseat the political puppets but do not forget to target the "real dictators".

The protest movement should focus on the real seat of political authority; it should target (in a peaceful, orderly and nonviolent fashion) the US embassy, the delegation of the European Union, the national missions of the IMF and the World Bank.

Meaningful political change can only be ensured if the neoliberal economic policy agenda is thrown out.

Regime Replacement

If the protest movement fails to address the role of foreign powers including pressures exerted by "investors", external creditors and international financial institutions, the objective of national sovereignty will not be achieved. In which case, what will occur is a narrow process of "regime replacement", which ensures political continuity.

"Dictators" are seated and unseated. When they are politically discredited and no longer serve the interests of their US sponsors, they are replaced by a new leader, often recruited from within the ranks of the political opposition.

In Tunisia, the Obama administration has already positioned itself. It intends to play a key role in the "democratization program" (i.e. the holding of so-called fair elections). It also intends to use the political crisis as a means to weaken the role of France and consolidate its position in North Africa:

"The United States, which was quick to size up the groundswell of protest on the streets of Tunisia, is trying to press its advantage to push for democratic reforms in the country and further afield.

The top-ranking US envoy for the Middle East, Jeffrey Feltman, was the first foreign official to arrive in the country after president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was ousted on January 14 and swiftly called for reforms. He said on Tuesday only free and fair elections would strengthen and give credibility to the north African state's embattled leadership.

"I certainly expect that we'll be using the Tunisian example" in talks with other Arab governments, Assistant Secretary of State Feltman added.

He was dispatched to the north African country to offer US help in the turbulent transition of power, and met with Tunisian ministers and civil society figures.

Feltman travels to Paris on Wednesday to discuss the crisis with French leaders, boosting the impression that the US is leading international support for a new Tunisia, to the detriment of its former colonial power, France. ...

Western nations had long supported Tunisia's ousted leadership, seeing it as a bulwark against Islamic militants in the north Africa region.

In 2006, the then US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, speaking in Tunis, praised the country's evolution.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton nimbly stepped in with a speech in Doha on January 13 warning Arab leaders to allow their citizens greater freedoms or risk extremists exploiting the situation.

"There is no doubt that the United States is trying to position itself very quickly on the good side,..." " AFP: US helping shape outcome of Tunisian uprising emphasis added

Will Washington be successful in instating a new puppet regime?

This very much depends on the ability of the protest movement to address the insidious role of the US in the country's internal affairs.

The overriding powers of empire are not mentioned. In a bitter irony, president Obama has expressed his support for the protest movement.

Many people within the protest movement are led to believe that president Obama is committed to democracy and human rights, and is supportive of the opposition's resolve to unseat a dictator, which was installed by the US in the first place.

Cooptation of Opposition Leaders

The cooptation of the leaders of major opposition parties and civil society organizations in anticipation of the collapse of an authoritarian puppet government is part of Washington's design, applied in different regions of the World.

The process of cooptation is implemented and financed by US based foundations including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and Freedom House (FH). Both FH and the NED have links to the US Congress. the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the US business establishment. Both the NED and FH are known to have ties to the CIA.

The NED is actively involved in Tunisia, Egypt and Algeria. Freedom House supports several civil society organizations in Egypt.

"The NED was established by the Reagan administration after the CIA’s role in covertly funding efforts to overthrow foreign governments was brought to light, leading to the discrediting of the parties, movements, journals, books, newspapers and individuals that received CIA funding. ... As a bipartisan endowment, with participation from the two major parties, as well as the AFL-CIO and US Chamber of Commerce, the NED took over the financing of foreign overthrow movements, but overtly and under the rubric of “democracy promotion.” (Stephen Gowans, January « 2011 "What's left"

While the US has supported the Mubarak government for the last thirty years, US foundations with ties to the US State department and the Pentagon have actively supported the political opposition including the civil society movement. According to Freedom House: "Egyptian civil society is both vibrant and constrained. There are hundreds of non-governmental organizations devoted to expanding civil and political rights in the country, operating in a highly regulated environment." (Freedom House Press Releases).

In a bitter irony, Washington supports the Mubarak dictatorship, including its atrocities, while also backing and financing its detractors, through the activities of FH, the NED, among others.

Under the auspices of Freedom House, Egyptian dissidents and opponents of Hosni Mubarak were received in May 2008 by Condoleezza Rice at the State Department and the US Congress. They also met White House National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, who was "the principal White House foreign policy adviser" during George W. Bush's second term.

Freedom House’s effort to empower a new generation of advocates has yielded tangible results and the New Generation program in Egypt has gained prominence both locally and internationally. Egyptian visiting fellows from all civil society groups received [May 2008] unprecedented attention and recognition, including meetings in Washington with US Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, and prominent members of Congress. In the words of Condoleezza Rice, the fellows represent the "hope for the future of Egypt."

Freedom House, http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cf ... program=84" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (emphasis added).

Political Double Talk: Chatting with "Dictators", Mingling with "Dissidents"

The Egyptian pro-democracy delegation to the State Department was described by Condoleezza Rice as "The Hope for the Future of Egypt".

In May 2009, Hillary Clinton met a delegation of Egyptian dissidents, several of which had met Condoleezza Rice a year earlier. These high level meetings were held a week prior to Obama's visit to Egypt:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised the work of a group of Egyptian civil society activists she met with today and said it was in Egypt’s interest to move toward democracy and to exhibit more respect for human rights.

The 16 activists met with Clinton and Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman in Washington at the end of a two-month fellowship organized by Freedom House’s New Generation program.

The fellows raised concern about what they perceived as the United States government distancing itself from Egyptian civil society and called on President Obama to meet with young independent civil society activists when he visits Cairo next week. They also urged the Obama administration to continue to provide political and financial support to Egyptian civil society and to help open the space for nongovernmental organizations which is tightly restricted under Egypt’s longstanding emergency law.

The fellows told Clinton that momentum was already building in Egypt for increased civil and human rights and that U.S. support at this time was urgently needed. They stressed that civil society represents a moderate and peaceful “third way” in Egypt, an alternative to authoritarian elements in the government and those that espouse theocratic rule. (Freedom House, May 2009)

During their fellowship, the activists spent a week in Washington receiving training in advocacy and getting an inside look at the way U.S. democracy works. After their training, the fellows were matched with civil society organizations throughout the country where they shared experiences with U.S. counterparts. The activists will wrap up their program ... by visiting U.S. government officials, members of Congress, media outlets and think tanks." (Freedom House, May 2009, emphasis added)

These opposition civil society groups --which are currently playing an important role in the protest movement-- are supported and funded by the US. They indelibly serve US interests.

The invitation of Egyptian dissidents to the State Department and the US Congress also purports to instil a feeling of commitment and allegiance to American democratic values. America is presented as a model of Freedom and Justice. Obama is upheld as a "Role Model".

The Puppet Masters Support the Protest Movement against their own Puppets

The puppet masters support dissent against their own puppets?

Its called "political leveraging", "manufacturing dissent". Support the dictator as well as the opponents of the dictator as a means of controlling the political opposition.

These actions on the part of Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy, on behalf of the Bush and Obama administrations, ensure that the US funded civil society opposition will not direct their energies against the puppet masters behind the Mubarak regime, namely the US government.

These US funded civil society organizations act as a "Trojan Horse" which becomes embedded within the protest movement. They protect the interests of the puppet masters. They ensure that the grassroots protest movement will not address the broader issue of foreign interference in the affairs of sovereign states.

The Facebook Twitter Bloggers Supported and Financed by Washington

In relation to the protest movement in Egypt, several civil society groups funded by US based foundations have led the protest on Twitter and Facebook:

"Activists from Egypt's Kifaya (Enough) movement - a coalition of government opponents - and the 6th of April Youth Movement organized the protests on the Facebook and Twitter social networking websites. Western news reports said Twitter appeared to be blocked in Egypt later Tuesday." (See Voice of America, ,Egypt Rocked by Deadly Anti-Government Protests



Reads; Kifaya (Enough)

The Kifaya movement, which organized one of the first protests directed against the Mubarak regime in late 2004, is supported by the US based International Center for Non-Violent Conflict. Kifaya is a broad-based movement which has also taken a stance on Palestine and US interventionism in the region.

In turn, Freedom House has been involved in promoting and training the Middle East North Africa Facebook and Twitter blogs:

Freedom House fellows acquired skills in civic mobilization, leadership, and strategic planning, and benefit from networking opportunities through interaction with Washington-based donors, international organizations and the media. After returning to Egypt, the fellows received small grants to implement innovative initiatives such as advocating for political reform through Facebook and SMS messaging.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cf ... program=84" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (emphasis added)

From February 27 to March 13 [2010], Freedom House hosted 11 bloggers from the Middle East and North Africa [from different civil society organizations] for a two-week Advanced New Media Study Tour in Washington, D.C. The Study Tour provided the bloggers with training in digital security, digital video making, message development and digital mapping. While in D.C., the Fellows also participated in a Senate briefing, and met with high-level officials at USAID, State [Department] and Congress as well as international media including Al-Jazeera and the Washington Post.http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cf ... 84&item=87" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; emphasis added

One can easily apprehend the importance attached by the US administration to this bloggers' "training program", which is coupled with high level meetings at the US Senate, the Congress, the State Department, etc.

The role of the Facebook Twitter social media as an expression of dissent, must be carefully evaluated: the civil society bloggers are supported by Freedom House (FH), the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the US State Department.

BBC News World (broadcast in the Middle East) quoting Egyptian internet messages has reported that "the US has been sending money to pro-democracy groups." (BBC News World, January 29, 2010). The April 6 Youth Movement is supported covertly by Washington. According to a report in The Daily Telegraph, quoting a secret US embassy document (Jan 29, 2011):

"The protests in Egypt are being driven by the April 6 youth movement, a group on Facebook that has attracted mainly young and educated members opposed to Mr Mubarak. The group has about 70,000 members and uses social networking sites to orchestrate protests and report on their activities.

The documents released by WikiLeaks reveal US Embassy officials [in Cairo] were in regular contact with the activist throughout 2008 and 2009, considering him one of their most reliable sources for information about human rights abuses." (emphasis added)

The Muslim Brotherhood

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt constitutes the largest segment of the opposition to president Mubarak. According to reports, The Muslim Brotherhood dominates the protest movement.

While there is a constitutional ban against religious political parties Brotherhood members elected to Egypt's parliament as "independents" constitute the largest parliamentary block.

The Brotherhood, however, does not constitute a direct threat to Washington's economic and strategic interests in the region. Western intelligence agencies have a longstanding history of collaboration with the Brotherhood. Britain's support of the Brotherhood instrumented through the British Secret Service dates back to the 1940s. Starting in the 1950s, according to former intelligence official William Baer, "The CIA [funnelled] support to the Muslim Brotherhood because of “the Brotherhood’s commendable capability to overthrow Nasser.”1954-1970: CIA and the Muslim Brotherhood Ally to Oppose Egyptian President Nasser, These covert links to the CIA were maintained in the post-Nasser era.

Concluding Remarks

The removal of Hosni Mubarak has, for several years, been on the drawing board of US foreign policy.

Regime replacement serves to ensure continuity, while providing the illusion that meaningful political change has occurred.

Washington's agenda for Egypt has been to "hijack the protest movement" and replace president Hosni Mubarak with a new compliant puppet head of state. Washington's objective is to sustain the interests of foreign powers, to uphold the neoliberal economic agenda which has served to impoverish the Egyptian population.

From Washington's standpoint, regime replacement no longer requires the installation of an authoritarian military regime as in the heyday of US imperialism, It can be implemented by co-opting political parties, including the Left, financing civil society groups, infiltrating the protest movement and manipulating national elections.

With reference to the protest movement in Egypt, President Obama stated in a January 28 video broadcast on Youtube: "The Government Should Not Resort to Violence". The more fundamental question is what is the source of that violence? Egypt is the largest recipient of US military aid after Israel. The Egyptian military is considered to be the power base of the Mubarak regime:

"The country’s army and police forces are geared to the teeth thanks to more than $1 billion in military aid a year from Washington. ... When the US officially describes Egypt as “an important ally” it is inadvertently referring to Mubarak’s role as a garrison outpost for US military operations and dirty war tactics in the Middle East and beyond. There is clear evidence from international human rights groups that countless “suspects” rendered by US forces in their various territories of (criminal) operations are secretly dumped in Egypt for “deep interrogation”. The country serves as a giant “Guantanamo” of the Middle East, conveniently obscured from US public interest and relieved of legal niceties over human rights." (Finian Cunningham, Egypt: US-Backed Repression is Insight for American Public, Global Research, January 28, 2010).

America is no "Role Model" of Democratization for the Middle East. US military presence imposed on Egypt and the Arab World for more than 20 years, coupled with "free market" reforms are the root cause of State violence.

America's intent is to use the protest movement to install a new regime.

The People's Movement should redirect its energies: Identify the relationship between America and "the dictator". Unseat America's political puppet but do not forget to target the "real dictators".

Shunt the process of regime change.

Dismantle the neoliberal reforms.

Close down US military bases in the Arab World.

Establish a truly sovereign government.

Perfect Anarchy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
~O~

Little Kate Chaos wrote:They're idiots for making it 'personal' with the international/own national press corps, it's lose-lose to go out of your way to pee these people off. At worst ignore them, at best work on a strategy to use them for your own ends, but to actively go after them is stupid.

They demolished the Al Jazz Cairo Bureau on Reactionary Wednesday. The same day they chased all of the Western press away. They actually attacked Aminpour in the (fully secured) Government Quarter between her interviews with Mobarak and Soliman. Over 100 attacks on the press that day alone. 40 reporters hospitalized. Soliman was still targeting the foreign press in general and Al Jazz in particular for Mobaraks supporters in Aminpour's very interview right after his thugs gave her a little taste of it herself. He wants privacy for what he's got planned if this keeps up.

PS

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:......
IF those Stingers were still around they would have used them by now, Kate. They're not saving them waiting for the 12th Imam. ......

You know that the Afghani's are Sunni, doncha?

~O~[/quote]

Published on Friday, February 4, 2011 by The Independent/UK
We All Helped Suppress the Egyptians. So How Do We Change?
Very few British people would beat up a poor person to get cheaper petrol. But our governments do it all the time. Why?

by Johann Hari

The old slogan from the 1960s has come true: the revolution has been televised. The world is watching the Bastille fall on 24/7 rolling news. An elderly thug is trying to buy and beat and tear-gas himself enough time to smuggle his family's estimated $25bn in loot out of the country, and to install a successor friendly to his interests. The Egyptian people – half of whom live on less than $2 a day – seem determined to prevent the pillage and not to wait until September to drive out a dictator dripping in blood and bad hair dye.

The great Czech dissident Vaclav Havel outlined the "as if" principle. He said people trapped under a dictatorship need to act "as if they are free". They need to act as if the dictator has no power over them. The Egyptians are trying – and however many of them Mubarak murders on his way out the door, the direction in which fear flows has been successfully reversed. The tyrant has become terrified of "his" people.

Of course, there is a danger that what follows will be worse. My family lived for a time under the torturing tyranny of the Shah of Iran, and cheered the revolution in 1979. Yet he was replaced by the even more vicious Ayatollahs. But this is not the only model, nor the most likely. Events in Egypt look more like the Indonesian revolution, where in 1998 a popular uprising toppled a US-backed tyrant after 32 years of oppression – and went on to build the largest and most plural democracy in the Muslim world.

But the discussion here in the West should focus on the factor we are responsible for and can influence – the role our governments have played in suppressing the Egyptian people. Your taxes have been used to arm, fund and fuel this dictatorship. You have unwittingly helped to keep these people down. The tear-gas canisters fired at pro-democracy protesters have "Made in America" stamped on them, with British machine guns and grenade launchers held in the background.

Very few British people would praise a murderer and sell him weapons. Very few British people would beat up a poor person to get cheaper petrol. But our governments do it all the time. Why? British foreign policy does not follow the everyday moral principles of the British people, because it is not formulated by us. This might sound like an odd thing to say about a country that prides itself on being a democracy, but it is true.

The former Labour MP Lorna Fitzsimons spoke at a conference for Israel's leaders last year and assured them they didn't have to worry about the British people's growing opposition to their policies because "public opinion does not influence foreign policy in Britain. Foreign policy is an elite issue". This is repellent but right. It is formulated in the interests of big business and their demand for access to resources, and influential sectional interest groups.

You can see this most clearly if you go through the three reasons our governments give, sometimes publicly, sometimes privately, for their behavior in the Middle East. Explanation One: Oil. Some 60 per cent of the world's remaining petrol is in the Middle East. We are all addicted to it, so our governments support strongmen and murderers who will keep the oil-taps gushing without interruption. Egypt doesn't have oil, but it has crucial oil pipelines and supply routes, and it is part of a chain of regional dictators we don't want broken in case they all fall taking the petrol pump with it. Addicts don't stand up to their dealers: they fawn before them.

There is an obvious medium-term solution: break our addiction. The technology exists – wind, wave and especially solar power – to fuel our societies without oil. It would free us from our support for dictators and horrific wars of plunder like Iraq. It's our society's route to rehab – but it is being blocked by the hugely influential oil companies, who would lose a fortune. Like everybody who needs to go to rehab, the first step is to come out of denial about why we are still hooked.

Explanation Two: Israel and the "peace process". Over the past week, we have persistently been told that Mubarak was a key plank in supporting "peace in the Middle East". The opposite is the truth. Mubarak has been at the forefront of waging war on the Palestinian population. There are 1.5 million people imprisoned on the Gaza Strip denied access to necessities like food and centrifuges for their blood transfusion service. They are being punished for voting "the wrong way" in a democratic election.

Israel blockades Gaza to one side, and Mubarak blockades it to the other. I've stood in Gaza and watched Egyptian soldiers refusing to let sick and dying people out for treatment they can't get in Gaza's collapsing hospitals. In return for this, Mubarak receives $1.5bn a year from the US. Far from contributing to peace, this is marinating the Gazan people in understandable hatred and dreams of vengeance. This is bad even for Israel herself – but we are so servile to the demands of the country's self-harming government, and to its loudest and angriest lobbyists here, that our governments obey.

Explanation Three: Strongmen suppress jihadism. Our governments claim that without dictators to suppress, torture and disappear Islamic fundamentalists, they will be unleashed and come after us. Indeed, they often outsourced torture to the Egyptian regime, sending suspects there to face things that would be illegal at home. Robert Baer, once a senior figure in black ops at the CIA, said: "If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear, you send them to Egypt."

Western governments claim all this makes us safer. The opposite is the truth. In his acclaimed history of al-Qa'ida, The Looming Tower, Lawrence Wright explains: "America's tragedy on September 11th was born in the prisons of Egypt." Modern jihadism was invented by Sayeed Qutb as he was electrocuted and lashed in Egyptian jails and grew under successive tyrannies. Mohammed Atta, the lead 9/11 hijacker, was Egyptian, and named US backing for his country's tyrant as one of the main reasons for the massacre.

When we fund the violent suppression of people, they hate us, and want to fight back. None of these factors that drove our governments to back Mubarak's dictatorship in Egypt have changed. So we should strongly suspect they will now talk sweet words about democracy in public, and try to secure a more PR-friendly Mubarak in private.

It doesn't have to be like this. We could make our governments as moral as we, the British people, are in our everyday lives. We could stop them trampling on the weak, and fattening thugs. But to achieve it, we have to democratise our own societies and claim control of our foreign policy. We would have to monitor and campaign over it, and let our governments know there is a price for behaving viciously abroad. The Egyptian people have shown this week they will risk everything to stop being abused. What will we risk to stop our governments being abusers?
Copyright 2011 Independent Print Limited

Johann Hari is a columnist for the London Independent. He has reported from Iraq, Israel/Palestine, the Congo, the Central African Republic, Venezuela, Peru and the US, and his journalism has appeared in publications all over the world.


http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/02/04" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Media attacked in Cairo on Reactionary Wednesday

APTN had their satellite dish agressively dismantled, leaving them and many other journalists who rely on their feed point no way to feed material.


ABC News international correspondent Christiane Amanpour said that on Wednesday her car was surrounded by men banging on the sides and windows, and a rock was thrown through the windshield, shattering glass on the occupants. They escaped without injury/ (wires)

Another CNN reporter, Hala Gorani, said she was shoved against a fence when demonstrators rode in on horses and camels, and feared she was going to get trampled/ (wires)
A group of angry Egyptian men carjacked an ABC News crew and threatened to behead them on Thursday in the latest and most menacing attack on foreign reporters trying to cover the anti-government uprising. Producer Brian Hartman, cameraman Akram Abi-hanna and two other ABC News employees / (link)

ABC/Bloomberg’s Lara Setrakian also attacked by protesters

CNN’s Anderson Cooper said he, a producer and camera operator were set upon by people who began punching them and trying to break their camera. Cooper and team were targeted again on Thursday. “Situation on ground in Egypt very tense,” Cooper tweeted Thursday. “Vehicle I was in attacked. My window smashed. All OK.” / (wires)

A photojournalist for CNN-IBN, Rajesh Bhardwaj, was detained in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, the site of bloody clashes between supporters and opponents of President Hosni Mubarak. He was taken away by the Egyptian Army and later released, but only after his identification card and tapes were destroyed / (link)

Fox Business Network’s Ashley Webster reported that security officials burst into a room where he and a camera operator were observing the demonstration from a balcony. They forced the camera inside the room. He called the situation “very unnerving” and said via Twitter that he was trying to lay low / (wires)

Fox News Channel’s foreign correspondent Greg Palkot and producer Olaf Wiig were hospitalized in Cairo after being attacked by protestors.

CBS News’ Katie Couric harassed by protesters (link)

CBS newsman Mark Strassman said he and a camera operator were attacked as they attempted to get close to the rock-throwing and take pictures. The camera operator, who he would not name, was punched repeatedly and hit in the face with Mace. / (wires)

CBS News’ Lara Logan, was detained along with her crew by Egyptian police outside Cairo’s Israeli embassy. / (link)

Two New York Times journalists have been arrested. (A Times spokeswoman said that the two journalists were “detained by military police overnight in Cairo and are now free.” ) (link)

Washington Post foreign editor Douglas Jehl wrote Thursday that witnesses say Leila Fadel, the paper’s Cairo bureau chief, and photographer Linda Davidson “were among two dozen journalists arrested this morning by the Egyptian Military Police. They were later released.” / (link)

Wall Street Journal photographer Peter van Agtmael said he was attacked Wednesday by a group of supporters of Mr. Mubarak near Tahrir Square, where several clashes have broken between backers of the regime and protesters demanding Mr. Mubarak’s resignation after nearly 30 years in power / (link)

BBC’s Jerome Boehm also targeted by protesters / (link)

BBC also reported their correspondent Rupert Wingfield-Hayes’ car was forced off the road in Cairo “by a group of angry men.” He has detained by the men, who handed him off to secret police agents who handcuffed and blindfolded him and an unnamed colleague and took them to an interrogation room. They were released after three hours. / (link)

BBC reporter Wyre Davies in Alexandria – Attacked and driven off by locals several times in the past few days / (link)

BBC foreign editor Jon Williams said via Twitter that security forces seized the network’s equipment in a Cairo Hilton hotel in an attempt to stop it broadcasting / (link)


Two days ago, a Bloomberg News reporter (Bloomberg is not disclosing the name of the individual) was held by Egyptian authorities for 12 hours and then released

Marie Colvin of the Sunday Times of London said she was approached by a gang of men with knives in Imbaba, a poor neighborhood of Cairo. Another group of men, who also were strangers to her, pushed her into a store and locked it to protect her, she said/ (link)
Joan Roura, a correspondent for TV3, a Catalan public television station, was attacked by men who tried to steal his mobile phone while he was conducting a live broadcast for the 24 hours news channel. Assaults were also reported against Sal Emergui, a correspondent for Catalan radio RAC1; Gemma Saura, a correspondent for the newspaper La Vanguardia; and Mikel Ayestaran, a correspondent for the newspaper Vocento / (link)

Reporter Jean-Francois Lepine of Canada’s CBC all-French RDI network said that he and a cameraman were surrounded by a mob that began hitting them, until they were rescued by the Egyptian army / (wires)

CBC Radio’s Margaret Evans was on air Thursday morning reporting that her crew’s camera equipment had been seized by police and that they were stuck in their hotel, reporting from a balcony that overlooked Tahrir Square / (link)

The Toronto Globe and Mail said on its website that reporter Sonia Verma and Patrick Martin said the military had “commandeered us and our car” in Cairo. / (link)

Two Associated Press correspondents were also roughed up. AP’s Nasser Gamil mentioned in one article (unclear if he was one of the original 2 mentioned) / wires and (link)

Reuters’ Simon Hanna tweeted today that a “gang of thugs” stormed the news organization’s Cairo office and smashed windows / (link)

Voice Of America reporters in the capital were surrounded by several people who prevented them from traveling to Tahrir Square / (link)

Vice magazine’s Cairo correspondent Rachel Pollock gets roughed up trying to cover the protests / (link)

David Degner, a Cairo-based photographer, said five of his journalist friends has been “beaten and had their equipment confiscated” as clashes between the two groups escalated


The AP reports that Ahmed Mohammed Mahmoud, 36, an Egyptian journalist has died. Mahmoud was taking photographs of fighting between protesters and security forces from the balcony of his home when he was shot Jan. 28, state-run newspaper Al-Ahram said on its website. (Link)

The head of Al Jazeera Arabic’s bureau in Cairo and another AJA journalist were detained in the Egyptian capital on Friday the 4th.

Andrew Burton, a photographer on assignment, wrote this account of being engulfed and beaten by a pro-Mubarak crowd yesterday. “I dont know a single journalist heading out on the ground today,” he says / (link)

The website of Belgium’s Le Soir newspaper said Belgian reporter Serge Dumont, whose real name is Maurice Sarfatti, was beaten Wednesday / (wires)

Jon Bjorgvinsson, a correspondent for RUV, Iceland’s national broadcaster, but on assignment for Swiss television in Cairo, was attacked on Tuesday as he and a crew were filming/ (link)

Danish media reported that Danish senior Middle East Correspondent Steffen Jensen was beaten today by pro-Mubarak supporters with clubs while reporting live on the phone to Danish TV2 News from Cairo / (link)

Two Japanese freelance photographers were attacked while covering the protests in Cairo, and one of them was slightly injured, the Kyodo News agency reported/ (link)

Two Swedish reporters (from Aftonbladet tabloid) / (link)

epa photojournalist; German ZDF; German ARD / (link)

A reporter for Turkey’s Fox TV, his Egyptian cameraman and their driver were abducted by men with knives while filming protests Wednesday, but Egyptian police later rescued them, said Anatolia, a Turkish news agency / (link)

Turkey’s state broadcaster TRT, said its Egypt correspondent, Metin Turan, was beaten / (link)

Several Turkish journalists were attacked by Mubarak supporters, according to news reports. Cumali Önal of Cihan News Agency and Doğan Ertuğrul of the Turkish Star Daily were attacked and beaten by pro-Mubarak supporters on Wednesday. Both were in stable condition today / (link)

The Greek daily newspaper Kathimerini said one of its reporters, Petros Papaconstantinou, was beaten by protesters in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. Papaconstantinou was clubbed in the head with a baton and stabbed in the foot, either with a knife or a screwdriver / (link)

A Greek freelance photographer punched in the face by a group of men who stopped him on the street near Tahrir Square and smashed some of his equipment / (wires)

In addition, five Chinese journalists were briefly detained after authorities found bullet proof vests in their luggage, along with more than 20 walkie-talkies and satellite phones, the officials said. They were allowed to leave after the equipment was confiscated. / (wires)

RT TV crew injured (link)

A correspondent and a cameraman working for Russia’s Zvezda television channel were detained by men in plainclothes and held overnight Tuesday, Anastasiya Popova of Vesti state television and radio said on air from Cairo / (link)

French international news channel France 24 said three of its journalists had been detained while covering protests in Egypt and were being held by “military intelligence services”. (link)

French photojournalist from SIPA Press agency Alfred Yaghobzadeh is being treated by anti-government protestors after being wounded during clashes between pro-government supporters and anti-government protestors / (link)

Police arrested four Israeli journalists for allegedly violating the curfew in Cairo and for entering the country on tourist visas, according to news reports. / (link)

Al Jazeera reported Thursday that two of its reporters were attacked en route to Cairo airport, along with cameraman being assaulted near Tahrir Square / (link)

al Arabiya’s Ahmed Abdullah (and station was stormed) / (link)

ALSO - Al-Arabiya correspondent, Ahmed Bajano, in Cairo, was beaten while covering a pro-Mubarak demonstration. Another unidentified correspondent was also attacked. Another network reporter said on the air that her colleague Ahmad Abdel Hadi was seized by what appeared to be pro-Mubarak supporters near Tahrir Square, forced in a car, and driven away. / (link)

Men in plainclothes surrounded the office of Sawsan Abu Hussein, deputy editor of the Egyptian magazine October after she called in to a television program to report on violence against protesters (link)

A group of men described as “plainclothes police” attacked the headquarters of the independent daily Al-Shorouk in Cairo today, the paper reported. Reporter Mohamed Khayal and photographer Magdi Ibrahim were injured/ (link)

Bloggers, too, have become targets: The popular Egyptian blogger Sandmonkey has reportedly been arrested (it’s unclear by whom) / (link)


Corban Costa of Brazilian Radio Nacional and cameraman Gilvan Rocha of TV Brasil were detained, blindfolded, and had their passports and equipment seized. The two were reportedly held overnight without water in a windowless room in a Cairo police station.

Polish TVP’s two-man camera crew and producer were apprehended and driven away in a van by unidentified assailants. They were beaten up inside the van, driven out of town and released. Their gear was confiscated. A reporter and a photographer for a Polish weekly were arrested near Tahrir Square. They were tied up and kept in a van in front of a police station most of the day. Their camera gear was destroyed. At 11pm they were put on a bus along with some twenty other journalists and driven back to their hotel / (Tomek Rolski)

Polish state television TVP said that five journalists working in two crews—Krzysztof Kołosionek and Piotr Bugalski; and Michał Jankowski, Piotr Górecki, and Paweł Rolak--were detained in Cairo and that one of their cameras was smashed.

Three Romanian TV crews were detained Wednesday and Thursday in Cairo. On Wednesday, Adelin Petrisor, a reporter for the state-owned broadcaster TVR, and an unnamed cameraman were detained by Cairo police, searched, and later released. On Thursday, police detained Realitatea TV reporter Cristian Zarescu and his unidentified cameraman. Authorities confiscated their tapes before releasing them. Also on Thursday, Antena 3 reporter Carmen Avram and cameraman Cristian Tamas, were stopped by police. The men sent a text message late today saying they were being held for questioning.

Rachel Beth Anderson, a freelance videographer in Cairo, tweeted that “cameras & phones disappearing from journo hotel rooms in the Semiramis hotel! We’re locked inside by staff who says its orders from outside.

The Swedish public broadcaster SVT reported that its correspondent in Egypt, Bert Sundström, is recovering from stab wounds to the stomach in a Cairo hospital

Margaret Warner, a senior correspondent for the U.S.-based “PBS Newshour,” had her camera confiscated. Warner tweeted today: “PBS NewsHour arrives Cairo. Camera gear inspected & confiscated. 2 hours & we’re still haggling.”

Wally Nell, a photographer for the California-based Zuma Press agency, was wounded under the 6th October Bridge at the Corniche on the Nile in downtown Cairo, according to accounts posted by family and friends. Those accounts described Zell as having suffered multiple pellet wounds after being fired upon by police.

At least four contributors to Demotix, a U.K.-based citizen journalism website and photo agency, were also attacked, Turi Munthe, Demotix CEO, told CPJ in an e-mail. The four included Nour El Refai and Mohamed Elmaymony.

NPR’s Lourdes Garcia-Navarro was also attacked. She has this report. (http://www.npr.org/2011/02/03/133469105 ... d-in-egypt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)



- Compiled by ABC’s Erin McGlaughlin and Joanna Suarez and others at ABC

bubbabush wrote: PS

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:......
IF those Stingers were still around they would have used them by now, Kate. They're not saving them waiting for the 12th Imam. ......

You know that the Afghani's are Sunni, doncha?

~O~

You know there's not only Afghani's, don'tcha? Then or now

You know Mujahedeen doesn't mean Afghani, don'tcha?



,
WHAB

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:

You know Mujahedeen doesn't mean Afghani, don'tcha?

mujahedeen means $$$

Mobarak's goons have driven all of the press out of their hotel rooms straight into the heart of the square with little more than celphones to tell the demonstrators' stories. Yet, they're performing better than their best at home with near unlimited resources. (Mobarak made it personal I guess! ) I haven't seen Muslims humanized like this in the American press since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq's of Kuwait. It's like they just discovered that Arabs have families, aspirations, hopes and dreams. Israel must be collectively pissing it's pants

~O~

bubbabush wrote:

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:......
IF those Stingers were still around they would have used them by now, Kate. They're not saving them waiting for the 12th Imam. ......

bubbabush wrote:You know that the Afghani's are Sunni, doncha?

You know there's not only Afghani's, don'tcha? Then or now
You know Mujahedeen doesn't mean Afghani, don'tcha? ,
WHAB

And you know yhat they're all Sunni, right? That Shia are no better to a Salafi than we are? Of course you don't. Fauxnews doesn't; how could you?
My bad. Resume trolling.

bubbabush wrote:Mobarak's goons have driven all of the press out of their hotel rooms straight into the heart of the square with little more than celphones to tell the demonstrators' stories. Yet, they're performing better than their best at home with near unlimited resources. (Mobarak made it personal I guess! ) I haven't seen Muslims humanized like this in the American press since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq's of Kuwait. It's like they just discovered that Arabs have families, aspirations, hopes and dreams. Israel must be collectively pissing it's pants

~O~

bubbabush wrote:

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:

And you know yhat they're all Sunni, right? That Shia are no better to a Salafi than we are? Of course you don't. Fauxnews doesn't; how could you?
My bad. Resume trolling.

Yeah, Shura you're right, Boobie!

Why Karzai readily admits receiving bags of Iranian cash

Afghan President Hamid Karzai says he accepts bags of cash from Iran. What do the Iranians want in return?

The Iranian Influence in Afghanistan

by AMIR BAGHERPOUR and ASAD FARHAD in Kabul, Afghanistan
09 Aug 2010

Interests overlap with America's, but cooperation remains a distant dream.

After spending several weeks in Kabul, one can hardly deny the extent of Iranian influence in Afghanistan. As a major player in the region, Iran has a vital stake in how its Afghan neighbors are governed. I paid closer attention to this after spending several days with an elite Afghan commando unit tasked with guarding a key site for high-level meetings. These commandos had been trained not only by U.S. Special Forces, but also by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the highly skilled paramilitary group accused of arming and training the Shia insurgents in Iraq.

Once we had established a certain level of trust, two of the Afghan commandos revealed to me that under their uniforms hung necklaces bearing portraits of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. These two soldiers were Tajiks from the Panjshir Valley, known for its fierce resistance to Soviet occupation and among the few areas that maintained autonomy under Taliban rule. "We have close relationships with the Iranians," one commando said, "but the biggest challenge to stability is the Afghan government itself."

This exchange compelled me to look deeper into Iran's role in Afghanistan. Later that same week, I interviewed a key advisor to Afghan President Hamid Karzai about Iranian influence in his country. "They are highly involved officially and unofficially," he reluctantly acknowledged. "I do not think this government can succeed unless Iran is at the table." The advisor continued, "Although there is some animosity toward the Iranians, it is far less than any animosity shown toward Pakistan and perhaps America."

Economic Interests and Cultural Ties

As neighbors with similar dialects and much in common historically, the cultural ties between Iran and Afghanistan run deep. Afghanistan's third largest city, Herat, situated just 80 miles from the Iranian border, was the capital of the Persian Empire in the 15th century. More recently, Iran has extended its electricity grid to the city, funded cooperative highway projects with India, and is even partnering with NATO members on construction of an Iran-Afghanistan railway.

These modern ties are validated by Iran's support for ethnic Shia minorities such as Hazaras and Tajiks. Since 2001, Tehran has contributed more than half a billion dollars in humanitarian assistance to displaced Afghan minorities. In fact, Iran is home to approximately two million Afghan refugees, a major problem magnified by U.N.-imposed sanctions and inflationary stresses. In spite of internal domestic pressure to deport Afghan illegals, Tehran has agreed to slow the process until their Afghan neighbors sees some semblance of political stabilization.

Yet the socioeconomic problems Afghanistan confronts revolve not so much around the flow of refugees as they do around the flow of illicit drugs. As opium production has risen in Afghanistan, so too has usage in Iran. The Iranian government is faced with a population of nearly four million opium addicts -- a number that continues to rise. A recent world drug report estimated that Iran accounts for nearly 40 percent of global opium usage. Aside from fueling this addiction problem, profits from the opium trade provides funds for Taliban insurgents.

Security Interests and Iranian Restraint

In 1998, the killing of 11 Iranian diplomats and the mass murder of thousands of Shia Muslims by the Taliban nearly prompted Iran to invade. Tens of thousands of Iranian troops amassed at the Afghan border in preparation for an attack. Iranian commanders, surveying the dusty, barren landscape, ultimately decided not to proceed. In the final analysis, Tehran calculated that the cost of fighting the Taliban would far outweigh any benefit of occupying Afghanistan, at that time the poorest country in the world. By practicing restraint in the circumstance, the Iranians demonstrated that they were rational political actors, a fact rarely reported at a time when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's remarks make them appear anything but.

Iran kept tens of thousands of troops to guard the border and today commits nearly 10 percent of its conscripted soldiers to the task. Instead of initiating a conventional war, Iran has waged what former CIA officer Bob Baer calls a war by proxy, supplying and training what is today commonly known as the Northern Alliance. The leader of the Northern Alliance, Ahmad Shah Massoud, was assassinated by Al Qaeda operatives in 2001 but his influence remains strong -- a national holiday, Massoud Day, is now observed in his honor.

During the rule of the Taliban and ever since, Iran has pursued a strategy of supporting Afghan minorities, both Shia and Sunni. Although the plurality of Afghans are Pashtun Sunnis, Iran commands significant influence over the Shia population, which accounts for 19 percent of the country's people. Furthermore, the Iranians have established a network of support among Hazaras, Uzbeks, and Tajiks -- together, the three ethnic groups make up 30 percent of the population. This network played a central role in the overthrow of the Taliban following 9/11. Although no foreign or domestic player commands the loyalty of a majority in the country, Iran is a long-term player in Afghanistan with influence at least equal to and arguably greater than that of Pakistan or the United States.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... istan.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Iranian Drug Users “Dumped” in Afghanistan

Police and addicts report deportations of Iranian nationals, who are then prevented from returning.

By Zia Ahmadi - Afghanistan
ARR Issue 386, 7 Jan 11

Hundreds of drug users from Iran are turning up in Afghanistan’s western Nimroz province, with some claiming they were dumped there as undesirables by police from their own country.

Afghan officials worry that Tehran is exporting its social problems, although Iranian diplomats say there is no such policy. Others say that at least some drug users congregate in Afghanistan because narcotics are so freely available there and there are none of the draconian punishments meted out by the Iranian authorities.

Reza, 27, told how he was detained as a drug user in his home city of Zahedan in Iran’s Sistan-Baluchestan province, and was then included among a group of Afghan refugees who were being deported.

“I have documents showing I’m an Iranian national,” he told IWPR. “When I apply to government offices in Nimroz, they tell me to go to the border and ask the Iranian frontier officers to let me cross over. But when I go there, Iranian border officials abuse me and refuse to let me enter my own country.”

Reza says he sleeps in religious shrines in Zaranj, the main provincial town in Nimroz, and survives on the food he gathers from rubbish piles. He recently helped bury a friend. aged 40 and like him from Zahedan, who he says died “for lack of drugs”.

“Other addicts buried him between two graves,” he said.

Another man, Hossein, 38, said he was detained after family members in Iran’s Zabol province went to the police to complain about his chronic addiction problem.

He too said he was packed off across the border as part of a group of deported Afghan nationals. When he showed Afghan police his Iranian ID, they made efforts to send him home, but guards on the other side of the border would not admit him.

Mohammad Anwar Muradi, the head of the provincial counter-narcotics department, said ten to 15 Iranian drug users were entering Nimroz every week.

“There are currently about 2,000 drug addicts in Nimroz province, 80 per cent of them Afghans and Iranians deported from Iran,” he said. “It isn’t yet clear why Iranian border officials are deporting their own nationals to Afghanistan.”

The provincial police chief Hajji Musa Rasuli says his men have detained around 40 Iranian nationals in the region in the past two months, but have yet to pinpoint those living in Zaranj. His officers have tried to send ten drug users back home in recent weeks but Iranian frontier guards would not let them in.

Hajji Najibullah Alami, chief of staff in the provincial governor’s office, said the matter had been raised with Iranian officials, but no satisfactory response had been received.

An Iranian diplomat at the consulate in Herat, speaking on condition of anonymity, flatly denied that his country was expelling its own citizens. He suggested that individuals claiming to be Iranian nationals were in fact Afghans who had been properly deported, and were now seeking a way back into Iran.

http://iwpr.net/report-news/iranian-dru ... fghanistan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do you even believe your drivel or is it out of obligation, Comrade?

Christians Protecting Muslims in Egypt During Prayers

Maryam Ishani
February 2, 2011

Christians Protecting Muslim Protesters in Egypt During Prayer

I’m basically stuck between what they’ve established as two cordons around Tahrir. One is established by pro-Mubarak demonstrators, whose job it is to keep people out of the square. That includes ambulances and anyone who’s not on their side. They ask you if you’re pro- or against. They’re looking for Americans and foreigners. They’re saying things like, “You brought Baradei. This is your fault. You’re trying to break Egypt.” They’re quite hostile. They physically hit me with sticks. I went in to film them throwing stones and they knocked me back pretty hard, which is not the mood of the demonstrators inside the square.The second cordon is also pro-Mubarak demonstrators, who are just beating up the demonstrators inside Tahrir. They have swords — I’m not exaggerating — they have things that look like machetes with a 12-inch blade or longer, sticks, pipes, automatic weapons. This is why people [are] saying they’re actually police. They’re in very large numbers, not just people who collected. They’re generally all men between the ages of 20 or 30.

Among them are some pretty thuggish types. I walked down a street into a crowd of about 10 of them and I was so uncomfortable with the look on their face that I just turned right around. It literally looks like their job is to just beat people up. They’re working their way into Tahrir an inch at a time with the cordon behind them keeping everyone out, specifically the press. They’re confiscating cameras. They’ll take things away and break them. They’re throwing stones. They mean business in a way that hasn’t been the case so far.

The army is not intervening at all on either side. There are a lot of injuries. I’m seeing ambulances treating four of five people with head injuries and cuts to the body from, I’m guessing, the knives.

There’s a lot of live fire. It’s difficult to tell which direction it’s coming from. But I’m hearing both shotguns and automatic weapons. I really can’t see what’s happening inside the square, but it’s certainly nothing good.

http://makkah.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/ ... g-prayers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;[/size]

,
WHAB

whab thinks karzi isnt exxon...

american attacked and attacked the secular moderate socialists who represented the masses in iran who rose up against the shaw...

the goal was to be sure that the moderate socialists were prevented from representing themselves in the new government...

the US wanted radical muslim clerks if it wasnt going to be able to save the shaw...




were doing the same think in egypt right now...


the new guy called a meeting...
this new guys the chief CIA asset in the egyptian system,
our go to guy for renditions

invited the banned muslim brotherhood to the meeting...
while excluding el bariday...

The results, it's now clear, were no less breathtaking, even if disastrously so. Almost 20 years after the lesser superpower of the Cold War left the world stage, the "victor" is now lurching down the declinist slope, this time as the other defeated power of the Cold War era.

So don't mark the end of the Cold War in 1991 as our conventional histories do. Mark it in the early days of 2011, and consider the events of this moment a symbolic goodbye-to-all-that for the planet's "sole superpower."


Published on Monday, February 7, 2011 by TomDispatch.com
Pox Americana: Driving Through the Gates of Hell and Other American Pastimes in the Greater Middle East

by Tom Engelhardt

As we've watched the dramatic events in the Middle East, you would hardly know that we had a thing to do with them. Oh yes, in the name of its War on Terror, Washington had for years backed most of the thuggish governments now under siege or anxious that they may be next in line to hear from their people. When it came to Egypt in particular, there was initially much polite (and hypocritical) discussion in the media about how our "interests" and our "values" were in conflict, about how far the U.S. should back off its support for the Mubarak regime, and about what a "tightrope" the Obama administration was walking. While the president and his officials flailed, the mildest of questions were raised about how much we should chide our erstwhile allies, or encourage the massed protestors, and about whether we should "take sides" (as though we hadn't done so decisively over the last decades).

With popular cries for "democracy" and "freedom" sweeping through the Middle East, it's curious to note that the Bush-era's now-infamous "democracy agenda" has been nowhere in sight. In its brief and disastrous life, it was used as a battering ram for regimes Washington loathed and offered as a soft pillow of future possibility to those it loved.

Still, make no mistake, there's a story in a Washington stunned and "blindsided," in an administration visibly toothless and in disarray as well as dismayed over the potential loss of its Egyptian ally, "the keystone of its Middle Eastern policy," that's so big it should knock your socks off. And make no mistake: part of the spectacle of the moment lies in watching that other great power of the Cold War era finally head ever so slowly and reluctantly for the exits. You know the one I'm talking about. In 1991, when the Soviet Union disappeared and the United States found itself the last superpower standing, Washington mistook that for a victory most rare. In the years that followed, in a paroxysm of self-satisfaction and amid clouds of self-congratulation, its leaders would attempt nothing less than to establish a global Pax Americana. Their breathtaking ambitions would leave hubris in the shade.

The results, it's now clear, were no less breathtaking, even if disastrously so. Almost 20 years after the lesser superpower of the Cold War left the world stage, the "victor" is now lurching down the declinist slope, this time as the other defeated power of the Cold War era.

So don't mark the end of the Cold War in 1991 as our conventional histories do. Mark it in the early days of 2011, and consider the events of this moment a symbolic goodbye-to-all-that for the planet's "sole superpower."
Abroads, Near and Far

The proximate cause of Washington's defeat is a threatened collapse of its imperial position in a region that, ever since President Jimmy Carter proclaimed his Carter Doctrine in 1980, has been considered the crucible of global power, the place where, above all, the Great Game must be played out. Today, "people power" is shaking the "pillars" of the American position in the Middle East, while -- despite the staggering levels of military might the Pentagon still has embedded in the area -- the Obama administration has found itself standing by helplessly in grim confusion.

As a spectacle of imperial power on the decline, we haven't seen anything like it since 1989 when the Berlin Wall came down. Then, too, people power stunned the world. It swept like lightning across the satellite states of Eastern Europe, those "pillars" of the old Soviet empire, most of which had (as in the Middle East today) seemed quiescent for years.

It was an invigorating time. After all, such moments often don't come once in a life, no less twice in 20 years. If you don't happen to be in Washington, the present moment is proving no less remarkable, unpredictable, and earthshaking than its predecessor.

Make no mistake, either (though you wouldn't guess it from recent reportage): these two moments of people power are inextricably linked. Think of it this way: as we witness the true denouement of the Cold War, it's already clear that the "victor" in that titanic struggle, like the Soviet Union before it, mined its own positions and then was forced to watch with shock, awe, and dismay as those mines went off.

Among the most admirable aspects of the Soviet collapse was the decision of its remarkable leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, not to call the Red Army out of its barracks, as previous Soviet leaders had done in East Germany in 1953, Hungary in 1956, and Prague in 1968. Gorbachev's conscious (and courageous) choice to let the empire collapse rather than employ violence to try to halt the course of events remains historically little short of unique.

Today, after almost two decades of exuberant imperial impunity, Washington finds itself in an uncomfortably unraveling situation. Think of it as a kind of slo-mo Gorbachev moment -- without a Gorbachev in sight.

What we're dealing with here is, in a sense, the story of two "abroads." In 1990, in the wake of a disastrous war in Afghanistan, in the midst of a people's revolt, the Russians lost what they came to call their "near abroad," the lands from Eastern Europe to Central Asia that had made up the Soviet Empire. The U.S., being the wealthier and stronger of the two Cold War superpowers, had something the Soviets never possessed. Call it a "far abroad." Now, in the midst of another draining, disastrous Afghan war, in the face of another people's revolt, a critical part of its far abroad is being shaken to its roots.

In the Middle East, the two pillars of American imperial power and control have long been Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- along, of course, with obdurate Israel and little Jordan. In previous eras, the chosen bulwarks of "stability" and "moderation," terms much favored in Washington, had been the Shah of Iran in the 1960s and 1970s (and you remember his fate), and Saddam Hussein in the 1980s (and you remember his fate, too). In the larger region the Bush administration liked to call "the Greater Middle East" or "the arc of instability," another key pillar has been Pakistan, a country now in destabilization mode under the pressure of a disastrous American war in Afghanistan.

And yet, without a Gorbachevian bone in its body, the Obama administration has still been hamstrung. While negotiating madly behind the scenes to retain power and influence in Egypt, it is not likely to call the troops out of the barracks. American military intervention remains essentially inconceivable. Don't wait for Washington to send paratroopers to the Suez Canal as those fading imperial powers France and England tried to do in 1956. It won't happen. Washington is too drained by years of war and economic bad times for that.

Facing genuine shock and awe (the people's version), the Obama administration has been shaken. It has shown itself to be weak, visibly fearful, at a loss for what to do, and always several steps behind developing events. Count on one thing: its officials are already undoubtedly worried about a domestic political future in which the question (never good for Democrats) could be: Who lost the Middle East? In the meantime, their oh-so-solemn, carefully calibrated statements, still in command mode, couched in imperial-speak, and focused on what client states in the Middle East must do, might as well be spoken to the wind. Like the Cheshire Cat's grin, only the rhetoric of the last decades seems to be left.

The question is: How did this happen? And the answer, in part, is: blame it on the way the Cold War officially ended, the mood of unparalleled hubris in which the United States emerged from it, and the unilaterialist path its leaders chose in its wake.

Let's do a little reviewing.

Second-Wave Unilateralism

When the Soviet Union dissolved, Washington was stunned -- the collapse was unexpected despite all the signs that something monumental was afoot -- and then thrilled. The Cold War was over and we had won. Our mighty adversary had disappeared from the face of the Earth.

It didn't take long for terms like "sole superpower" and "hyperpower" to crop up, or for dreams of a global Pax Americana to take shape amid talk about how our power and glory would outshine even the Roman and British empires. The conclusion that victory -- as in World War II -- would have its benefits, that the world was now our oyster, led to two waves of American "unilateralism" or go-it-alone-ism that essentially drove the car of state directly toward the nearest cliff and helped prepare the way for the sudden eruption of people power in the Middle East.

The second of those waves began with the fateful post-9/11 decision of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and company to "drain the global swamp" (as they put it within days of the attacks in New York and Washington). They would, that is, pursue al-Qaeda (and whomever else they decided to label an enemy) by full military means. That included the invasion of Afghanistan and the issuing of a with-us-or-against-us diktat to Pakistan, which reportedly included the threat to bomb that country "back to the Stone Age." It also involved a full-scale militarization, Pentagonization, and privatization of American foreign policy, and above all else, the crushing of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and the occupation of his country. All that and more came to be associated with the term "unilateralism," with the idea that U.S. military power was so overwhelming Washington could simply go it alone in the world with any "coalition of the billing" it might muster and still get exactly what it wanted.

That second wave of unilateralism, now largely relegated to the memory hole of history by the mainstream media, helped pave the way for the upheavals in Tunisia, Egypt, and possibly elsewhere. As a start, from Pakistan to North Africa, the Bush administration's Global War on Terror, along with its support for thuggish rule in the name of fighting al-Qaeda, helped radicalize the region. (Remember, for instance, that while Washington was pouring billions of dollars into the American-equipped Egyptian Army and the American-trained Egyptian officer corps, Bush administration officials were delighted to enlist the Mubarak regime as War on Terror warriors, using Egypt's jails as places to torture terror suspects rendered off any streets anywhere.)

In the process, by sweeping an area from North Africa to the Chinese border that it dubbed the Greater Middle East into that War on Terror, the Bush administration undoubtedly gave the region a new-found sense of unity, a feeling that the fate of its disparate parts was somehow bound together.

In addition, Bush's top officials, fundamentalists all when it came to U.S. military might and delusional fantasists when it came to what that military could accomplish, had immense power at its command: the power to destroy. They gave that power the snappy label "shock and awe," and then used it to blow a hole in the heart of the Middle East by invading Iraq. In the process, they put that land, already on the ropes, onto life support.

It's never really come off. In the wars, civil and guerrilla, set off by the American invasion and occupation, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis undoubtedly died and millions were sent into exile abroad or in their own land. Today, Iraq remains a barely breathing carcass of a nation, unable to deliver something as simple as electricity to its restive people or pump enough oil to pay for the disaster.

At the same time, the Bush administration sat on its hands while Israel had its way, taking Palestinian lands via its settlement policies and blowing its own hole in southern Lebanon with American backing (and weaponry) in the summer of 2006, and a smaller hole of utter devastation through Gaza in 2009. In other words, from Lebanon to Pakistan, the Greater Middle East was destabilized and radicalized.

The acts of Bush's officials couldn't have been rasher, or more destructive. They managed, for instance, to turn Afghanistan into the globe's foremost narco-state, even as they gave new life to the Taliban -- no small miracle for a movement that, in 2001, had lost any vestige of popularity. Most crucial of all, they and the Obama adminsitration after them spread the war irrevocably to populous, nuclear-armed Pakistan.

To their mad plans and projects, you can trace, at least in part, the rise to power of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza (the only significant result of Bush's "democracy agenda," since Iraq's elections arrived, despite Bush administration opposition, due to the prestige of Ayatollah Ali Sistani). You can credit them with an Iran-allied Shiite government in Iraq and a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, as well as the growth of a version of the Taliban in the Pakistani tribal borderlands. You can also credit them with the disorganization and impoverishment of the region. In summary, when the Bush unilateralists took control of the car of state, they souped it up, armed it to the teeth, and sent it careening off to catastrophe.

How hollow the neocon quip of 2003 now rings: "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran." But remember as well that, however much the Bush administration accomplished (in a manner of speaking), there was a wave of unilateralism, no less significant, that preceded it.

Our Financial Jihadis

Though we all know this first wave well, we don't usually think of it as "unilateralist," or in terms of the Middle East at all, or speak about it in the same breath with the Bush administration and its neocon supporters. I'm talking about the globalists, sometimes called the neoliberals, who were let loose to do their damnedest in the good times of the post-Cold-War Clinton years. They, too, were dreamy about organizing the planet and about another kind of American power that was never going to end: economic power. (And, of course, they would be called back to power in Washington in the Obama years to run the U.S. economy into the ground yet again.) They believed deeply that we were the economic superpower of the ages, and they were eager to create their own version of a Pax Americana. Intent on homogenizing the world by bringing American economic power to bear on it, their version of shock-and-awe tactics involved calling in institutions like the International Monetary Fund to discipline developing countries into a profitable kind of poverty and misery.

In the end, as they gleefully sliced and diced subprime mortgages, they drove a different kind of hole through the world. They were financial jihadis with their own style of shock-and-awe tactics and they, too, proved deeply destructive, even if in a different way. The irony was that, in the economic meltdown of 2008, they finally took down the global economy they had helped "unify." And that occured just as the second wave of unilateralists were facing the endgame of their dreams of global domination. In the process, for instance, Egypt, the most populous of Arab countries, was economically neoliberalized and -- except for a small elite who made out like the bandits they were -- impoverished.

Talk about "creative destruction"! The two waves of American unilateralists nearly took down the planet. They let loose demons of every sort, even as they ensured that the world's first experience of a sole superpower would prove short indeed. Heap onto the rubble they left behind the global disaster of rising prices for the basics -- food and fuel -- and you have a situation so combustible that no one should have been surprised when a Tunisian match lit it aflame.

That this moment began in the Greater Middle East should be no surprise either. That it might not end there should not be ruled out. This looks like, but may not be, an "Islamic" moment. If the second wave of American unilateralists ensured that this would start as a Middle Eastern phenomenon, conditions for people's-power movements exist elsewhere as well.

The Gates of Hell

Nobody today remembers how, in September 2004, Amr Musa, the head of the Arab League, described the post-invasion Iraqi situation. "The gates of hell," he said, "are open in Iraq." This was not the sort of language we were used to hearing in the U.S., no matter what you felt about the war. It read -- and probably still reads -- like an over-the-top metaphor, but it could as easily be taken as a realistic depiction of what happened not just in Iraq, but in the Greater Middle East and, to some extent, in the world.

Our unilateralists twice drove blithely through those gates, imagining that they were the gates to paradise. The results are now clear for all to see.

And don't forget, the gates of hell remain open. Keep your eyes on at least two places, starting with Saudi Arabia, about which practically no one is yet writing, though one of these days its situation could turn out to be shakier than now imagined. Certainly, whoever controls the Saudi stock market thought so, because as the situation grew more tumultuous in Egypt, Saudi stocks took a nosedive. With Saudi Arabia, you couldn't get more basic when it comes to U.S. policy or the fate of the planet, given the amount of oil still under its desert sands. And then don't forget the potentially most frightening country of all, Pakistan, where the final gasp of America's military unilateralists is still playing itself out as if on a reel of film that just won't end.

Yes, the Obama administration may squeeze by in the region for a while. Perhaps the Egyptian high command -- half of which seems to have been in Washington at the moment the you-know-what hit the fan in their own country -- will take over and perhaps they will suppress people power again for a period. Who knows?

One thing is clear inside the gates of hell: whatever wild flowers or weeds turn out to be capable of growing in the soil tilled so assiduously by the victors of 1991, Pax Americana proved to be a Pox Americana for the region and the world.
Copyright 2010 Tom Engelhardt


http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/02/07-4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And the millions of humble ordinary Egyptians in the streets find their revolutionary standard bearer in a similarly humble technocrat.

"I am not a hero. I only used the keyboard, the real heroes are the ones on the ground. Those I can't name. This is the season where people use the word traitor against each other. I wasn't abused, I was jailed, kidnapped.

I met some really intellectual people in jail, they actually thought that we were traitors, working for others. If I was a traitor I would have stayed by the swimming pool in my house in the UAE. What are called the "Facebook youth" went out in their tens of thousands on January 25th, talk to them. This is the era where people who have good intentions are considered traitors."

"I tricked my employer so I could attend the protests in Egypt. I am not a traitor. I don't need anything from anyone.

"I am not a hero. I only used the keyboard; the real heroes are the ones on the ground. Those I can't name. This is the season where people use the word traitor against each other. I wasn't abused, I was jailed, kidnapped. I met some really intellectual people in jail, they actually thought that we were traitors, working for others.

"If I was a traitor I would have stayed by the swimming pool in my house in the UAE.

"What are called the "facebook youth" went out in their tens of thousands on January 25th, talk to them. This is the era where people who have good intentions are considered traitors.

"My wife was going to divorce me because I didn't spend time with her, and now they call me a traitor. I spent all my time on the computer working for my country.

I wasn't optimistic on the 25th but now I can't believe it. Thanks to everyone who tried to get me out of jail. It's haram [sinful, not right] for my father to lose his sight in one eye and now is at risk of losing it in the other. I kept thinking "are people thinking of me?" I was wondering if my family knew where I was, my wife, dad, mother.

"I am proud of what I did. This is not the time to settle scores. Although I have people I want to settle scores with myself. This is not the time to split the pie and enforce ideologies. The secret to the success of the facebook page was use of surveys.

"I met with the minister of interior today. He sat like any other citizen. He spoke to me like an equal. I respected that. The youth on the streets made Dr Hossam Badrawi [General Secretary of NDP] drive me to my house today.

"They transfered me to state security; it's a kidnapping. On Thursday night, at 1am I was with a friend, a colleague from work. I was taking a taxi, suddenly four people surrounded the car, I yelled "Help me, help me". I was blindfolded then taken away. I will say this as it is: nothing justifies kidnapping, you can arrest me by the law, I am not a drug dealer or terrorist.

"Inside I met people who loved Egypt [State Security people] but their methods and mine are not the same. I pay these guys' salaries from my taxes, I have the right to ask the ministers where my money is going, this is our country.

"I believe that if things get better those (good state security people he met) will serve Egypt well. Don't stand in our way, we are going to serve Egypt. I saw a film director get slapped, they told him "You will die here". Why?

"Now they want to have an agreement with me when they are in a position of weakness. I am not a hero, I am a normal person. What happened to me was a crime but I still thank those who tried to got me out. I am an educated person, I have a family. Badrawi told me we took all the bad people out from the NDP. I told him I don't want to see the logo of the NDP ever again.

"The NDP got this country to where it is. You can create a new party. It looks like I might be kidnapped again after this.

"There were 300 fake registrations on my facebook page, all negative comments, about how we were allegedly being paid. I was the admin of the page but others paid for it. We are dreamers.

"There was no Muslim Brotherhood presence in organising these protests, it was all spontaneous, voluntary. Even when the Muslim Brotherhood decided to take part it was their choice to do so. This belongs to the Egyptian youth.

"Please everyone, enough rumours. Enough.

"I told the interior minister - I was upset - I told him I will go in the car with Hossam Badrawi but without an NDP logo. I told them we don't want any NDP logo on the streets. I cried when I heard that there are people who died, officers and protesters, this is my country.

"I was chatting with Ahmad Maher of the 6th of April Youth Movement about the January 25 protests but he didn't know who I was. My wife is an American, I can apply for US citizenship but I didn't, not even the lottery. Many people want to leave though. We have to restore dignity to all Egyptians. We have to end corruption. No more theft. Egyptians are good people. We are a beautiful people. Please everybody, this is not a time to settle scores, this is a time to build our country.

"I can't claim I know what happened when I was inside. I didn't know anything until one day before I left. The interrogators wanted to know if outsiders were involved. I convinced them this was a purely Egyptian movement.

"The treatment was very good, they knew I was a good Egyptian. I was blindfolded for 12 days, I didn't see their faces. They wanted details, information. 'Are the people who planned this outsiders?' We didn't do anything wrong, this was an appeal.

"I wrote an appeal to the president of Egypt on Jan 25. I told the minister of interior we have two problems: 1- We don't talk to each other, this must be solved, 2- There is no trust. I told the interior minister if I stripped naked and told people that I was beaten even without marks they would believe me. The Egyptian State TV channels didn't portray the truth, that is why people watch the private channels now.

"There were several men in the room with me and the minister of interior. I asked him if I can speak about this, he said as you wish. Everyone asked me 'How did you do this?' The interior minister told me he was only a minister for eight days. I was told that people died, one day before I was released," Ghonim said.

"I want to say to every mother and every father that lost his child, I am sorry, but this is not our fault. I swear to God, this is not our fault. It is the fault of everyone who was holding on to power greedily and would not let it go. I want to leave."

Wael Ghonim

There's a new fast growing Egyptian facebook group: Its called: "We authorise Wael Ghoneim to speak on behalf of the Egyptian revolution." http://www.facebook.com/Authorize.Ghoneim?v=info" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When do you think the Muslim Brotherhood (Islamists) will start killing the movements moderates (leaders or otherwise)?

,
WHAB

When do you think American loving Mormons will start to rape children again?
Non Sequitur

Thanks bubba, that real democracy there choosing leaders, love hearing good news.

you know,
it was the muslim brotherhood members who lept to fight the attack by the pro mubarack forces...

showing the value of organized training...



whab, the muslim brotherhood cant start killing moderates quick enough to make the US military happy...

whyd you ask?

the protestors know that the security forces are perparing to kidnap them one at a time by the thousands if their central protest is disbanded.

mubaracks hitmen cant take them in the square,

and havnt been unleashed to attack the friends and families of the people in the square protesting...



yet...

wonder whos taught egyptian secret police how to properly deal with journalists???
wonder where that knowledge was trial run???



Hazards of reporting from Egypt
Al Jazeera's online producer recalls the many perils he faced while reporting from the country in upheaval.
Gregg Carlstrom

My experience of reporting from Egypt was not as harrowing as that of the nearly one dozen Al Jazeera employees who have been detained by the Egyptian military. But it does illustrate how quickly the situation turned ugly for foreign journalists – and, perhaps, why tens of thousands of Egyptians turned so hostile to the press.

I arrived in Cairo on January 30, and the first few days were a pleasure: The protesters in Tahrir Square were welcoming to foreign journalists, and a curious calm permeated the streets away from downtown.

Even the "neighbourhood watch" groups – the gangs of armed men who patrolled Cairo's residential neighbourhoods – were friendly and willing to talk. "We were not worried about you," said one man wielding a steel rod near Talaat Harb Square in downtown Cairo on Sunday night.

Even the loyalists of Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president, roaming the streets on Wednesday morning (February 2) were initially willing to talk to reporters. I passed one of them in the Doqqi neighborhood around 11:00am local time, and several men stopped to pose for pictures; one invited me to follow them as they marched. "Where is Al Jazeera?"

Dangerous turn

As they crossed the 26th of July bridge, their ranks beginning to swell outside the foreign ministry and the state television building, most were still peaceful and willing to talk. But their tone was aggressive, their words vitriolic, a stark contrast with the then-peaceful scene in Tahrir Square. "ElBaradei is a dog, a Western dog," yelled one red-faced man, referring to Mohamed ElBaradei, the former IAEA chief. "You should get out of here. You and your country should stop meddling in Egypt," warned another after hearing I was an American.

The crowd – tens of thousands strong at this point – was particularly incensed at Al Jazeera. "Al Jazeera fain, al-sha'ab al-masri hown (Where is Al Jazeera? The Egyptian people are here!)," they chanted. " This was when I decided to stop identifying myself as an Al Jazeera reporter – I became a freelancer or a blogger.

I asked several protesters why they were so angry, and they accused our coverage of bias against the government, of "hyping" the protests. (Al Jazeera has, of course, given ample airtime to the Mubarak government, the ruling National Democratic Party, and its supporters.)

It was once they reached the area outside the Egyptian Museum that the pro-Mubarak crowd turned hostile to journalists and foreigners in general. I was yelled at as I advanced towards Tahrir Square –kalb (dog) and yehudi (Jew) were common – and those shouts quickly turned to shoves, kicks, and a few large rocks thrown in my direction. By around 3pm local time, when a group of boys on camels and horses led a "cavalry charge" towards the pro-democracy protesters, the crowd was openly aggressive towards foreigners.

Much of their anger seemed to be caused by embarrassment – a sense that this was an internal Egyptian issue, that the bloody protests playing out on Cairo's streets should not be televised for the world.

It remained that way throughout the night, and on Thursday morning. I tried to leave my hotel three times to venture into Tahrir Square. The first time, around 7:30am local time, a colleague and I made it maybe 100 yards from the front door. A group of five young men – several with bloodied faces from the night's fighting – ran over yelling in Arabic. "Rayih fain?" "Where are you going?" One of them jabbed a knife into my chest, and the others formed a ring around me, yelling about how Egypt was not my country and I should leave. They eventually shoved me back towards the hotel, following me long enough to throw a few punches and kicks.

For my second excursion, two hours later, I tried walking down the Corniche to enter Tahrir via Qasr al-Nil bridge. But I was turned away again, by another group of Egyptian youths, then chased several hundred yards down the Corniche by a man wielding a metal rod. He lost interest only when I neared a group of Egyptian soldiers stationed outside a building.

The final excursion ended just outside the door of my hotel, when an Egyptian man walking by wrapped an arm around my shoulders and fixed me with an earnest stare. "You don’t want to go out there," he said, making a slicing motion across his throat.

The army's double game

The situation remained tense on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The streets around Tahrir Square were relatively safe, thanks to an increased army presence, but the rest of Cairo remained dangerous: two of my colleagues were pulled from their car and threatened with machetes by an angry mob.

Journalists were edgy downtown, too, because the army was playing a double game – securing the area, yes, but also arresting reporters (most of those detained on Wednesday and Thursday were grabbed by the army).

At one army checkpoint on the way to Tahrir Square, a man in street clothes – undoubtedly from an intelligence unit – rifled through my passport and asked questions about why I was in Egypt, where I was walking, what I wanted to see. (He stopped, fortunately, before reaching the page with my Qatari work visa, which lists Al Jazeera as my employer.)

Tahrir Square remained the safest place in Cairo to be a journalist. After crossing the square's first security checkpoint on Friday – which was manned by pro-democracy protesters – a young man escorted me and a colleague to the "press officer", a young woman who offered to answer any questions. She also handed out a telephone number for an international journalists syndicate. "If you have any problems, call this number," she told us.

Aside from the Mubarak loyalists, most Egyptians were willing – many even eager – to talk with the media. But some did worry that the international media attention, the influx of foreign journalists, was portraying their country in a bad light. "Egypt should not show this face to the world," one man told me on Friday as I walked along the Corniche.


http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/fe ... 58723.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WikiLeaks: Egyptian 'torturers' trained by FBI
The US provided officers from the Egyptian secret police with training at the FBI, despite allegations that they routinely tortured detainees and suppressed political opposition.



By Steven Swinford 9:00PM GMT 09 Feb 2011



According to leaked diplomatic cables, the head of the Egyptian state security and investigative service (SSIS) thanked the US for “training opportunities” at the FBI academy in Quantico, Virginia. The SSIS has been repeatedly accused of using violence and brutality to help prop up the regime of President Hosni Mubarak. In April, 2009, the US ambassador in Cairo stated that “Egypt’s police and domestic security services continue to be dogged by persistent, credible allegations of abuse of detainees.

“The Interior Ministry uses SSIS to monitor and sometimes infiltrate the political opposition and civil society. SSIS suppresses political opposition through arrests, harassment and intimidation.”

In October, 2009, “credible” human rights lawyers representing alleged Hizbollah detainees provided details of the techniques employed by the SSIS. The cable states: “The lawyers told us in mid-October that they have compiled accounts from several defendants of GOE [Government of Egypt] torture by electric shocks, sleep deprivation, and stripping them naked for extended periods.

“The lawyers believe the accounts to be credible.”

A dispatch in January, 2010, states: “While the GOE and its supporters claim that police brutality is unusual, human rights lawyers believe it continues to be a pervasive, daily occurrence in prisons, police station and interior ministry state security headquarters.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... y-FBI.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

These dick-taters are all the same under the skin. Look how Mubby holds on tooth and nail only to inevitably be blown away like a twig in a typhoon.

~O~

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:When do you think the Muslim Brotherhood (Islamists) will start killing the movements moderates (leaders or otherwise)?

,
WHAB

Your pretext is flawed. The EMB has become more a civil-society than a political group this last decade and a half. Today, they're far too mainstream, conservative, and politically burned to be much else. They would in fact be the very "moderates" who your postulated [radical] Islamists would have to kill [or co-opt] if there were such who hadn't already migrated to AQIM. Egyptians have already spent 40 years drunk on the ideology of pan-Arabism, and 15 on Islamism, with the hangovers to prove it. To the 50% + of Al Masri under 30 however, ideology is the useless crutch of their elders. They want good jobs, dignified lives and consumer goods.

The Army's definitely playing both sides for it's own purposes. That's a dangerous game for them. I imagine most every Egyptian Officer who's been to an American military school (basically, all of them) has been hearing from their American counterparts of acquaintance pretty much nonstop this past week since they (the Army) cracked down on the foreign press last Wednesday during the pro-government attacks.

~O~

Egypt's army 'involved in detentions and torture'
Military accused by human rights campaigners of targeting hundreds of anti-government protesters

Chris McGreal in Cairo

The Egyptian military has secretly detained hundreds and possibly thousands of suspected government opponents since mass protests against President Hosni Mubarak began, and at least some of these detainees have been tortured, according to testimony gathered by the Guardian.

The military has claimed to be neutral, merely keeping anti-Mubarak protesters and loyalists apart. But human rights campaigners say this is clearly no longer the case, accusing the army of involvement in both disappearances and torture – abuses Egyptians have for years associated with the notorious state security intelligence (SSI) but not the army.

The Guardian has spoken to detainees who say they have suffered extensive beatings and other abuses at the hands of the military in what appears to be an organised campaign of intimidation. Human rights groups have documented the use of electric shocks on some of those held by the army.

Egyptian human rights groups say families are desperately searching for missing relatives who have disappeared into army custody. Some of the detainees have been held inside the renowned Museum of Egyptian Antiquities on the edge of Tahrir Square. Those released have given graphic accounts of physical abuse by soldiers who accused them of acting for foreign powers, including Hamas and Israel.

Among those detained have been human rights activists, lawyers and journalists, but most have been released. However, Hossam Bahgat, director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights in Cairo, said hundreds, and possibly thousands, of ordinary people had "disappeared" into military custody across the country for no more than carrying a political flyer, attending the demonstrations or even the way they look. Many were still missing.

"Their range is very wide, from people who were at the protests or detained for breaking curfew to those who talked back at an army officer or were handed over to the army for looking suspicious or for looking like foreigners even if they were not," he said. "It's unusual and to the best of our knowledge it's also unprecedented for the army to be doing this."

One of those detained by the army was a 23-year-old man who would only give his first name, Ashraf, for fear of again being arrested. He was detained last Friday on the edge of Tahrir Square carrying a box of medical supplies intended for one of the makeshift clinics treating protesters attacked by pro-Mubarak forces.

"I was on a sidestreet and a soldier stopped me and asked me where I was going. I told him and he accused me of working for foreign enemies and other soldiers rushed over and they all started hitting me with their guns," he said.

Ashraf was hauled off to a makeshift army post where his hands were bound behind his back and he was beaten some more before being moved to an area under military control at the back of the museum.

"They put me in a room. An officer came and asked me who was paying me to be against the government. When I said I wanted a better government he hit me across the head and I fell to the floor. Then soldiers started kicking me. One of them kept kicking me between my legs," he said.

"They got a bayonet and threatened to rape me with it. Then they waved it between my legs. They said I could die there or I could disappear into prison and no one would ever know. The torture was painful but the idea of disappearing in a military prison was really frightening."

Ashraf said the beatings continued on and off for several hours until he was put in a room with about a dozen other men, all of whom had been severely tortured. He was let go after about 18 hours with a warning not to return to Tahrir Square.

Others have not been so lucky. Heba Morayef, a Human Rights Watch researcher in Cairo, said: "A lot of families are calling us and saying: 'I can't find my son, he's disappeared.' I think what's happening is that they're being arrested by the military."

Among those missing is Kareem Amer, a prominent government critic and blogger only recently released after serving a four-year prison sentence for criticising the regime. He was picked up on Monday evening at a military checkpoint late at night as he was leaving Tahrir Square.

Bahgat said the pattern of accounts from those released showed the military had been conducting a campaign to break the protests. "Some people, especially the activists, say they were interrogated about any possible links to political organisations or any outside forces. For the ordinary protesters, they get slapped around and asked: 'Why are you in Tahrir?' It seems to serve as an interrogation operation and an intimidation and deterrence."

The military has claimed to be neutral in the political standoff and both Mubarak and his prime minister, Ahmed Shafiq, have said there will be no "security pursuit" of anti-government activists. But Morayef says this is clearly not the case.

"I think it's become pretty obvious by now that the military is not a neutral party. The military doesn't want and doesn't believe in the protests and this is even at the lower level, based on the interrogations," she said.

Human Rights Watch says it has documented 119 arrests of civilians by the military but believes there are many more. Bahgat said it was impossible to know how many people had been detained because the army is not acknowledging the arrests. But he believes that the pattern of disappearances seen in Cairo is replicated across the country.

"Detentions either go completely unreported or they are unable to inform their family members or any lawyer of their detention so they are much more difficult to assist or look for," he said. "Those held by the military police are not receiving any due process either because they are unaccounted for and they are unable to inform anyone of their detention."

Human Rights Watch has also documented detentions including an unnamed democracy activist who described being stopped by a soldier who insisted on searching his bag, where he found a pro-democracy flyer.

"They started beating me up in the street their rubber batons and an electric Taser gun, shocking me," the activist said.

"Then they took me to Abdin police station. By the time I arrived, the soldiers and officers there had been informed that a 'spy' was coming, and so when I arrived they gave me a 'welcome beating' that lasted some 30 minutes."

While pro-government protesters have also been detained by the army during clashes in Tahrir Square, it is believed that they have been handed on to police and then released, rather than being held and tortured.

The detainee was held in a cell until an interrogator arrived, ordered him to undress and attached cables from an "electric shock machine".

"He shocked me all over my body, leaving no place untouched. It wasn't a real interrogation; he didn't ask that many questions. He tortured me twice like this on Friday, and one more time on Saturday," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/fe ... re-accused" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

the army is enforcing US interests because,
its the US whos made em fat and happy...


noticed the army isnt touching the muslim brotherhood members???

Listening to Mubarek's speech to the nation and seeing the live feed of peeps in Tahir Square going nuts at his speech, I really think he will pull it off (go at a time of his own choosing in September).

Unless the protestors push it all the way to crisis point, and I don't know how they might do that now, he seems to be hanging in there.

I just heard this too Kate. He sure sounds Dead? set on staying. I don't think this will cut it. The opposition is growing, will it end up like China and Iran is the question. I doubt it as the Army isn't as compliant. Likely case IMO, is the Army seizes power for +- Oh a while

he got a real infusion from saudia arabia and hes drunk on riding high in the internal fight that is going on for his hand at the helm...

meanwhile,
the protestors will not be satisfied with simple someone else standing in that position.
the state terrorism they have suffered during this strike have underlined that their demand is a dismantling of the police state...

its time to start dragging the secret police out of their homes and hanging them from streetlights
along side the rich people they are sworn to protect...

what a crackpot!!!

tells the world he wont accept foreign dictation, and to prove, he continues to hand power to the CIA ASSET in his government...

who flys to washington so often, he was actually in washington, when this protest started...



the dirty war is on...

the modernization of the egyptian military by the us ensures its forces can be used at cross purposes without anyone hardly knowing...

being able to hold accountable...


for instance,
the markings on the tank in the square,
identify them as tank the us has warehoused in egypt to supply american forces...

their supposed to be in shrinkwrap for rapid deployment...

not egyptian army tanks...

fisk caught that,
and about got beaten by army soldiers who saw him copying down tank id numbers...



for doing the stuff to the women and children, they were trained at the school of the american how to do...

bubbabush wrote:These dick-taters are all the same under the skin. Look how Mubby holds on tooth and nail only to inevitably be blown away like a twig in a typhoon.

As long as Uncle Mubby has any choice at all, he will choose to remain in power. If he leaves, it'll be in a helicopter from the roof of the soon-to-be-over-run Pres Palace with the chants of a million Egyptians screaming for his blood ringing in his ears. My International Relations Prof. knew him when he was an Iranian diplomat in the '70s when Mubby was a military apparatchik, and he said that he was the "dumbest man in a position of authority" that he'd ever encountered, and an instinctive thug. That seems to describe Mubby, in his own little mind he's "lived for his country" and is determined to "die in his country" I wonder if he understands how abruptly his margin can be called in that bargain?

~O~

they sure didnt wasted any time killing nic...
always wondered about that...



the CIA VP is talking now...

you gotta realize that whenever they say egypt, in regard to protecting it...

their basically saying " national security interests" the same way the US does...

ie, having nothing to do with the interests of the people of the nations...

rather, a protection of the rackets its richest people are involved in...

ben ttech wrote:they sure didnt wasted any time killing nic...
always wondered about that...

My Pop spent some time there in the '80s. He said that they seethed in his system like he'd only ever seen before with the Koreans in Japan.

~O~

If non-violent resistance works in Egypt, it'll break out all over the ME, not least in Palestine. Israel and the Arab autocrats can never tolerate that; AIPAC's just as busy twisting arms in DC like a hydra; calling in all it's chits, as are our Saudi and Kuwaiti and Bahraini and Quatari gulf Puppets.

~O~

bubbabush wrote:If non-violent resistance works in Egypt, it'll break out all over the ME, not least in Palestine. Israel and the Arab autocrats can never tolerate that; AIPAC's just as busy twisting arms in DC like a hydra; calling in all it's chits, as are our Saudi and Kuwaiti and Bahraini and Quatari gulf Puppets.

~O~

Kuwait, for one, is safer than most from a disenchanted populous. As long as you are a Kuwaiti there is little to revolt over.

But then again, it was thought only in recent years that Egypt was safer than most from open internal rebellion.

bubbabush wrote:These dick-taters are all the same under the skin. Look how Mubby holds on tooth and nail only to inevitably be blown away like a twig in a typhoon.

~O~

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:When do you think the Muslim Brotherhood (Islamists) will start killing the movements moderates (leaders or otherwise)?

,
WHAB

bubba wrote:Your pretext is flawed. The EMB has become more a civil-society than a political group this last decade and a half. Today, they're far too mainstream, conservative, and politically burned to be much else. They would in fact be the very "moderates" who your postulated [radical] Islamists would have to kill [or co-opt] if there were such who hadn't already migrated to AQIM. Egyptians have already spent 40 years drunk on the ideology of pan-Arabism, and 15 on Islamism, with the hangovers to prove it. To the 50% + of Al Masri under 30 however, ideology is the useless crutch of their elders. They want good jobs, dignified lives and consumer goods.

My pretext is absolutely not flawed. Your interpretation of the Muslim Brotherhood is.

Has the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) renounced their "Constitution" "Creed"?

Why, no, they haven't...

Ikhwan creed...

“Allah is our objective; the Koran is our law; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.”

Does that ^ ^ ^ sound "moderate" to you? It sure as hell doesn't to reasonable people

Ikwhan spiritual leader Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi (a regular on the hate channel Al Jazeera, Kate---does a weekly program "Sharia and Life").

In 2009 he says...

January 2009 speech that aired on Al Jazeera, Qaradawi said:

"Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them - even though they exaggerated this issue - he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hands of the believers."

bubba wrote:The EMB has become more a civil-society than a political group this last decade and a half.

2009 bubba On my calender that's way, way short of three years never mind a "decade and a half"

That's "moderate" in your mind? It sure as hell isn't to reasonable people

Is that "civil-society" in your mind? It sure as hell isn't to reasonable people

Al Jazeera aired that hatefilled diatribe (Kate (to 40,000,000 weekly listeners (I think that's more than double(?) Rush's weekly audience)).

Does more need to be said about Ikwhan or it's highly regarded and present day spiritual leader Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi or any of its members that hold him and his message of hate in high regard?

Ikwhan has spawned many other Jihadi groups.

Are you being decietful, bubba....or just totally and completely clueless to the facts? Immune from their import?

,
WHAB

you could count every convert to radical extremism a muslim has ever inspired...
and you would still have less than 1% of the numbers US POLICYS have created...

intentionally...

dupe





alot of south east asian slaves would be set free if the gulf islands revolted.


saudia arabia told obama that they would suppliment any decrease in aid dollar to egypt right up to whatever extend the us funds him...

remember when the us screwed france and brittian over the suez and they had to withdraw?

us hegemony is on the rocks

That's the trouble (or downside) of promoting free, fair and democratic processes in foreign nations....you don't always get what you want.

Damn that democracy.

‘Largely Secular’: US Intelligence Director Says Muslim Brotherhood Is Secular Hours After Senior Member of Muslim Brotherhood Admits Ultimate Goal Is Sharia Law in Egypt

It seems bubbabush is doing DNI Clapper's research

Who the hell put naive children in charge.

Joe-Gaffe A Minute-Biden: Mubarak is not a dictator. The blunders of this administration are too numerous for me to recall at this moment

This V V V is a couple of days old and doesn't even include the historically monumental blunders of recent days

Clueless on Cairo

My three-week victory, your seven-year mess

by Victor Davis Hanson
February 6, 2011

It is difficult trying to figure out what the left’s position is on democracy and the Middle East. Here’s a brief effort.

Once upon a time, a number of prominent liberals — among them Thomas Friedman, Fareed Zakaria, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid — thought it was a good idea to remove Saddam Hussein and supplant his Baathist rule with democracy. I say that with confidence since one can watch the speeches of the senators in question on YouTube debating the 23-writ authorizations to use force in October 2002, in addition to reading the New York Times and Newsweek editorials between 2002-3 of prominent liberal columnists. The New Republic stable of authors was particularly in favor of the Bush-Cheney “just war” to invade Iraq. Jonathan Chait (who would go on to author an infamous essay about why “I hate George Bush”) and Peter Beinhart were especially hard on the fellow left for not joining the Bush effort.

By early 2004, almost all that liberal support had entirely dissipated, predicated on two developments. First, a presidential election was just months away and Bush’s war was no longer “mission accomplished” but turning into a campaign liability. Second, a resistance had formed under hard-core Islamists that was beginning to take a heavy toll on American forces. No WMD had been found, and it was now easy to suggest that one could withdraw support for building democracy in Iraq because two of the 23 writs for going to war were no longer operative, the effort was probably lost, and George W. Bush might well deservedly not be reelected.

No matter. Bush pressed on. His polls sunk yet he was barely reelected. His ongoing “democracy” agenda got little support from those who once had enthusiastically praised the Iraqi adventure and had proclaimed their belief in universal human rights. Few came to Sec. of State Rice’s support when in 2005 she chastised Hosni Mubarak’s regime to grant fundamental rights. Fewer saw any connection between Saddam’s fate and America’s pro-democratic stance and the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the fright of Mr. Gaddafi who gave up his WMD arsenal, or the sudden willingness of Pakistan to harness Dr. Khan.

Instead, “spreading democracy” was seen by the left as a wounded George Bush’s quirky tic. His talk about “universal” freedom was ridiculed more as a manifestation of a sort of evangelical Christianity than genuine political idealism. Bush’s zeal for democracy, then, was orphaned: the right was now realist again (“they are either incapable of democracy or not worth the effort to implant it”) and the left multicultural (“who are we of all people to say what sort of government others should employ?”).

Then and now

Note especially that Barack Obama, both as senator and presidential candidate, derided the war, declared the surge as failed, and wanted all troops out of Iraq by March 2008, regardless of the effect on the struggling Maliki government. That Bush also confronted Putin over the putdown of Georgia, allowed a plebiscite in Gaza, and warned of the anti-democratic tendencies of a Chavez or Ahmadinejad was drowned out by Iraq. Remember that these were the days of Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore calling for a right-wing fundamentalist insurgent victory in Iraq, and novels and films envisioning the assassination of George Bush.

Fast forward to the presidency of Barack Obama. I think it is fair to suggest that all talk about promoting democracy was dropped entirely, and for three reasons: anything Bush had promoted was de facto tainted (“reset”); Obama’s multiculturalism accepted that all indigenous governments were more authentic than an imported Western democracy (cf. his silence over the brutal putdown of the Iranian dissidents); Obama was busy courting China and Russia, two authoritarian and powerful governments that could complicate any pro-democracy pressure on lesser states.

Better to be enemies

I note in passing once more that when it was a question of “tilting,” Obama usually seemed more fond of the anti-democratic than the democratic alternative: Syria and Iran were courted, Israel was snubbed; Colombia was ignored, Cuba and Venezuela got “outreach”; Eastern Europe was taken for granted, autocratic Russia was romanced. In short, whether because of Pavlovian anti-Bush tendencies, multicultural preference for authentic indigenous leadership, or wishing a stage for the postracial, postnational Obama to charm our enemies and achieve a “breakthrough,” Obama cared little at all about promoting human rights (note that all Obama’s once shrill civil rights bluster about Guantanamo, tribunals, renditions, preventative detention, the Patriot Act, Iraq, and drone attacks was dropped — on the cynical but correct premise that the left would still idolize a President Obama even if he parroted Dick Cheney).

Back to Egypt

All of which brings us to Egypt. I think it would also be fair to say that the administration has been caught entirely surprised. Far from being a sort of national liberationist of the left, Obama is simply confused — his advisors now telling him that Mubarak must go, that he must go sometime, that the demonstrators are genuine democratic patriots, that they are dupes who will be pushed aside by the Muslim Brotherhood, which itself is either sinister or in fact reformed and a possible future U.S. partner.

In turn, the president seems to voice the last advice he was given, and so we are to assume two things: one, his make “no mistake about it” declaration will change and soon be rendered obsolete as conditions on the ground in Egypt change; two, he will artfully inject himself into the breaking news by the overuse of the now accustomed “I, my, mine” as he is self-constructed to be the catalyst for all that is becoming good and a long harsh critic of all that is turning bad. In other words, Obama will talk far too much and seek to turn someone else’s revolution into a showcase of his own rhetoric. And in adolescent fashion, Obama will reveal private conversations he has had with Egyptian leaders, both breaking confidentiality and portraying his interlocutors as either agreeing with his own advice or nodding to his dictates and directives.

What do I derive from all this? Hillary was right about her 3AM slur, and Obama is acting as any 2-year Senate veteran might in such a crisis. There is no consistent support from the left for democracy movements overseas. Strongmen like Gaddafi, Ahmadinejad, and Assad are weirdly seen as either untouchable or genuine in a way a Mubarak or a Jordanian king is not. And the latter are vulnerable only when it looks like they may fail; if they seem stable, we hear not a peep from Obama about their human rights records.

In short, the left has not yet sorted out its adherence to multiculturalism and its supposed support for human rights, which are usually antithetical. It apparently believes that any pro-democratic criticism of Obama’s tepidness is not worth the damage that might accrue to his agenda of universal health care, more entitlements, and left-wing domestic appointments. Whereas on the right there are three fissures over Egypt — neocon support for the protestors, realist support for Mubarak to keep a lid on things and change slowly, isolationist desires to keep the hell out of another costly obligation — on the left these days it is basically trying to explain postfacto Obama’s herky-jerky policies as coherent, successful, and idealist.

Predictions? I think unfortunately we may go the 1940s “we can work with Mao”/1970s “no inordinate fear of communism”/2000s “jihad can mean a personal struggle” route, where liberals believe that totalitarian nationalists somehow admire the American Revolution and our lack of a colonial heritage, and, as closet moderates, wish to work with us. That translates into a backdoor courtship with the Muslim Brotherhood, in the fashion we did with Khomeini, and ends in a decade or so with a Sunni Ahmadinejad and the betrayal of the present protestors — again, in the manner we did the Iranian moderate reformers in 1979-80 and again in 2009.

How odd that in support of the brave secular protestors in the streets of Cairo, we are already talking about not demonizing the Muslim Brotherhood — the existential enemies of every idealist now trying to win a free society from Mubarak, the dictator/non-dictator who must go now!, very soon, after he transitions a new government in the summer, when a new president is elected in the fall, or, as future events dictate, not at all.

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishans ... epage=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Geez my knees louise

Stunning! Absolutely stunning!

,
WHAB

Implausible Deniability: MSNBC’s Mitchell is Warned by Ex Muslim Brotherhood Member They Want Sharia Law The Next Day Mitchell Says Brotherhood Not Extremists





,
WHAB

In free, fair elections like it or not it does seem the Muslim Brotherhood will have a big say.

Whilst WHAB and his ilk manically check their personal gun arsenals and then under their bed in case the hated Muslim Brotherhood have found their way there (maybe to join that pre-1990's "Soviet" paratrooper),....[just teasing WHAB, calm ] I wonder if the US and the EU will call foul and how they might change their stance on what is 'allowed' when it comes to freedom of choice??

The not so subtle use of the words "fear", "hijack" [of democracy movement] in the news channel underlay title of WHAB's video C&P shows some indication. I am not sure how much such an organisation needs to hijack any elections that might be had in Egypt this year. We shall see.

It is also worth noting that nobody seemed concerned at how Mubarek hijacked elections for years, quite the opposite; they backed him by the billion. Something else I will watch with fascination should the Muslim Brotherhood do as well as might be expected in these so-called free elections.

And the clueless idiocy just keeps rolling along like an overloaded train on a down-hill track

This V V V before Mubarak's announcement...

CIA Chief Says It Looks Likely That Mubarak Is Out

Associated Press
Thu Feb 10, 11:40 am ET

WASHINGTON – CIA Director Leon Panetta says U.S. intelligence indicates that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is on his way out.

Panetta tells Congress that his information indicates Mubarak could be out by Thursday night. He says there is a "high likelihood" of that.

Panetta did not say exactly how the CIA reached that conclusion. He says Mubarak's exit would be "significant" in moving Egypt to an "orderly transition" of power.

Egypt's military announced on national television that it has stepped in to "safeguard the country" and assured protesters that Mubarak will meet their demands.

That's the strongest indication yet that the longtime leader has lost power.

At the White House, spokesman Robert Gibbs said the situation was "fluid."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110210/ap_ ... _mubarak_3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This V V V after...

U.S. reaction to Mubarak's decision not to step down

From NBC's Jim Miklaszewski
3 hours ago

U.S. sources who have been closely involved in the Egyptian crisis tell us that "Mubarak is going nowhere," at least for now, and that they were "taken by surprise," by tonight's announcement.

They, too, are concerned about Mubarak's statement (according to the translator) that to restore confidence in the economy Mubarak would "federalize the streets." (U.S. presidents have "federalized" military forces to confront segregationists, anti-war protestors, etc.).

According to one official however, "We have assurances, both PRIVATE and public that the [Egyptian] military would not fire on the people."

Intelligence officials are also scrambling to try to determine exactly what this all means. According to one official, "We didn't know exactly what Mubarak was going to do tonight. There was an assumption he would step down, but it looks like he's got other ideas."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... -step-down" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"We have assurances, both PRIVATE and public that the [Egyptian] military would not fire on the people."

So, does that mean that since they've gotten everything wrong so far and they're understanding of things is so fucked up that the military is guaranteed to fire on the people?



,
WHAB

As Jolly said the Army is key in this. Now there are reports that the Army were telling the protesters in Tahrir Square that the end was very near for Mubarek, to the point the people were beginning celebrations in the square.

Now if Mr CIA Man thought that he's out tonight.

And if the Army (who it could be suggested were the one's briefing Mr CIA man) thought that he's out tonight.

And then Mubarek does nothing of the sort??

What next??

Little Kate Chaos wrote:In free, fair elections like it or not it does seem the Muslim Brotherhood will have a big say.

Whilst WHAB and his ilk manically check their personal gun arsenals and then under their bed in case the hated Muslim Brotherhood have found their way there (maybe to join that pre-1990's "Soviet" paratrooper),....[just teasing WHAB, calm ] I wonder if the US and the EU will call foul and how they might change their stance on what is 'allowed' when it comes to freedom of choice??

The not so subtle use of the words "fear", "hijack" [of democracy movement] in the news channel underlay title of WHAB's video C&P shows some indication. I am not sure how much such an organisation needs to hijack any elections that might be had in Egypt this year. We shall see.

It is also worth noting that nobody seemed concerned at how Mubarek hijacked elections for years, quite the opposite; they backed him by the billion. Something else I will watch with fascination should the Muslim Brotherhood do as well as might be expected in these so-called free elections.

IF something were to be done today/tomorrow/the next day/the next week--elections or Mubarak's departure--who is organized more than any other group in Egypt to step in (besides the military)?

To put my cards on the table here, I believe the military won't allow Ikwhan to gain/have power in Egypt. They have seen the results of Islamic extremism right there in their neighborhood. They've also seen first hand the concept of America, which is unmatched in the history of the planet or of man--exceptionally so.

,
WHAB

What Soviet question??

Pulled what query?? I've pulled nothing. Explain what you mean.

EDIT - You've edited out the Soviet bit ^^. What's that all about?? What did you mean??

On the post though, I think that is definitely a possible scenario, coup d'etat. Where does that leave the free elections though?? And the Egyptian people or how they might react?? The Egyptian Army seems pretty cosy with their Army.

It's fascinating, in a morbid voyeuristic way.

Little Kate Chaos wrote:What Soviet question??

Pulled what query?? I've pulled nothing. Explain what you mean.

EDIT - You've edited out the Soviet bit ^^. What's that all about?? What did you mean??

On the post though, I think that is definitely a possible scenario, coup d'etat. Where does that leave the free elections though?? And the Egyptian people or how they might react?? The Egyptian Army seems pretty cosy with their Army.

It's fascinating, in a morbid voyeuristic way.

I was in the wrong thread, Kate....my mistake, my apologies.

Not a "coup d'etat". A responsible body respected by the populace handling things until elections can be held and negating the possibility of a "power vacuum" where extremists could wedge their way in.


,
WHAB

No worries, no need to apologise WHAB, you knew that the Soviet Union, and Soviet as a nationality ceased entirely back in December 1991, you were just teasing me.

I see what you say, but I'm not sure the Muslim Brotherhood (assuming that is who you mean??) need to wedge in on a power vacumn. It seems that they will be main players in their own right in any free elections.

This could go properly nuts very soon. The Army have been wrong-footed maybe?? So their next move is going to be interesting. Not to mention how the protesters seem to be thinking.

Little Kate Chaos wrote:No worries, no need to apologise WHAB, you knew that the Soviet Union, and Soviet as a nationality ceased entirely back in December 1991, you were just teasing me.

I see what you say, but I'm not sure the Muslim Brotherhood (assuming that is who you mean??) need to wedge in on a power vacumn. It seems that they will be main players in their own right in any free elections.

This could go properly nuts very soon. The Army have been wrong-footed maybe?? So their next move is going to be interesting. Not to mention how the protesters seem to be thinking.

Not teasing at all Kate, I just put it in the wrong thread. Or more precisely which thread it was supposed to go in to.

I'm not the only one that's been questioning the Soviet's return, Kate...

Is the Soviet Union back?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la- ... 5901.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They cite three examples, but that's from 2008 and much more has occurred since then.

Just one quote from the article...

Remember that, in 2005, Putin explicitly said that "the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century." What logical inference can one draw from such a statement?

Egypt's Military has worked hand in hand with our Military over these thirty years. Their Officer's Staff as well. They know how to do what needs to be done for the benefit of their nation without killing needlessly. They won't be killing true civilians only desiring freedom (true freedom). But they might have to kill some (many) Ikwhan.

IF things do go South I expect Egypt's Military to go after the Ikwhan exclusively or their associates/collaborators. They know where they are at. However, I believe that with their knowledge of how it's supposed to go that will be avoidable. It's not what they want. If it was what they wanted they'd have done the deed already. There's nothing that could have stopped them had they wanted to go that route. They don't.

It will be interesting to see how things develop. And I hope they develop the way I've conjured in my brain

Kate,
WHAB

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote: They know how to do what needs to be done for the benefit of their nation without killing needlessly...

They won't be killing true civilians only desiring freedom (true freedom)...

please tell us HOW you can tell if the protester your pointing a gun at only desires true freedom???

Haha, you can't leave it, can you?? The Soviet thingy. The article talks of the way the Soviet Union once worked politically maybe returning or that being wanted in Russia. I bet you scurried the google to find something...anything. Trust me WHAB; the Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991. If it's 'ways' return, it will not be the Soviet Union. It would take Russia to annex the old Soviet South Caucasus, the Baltic states and the Ukraine for starters. That's World War 3 time.

This is fluff anyway, I only picked on your continued use of a word to describe a people and nation that disappeared years ago to tease. And knowing you do like to drill on the odd wrong/right word here and there....

You'd no more call a Croat, Bosnian or Slovenian a Yugoslavian from Yugoslavia because Serbia might want a Greater Serbia (a la Yugoslavia as it was) again, would you?? Or call Ireland part of the UK. People will get offended.

Plus it's good to learn to correct our mistakes. This is not opinion to be argued. It is fact.

Right, no more mention on the subject ever again from me!! You can carry on calling it the Soviet Union and call Russians Soviets. Please do. It's rather quaint. My gran might call them that.

----------------------------------------------------

As you say, I do not think the Muslim Brotherhood being hunted down and exterminated is going to happen. If it does, then that is not allowing the democratic process to run it's course. Egypt under Islamic law need not be so different to Saudi under Islamic law, which is a friend of the West. Surely it is wrong to use force by proxy to hunt down political opponents because you don't like their policies.

Everybody deserves self-determination, if the Muslim Brotherhood won a landslide or big majority election, though it might catch in the throat, you would have to accept that, no?? I had to begrudgingly accept that clown you had, that to this day drags my man off to wars.

Little Kate Chaos wrote:Haha, you can't leave it, can you?? The Soviet thingy. The article talks of the way the Soviet Union once worked politically maybe returning or that being wanted in Russia. I bet you scurried the google to find something...anything. Trust me WHAB; the Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991. If it's 'ways' return, it will not be the Soviet Union. It would take Russia to annex the old Soviet South Caucasus, the Baltic states and the Ukraine for starters. That's World War 3 time.

This is fluff anyway, I only picked on your continued use of a word to describe a people and nation that disappeared years ago to tease. And knowing you do like to drill on the odd wrong/right word here and there....

You'd no more call a Croat, Bosnian or Slovenian a Yugoslavian from Yugoslavia because Serbia might want a Greater Serbia (a la Yugoslavia as it was) again, would you?? Or call Ireland part of the UK. People will get offended.

Plus it's good to learn to correct our mistakes. This is not opinion to be argued. It is fact.

Right, no more mention on the subject ever again from me!! You can carry on calling it the Soviet Union and call Russians Soviets. Please do. It's rather quaint. My gran might call them that.

----------------------------------------------------

As you say, I do not think the Muslim Brotherhood being hunted down and exterminated is going to happen. If it does, then that is not allowing the democratic process to run it's course. Egypt under Islamic law need not be so different to Saudi under Islamic law, which is a friend of the West. Surely it is wrong to use force by proxy to hunt down political opponents because you don't like their policies.

Everybody deserves self-determination, if the Muslim Brotherhood won a landslide or big majority election, though it might catch in the throat, you would have to accept that, no?? I had to begrudgingly accept that clown you had, that to this day drags my man off to wars.

I never meant in land-mass, Kate. I meant the mentality of it. It has already returned. Orchestrated beatings, orchestrated killings, people fleeing the state in fear of their life....etc...etc. Just like the old days.

I do find it remarkable you don't accept a word out of any of their own mouths. Ikwhan, Soviets, Jihadi's....etc....etc.

I'm also done with the subject, now.

Saudi Arabia is NOT our friend by any stretch of anyone's imagination (excluding you, it seems). They are a business partner nearly exclusively and one I'd shed tomorrow if I could and suffer the short term consequences readily.

Some people only understand death, Kate. Some people strain at the yoke to receive it.

I would not accept Ikwhan's ascension for a second. Not for a nanosecond. They would receive the Iran treatment immediately, which except for nation's violating the embargoes would be dead already (as a government). Which also brings up the point that TOTUS left the Good Iranian's to swing in the breeze--literally-when they were striving to be free the yoke of their enslavement. Monumental blunder.

You ought to be thanking Bush. What he did. What we did. It was, and is, the right thing to do/to have done. Putting it off for so long was the mistake. They want your thought process machine, Kate. That is not idle wordplay...ask Danny Pearl....oh...

Kate,
WHAB

WhiteHotAfterburner wrote:
Some people only understand death, Kate. Some people strain at the yoke to receive it.

you mean like black people, and pregnant teenagers?

First, Wahabbit, you can't extrapolate one person's utterances to an entire broad-based (not to mention less than formal membership-based) laterally-organized group. Second, Israel practice a vicious brand of institutional racism against Arabs; it's hardly surprising (whatever the chickens and eggs of the sitch) that Arabs practice an equally vicious cultural racism toward Jews. Neither is right in either regard, but both sides have such long lists of valid grievances against the other that they won't give it up in any time any of us have left on this flying mud-ball.

The American Right's quivering fear of all things Islamic, we forget at our peril, is of recent, if not transient, vintage. It wasn't until dubya went all Christian-Zionist that the republiklan even got as squishy on UN Res 242/settlements as the Dems had been all along. Before that, the (still) almost complete lack of rank and file Jews in their ranks (and their slavish bootlicking for the oil companies) made the re-thugs much more pro-Arab/Muslim.

~O~

To put my cards on the table here, I believe the military won't allow Ikwhan to gain/have power in Egypt. They have seen the results of Islamic extremism right there in their neighborhood. They've also seen first hand the concept of America, which is unmatched in the history of the planet or of man--exceptionally so.

,
WHAB[/quote]

So then why loose all that sleep over The Scary Brotherhood? I think its the name scares some easily spooked so! The MUSLIM! ...BROTHERHOOD!!
boooahaahaahaha! booahahahaha!

These are the same scary guys that told al Zawarhi to take a flying fuck, they were not for violent revolution. Come on on WHAB every Muslim's not Osama. Not even our President!

bubbabush wrote:First, Wahabbit, you can't extrapolate one person's utterances to an entire broad-based (not to mention less than formal membership-based) laterally-organized group. Second, Israel practice a vicious brand of institutional racism against Arabs; it's hardly surprising (whatever the chickens and eggs of the sitch) that Arabs practice an equally vicious cultural racism toward Jews. Neither is right in either regard, but both sides have such long lists of valid grievances against the other that they won't give it up in any time any of us have left on this flying mud-ball.

The American Right's quivering fear of all things Islamic, we forget at our peril, is of recent, if not transient, vintage. It wasn't until dubya went all Christian-Zionist that the republiklan even got as squishy on UN Res 242/settlements as the Dems had been all along. Before that, the (still) almost complete lack of rank and file Jews in their ranks (and their slavish bootlicking for the oil companies) made the re-thugs much more pro-Arab/Muslim.

~O~

40,000,000 people A WEEK is a "(not to mention less than formal membership-based) laterally-organized group".

You can't be fucking serious.

He "extrapolates" his vile hatred (that YOU SAID went out of fashion FIFTEEN YEARS AGO...yet he continues it to this day on the non-biased Al Jazeera ) to 40,000,000 believers A WEEK. Must just be close family like that one crazy uncle every family has

bubba wrote:Second, Israel practice a vicious brand of institutional racism against Arabs

A quick scan tells me there are approximately 1,420,000 Arabs living in Israel at this very moment in PEACE.

bubba wrote:The American Right's quivering fear of all things Islamic

Once again YOU MISCONSTRUE. Muslim's aren't the problem. Those of the Islamic faith aren't the problem. ISLAMIST'S are the problem.

Do you think before you die you'll ever understand that.

Bush went out of his way to prove that point and yet, you continue...

bubba wrote:UN Res 242

The right of return and return to the 1967 borders? I don't have time to fully research it right now and I'm going to assume that's what it is and...



You can shit in your bed all you want, but don't shit in mine and expect me to wipe your ass.

That territory was used to attack the Jews who only want to live in peace with Arabs. IF (and I doubt it will ever happen) that land is returned it won't be three months and it will revert to the Arab's original purpose for it. To attempt a second holocaust on the Jews.

Do you really, actually believe what your saying, bubba? Do you actually, really believe that anyone else believes what your saying, bubba?


WHAB

Actually Wahidiot, I'm merely agreeing with the vast majority of the expertariot, and even if I were alone and right, I'd still be right.

~O~

For Egypt, this is the miracle of Tahrir Square
There is no room for compromise. Either the entire Mubarak edifice falls, or the uprising is betrayed

Slavoj Žižek
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 10 February 2011 20.30 GMT
Article history
One cannot but note the "miraculous" nature of the events in Egypt: something has happened that few predicted, violating the experts' opinions, as if the uprising was not simply the result of social causes but the intervention of a mysterious agency that we can call, in a Platonic way, the eternal idea of freedom, justice and dignity.

The uprising was universal: it was immediately possible for all of us around the world to identify with it, to recognise what it was about, without any need for cultural analysis of the features of Egyptian society. In contrast to Iran's Khomeini revolution (where leftists had to smuggle their message into the predominantly Islamist frame), here the frame is clearly that of a universal secular call for freedom and justice, so that the Muslim Brotherhood had to adopt the language of secular demands.

The most sublime moment occurred when Muslims and Coptic Christians engaged in common prayer on Cairo's Tahrir Square, chanting "We are one!" – providing the best answer to the sectarian religious violence. Those neocons who criticise multiculturalism on behalf of the universal values of freedom and democracy are now confronting their moment of truth: you want universal freedom and democracy? This is what people demand in Egypt, so why are the neocons uneasy? Is it because the protesters in Egypt mention freedom and dignity in the same breath as social and economic justice?

From the start, the violence of the protesters has been purely symbolic, an act of radical and collective civil disobedience. They suspended the authority of the state – it was not just an inner liberation, but a social act of breaking chains of servitude. The physical violence was done by the hired Mubarak thugs entering Tahrir Square on horses and camels and beating people; the most protesters did was defend themselves.

Although combative, the message of the protesters has not been one of killing. The demand was for Mubarak to go, and thus open up the space for freedom in Egypt, a freedom from which no one is excluded – the protesters' call to the army, and even the hated police, was not "Death to you!", but "We are brothers! Join us!". This feature clearly distinguishes an emancipatory demonstration from a rightwing populist one: although the right's mobilisation proclaims the organic unity of the people, it is a unity sustained by a call to annihilate the designated enemy (Jews, traitors).

So where are we now? When an authoritarian regime approaches the final crisis, its dissolution tends to follow two steps. Before its actual collapse, a rupture takes place: all of a sudden people know that the game is over, they are simply no longer afraid. It is not only that the regime loses its legitimacy; its exercise of power itself is perceived as an impotent panic reaction. We all know the classic scene from cartoons: the cat reaches a precipice but goes on walking, ignoring the fact that there is no ground under its feet; it starts to fall only when it looks down and notices the abyss. When it loses its authority, the regime is like a cat above the precipice: in order to fall, it only has to be reminded to look down …

In Shah of Shahs, a classic account of the Khomeini revolution, Ryszard Kapuscinski located the precise moment of this rupture: at a Tehran crossroads, a single demonstrator refused to budge when a policeman shouted at him to move, and the embarrassed policeman withdrew; within hours, all Tehran knew about this incident, and although street fights went on for weeks, everyone somehow knew the game was over.

Is something similar going on in Egypt? For a couple of days at the beginning, it looked like Mubarak was already in the situation of the proverbial cat. Then we saw a well-planned operation to kidnap the revolution. The obscenity of this was breathtaking: the new vice-president, Omar Suleiman, a former secret police chief responsible for mass tortures, presented himself as the "human face" of the regime, the person to oversee the transition to democracy.

Egypt's struggle of endurance is not a conflict of visions, it is the conflict between a vision of freedom and a blind clinging to power that uses all means possible – terror, lack of food, simple tiredness, bribery with raised salaries – to squash the will to freedom.

When President Obama welcomed the uprising as a legitimate expression of opinion that needs to be acknowledged by the government, the confusion was total: the crowds in Cairo and Alexandria did not want their demands to be acknowledged by the government, they denied the very legitimacy of the government. They didn't want the Mubarak regime as a partner in a dialogue, they wanted Mubarak to go. They didn't simply want a new government that would listen to their opinion, they wanted to reshape the entire state. They don't have an opinion, they are the truth of the situation in Egypt. Mubarak understands this much better than Obama: there is no room for compromise here, as there was none when the Communist regimes were challenged in the late 1980s. Either the entire Mubarak power edifice falls down, or the uprising is co-opted and betrayed.

And what about the fear that, after the fall of Mubarak, the new government will be hostile towards Israel? If the new government is genuinely the expression of a people that proudly enjoys its freedom, then there is nothing to fear: antisemitism can only grow in conditions of despair and oppression. (A CNN report from an Egyptian province showed how the government is spreading rumours there that the organisers of the protests and foreign journalists were sent by the Jews to weaken Egypt – so much for Mubarak as a friend of the Jews.)

One of the cruellest ironies of the current situation is the west's concern that the transition should proceed in a "lawful" way – as if Egypt had the rule of law until now. Are we already forgetting that, for many long years, Egypt was in a permanent state of emergency? Mubarak suspended the rule of law, keeping the entire country in a state of political immobility, stifling genuine political life. It makes sense that so many people on the streets of Cairo claim that they now feel alive for the first time in their lives. Whatever happens next, what is crucial is that this sense of "feeling alive" is not buried by cynical realpolitik.

Responding to the Worst Speech Ever
Posted By Marc Lynch Thursday, February 10, 2011 - 10:12 PM Share
http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/20 ... c4f4910a,0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It's hard to exaggerate how bad Hosni Mubarak's speech today was for Egypt. In the extended runup to his remarks, every sign indicated that he planned to announce his resignation: the military's announcement that it had taken control, the shift in state television coverage, a steady stream of leaks about the speech. With the whole world watching, Mubarak instead offered a meandering, confused speech promising vague Constitutional changes and defiance of foreign pressure. He offered a vaguely worded delegation of power to Vice President Omar Suleiman, long after everyone in Egypt had stopped listening. It is virtually impossible to conceive of a more poorly conceived or executed speech.

Omar Suleiman's televised address which followed made things even worse, if that's possible, telling the people to go home and blaming al-Jazeera for the problems. It solidified the already deep distrust of his role among most of the opposition and of the protestors, and tied his fate to that of Mubarak. Even potentially positive ideas in their speeches, such as Constitutional amendments, were completely drowned out by their contemptuous treatment of popular demands. Things could get ugly tonight --- and if things don't explode now, then the crowds tomorrow will be absolutely massive. Whatever happens, for better or for worse, the prospects of an orderly, negotiated transition led by Omar Suleiman have just plummeted sharply.

I don't think anyone really knows how things will break in the next 12-36 hours. It seems pretty clear that most people, from the Obama administration to Egyptian government and opposition leaders, expected Mubarak to announce his departure tonight -- and that they had good reasons to believe that. That turned out to be wrong. As I just mentioned on the BBC, I don't think anybody knows what's going on inside Mubarak's head right now, though he certainly seems out of touch with what is really going on. I suspect that his decision may have changed from earlier in the day, and that people inside the Egyptian military and regime are themselves scrambling to figure out their next move. If the military has any plans to step in this would be a good time -- especially after the military's communique #1 seemed to suggest that it was breaking in the other direction.

Obama doesn't have a lot of great options right now. Its policy of steadily mounting private and public pressure to force Mubarak to leave, and for his successor to begin a meaningful transition to real democratic change, seems to have almost worked. But for now seems to have foundered on Mubarak's obstinance. The administration, which is conferring even as I wrote this, can't be silent in the face of Mubarak and Suleiman's disastrous decision. It needs to continue to pound on its message that it demands that a real transition begin immediately, and to do whatever it can to make that happen now... even if its leverage remains limited. It should express its sharp disappointment with what it heard today, and continue to push the military to avoid using violence in the tense hours to come. Mubarak's speech today, with its frequent references to foreign pressure, poses a direct challenge to Obama (and also suggests how much pressure he was in fact receiving). Those who are suggesting that Obama wanted Mubarak to stay are nuts. Now it's time to double down on the push for an orderly transition to real democracy before it's too late --- and that is now.

UPDATE, 9:30pm: The Cable has posted the full text of President Obama's statement following the Mubarak speech. It is a strong statement: "The Egyptian government must put forward a credible, concrete and unequivocal path toward genuine democracy, and they have not yet seized that opportunity. " The calls to restrain violence and listen to the voice of the Egyptian people are also important. Let's hope that the message gets through before things get (more) out of control.

Robert Fisk: As Mubarak clings on... What now for Egypt?
The fury of a people whose hopes were raised and then dashed

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 11287.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
To the horror of Egyptians and the world, President Hosni Mubarak – haggard and apparently disoriented – appeared on state television last night to refuse every demand of his opponents by staying in power for at least another five months. The Egyptian army, which had already initiated a virtual coup d'état, was nonplussed by the President's speech which had been widely advertised – by both his friends and his enemies – as a farewell address after 30 years of dictatorship. The vast crowds in Tahrir Square were almost insane with anger and resentment.

Mubarak tried – unbelievably – to placate his infuriated people with a promise to investigate the killings of his opponents in what he called "the unfortunate, tragic events", apparently unaware of the mass fury directed at his dictatorship for his three decades of corruption, brutality and repression.

The old man had originally appeared ready to give up, faced at last with the rage of millions of Egyptians and the power of history, sealed off from his ministers like a bacillus, only grudgingly permitted by his own army from saying goodbye to the people who hated him.

Yet the very moment that Hosni Mubarak embarked on what was supposed to be his final speech, he made it clear that he intended to cling to power. To the end, the President's Information Minister insisted he would not leave. There were those who, to the very last moment, feared that Mubarak's departure would be cosmetic – even though his presidency had evaporated in the face of his army's decision to take power earlier in the evening.

History may later decide that the army's lack of faith in Mubarak effectively lost his presidency after three decades of dictatorship, secret police torture and government corruption. Confronted by even greater demonstrations on the streets of Egypt today, even the army could not guarantee the safety of the nation. Yet for Mubarak's opponents, today will not be a day of joy and rejoicing and victory but a potential bloodbath.

But was this a victory for Mubarak or a military coup d'état? Can Egypt ever be free? For the army generals to insist upon his departure was as dramatic as it was dangerous. Are they, a state within a state, now truly the guardians of the nation, defenders of the people – or will they continue to support a man who must be judged now as close to insanity? The chains which bound the military to the corruption of Mubarak's regime were real. Are they to stand by democracy – or cement a new Mubarak regime?

Even as Mubarak was still speaking, the millions in Tahrir Square roared their anger and fury and disbelief. Of course, the millions of courageous Egyptians who fought the whole apparatus of state security run by Mubarak should have been the victors. But as yesterday afternoon's events proved all too clearly, it was the senior generals – who enjoy the luxury of hotel chains, shopping malls, real estate and banking concessions from the same corrupt regime – who permitted Mubarak to survive. At an ominous meeting of the Supreme Council of the Egyptian Armed Forces, Defence Minister Mohamed Tantawi – one of Mubarak's closest friends – agreed to meet the demands of the millions of democracy protesters, without stating that the regime would itself be dissolved. Mubarak himself, commander-in-chief of the army, was not permitted to attend.

But this is a Middle Eastern epic, one of those incremental moments when the Arab people – forgotten, chastised, infantilised, repressed, often beaten, tortured too many times, occasionally hanged – will still strive to give the great wheel of history a shove, and shake off the burden of their lives. Last night, however, dictatorship had still won. Democracy had lost.

All day, the power of the people had grown as the prestige of the President and his hollow party collapsed. The vast crowds in Tahrir Square began yesterday to move out over all of central Cairo, even moving behind the steel gates of the People's Assembly, setting up their tents in front of the pseudo-Greek parliament building in a demand for new and fair elections. Today, they were planning to enter the parliament itself, taking over the symbol of Mubarak's fake "democracy". Fierce arguments among the army hierarchy – and apparently between Vice-President Omar Suleiman and Mubarak himself – continued while strikes and industrial stoppages spread across Egypt. Well over seven million protesters were estimated to be on the streets of Egypt yesterday – the largest political demonstration in the country's modern history, greater even than the six million who attended the funeral of Gamal Abdul Nasser, the first Egyptian dictator whose rule continued through Anwar Sadat's vain presidency and the three dead decades of Mubarak.

It was too early, last night, for the crowds in Tahrir Square to understand the legal complexities of Mubarak's speech. But it was patronising, self-serving and immensely dangerous. The Egyptian constitution insists that presidential power must pass to the speaker of parliament, a colourless Mubarak crony called Fatih Srour, and elections – fair ones, if this can be imagined – held within 60 days. But many believe that Suleiman may choose to rule by some new emergency law and then push Mubarak out of power, staking out a timetable for new and fraudulent elections and yet another terrible epoch of dictatorship. The truth, however, is that

the millions of Egyptians who have tried to unseat their Great Dictator regard their constitution – and the judiciary and the entire edifice of government institutions – with the same contempt as they do Mubarak. They want a new constitution, new laws to limit the powers and tenure of presidents, new and early elections which will reflect the "will of the people" rather than the will of the president or the transition president, or of generals and brigadiers and state security thugs.

Last night, a military officer guarding the tens of thousands celebrating in Cairo threw down his rifle and joined the demonstrators, yet another sign of the ordinary Egyptian soldier's growing sympathy for the democracy demonstrators. We had witnessed many similar sentiments from the army over the past two weeks. But the critical moment came on the evening of 30 January when, it is now clear, Mubarak ordered the Egyptian Third Army to crush the demonstrators in Tahrir Square with their tanks after flying F-16 fighter bombers at low level over the protesters.

Many of the senior tank commanders could be seen tearing off their headsets – over which they had received the fatal orders – to use their mobile phones. They were, it now transpires, calling their own military families for advice. Fathers who had spent their lives serving the Egyptian army told their sons to disobey, that they must never kill their own people.

Thus when General Hassan al-Rawani told the massive crowds yesterday evening that "everything you want will be realised – all your demands will be met", the people cried back: "The army and the people stand together – the army and the people are united. The army and the people belong to one hand."

Last night, the Cairo court prevented three ministers – so far unnamed, although they almost certainly inc-lude the Minister of Interior – from leaving Egypt.

But neither the army nor Vice-President Suleiman are likely to be able to face the far greater demonstrations planned for today, a fact that was conveyed to 83-year-old Mubarak by Tantawi himself, standing next to Suleiman. Tantawi and another general – believed to be the commander of the Cairo military area – called Washington, according to a senior Egyptian officer, to pass on the news to Robert Gates at the Pentagon. It must have been a sobering moment. For days, the White House had been grimly observing the mass demonstrations in Cairo, fearful that they would turn into a mythical Islamist monster, frightened that Mubarak might leave, even more terrified he might not.

The events of the past 12 hours have not, alas, been a victory for the West. American and European leaders who rejoiced at the fall of communist dictatorships have sat glumly regarding the extraordinary and wildly hopeful events in Cairo – a victory of morality over corruption and cruelty – with the same enthusiasm as many East European dictators watched the fall of their Warsaw Pact nations. Calls for stability and an "orderly" transition of power were, in fact, appeals for Mubarak to stay in power – as he is still trying to do – rather than a ringing endorsement of the demands of the overwhelming pro-democracy movement that should have struck him down.

Timeline...

11.00 As demonstrators mass in Cairo's Tahrir Square, the Foreign Minister warns of a military coup if protests continue

15.15 The Egyptian Prime Minister, Ahmed Shafiq, tells the BBC Arabic Service that Mubarak may step down

15.20 The secretary general of the ruling NDP party, Hossan Badrawy, says he expects Mubarak to make an announcement that will satisfy protesters' demands

15.30 An Egyptian army commander tells protesters in Tahrir Square that: "Everything you want will be realised"

15.45 Egypt's military council releases a statement saying it is in continuous session and the army will take necessary measures to "safeguard the homeland", in the clearest sign that Mubarak will be on his way out soon

16.04 The Information Minister, Anas el-Fekky, says Mubarak is in fact not stepping down and remains Egypt's President

16.15 Al Arabiya television station carries an unconfirmed report that Mubarak has travelled to the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh with his army chief of staff

17.11 A senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood, the biggest opposition group, says he fears the army is staging a coup

20.50 Defying expectations Mubarak speaks on state TV, giving no indication that he will step down soon

did someone say we can burn the jews now???

ben ttech wrote:did someone say we can burn the jews now???

Yes, but only you and those of your own faith...
,
WHAB

CIA Panetta Confused: Said Strong likelihood Mubarak would 'step down tonight'...
...based Congressional testimony on 'media broadcasts'

Obama Faces a Stark Choice on Mubarak

By MARK LANDLER and MARK MAZZETTI
February 10, 2011

WASHINGTON — President Hosni Mubarak’s refusal to step down on Thursday, after a day of rumors galvanized the crowds in Cairo, confronts the Obama administration with a stark choice: break decisively with Mr. Mubarak or stick to its call for an “orderly transition” that may no longer be tenable.

On a day of dashed hopes in Egypt, the administration’s attempts to balance the democratic aspirations of the protesters against a fear of contributing to broader instability in the Middle East collided head-on with Mr. Mubarak’s defiant refusal to relinquish his office.

To some extent, Mr. Mubarak opened the door for President Obama to appeal even more directly to the protesters, some of whom have felt betrayed by the administration’s cautious approach, saying it placed strategic interests ahead of democratic values. In his speech, Mr. Mubarak said he would not brook foreign interference, suggesting that he was digging in his heels after days of prodding by the United States for “immediate, irreversible” change.

Mr. Obama’s remarks earlier in the day, in which he celebrated the hopes of a “young generation” of Egyptians, were broadcast in Cairo, drawing cheers from the protesters.

“The administration has to put everything on the line now,” said Thomas Malinowski, the Washington director of Human Rights Watch, who has been among several outside experts advising the White House on Egypt in recent days. “Whatever cards they have, this is the time to play them.”

In its first reaction, the administration offered few overt signs of a change in policy. While criticizing the move as insufficient, it made no direct call for Mr. Mubarak’s resignation. But in a statement, the White House called on his government to explain “in clear and unambiguous language” how a transition of power would take place.

Mr. Obama watched Mr. Mubarak’s speech on board Air Force One, returning from a trip to Michigan, the press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said. As soon as he arrived at the White House, Mr. Obama huddled with his national security aides. The administration appeared as taken aback by Mr. Mubarak’s speech as the crowds in Tahrir Square. The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon E. Panetta, testified before the House of Representatives on Thursday morning that there was a “strong likelihood” that Mr. Mubarak would step down by the end of the day.

American officials said Mr. Panetta was basing his statement not on secret intelligence but on media broadcasts, which began circulating before he sat down before the House Intelligence Committee. But a senior administration official said Mr. Obama had also expected that Egypt was on the cusp of dramatic change. Speaking at Northern Michigan University in Marquette, he said, “We are witnessing history unfold,” adding, “America will do everything we can to support an orderly and genuine transition to democracy.”

The chaotic events on Thursday called much of the administration’s strategy in dealing with the Egyptian crisis into question. For days, the administration has pinned its hopes on a transition process managed by the Egyptian vice president, Omar Suleiman. But Mr. Suleiman followed Mr. Mubarak on television, aligning himself squarely with his boss, urging the protesters to decamp, go back to work and stop watching foreign satellite TV channels. That extravagant show of loyalty may doom any chances for Mr. Suleiman to function as an honest broker in the transition — something on which the administration had been counting, in part because it has good relations with Mr. Suleiman, a former head of Egyptian intelligence.

“The administration had been looking toward Suleiman to handle the orderly part of the orderly transition,” said Martin S. Indyk, the director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. “But this week, he raised doubts about whether he had made the conversion to a democrat. And now Mubarak has dragged Suleiman down with him, in the eyes of the protesters.”

For the administration, as for the crowds, it was a day of keen anticipation, followed by intense confusion. CNN was on in offices across Washington, with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other officials waiting for a speech that they believed would be a major step forward in the crisis.

Shortly after the speech, Egypt’s ambassador to Washington, Sameh Shoukry, said he called the White House to say that Mr. Mubarak had in fact delegated his powers to Mr. Suleiman — a move that was hardly clear in a lengthy address that focused more on his refusal to be ousted.

“He now has all the authorities bestowed on the president by the Constitution,” Mr. Shoukry said of Mr. Suleiman in an interview, including command of the military. Mr. Mubarak, the ambassador said, retains the power to amend the Constitution, dissolve Parliament and dismiss the cabinet. And Mr. Mubarak could always take power back.

Defending Mr. Suleiman, Mr. Shoukry said, “The vice president’s statements indicated his desire to fulfill the reform process and continue the dialogue with the opposition.”

Mr. Panetta’s rather firm declaration to Congress about Mr. Mubarak’s exit came at an awkward moment. American officials said Mr. Obama was unhappy about some of the recent judgments of American spy agencies, in particular the conclusion that President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia would remain in power and that Tunisian security forces would come to his defense.

Defending the C.I.A.’s work on Thursday, Mr. Panetta said that the agency last year issued nearly 400 reports about simmering tensions in the Middle East, and the “potential for disruption.” Mr. Panetta compared the difficulty of making intelligence judgments to forecasting earthquakes: even mapping the fault lines cannot give you precise information about the next earthquake.

Still, Mr. Panetta said that his agency needed to better understand the “triggers” that can set off events like the protests in Egypt. He said that he had asked C.I.A. station chiefs for “better collection on issues like popular sentiments, issues like the strength of the opposition, issues like what is the role of the Internet in that particular country” and similar topics.

Speaking to the same House panel, the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper, gave spy agencies a grade of “B-plus, if not A-minus” for their recent Middle East forecasting. But, he cautioned, “We are not clairvoyant.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/world ... .html?_r=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"American officials said Mr. Panetta was basing his statement not on secret intelligence but on media broadcasts, which began circulating before he sat down before the House Intelligence Committee."



Just brilliant...



“We are witnessing history unfold,”

Indeed we are! Historical buffoonery...



,
WHAB

he should have just asked his clergy who would have know???



meanwhile in cario, 10,000 plus citizens have surrounded the palace...

mubarak has fled the cario...

the streets in jordan are filling with supporters

He's resigned.

THE PEOPLE WON!

for now anyway. It is pretty incredible. Now the hard part, prying the military off the Throne

The Devil's in the details, but I wouldn't bet against El Masri achieving real democracy! Now, for the aftershocks.... who's next? Best guesses? Palestine anyone? Non-violent resistance would short-circuit the Israeli state's control of it's subject Arabs. Can it travel to that bi-national bloodfued?

~O~

The will in Palestine seems to be there if what I've been reading is true. What's the relationship between rank and file Palestinians and Hamas?? What happens to Egypt's blockade on Gaza now?? Nothing in the short term I guess, whilst the Army is in charge (and their paymasters in Washington).

I think Mubarek wrong-footed the Army and the Americans last night, and embarrassed Obama. It seems he was expected to stand down last night. Not doing so, could have been the final nail in an almost closed coffin?? Maybe Obama phoned Mubarek today and told him, this time; he was a very naughty boy and sent him to bed without supper to be had ever again.

Little Kate Chaos wrote:The will in Palestine seems to be there if what I've been reading is true. What's the relationship between rank and file Palestinians and Hamas?? What happens to Egypt's blockade on Gaza now?? Nothing in the short term I guess, whilst the Army is in charge (and their paymasters in Washington).

I think Mubarek wrong-footed the Army and the Americans last night, and embarrassed Obama. It seems he was expected to stand down last night. Not doing so, could have been the final nail in an almost closed coffin?? Maybe Obama phoned Mubarek today and told him, this time; he was a very naughty boy and sent him to bed without supper to be had ever again.

Well, we know that there are no Fatah personalities in the PA with any legitimacy; they're all in Israeli prisons, and that Hamas won a landslide in the only free and fair election ever in Palestine.

The siege of Gaza is as over as the regime. It's as despised by the people as Mubarack. All they have to do is turn a blind eye to smuggling. but I see it happening formally soon.

I always credit the isolation and disconnection of sycophanty with dick-taters, but we did our own share of wrong-footing him. Pannetta predicting his fall? Even if it's true, no Arab leader wants to be seen to be instructed by the CIA.

BTW, did you know that Soliman liked to do his own torture in important cases as Mukhabarat chief?

In Egypt [in 2001], as [Egyptian-born Australian citizen Mamdouh] Habib recounts in his memoir, My Story: The Tale of a Terrorist Who Wasn’t, he was repeatedly subjected to electric shocks, immersed in water up to his nostrils and beaten. His fingers were broken and he was hung from metal hooks. At one point, his interrogator slapped him so hard that his blindfold was dislodged, revealing the identity of his tormentor: Suleiman.

Frustrated that Habib was not providing useful information or confessing to involvement in terrorism, Suleiman ordered a guard to murder a shackled prisoner in front of Habib, which he did with a vicious karate kick.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/op ... 82865.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Quite the bloody bastard eh? Here's how he looks to Egyptians:

Who does this describe here?

How Anti Jihadists Lose All Credibility
from The American Conservative

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2011/02 ... edibility/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...
Like some of the other more hysterical reactions against the protests, the IBD editorial serves as a useful reminder that the judgment of a lot of anti-jihadists in the West is hopelessly impaired by their complete failure to make any distinctions among Muslims or between different groups of Islamists. The catch-all term “Islamofascism” is the perfect symbol of this tendency to conflate everything together. Even if they happen to make some valid observations along the way, their overall interpretation and understanding of politics and religion in the Near East and elsewhere are so flawed that their analysis can’t be taken very seriously. It is the anti-jihadist hysterics’ crying wolf at every opportunity that makes people completely indifferent and hostile to any warnings that come from them...

To me; extremist freaks like Ben and WHAB have no place in politics. Or amongst those who want free will.

It's their way. Or violence to protect 'their way'. The irony being, they don't get that they are exactly what they hate, with just different flavours of extremism.

Disregarding such extremist freaks safe from a keyboard, it's going to be interesting times.

There has to be a certain satisfaction tonight in Egypt that the Tyrant has to be cognizant of the total euphoria that "his" Nation is experiencing with his mostly non-violent removal. Same with the rest of his criminal family and henchmen. And being a 'secret' policeman might not be the most secure of occupations let alone positions with piece of mind at the moment. he he. The President, and I am no big fan, did a good job of walking the line in this Revolution. Blasted on both sides repeatedly, I think the US came out as looking fairly reasonable in the end. The US Government did not make the absurd mistake of sticking with the Tyrant until too late.

I agree, I think the US played it cool when considering what is at stake. Rock and a hard place springs to mind.

I wonder if amongst the euphoria of those in the square anyone there has considered too much of what is next.

If a situation is horrendous, then maybe peeps don't think too much beyond stopping that situation. Cooler, detached heads will have been planning for d-day +1 for weeks, whether that be in February or September. And I'm not thinking just Washington/Tel Aviv, but within Egypt and the wider Middle East.

Like any cocaine user knows, the euphoria is washed away quickly. Then what??

Kinda hard to look good as we, out of naked expediency, drop our faithful puppet, while yet pretending, out of something like embarrassment -were we so capable, to not just welcome but support the development.

But, lets give some credit where due; dubya, indirectly, seems to have inspired all of this:

..."Protesting against Bush's violent means of spreading democracy, a loosely formed group organized the largest demonstrations in Egypt's history around the March 20, 2003, invasion. They eventually became known as Kefaya, meaning "Enough." Adopting the mission to bring down Mubarak and restore power to the Egyptian people, Kefaya held regular protests that called for the end of the emergency law, more freedom for the Egyptian people, and better handling of the economy -- essentially similar demands seen in Tahrir Square today. After heavy activity in 2004 and 2005, the movement fizzled due to apparent conflicts between the Islamic and liberal activists. Out of Kefaya grew the April 6 Youth Movement whose members and affiliates played an integral role in this year's #Jan25 demonstrations"...

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_ ... faya_jan25" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Little Kate Chaos wrote:To me; extremist freaks like Ben and WHAB have no place in politics. Or amongst those who want free will.

It's their way. Or violence to protect 'their way'. The irony being, they don't get that they are exactly what they hate, with just different flavours of extremism.

Disregarding such extremist freaks safe from a keyboard, it's going to be interesting times.

Ben knows human nature won't ever allow his utopia and knows how far outside the box he is.....Whab on the other hand is right in the middle of the box, Whab really isn't an extremist since he's a dime a dozen and Ben is only an extremist if you don't know where he's coming from (Devil's advocate)....Their both hypocrites but who isn't...?....I still don't know how pure either of their intentions are but I bet if you smoked a joint with either of them your opinion would change.

Little Kate Chaos wrote:To me; extremist freaks like Ben and WHAB have no place in politics. Or amongst those who want free will.

youd call a drowing man an extremists for wanting a breath of air...

fucking whore...

everyone who sucked mubaracks dick in the last month is done posting to this thread...

thats you kate...




Published on Friday, February 11, 2011 by The Guardian/UK
Will Mubarak's Resignation Signal Genuine Progress for Egypt?
With the president gone there may be changes to the political system, or the ruling elite could just find a new public face
by Ian Black, Middle East editor

Hosni Mubarak's dramatic departure marks the end of an era for Egypt and the Middle East. Thirty years of his rule has left a deep impression on his country's domestic affairs and external relations. Without him, much could change on many fronts — at home and across the region.

Goodbye to all that: Was Hosni Mubarak jettisoned by Egypt's rulers in order to create a similar regime with a different leader? (Photograph: Amr Abdallah Dalsh/Reuters) Egyptian politics, like all politics, are local, and what happens next depends crucially on the readiness of the military establishment to oversee what Barack Obama has called a genuine transition to democracy, in line with the thunderous demands of the now triumphant protestors massed in Cairo's Tahrir Square.

It was always likely that the army, the most powerful player in Egyptian politics since the 1952 revolution, would step in as the guardian of stability. The US, Israel and most other Arab regimes will most likely welcome that, keeping their qualms to themselves. So, for the moment, will many ordinary Egyptians – but only if it is the prelude to far-reaching change.

Rule by the military can only be temporary. Mubarak's exit, the dissolution of what is seen as an illegitimate parliament, constitutional reforms and abolition of the emergency laws are all non-negotiable. If those reforms are achieved, then Egypt will have witnessed a real revolution – beyond the removal of a stubborn 82-year-old president long past his sell-by date.

It seems clear from the events of recent days – especially the confusion and contradictory messages on Thursday — that the army is divided. If it moves solely to protect its own privileged position, and that of the big businessmen who have done so well out of their links with the regime – then the system will not open up, at least not without large-scale repression and bloodshed.

Mubarak's replacement by the armed forces will mean a resumption of the talks that began earlier this week on constitutional and other changes, though they were pronounced dead almost before they began.

With good will it should be possible to amend or rewrite the constitution to allow the election of a new parliament and president. It could, however, all still take months to agree, risking impatience in the streets and new unrest.

Egypt's extraordinary change matters first for Egypt's 82 million people. But what happens in the Arab world's most populous country matters for many millions of other Arabs, who also suffer from unemployment, inequality, corruption and unresponsive, unaccountable governments – and share the language in which it is being covered in media such as al-Jazeera and social networking sites that official censors cannot easily block.

Other authoritarian regimes, shocked first by the uprising in Tunisia and now in Egypt, have been trying to pre-empt trouble by promises of reform, sacking ministers, maintaining subsidies or raising wages to buy off critics and defuse tensions. The symptoms are visible from Yemen to Jordan, from Algeria to Syria.

Egypt's political future also matters enormously to the US – thus the importance of the policy pronouncements from Washington since the crisis began, shown again by Obama's renewed call on for an "orderly and genuine transition" to the post-Mubarak era.

In the 1960s and 1970s, Egypt was a Soviet client, but it changed sides in 1979 by signing a taboo-breaking peace treaty with Israel, after four wars that cost it thousands of lives.

First under Anwar Sadat, and then under Mubarak, the relationship with the US blossomed to one of high-level strategic co-operation, so much so that Egyptian forces took part in the liberation of Kuwait after the Iraqi invasion in 1990.

Egypt remains a vital asset in allowing US military overflights, as the guardian of the strategically vital Suez canal, and a loyal ally in the regional confrontation with Iran.

Mubarak has played a key role in supporting the western-backed Palestinian Authority and containing the Islamist movement Hamas in the Gaza Strip, not least because of its affinity with the banned Muslim Brotherhood – whose likely future role in a freer Egyptian political system is a key and much-discussed issue both at home and abroad.

The events of the last 18 days have forced Obama to shift away from stability to embracing if not promoting democracy – to the evident discomfort of other conservative Arab friends, especially the Saudis. Jordan and Yemen share those concerns – fearing that unconditional US support for them may now also wane.

Israel has also let it be known in no uncertain terms that it prefers stability as the best guarantor of the peace treaty and as a barrier to Isalmist power and hinted that an Iranian-type revolution may be unfolding on the banks of the Nile.

But any realistic appraisal would conclude that the Egyptian military and security establishment as currently constituted has no interest in undermining its strategic relationships with either Washington or Tel Aviv – the latter in particular deeply unpopular with the mass of Egyptians. Signs of that outlook changing over time will be watched very closely.
© 2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/fe ... t-analysis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/02/11-6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sun wrote:

Little Kate Chaos wrote:To me; extremist freaks like Ben and WHAB have no place in politics. Or amongst those who want free will.

It's their way. Or violence to protect 'their way'. The irony being, they don't get that they are exactly what they hate, with just different flavours of extremism.

Disregarding such extremist freaks safe from a keyboard, it's going to be interesting times.

Ben knows human nature won't ever allow his utopia and knows how far outside the box he is.....Whab on the other hand is right in the middle of the box, Whab really isn't an extremist since he's a dime a dozen and Ben is only an extremist if you don't know where he's coming from (Devil's advocate)....Their both hypocrites but who isn't...?....I still don't know how pure either of their intentions are but I bet if you smoked a joint with either of them your opinion would change.

Like you Juicey?? A nice guy in the real world?? Misunderstood everywhere else??

Sure, everyone is a hypocrite to a degree, and I never said I'd not 'like' them or don't know that many act up online. An 'audience with' evening would be the nuts delightful. Ben could whisper sweet musings like "bitch....whore....slut" in my ear all night and WHAB could argue whether the beer he was having was beer or not. With himself.

It's their politics that are wonky to me. It doesn't make their extremism 'invalid opinion'. Horses for courses.

weenie...

ive never engaged in politics.
its not political, to insist on a fair debate with all the facts in evidence...

its a stalwart positions, only REFERED TO on occasion by politics...





you scumbags can turn in your flimbsy wrist panty waste selfs anytime,
get your shitbags out of the way,

get a real debate,

ive told you before,
your gonna HATE ME then,

cuz i honestly know how to compromise...

something NONE OF YOU DO, given your lock stepped revolt at the insistance that policy should be created at a table where everyone subject is allowed to speak for themselves...


kiss off bitch!
please for god sakes,
shut up

Now Kids! Can't we just Get A Bong?
For those in quaking dread of the Muslim Brotherhood, maybe this might help to soothe a nerve

The Guardian flags this interesting statement from the Muslim Brotherhood:

The Muslim Brotherhood ... are not seeking personal gains, so they announce they will not run for the presidency and will not seek to get a majority in the parliament and that they consider themselves servants of these decent people. We support and value the sound direction that the Higher Military Council is taking on the way to transfer power peacefully to create a civilian government in line with the will of the people.

Of course it could be a devious Islamofascist mis-direction ploy...

You love me really Ben.

Anti-Government protests in Algeria and Yemen were broken up today by police in Algeria and by pro-Government thugs in the Yemen (those who deem violence as an acceptable political weapon....take note peeps ).

In other news, the military command in Egypt have announced that they will honour the in situ international agreements, namely the 1979 peace deal with Israel. Tel Aviv and Washington appear pleased with this. Which is a good thing....if you're an Egyptian General....and Washington are paying your salary and providing all your soldier toys.

Jolly Roger wrote:Now Kids! Can't we just Get A Bong?
For those in quaking dread of the Muslim Brotherhood, maybe this might help to soothe a nerve

The Guardian flags this interesting statement from the Muslim Brotherhood:

The Muslim Brotherhood ... are not seeking personal gains, so they announce they will not run for the presidency and will not seek to get a majority in the parliament and that they consider themselves servants of these decent people. We support and value the sound direction that the Higher Military Council is taking on the way to transfer power peacefully to create a civilian government in line with the will of the people.

Of course it could be a devious Islamofascist mis-direction ploy...

It won't allay WHAB's team's fears. They would hate "The Guardian" newspaper and see it as a biased, unobjective left wing piece. Which it is, in fairness.

WHAB's team will take at face value the Muslim Brotherhood's talk that feeds their fear.

WHAB's team will call 'lies' on the Muslim Brotherhood's talk that might allay their fear.

They like to be fearful, maybe?? Justifies that 300 Billions USD annual Defence spend. It's good to be fearful....keeps one alert.

something NONE OF YOU DO

But you sure know how to generalize, please explain how you can compromise and I can't.....I have about as an open mind as it gets and know how to say I was wrong....I can meet anyone in the middle if I feel the need.

Algeria is where we (America and France on behalf of the corporate West) plotted with the Algerian Army to nullify the '91 Islamic Salvation Front (the mildest of Western focused Islamic parties) landslide victory in free, fair and open elections, and along with it Algerian and Arab democracy for a generation... Our Arab "Mossedegh Moment.

~O~

Algeria protesters push for change
Pro-democracy demonstrators, inspired by the Egyptian revolution, ignore official ban and march in the capital Algiers.
Last Modified: 12 Feb 2011 05:25 GMT
Email ArticlePrint ArticleShare ArticleSend Feedback

Many demonstrators in Algeria have been inspired by the events unfolding in Egypt and Tunisia [AFP]
Algerian security forces and pro-democracy protesters have clashed in the capital, Algiers, amid demonstrations inspired by the revolution in Egypt.

At least 2,000 protesters were able to overcome a security cordon enforced around the city's May First Square on Saturday, joining other demonstrators calling for reform.

Earlier, thousands of police in riot gear were in position to stop the demonstrations that could mimic the uprising which forced out Hosni Mubarak, Egypt's long-serving president.

Security forces closed all entrances to Algiers and arrested hundreds of protesters, sources told Al Jazeera.

Elias Filali, an Algerian blogger and activist, said human rights activists and syndicate members were among those arrested at the scene of the protests.

"I'm right in the middle of the march," he told Al Jazeera. "People are being arrested and are heavily guarded by the police."

Officials banned Saturday's opposition march but protesters were determined to see it through.

Peaceful protests

Filali said the demonstrators were determined to remain peaceful, but he claimed that the police "want the crowd to go violent and then get them portrayed as a violent crowd".

Protesters are demanding greater democratic freedoms, a change of government and more jobs.

Earlier, police also charged at demonstrators and arrested 10 people outside the Algiers offices of the opposition Rally for Culture and Democracy (RCD), as they celebrated Mubarak's downfall, Said Sadi, RCD leader, told the AFP news agency.

"It wasn't even an organised demonstration. It was spontaneous. It was an explosion of joy," he said.

Mubarak's resignation on Friday, and last month's overthrow of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Tunisia's president for 23 years, have electrified the Arab world.

Many are left wondering which country could be next in a region where a flammable mix of authoritarian rule and popular anger are the norm.

"The timing is absolutely perfect. [Mubarak's departure] couldn't have come at a better time," Filali told Al Jazeera in the run-up to the protests.

"This is a police state, just like the Egyptian regime [was]."

Filali said Algeria's government was "corrupt to the bone, based on electoral fraud, and repression".

"There is a lot of discontent among young people ... the country is badly managed by a corrupt regime that does not want to listen".

Police on alert

Said Sadi, the RCD leader, had said earlier that he expected around 10,000 more police officers to reinforce the 20,000 who blocked the last demonstration on January 22, when five people were killed and more than 800 others hurt.

Police presence is routine in Algeria to counter the threat of attacks by al-Qaeda fighters. But Filali called the heavy police presence in the capital on Saturday "unbelievable".

At May First Square, the starting point for the planned march, there were around 40 police vans, jeeps and buses lined up, Filali said.

At several road junctions, the police had parked small military-style armoured vehicles which are rarely seen in the city. Police standing outside a fuel station, about 2km from the square, were wearing anti-riot body armour.

The latest rally is being organised by the National Co-ordination for Change and Democracy (CNCD), a three-week-old umbrella group of opposition parties, civil society movements and unofficial unions inspired by the mass protests in Tunisia and Egypt.

Demonstrators have been protesting over the last few months against unemployment, high food costs, poor housing and corruption - similar issues that fuelled uprisings in other north African nations.

Earlier this month, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, Algeria's president, said he would lift emergency powers, address unemployment and allow democratic marches to take place in the country, in a bid to stave off unrest.

"The regime is frightened," Filali said. "And the presence of 30,000 police officers in the capital gives you an idea of how frightened the regime [is] of its people."

Wider implications

Widespread unrest in Algeria could have implications for the world economy because it is a major oil and gas exporter, but many analysts say an Egypt-style revolt is unlikely as the government can use its energy wealth to placate most grievances.

Meanwhile, in a statement, Amnesty International, the London-based rights group, said "Algerians must be allowed to express themselves freely and hold peaceful protests in Algiers and elsewhere".

"We urge the Algerian authorities not to respond to these demands by using excessive force".

The government said it refused permission for the rally for public order reasons, not because it is trying to stifle dissent. It said it is working hard to create jobs, build new homes and improve public services.

Other Arab countries have also felt the ripples from the revolts in Egypt and Tunisia.

Jordan's King Abdullah replaced his prime minister after protests.

In Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh promised opponents he would not seek a new term as president.

The Bahraini government has also made several concessions in recent weeks, including promising higher social spending. Activists there have called for protests on February 14, the tenth anniversary of Bahrain's constitution.

anybody remember?

it was about 6 years ago id say...
mubarack said he would be happy to go to war with isreal,
said it would cost about 500 billion dollars...

said just as soon as he took delivery of the cost, he would be happy proceed

always wondered what the motivational situation for that comment were

Exactly- the assumptions built into that naively simplistic ad hoc conflation cannot produce a result that will square with reality.

Published on Sunday, February 13, 2011 by Reuters Egypt's New Military Rulers To Ban Union Meetings
by Marwa Awad and Alistair Lyon
BREAKING


Egyptian protesters stage a sit-in in Tahrir Square, rejecting army's appeal to leave. (John Moore/Getty Images) CAIRO - Egypt's new military rulers will issue a warning on Sunday against anyone who creates "chaos and disorder", an army source said.

The Higher Military Council will also ban meetings by labour unions or professional syndicates, effectively forbidding strikes, and tell all Egyptians to get back to work after the unrest that toppled Hosni Mubarak.



http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/02/13-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

bubbabush wrote:Now, for the aftershocks.... who's next? Best guesses? Can it travel to that bi-national bloodfued?

~O~

California is next to fall...



,
WHAB

bubbabush wrote:Who does this describe here?

How Anti Jihadists Lose All Credibility
from The American Conservative

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2011/02 ... edibility/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...
Like some of the other more hysterical reactions against the protests, the IBD editorial serves as a useful reminder that the judgment of a lot of anti-jihadists in the West is hopelessly impaired by their complete failure to make any distinctions among Muslims or between different groups of Islamists. The catch-all term “Islamofascism” is the perfect symbol of this tendency to conflate everything together. Even if they happen to make some valid observations along the way, their overall interpretation and understanding of politics and religion in the Near East and elsewhere are so flawed that their analysis can’t be taken very seriously. It is the anti-jihadist hysterics’ crying wolf at every opportunity that makes people completely indifferent and hostile to any warnings that come from them...

In light of the fact I've directly corrected you more than once, you fail to listen, it seems, boobie!

WHAB wrote:Once again YOU MISCONSTRUE [AGAIN]. Muslim's aren't the problem. Those of the Islamic faith aren't the problem. ISLAMIST'S are the problem.

Do you think before you die you'll ever understand that.

Bush went out of his way to prove that point and yet, you continue...

And I reiterate...

Do you think before you die you'll ever understand that, boobie?

,
WHAB

Well, to answer that specific question Ricki, I hope that I never degenerate to the point where I have to comfort myself by clinging to simplistic superstitious jingoistic nonsense like "ISLAMISTS are the problem." While one never knows the future: I suppose that I may suffer traumatic brain injury or disease; indeed whatever's afflicted you might afflict me, as long as I retain my sanity and cognition, I cannot imagine myself embracing such a premise. So, No.

~O~

bubbabush wrote:Well, to answer that specific question Ricki, I hope that I never degenerate to the point where I have to comfort myself by clinging to simplistic superstitious jingoistic nonsense like "ISLAMISTS are the problem." While one never knows the future: I suppose that I may suffer traumatic brain injury or disease; indeed whatever's afflicted you might afflict me, as long as I retain my sanity and cognition, I cannot imagine myself embracing such a premise. So, No.

~O~

Sorry to inform you--I know it should have been your mom--but it seems brain damage as already occurred...

WHAB wrote:Muslim's aren't the problem. Those of the Islamic faith aren't the problem.

Now you've learned to make "distinctions". Glad I could help, boobie...

,
WHAB

Whatever you're jerking off to at the moment Wahabbi.

~O~

the distinction the US military and HOMELAND security cant make...

which makes the torture and murder of innocent muslims ALL GOOD...
because with an elusive enemy you cant tell from good people...

you get to target the good people,
and kill them 1000 times for every islamist you find...



and for every innocent you kill in that society,
you CREATE 10 terrorists on the spot as a simple fact of the social responsibilities they have in their society...

thats how you CREATE an ENDLESS WAR again an enemy you cant find or defeat...

start killing innocent muslims
and say you had a good reason.

Sunni-ruled Shia Bahrain. The question here isn't just "their" king but can Saudi allow a Shia democracy right next to it's own oppressed-Shia capital, Dahran? Their king and government are "tolerated" by "the Kingdom" because of their amusement-park... er... country, but are taken as politically serious as it' sister-city-state, Monte-Carlo. Perhaps our porting there might mean something? I dunno, I spent some time around there, but it was mostly out in the deep desert, so I might as well have been on the Moon.
~O~

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 96622.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

bahrain-funeral.jpg (25.03 KiB) Viewed 1224 times

Protests Swell as Bahrain Demonstrators Mourn

MANAMA, Bahrain—Protests in Bahrain entered their third day on Wednesday, as tens of thousands continued to occupy a major intersection in the capital and thousands more marched to mourn a second man killed in Tuesday's clashes with security forces.

Crowds massed at the hospital morgue, as the body of the man killed on Tuesday was ferried out on top of a land-cruiser in a coffin covered with green satin. Thousands of men followed the coffin, many holding pictures of the deceased, beating their chests and chanting "God is great" and "Death to the Al-Khalifa," a reference to the country's ruling family. Security forces remained withdrawn from protest areas, stationed in large battalions around a kilometer away.


Reuters
Family members and supporters of Fadel al-Matrook, a protester who was killed on Tuesday morning during police clashes, transport his coffin from the mortuary for a funeral in Manama.

At the Pearl roundabout, a central traffic circle in the financial district of the capital which has been claimed by the protesters, more tents and makeshift food stalls sprung up Wednesday, with those who spent the night there in a festive mood. Young men, many carrying Bahraini flags, chanted and danced, while a loudspeaker broadcasted a steady stream of speeches from activists.

The mourners are expected to march to the central roundabout later in the day, further swelling the numbers there.

"It was cold last night, but we'll be here until the government meets our demands or the police come to send us to hell. More people are coming now...All of Bahrain is here," said Jelal Niama, an unemployed university graduate.


WSJ's Charles Levinson and Jerry Seib report on how public protests in Egypt have sparked protests throughout the Middle East, namely Bahrain, Libya, Algeria, Yemen and Iran.

Bahrain's King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, in a rare television address, offered condolences for the two deaths on Tuesday. He promised a probe into the killings and into the security-services' response to the protests, and pledged to make good on previous promises of reforms, including loosening media controls and providing special social-welfare payments.

The demonstrators don't have a unified leadership or a clear set of demands. But the king's pledges don't appear to have defused the protests.

The protests and clashes that erupted on Sunday have turned Bahrain into the latest flashpoint in a wave of Arab rebellion that has already unseated regimes in Tunisia and Egypt and has triggered large protests in Algeria, Jordan and Yemen. It has also raised wider worry about the rapid spread of the unrest, and sharpened the dilemma for the Obama administration as it struggles to shape events in ways that don't harm U.S. interests in the region.

Regional Upheaval

View Interactive

A succession of rallies and demonstrations, in Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Algeria, Bahrain and Iran have been inspired directly by the popular outpouring of anger that toppled Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali. See how these uprisings have progressed.

Continuing Unrest in the Middle East

View Slideshow

European Pressphoto Agency
Bahraini protesters escorted the car carrying the coffin of Ali Abdul Hadi Mushima during the funeral procession in Manama, Bahrain, Tuesday,


More photos and interactive graphics
Bahrain is a tiny, island kingdom in the oil-rich Persian Gulf, best known for its banking prowess and bars that cater to nationals from alcohol-free Saudi Arabia next door. While it pumps little crude itself, its neighbors are some of the world's biggest petroleum producers.

Its position straddling the Gulf has made it a longtime, strategic ally of Washington. The U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet is headquartered in Bahrain, though no American warships are actually home-ported here.

Bahrain's Sunni Muslim rulers have long faced a restive Shiite population that alleges economic and political discrimination. Shiite leaders have pushed, sometimes violently, for more political rights over the years, though they have stopped short of trying to remove the ruling family from power.

Not all the protesters are unemployed or poor. Some of Bahrain's young professionals have joined the gatherings, vowing to keep numbers high. "I will go to work for a few hours then come back to the roundabout," said Jelal Mohammed, a 25-year-old who works as a banker at the local office of France's BNP Paribas. "We can get our rights."

But some Bahrainis are unnerved by the protests, fearing that instability could lead to economic difficulties and to further violence. "These people want the same as in Egypt. They want to destroy this country," said an elderly lady who declined to be named.

Although the latest protests often have an overtly Shia choreography, with chanting, chest slapping and references to martyrdom, some activists are eager to stress that the movement is not linked to Iran, the most populous Shia nation. "There is no single pro-Iran statement or slogan. This is people from both sects. We want genuine democracy, not clerical," said Abdulnabi Alekry, chairman of Bahrain Transparency Society.

i like the way the king of Bahrain immediately offered to deposit 2.5k dollars in everyones account...

everyone???

i think thats only for citizens... who under number their workers slaves, one to five


those emerate islands are nothing but slave trade empires

Published on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 by Inter Press Service
Revolution or Coup in Egypt?
by Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON - Four days after the stunning departure of Hosni Mubarak from the presidential palace in Cairo, analysts here are still trying to determine whether his ouster represents a revolution heralding the advent of democratic governance or a coup d'etat staged by the already-dominant military.


Egypt's new military rulers have vowed to pave the way for a democratically-elected civilian government, but there is still no true way of knowing how they will disperse their new authority over the transition. (Gallo/Getty>
Despite the media euphoria, scepticism among Egypt specialists about the military's intentions has been running pretty high here since Mubarak's resignation.

Jon Alterman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, for example, warned the "rise of the Military Command Council (MCC)" could result in a "huge step backward", while Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer now with the neo-conservative Foundation for the Defence of Democracies, predicted that the army "will test to see how much autocracy (and wealth) it can keep in its hands."

During a White House press conference Tuesday, however, U.S. President Barack Obama indicated he was encouraged by the steps taken to date by the MCC, to which Mubarak ceded his powers.

"(O)bviously there's still a lot of work to be done in Egypt itself, but what we've seen so far is positive," he said, noting that opposition representatives who met with two senior officers Monday "felt (the Council) is serious about moving towards free and fair elections."

"(S)o far at least, we're seeing the right signals coming out of Egypt," he added.

But most independent analysts are not so certain where the five commanders who make up the Council want to take the country.

"I agree the military is sending the right signals, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating," said James Zogby, a veteran Middle East expert who heads the Arab American Institute (AAI). "This was an uprising that toppled the president; it didn't topple the state, and the military is still the state."

Many analysts believe the military is prepared to make some concessions but will try to retain as much control as it can.

"Even the most senior members of the Mubarak-affiliated, authoritarian-oriented old guard know there is no turning back and that nothing resembling a façade-like democracy would pass muster publicly," according to Wayne White of the Middle East Institute (MEI) and a former senior State Department Middle East analyst.

"However, at the same time, it is difficult to believe that those control-oriented officers currently in charge have not engaged in some internal debate over the past several days concerning how much they might be able to concede – but perhaps also hold back – in an effort to split the difference between a fully functioning and transparent democracy and their own possibly more constricted vision of an 'orderly' or more 'stable' Egypt," he added in an email exchange with IPS.

So far, the Council, whose titular head is a long-time Mubarak loyalist, Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi, has issued a series of communiqués abolishing parliament, suspending the constitution, and pledging to hold elections within six months.

On Tuesday, it convened a committee of jurists charged with amending the constitution within 10 days. The amended charter would then be subject to ratification in a referendum in two months' time, according to the Council.

While these are the steps welcomed by Obama, the Council has not yet complied with a series of other demands made by opposition forces that have come together in a broad-based coalition called Activists for Democracy.

They include most notably the immediate lifting of the 30- year-old emergency law, the release of thousands of political prisoners, and the investigation and prosecution of police and security officials believed to be responsible for the deaths of some 300 people during the 18 days of popular demonstrations that culminated in Mubarak's ouster.

The coalition's demand for the inclusion of civilian technocrats and representatives of the democracy movement in the transition government has also been ignored by the Council.

"It appears that the military has the right intent for the end-game, but it doesn't want to cede control over managing that process," said Joel Rubin, deputy director of the National Security Network (NSN) who specialised on Egypt during his foreign-service career.

"This is a key sticking point, because, if they wait too long (to bring in civilians), there's likely to be a lot of uneasiness about whether they just want to maintain control of the country," he added, noting as well that the speed with which the constitution is to be amended under the Council's timetable was also troubling given the complexity of the challenges.

By all accounts, Washington has an important role to play in the transition process given the two militaries' close relationship built up since the signing of the 1979 Camp David Accords.

Indeed, Egypt's most-senior military officers, including Chief of Staff Gen. Sami Hafez Anan, who many here believe is the most powerful member of the Council, were visiting Washington for annual consultations with their U.S. counterparts when the political crisis began in Cairo Jan. 25.

Over the last 30 years, Washington has provided some 40 billion dollars in military assistance and training with the result that the Egyptian armed forces have become almost entirely dependent on U.S. equipment, particularly for its more-advanced weapons systems, such as the F-16 warplane, Apache helicopters, and Harpoon anti-ship missiles.

"These relationships provide a bond with Egypt's armed forces that no other country possesses," according to Charles Dunne, a Mideast specialist also at MEI who served as political-military officer in the U.S. Embassy in Cairo 10 years ago.

Threats by influential lawmakers in Congress to cut Washington's annual 1.3-billion-dollar military-aid package reportedly played an important role in backing up the administration's repeated public - and the Pentagon's private - appeals to the military not to resort to violence in dealing with the protesters.

"This is the payoff, at just the right moment, for 30 years of U.S. military assistance to Egypt: the Egyptian military will be loathe to jeopardize this vital relationship by thwarting a transition to democracy or continuing to wield power indefinitely," Dunne wrote Monday, suggesting that Washington offer more aid as an inducement to the army to follow through on its democratic promises or threaten to reduce assistance if it fails to do so.

On the other hand, it is not yet clear that the administration is unhappy with continued military control of the transition process, particularly as it tries to reassure Israel and other U.S. allies in the region – which clearly prefer the military to remain in charge, at least of foreign and defence policies.

"It's difficult to know where they'll come down on this," said Zogby. "They're pretty happy that the military said it will uphold the peace treaty (with Israel). There are policies, such as Gaza or co-operation in rendition (of terrorist suspects), that the military will continue to embrace that a civilian-led, more-democratic government might not.

ben ttech wrote:everyone???

i think thats only for citizens... who under number their workers slaves, one to five


those emerate islands are nothing but slave trade empires

Hmm ya i think so, heard in on aljazeera that other day... 70% of the population are shia Muslims so maybe just to appease them .

i have some 'friends' who got allowed into qutar as missionaries...

80% of that islands total population are indentured workers... held in work camps under contracts to third party companies who they paid to get the jobs that wont allow them to walk around freely on the few hours they have off...

sick shit.

christians flock to it...

ben ttech wrote:i have some 'friends' who got allowed into qutar as missionaries...

80% of that islands total population are indentured workers... held in work camps under contracts to third party companies who they paid to get the jobs that wont allow them to walk around freely on the few hours they have off...

sick shit.

christians flock to it...

That's complete bulshit as usual . You have no friends whatsoever..

Dubai's where they work them like slaves on the pyramids. Saudi labor-camps were nice enough for us Marines to use as rest-cantonement in '90-1; the same ones that Egyptians, Yemenis, Somalis, Pakistanis, and Indonesians had been using months earlier. AC, plenty of showers and laundry facilities, and a pool! Not a lot of entertainment facilities beyond a Mosque, but then it was Saudi. Dubai especially, but Qatar too, and basically the whole rest efffing UAE, their workers live closer to something like Joe-Arpaio tent cities near their jobsites, fences, locked gates, the whole 9y.

~O~

UAE POP
16.5% Emiratis, 83.5% South Asian, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chinese, Filipino, Thai, Iranian, Westerners (2009)

what was truely sick was the quid pro quo that was going on...

these "friends" had several congressmen and senators in their pocket... so these represenatives would fly back and forth between the quatar ruling elite and congressional committees arranging extension of existing lines of military and cia aid... special deal for major construction projects...

the DEAL was that the king would "tolerate" the missionaries showing up and "breaking the law" to preach inside these work detention facilities... as part of the EXCHANGE for US favors and investments...

i kid you not... these missionaries fuckers would get all emotional and "in the presense[of god] feeling" by thinking at the time, and reminding anyone who would listen later, that they were DEFYING EVIL KINGS by going there and breaking the terms of their visas and "witnessessing" to the lost souls...

risking detention and torture they would claim...
in a muslim country that wants to kill christian and americans christians especially


christ...
they were getting their backs scratched by corrupt politicians and acting as if they were braving the fires of hell...

its gets worse...

they then told me about the packed assemblys they would have... where for SOME REASON...
hordes of men from a couple dozen nationalities... would crowd their meetings...

" it was amazing!!! such a thirst for god!!! it was just as i imagine it will be, in heaven, sitting in front of the lord... every race and creed accounted for"


amazing???
no kidding...

slave laborers who dont even have air conditioning

taking advantage of the paltry offerings
the disneyland version of a mission field, corrupt GOP representatives had anamatronic'd up to satisfy your base...

there a special place in hell for missionaries...

bubbabush wrote:Dubai's where they work them like slaves on the pyramids.

Slaves didn't build the Pyramids

Egypt: New Find Shows Slaves Didn't Build Pyramids

KATARINA KRATOVAC,
Associated Press Writer
January 12, 2010

CAIRO—Egypt displayed on Monday newly discovered tombs more than 4,000 years old and said they belonged to people who worked on the Great Pyramids of Giza, presenting the discovery as more evidence that slaves did not build the ancient monuments.

The series of modest nine-foot-deep shafts held a dozen skeletons of pyramid builders, perfectly preserved by dry desert sand along with jars that once contained beer and bread meant for the workers' afterlife.

The mud-brick tombs were uncovered last week in the backyard of the Giza pyramids, stretching beyond a burial site first discovered in the 1990s and dating to the 4th Dynasty (2575 B.C. to 2467 B.C.), when the great pyramids were built on the fringes of present-day Cairo.

The ancient Greek historian Herodotus once described the pyramid builders as slaves, creating what Egyptologists say is a myth later propagated by Hollywood films.

Graves of the pyramid builders were first discovered in the area in 1990 when a tourist on horseback stumbled over a wall that later proved to be a tomb. Egypt's archaeology chief Zahi Hawass said that discovery and the latest finds last week show that the workers were paid laborers, rather than the slaves of popular imagination.

Hawass told reporters at the site that the find, first announced on Sunday, sheds more light on the lifestyle and origins of the pyramid builders. Most importantly, he said the workers were not recruited from slaves commonly found across Egypt during pharaonic times.

One popular myth that Egyptologists say was perpetrated in part by Hollywood movies held that ancient Israelite slaves — ancestors of the Jewish people — built the pyramids.

Amihai Mazar, professor at the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, says that myth stemmed from an erroneous claim by former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, on a visit to Egypt in 1977, that Jews built the pyramids.

"No Jews built the pyramids because Jews didn't exist at the period when the pyramids were built," Mazar said.

Dorothy Resig, an editor of Biblical Archaeology Review in Washington D.C., said the idea probably arose from the Old Testament Book of Exodus, which says: "So the Egyptians enslaved the children of Israel with backbreaking labor" and the Pharaoh put them to work to build buildings.

"If the Hebrews built anything, then it was the city of Ramses as mentioned in Exodus," said Mazar.

Dieter Wildung, a former director of Berlin's Egyptian Museum, said it is "common knowledge in serious Egyptology" that the pyramid builders were not slaves and that the construction of the pyramids and the story of the Israelites in Egypt were separated by hundreds of years.

"The myth of the slaves building pyramids is only the stuff of tabloids and Hollywood," Wildung told The Associated Press by telephone. "The world simply could not believe the pyramids were build without oppression and forced labor, but out of loyalty to the pharaohs."

Hawass said the builders came from poor Egyptian families from the north and the south, and were respected for their work — so much so that those who died during construction were bestowed the honor of being buried in the tombs near the sacred pyramids of their pharaohs.

Their proximity to the pyramids and the manner of burial in preparation for the afterlife backs this theory, Hawass said.

"No way would they have been buried so honorably if they were slaves," he said.

The tombs contained no gold or valuables, which safeguarded them from tomb-raiders throughout antiquity, and the bodies were not mummified. The skeletons were found buried in a fetal position — the head pointing to the West and the feet to the East according to ancient Egyptian beliefs, surrounded by the jars once filled with supplies for afterlife.

The men who built the last remaining wonder of the ancient world ate meat regularly and worked in three months shifts, said Hawass. It took 10,000 workers more than 30 years to build a single pyramid, Hawass said — a tenth of the work force of 100,000 that Herodotus wrote of after visiting Egypt around 450 B.C.

Hawass said evidence from the site indicates that the approximately 10,000 laborers working on the pyramids ate 21 cattle and 23 sheep sent to them daily from farms.

Though they were not slaves, the pyramid builders led a life of hard labor, said Adel Okasha, supervisor of the excavation. Their skeletons have signs of arthritis, and their lower vertebrae point to a life passed in difficulty, he said.

"Their bones tell us the story of how hard they worked," Okasha said.

Wildung said the find reinforces the notion that the pyramid builders were free men, ordinary citizens

"But let's not exaggerate here, they lived a short life and tomography skeletal studies show they suffered from bad health, very much likely because of how hard their work was."

http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/ ... s?PageNr=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Who Built the Pyramids?

Contrary to some popular depictions, the pyramid builders were not slaves or foreigners. Excavated skeletons show that they were Egyptians who lived in villages developed and overseen by the pharaoh's supervisors.

The builders' villages boasted bakers, butchers, brewers, granaries, houses, cemeteries, and probably even some sorts of health-care facilities—there is evidence of laborers surviving crushed or amputated limbs. Bakeries excavated near the Great Pyramids could have produced thousands of loaves of bread every week.

Some of the builders were permanent employees of the pharaoh. Others were conscripted for a limited time from local villages. Some may have been women: Although no depictions of women builders have been found, some female skeletons show wear that suggests they labored with heavy stone for long periods of time.

Graffiti indicates that at least some of these workers took pride in their work, calling their teams "Friends of Khufu," "Drunkards of Menkaure," and so on—names indicating allegiances to pharaohs.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/pyram ... s.html#who" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Did Jewish Slaves Build the Pyramids?

It's a popular story, but all the documentary and historical evidence tells us that no Jews were in Egypt at the time of the pyramids.

Brian Dunning
February 02, 2010

~snip

We also know quite a lot about the labor force that built the pyramids. The best estimates are that 10,000 men spent 30 years building the Great Pyramid. They lived in good housing at the foot of the pyramid, and when they died, they received honored burials in stone tombs near the pyramid in thanks for their contribution. This information is relatively new, as the first of these worker tombs was only discovered in 1990. They ate well and received the best medical care. And, also unlike slaves, they were well paid. The pyramid builders were recruited from poor communities and worked shifts of three months (including farmers who worked during the months when the Nile flooded their farms), distributing the pharaoh's wealth out to where it was needed most. Each day, 21 cattle and 23 sheep were slaughtered to feed the workers, enough for each man to eat meat at least weekly. Virtually every fact about the workers that archaeology has shown us rules out the use of slave labor on the pyramids.
~snip

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4191" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No wonder your history/knowledge/information is so fucked up. You never, ever update it

,
WHAB

I wasn't there Wahabbi, but I saw every Cecil B DeMille movie @ the pictureshow when I was a kid, and thought of that as a lot like Dubai 2day. Of course I know that there are archiologists who argue that the well known Giza 'mids were built as a tax obligation by corvee labor during the non-farming season of the year, and that "slavery" meant different things in ancient Egypt, such that for instance whole peoples were captive and bound to serve given masters or the Egyptian state with all of their surplus (beyond mere survival) labor who might even be archeologically indistinguishable from their "free" neighbors. But yeah, that building stuff was probably prestige work. Quarrying and pounding all of that stone into shape, that was the slave work. Kinda odd you defending the archs, given that they're pretty much all (actual) (dialectical) Marxists, but whatever.

Now Libya. An old friend of my father's, an American geologist married to a Turk, worked in Libya for a Turkish firm for 30 years, including almost all of the years of the embargo. His wife's a nurse, and she worked there too. They made bank. They have a 5floor waterfront 1/2 block building in Izmir (Turkey's "Venice") with apartments for her parents on the bottom, them on the top floor and all of their kids in between. They used to come home for one month out of every 3; never took their kids to Libya except for brief visits, holidays, company functions and whatnot.. Nothing really for foreigners to do there but work.

They put my family and me up in their (empty) place in Izmir for a month once while we visited my Pop. According to Pop they said the Libyans all called Gaddafi "Magnoon" in private even back then, in the '80s.

~O~

Libya: Protests Begin in Benghazi Ahead of February 17 Day of Wrath

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2011/02/1 ... -of-wrath/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Libya's revolution date is pencilled in for February 17 - but it seems that the Libyans are too eager to voice their rage and anger at Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, who has ruled their country for almost 40 years.

Reports on Twitter and videos uploaded on YouTube speak of protests in Benghazi, where around 200 relatives of political prisoners killed in the Abu Slim Prison massacre of June 1996 have gathered after the spokesman on behalf of the families was arrested.

Libyan citizens take to the streets in Benghazi on February 15, 2011. Still from video by Youtube user enoughgaddafi.
As with Egypt, which ousted Hosni Mubarak after 30 years of corruption, the February 17 date was originally spread through social networking sites, including Facebook and Twitter.

Egyptian blogger Mohammed Maree provides (Ar) some context to why the protests started tonight:

Until this moment, hundreds of people are protesting in Benghazi. They are the relatives of the martyrs slain in the Abu Slim prison massacre, who were joined by scores of other supporters. They are demonstrating against the arrest of the official spokesman on behalf of the families, who was arrested by the Libyan security forces, for no reason.

The Abu Slim prison massacre happened on June 29, 1996, when a security group close to the Libyan dictator's regime broke into the prison, and mawed down not less than 1,200 political prisoner, who had objected then to their inhumane conditions inside the prison. This bloody operation continued for three hours, and the victims were then buried in the prison's courtyard and in mass graves in Tripoli. This horrendeous crime was only revealed in 2008, when information was leaked to the families of the martyrs, and human rights defenders inside and outside Libya. The families insist on punishing the real culprits for this massacre, and seeing justice met. Sadly, Gaddafi's dictatorial regime does not listen to such pleas and continues to treat the Libyan people with lead and fire. This is why we announce our solidarity with the Libyan people and the families of the martyrs until the criminals are punished, starting with Muammer and his family.

Here are some of the reactions from Twitter, where tweeps are raising the alarm on the unfolding situation in Libya and urging the international community and the Press to pay attention to their cause:
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2011/02/1 ... -of-wrath/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Che Bleu wrote:

budslinger wrote:That's complete bulshit as usual .

It's true Bud…
A wonderful place to host a worldcup don't you think ?
Mint tea will delight the hooligans for sure

No not really as corruption is not good even if it does good..Yes it' good to see the world cup actually represented by viable countries in the far flung corners of the world but that's just taking the money and piss ...It'll be the most benile world cup in history
FIFA need locking up ...

Army seizes control in Bahrain, police raid protests
At least four are dead in the tiny but tumultuous Middle Eastern kingdom. U.S. officials strongly oppose violence
BY HADEEL AL-SHALCHI, AP/SALON
THURSDAY, FEB 17, 2011 08:41 ET
AP/James Lawler Duggan
http://www.salon.com/news/middle_east/i ... n_protests" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Army patrols and tanks locked down the capital of this tiny Gulf kingdom after riot police swinging clubs and firing tear gas smashed into demonstrators, many of them sleeping, in a pre-dawn assault Thursday that uprooted their protest camp demanding political change. Medical officials said four people were killed.

U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is reportedly planning to call her counterpart in Bahrain and voice strong opposition to the use of force to control the unrest. One source within the administration told ABC News' Jake Tapper:

The United States strongly opposes the use of violence in Bahrain. Wherever they are, people have certain universal rights -- including the right to peaceful assembly. We continue to urge the government of Bahrain to show restraint in responding to peaceful protests.

Hours after the attack on Manama's main Pearl Square, the military announced on state TV that it had "key parts" of the capital under its control and that gatherings were banned.

The developments marked a major crackdown by the island nation's rulers to put an end to days of protests inspired by Egypt's revolt against Hosni Mubarak. Tiny Bahrain is a pillar of Washington's military framework in the region. It hosts the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, which is a critical counterbalance to Iran's efforts to expand its clout in the region.

The capital Manama was effectively shut down Thursday. For the first time, tanks and military checkpoints were deployed in the streets and army patrols circulated. The Interior Ministry warned Bahrainis to stay off the streets. Banks and other key institutions did not open, and workers stayed home, unable or to afraid to pass through checkpoints to get to their jobs.

Barbed wire and police cars with flashing blue lights encircled Pearl Square, the site of anti-government rallies since Monday. Police cleaned up flattened protest tents and trampled banners inside the square, littered with broken glass, tear gas canisters and debris. A body covered in a white sheet lay in a pool of blood on the side of a road about 20 yards (meters) from the landmark square.

Demonstrators had been camping out for days around the square's 300-foot (90-meter) monument featuring a giant pearl, making it the nerve center of the first anti-government protests to reach the Arab Gulf since the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt.

The protesters' demands have two main objectives: force the ruling Sunni monarchy to give up its control over top government posts and all critical decisions, and address deep grievances held by the country's majority Shiites who claim they face systematic discrimination and are effectively blocked from key roles in public service and the military.

But among Bahrain's rulers, the prospect of a prolonged crisis raised fears of a potential flashpoint between Iran and its Arab rivals in the Gulf. Bahrain's ruling Sunni dynasty is closely allied to Saudi Arabia and the other Arab regimes in the Gulf. Shiite hard-liners in Iran have often expressed kinship and support for Bahrain's Shiite majority, which accounts for 70 percent of the island's 500,000 citizens.

The police assault came early Thursday with little warning. Mahmoud Mansouri, a protester, said police surrounded the camp and then quickly moved in.

"We yelled, 'We are peaceful! Peaceful!' The women and children were attacked just like the rest of us," he said. "They moved in as soon as the media left us. They knew what they're doing."

Dr. Sadek Al-Ikri, 44, said he was tending to sick protesters at a makeshift medical tent in the square when the police stormed in. He said he was tied up and severely beaten, then thrown on a bus with others.

"They were beating me so hard I could no longer see. There was so much blood running from my head," he said. "I was yelling, 'I'm a doctor. I'm a doctor.' But they didn't stop."

He said the police beating him spoke Urdu, the main language of Pakistan. A pillar of the protest demands is to end the Sunni regime's practice of giving citizenship to other Sunnis from around the region to try to offset the demographic strength of Shiites. Many of the new Bahrainis are given security posts.

Al-Ikri said he and others on the bus were left on a highway overpass, but the beatings didn't stop. Eventually, the doctor said he fainted but could hear another police official say in Arabic: "Stop beating him. He's dead. We should just leave him here."

Bahrain's parliament -- minus opposition lawmakers who are staging a boycott -- met in emergency session. One pro-government member, Jamila Salman, broke into tears.

A leader of the Shiite opposition Abdul Jalil Khalil said 18 parliament members also have resigned to protest the killings.

As the crackdown began, demonstrators in the square described police swarming in through a cloud of eye-stinging tear gas.

"They attacked our tents, beating us with batons," said Jafar Jafar, 17. "The police were lined up at the bridge overhead. They were shooting tear gas from the bridge."

Many families were separated in the chaos. An Associated Press photographer saw police rounding up lost children and taking them into vehicles.

Hussein Abbas, 22, was awakened by a missed call on his cell phone from his wife, presumably trying to warn him about reports that police were preparing to move in.

"Then all of a sudden the square was filled with tear gas clouds. Our women were screaming. ... What kind of ruler does this to his people? There were women and children with us!"

ABC News said its correspondent, Miguel Marquez, was caught in the crowd and beaten by men with billy clubs, although he was not badly injured.

Hospital officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media, said four people were killed early Thursday. Wounded streamed by the dozens into Salmaniya medical center, the main state-run hospital in Manama, with serious gaping wounds, broken bones and respiratory problems from the tear gas.

Outside the medical complex, dozens of protesters chanted: "The regime must go."

Tanks and armored personnel carriers were seen on some streets -- the first sign of military involvement in the crisis -- and authorities send a text message to cell phones that said: "The Ministry of the Interior warns all citizens and residents not to leave the house due to potential conflict in all areas of Bahrain."

Hours before police moved in, the mood in the makeshift tent city was festive and confident.

People sipped tea, ate donated food and smoked apple- and grape-flavored tobacco from water pipes. The men and women mainly sat separately -- the women a sea of black in their traditional dress. Some youths wore the red-and-white Bahraini flag as a cape.

While the protests began as a cry for the country's Sunni monarchy to loosen its grip, the uprising's demands have steadily grown bolder. Many protesters called for the government to provide more jobs and better housing, free all political detainees and abolish the system that offers Bahraini citizenship to Sunnis from around the Middle East.

Increasingly, protesters also chanted slogans to wipe away the entire ruling dynasty that has led Bahrain for more than 200 years and is firmly backed by the Sunni sheiks and monarchs across the Gulf.

Although Bahrain is sandwiched between OPEC heavyweights Saudi Arabia and Qatar, it has limited oil resources and depends heavily on its role as a regional financial hub and playground for Saudis, who can drive over a causeway to enjoy Bahrain's Western-style bars, hotels and beaches.

Social networking websites had been abuzz Wednesday with calls to press ahead with the protests. They were matched by insults from presumed government backers who called the demonstrators traitors and agents of Iran.

The protest movement's next move is unclear, but the island nation has been rocked by street battles as recently as last summer. A wave of arrests of perceived Shiite dissidents touched off weeks of rioting and demonstrations.

Before the attack on the square, protesters had called for major rallies after Friday prayers. The reported deaths, however, could become a fresh rallying point. Thousands of mourners had turned out for the funeral processions of two other people killed in the protests earlier in the week.

After prayers Wednesday evening, a Shiite imam in the square had urged Bahrain's youth not to back down.

"This square is a trust in your hands and so will you whittle away this trust or keep fast?" the imam said. "So be careful and be concerned for your country and remember that the regime will try to rip this country from your hand but if we must leave it in coffins then so be it!"

Across the city, government supporters in a caravan of cars waved national flags and displayed portraits of King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa.

"Come join us!" they yelled into markets and along busy streets. "Show your loyalty."

Thousands of mourners turned out Wednesday for the funeral procession of 31-year-old Fadhel al-Matrook, one of two people killed Monday in the protests. Later, in Pearl Square, his father Salman pleaded with protesters not to give up.

"He is not only my son. He is the son of Bahrain, the son of this nation," he yelled. "His blood shouldn't be wasted."

Monday's bloodshed brought embarrassing rebukes from allies such as Britain and the United States. A statement from Bahrain's Interior Ministry said suspects have been "placed in custody" in connection with the two deaths but gave no further details.

At least 12 people were killed on Thursday and dozens injured in anti-government protests in Libya's northeastern city of Al-Baida and eastern city of Benghazi.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20110217/162654473.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Inspired by popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, Libyan protesters also called for a "Day of Rage" on Thursday in a bid to challenge the 41-year rule of Colonel Muammar Qadhafi, who has been accused of human rights abuses.

Citing opposition websites and NGOs, Al-Arabiya news agency reported that security forces and militia of the Revolutionary Committees opened fire on the peaceful, mostly young demonstrators in the city of Al-Baida, killing at least six people.

Human Rights Solidarity, a human rights group based in Geneva, said witnesses in Al-Baida reported that several snipers opened fire from the tops of buildings, killing at least 13 demonstrators.

France Press news agency reported that at least six people were killed and 38 injured in the country's second largest city of Benghazi, where protests began on Wednesday, when at least 15 people were injured.

A Facebook group calling for the "Day of Range" had 4,400 registered members on Monday, but the number more than doubled to some 10,000 following Wednesday clashes in Benghazi.
Qadhafi, who came to power on the back of a 1969 coup, is the longest-serving leader in both Africa and the Arab world.

The spark for the protest was believed to be the detention of human rights lawyer Fathi Terbil by the Libyan security forces. Terbil was reportedly later released.

Local media reports said pro-Gaddafi demonstrations were held on Wednesday in several cities across the country following the Benghazi protest.

'Day of Rage' kicks off in Libya
Reports of deaths as protesters take to the streets in four cities despite a crackdown, heeding calls for mass protests.
Last Modified: 17 Feb 2011 15:35 GMT
The protesters blame Gaddafi's government for unemployment, inequality and limits on political freedoms [EPA]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/afric ... 19793.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Protesters in Libya have defied a security crackdown and taken to the streets in four cities for a "day of rage," inspired by uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, reports say.

Several hundred supporters of Muammar Gaddafi, the country's longtime leader, have also reportedly gathered in the capital, Tripoli, on Thursday to counter online calls for anti-government protests.

Their action comes amid reports that at least 14 people have been killed in clashes between pro and anti-government protesters since Wednesday.

New York-based Human Rights Watch said that Libyan authorities had detained 14 activists, writers and protesters who had been preparing the anti-government protests.

Abdullah, an eyewitness in Benghazi, told Al Jazeera that he saw six unarmed protesters shot dead by police on Thursday.

He also claimed that the government released 30 people from jail, paying and arming them to fight people in the street.

Libya has been tightly controlled for over 40 years by Gaddafi, who is now Africa's longest-serving leader.

According to reports on Twitter, the microblogging site, Libya's regime had been sending text messages to people warning them that live bullets will be fired if they join today's protests.

Thursday is the anniversary of clashes that took place on February 17, 2006, in the country's second largest city of Benghazi when security forces killed several protesters who were attacking the city's Italian consulate.

Ibrahim Jibreel, a Libyan opposition member based in Barcelona, told Al Jazeera, "I think the demonstrations are going to be rather serious.

"Libyan people have been oppressed for more than 41 years and they see to the west and to the east of them, people have been able to rise and to change their fate."

At least two people were killed in clashes between Libyan security forces and demonstrators on Wednesday, in the town of al-Baida, east of Benghazi.

The victims were identified as Khaled ElNaji Khanfar and Ahmad Shoushaniya.

Angry chants

Wednesday's deaths come as hundreds of protesters reportedly torched police outposts while chanting: "People want the end of the regime."

At least 38 people were also injured in the clashes, including 10 security officials.

"All the people of Baida are out on the streets," a 25-year-old Rabie al-Messrati, who said he had been arrested after spreading a call for protests on Facebook, said.

Violent protests were also reported earlier in the day in Benghazi.

In a telephone interview with Al Jazeera, Idris Al-Mesmari, a Libyan novelist and writer, said that security officials in civilian clothes came and dispersed protesters in Benghazi using tear gas, batons and hot water.

Al-Mesmari was arrested hours after the interview.


Late on Wednesday evening, it was impossible to contact witnesses in Benghazi because telephone connections to the city appeared to be out of order.

State media reported there were pro-Gaddafi protests too across the country, with people chanting "We sacrifice our blood and souls for you, our leader!" and "We are a generation built by Muammar and anyone who opposes it will be destroyed!"

However, Jibreel said, "There are few who come out in support of the dictator in Libya and they are not going to succeed.

"We are trying to get the voices out of Libya, we are trying to get media attention to the plight of the Libyan people, to get the media to focus on the injustices that are happening in Libya.

"We are urging the governments and diplomatic missions that are in Libya to act as observers, to document the abuses that are going to happen and we know that they are going to happen because this is a totalitarian, brutal regime," he added.

As the wave of unrest spread south and westwards across the country, hundreds of people marched through the streets in the southern city of Zentan, 120km south of the capital Tripoli.

They set fire to security headquarters and a police station, then set up tents in the heart of the town.

Chants including "No God but Allah, Muammar is the enemy of Allah," can be heard on videos of demonstrations uploaded to YouTube.

Independent confirmation was not possible as Gaddafi's government keeps tight control over the movements of media personnel.

Online activism

In a country where public dissent is rare, plans for Thursday's protests were being circulated by anonymous activists on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.

Social media sites were reportedly blocked for several hours through the afternoon, but access was restored in the evening.

Al Jazeera is understood to have been taken off the state-owned cable TV network, but is still reportedly available on satellite networks.

People posting messages on opposition site http://www.libya-watanona.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, which is based outside Libya, urged Libyans to protest.

"From every square in our beloved country, people should all come together in one city and one square to make this regime and its supporters afraid, and force them to run away because they are cowards," said a post on the website.

Also calling for reforms are some of Libya's eminent individuals. A group of prominent figures and members of human rights organisations have demanded the resignation of Gaddafi.

The demands came in a statement signed by 213 prominent Libyans from different segments of the society, including political activists, lawyers, students, and government officials.

Oil factor

Though some Libyans complain about unemployment, inequality and limits on political freedoms, analysts say that an Egypt-style revolt is unlikely because the government can use oil revenues to smooth over most social problems.

Libya accounts for about 2 per cent of the world's crude oil exports.

Companies including Shell, BP and Eni have invested billions of dollars in tapping its oil fields, home to the largest proven reserves in Africa.

.

bubbabush wrote:I wasn't there Wahabbi, but I saw every Cecil B DeMille movie @ the pictureshow when I was a kid, and thought of that as a lot like Dubai 2day. Of course I know that there are archiologists who argue that the well known Giza 'mids were built as a tax obligation by corvee labor during the non-farming season of the year, and that "slavery" meant different things in ancient Egypt, such that for instance whole peoples were captive and bound to serve given masters or the Egyptian state with all of their surplus (beyond mere survival) labor who might even be archeologically indistinguishable from their "free" neighbors. But yeah, that building stuff was probably prestige work. Quarrying and pounding all of that stone into shape, that was the slave work. Kinda odd you defending the archs, given that they're pretty much all (actual) (dialectical) Marxists, but whatever.

You can attempt to rehabilitate your statement--failingly, but we all know what you meant and it certainly wasn't your now nuanced definition, was it?

But, whatever...

,
WHAB

Sadly, Wahidiot, the only thing that I've failed at (yet again) was in [yet another] attempt to engage in conversation with you. It's not that I forget that you're a douchbag-troll (as if that were even possible) but that I'm genuinely curious to see if you ever add anything responsive beyond your standard smarmy verbal masturbation. Obviously the answer remains "not yet," but if Betty White can get intelligent responses from a talking ape, there's hope for you too. So, I'll keep trying. At least until your precocious dementia overwhelms what remains of the miserly intellect dealt you by nature.

~O~

hes a geriatric cripple cunt whose gonna die lonely. fuck him
the tunisian guy has had a stroke in saudi also

bubbabush wrote:

Sadly, Wahidiot, the only thing that I've failed at (yet again) was in [yet another] attempt to engage in conversation with you. It's not that I forget that you're a douchbag-troll (as if that were even possible) but that I'm genuinely curious to see if you ever add anything responsive beyond your standard smarmy verbal masturbation. Obviously the answer remains "not yet," but if Betty White can get intelligent responses from a talking ape, there's hope for you too. So, I'll keep trying. At least until your precocious dementia overwhelms what remains of the miserly intellect dealt you by nature.

~O~

Your "attempt to engage in conversation"...
And hardly "smarmy" at all...


,
WHAB

Your Ikhwan hero returning to command his Jihadi's

Military to secure Qaradawi’s access to Tahrir Square

Banned Qaradawi returns to lead Friday prayers in Egypt

DUBAI (Farrag Ismael)
Thursday, 17 February 2011

For the first time since he was banned from leading weekly friday prayers in Egypt 30 years ago, prominent Muslim scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi will lead thousands in the weekly prayers from Cairo’s Tahrir Square on Friday.

Sources told Al Arabiya that a military force will accompany the head of the International Union of Muslim Scholars from his home to Tahrir Square, provide security for the prayers and accompany him back to his residence.

Al-Qaradawi last delivered a Friday prayer sermon in Egypt in 1981 after the assassination of former President Anwar el-Sadat.

Other prominent Muslim scholars were also banned from delivering the Friday sermon, such as Abd al-Hamid Kishk, Sheikh Mohammed al-Ghazali, and Sheikh Ahmed El-Mahallawi.

El-Mahallawi lately returned to leading Friday prayers during the revolution at al-Qaed Ibrahim Mosque in Alexandria.

Sheikh Qaradawi confirmed in a telephone call with the German Press Agency that he would lead tomorrow's prayers in Tahrir, with hundreds of thousands expected to attend.

Some of Qaradawi's sons and daughters took part the Tahrir demonstrations leading up to the overthrow of the Mubarak.

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/ ... 38093.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

,
WHAB

scared panty boy???

He was born scared and disposed to remain that way.

~O~

and all this time,
i figured it started at bootcamp...

Bahrain troops (again) open fire on demonstrators

And by "Bahrain Troops" they mean the Yemeni, Egyptian and Iraqi Sunni mercenaries who they employ to "handle" the (overwhelming majority) Shia.

~O~

Bahrain troops open fire on demonstrators

At least 50 people are wounded in Bahrain's capital, Manama, when troops attack marchers with live ammunition, rubber bullets and tear gas.

Reporting from Manama, Bahrain — Bahraini army troops on Friday opened fire on demonstrators marching toward a central square that has become a symbol of resistance to the government, attacking the crowd with live ammunition, rubber bullets and tear gas, witnesses reported.

At least 50 people were wounded, according to two doctors at Salmaniya Medical Center in Manama.

Wounded survivors of the clash said they had been participating in a peaceful march from a village in mourning for the victim of a fatal shooting on Monday. They marched from the village of Daih into Manama and planned to cross the side of Pearl Square, where protesters were swept out in a brutal attack early Thursday.

Get dispatches from Times correspondents around the globe delivered to your inbox with our daily World newsletter. Sign up »

Gunfire erupted when the protesters reached the square; it was sporadic at first, then more sustained. Security forces fired into the surrounding streets leading into the traffic roundabout.

Ambulances raced to the scene but had difficulty reaching those who had fallen in the barrage of bullets and tear gas, said marchers who made their way to the hospital with injured comrades.

"Everybody was on the ground. They were shooting at the heads and chest," said a shaken Mohamed Nabi, 27, sitting with two friends in the besieged emergency room while awaiting care for one man's wounded leg. "We were chanting, 'peaceful, peaceful,' but the government was willing to have a massacre. We weren't afraid. We were willing to die in this way."

Ali Hasan Arafat lay bare-chested on a stretcher, breathing heavily from the effects of tear gas. The gas was so caustic, he said, that he was blinded and ran into a signpost, injuring his head.

Beyond the hospital grounds, heavily armed police trying to secure this tiny kingdom against the contagion of unrest spreading across the Middle East manned checkpoints and grimly gripped their weapons. Within, perplexed and angry protesters insisted that they wouldn't be cowed.

The night before, a bloody assault against sleeping demonstrators killed at least four people.

The front line shifted across town Friday to the hospital, where the dead from Thursday's melee were laid out. Doctors were treating those who had been tear-gassed, clubbed or wounded by gunfire, and an angry crowd was chanting slogans against the royal family.

Mourners said they were afraid to hold traditional funeral marches because the government warned people to stay off the streets and said the army would do whatever necessary to maintain stability. But inside the compound, hundreds pumped their fists and shouted: "Down with the Khalifa family!" and "You cannot keep us down!"

Protests across the Middle East have focused on demands for economic reforms and more political freedom, but in Bahrain they have a sectarian tinge. The Shiite Muslim majority is ruled by a Sunni Muslim royal family.

Foreign Minister Khalid ibn Ahmed Khalifa said demonstrators were "polarizing the country" and pushing it to the "brink of the sectarian abyss."

Adel Maawdah, deputy chairman of the parliament's foreign affairs, defense and national security committee, defended the crackdown.

"Most of the people there didn't want clashes, and the police as well, but unfortunately, we hear there were others urging them [the crowd] to be aggressive with the police. Tens can do it," said Maawdah.

At the hospital Thursday, mourners and protesters were demanding an explanation for the government's violent reaction. Bahrain is their country too, they said. They had been peaceful, and the state had unleashed its wrath on them.

In the autopsy room, the bodies of those killed in the overnight assault on Pearl Square were laid out.

Two of the dead were men were in their 50s, one of them apparently shot at close range, his scalp blown open. Next to them was the body of Mahmoud Abtaki, 22. His brother Ahmed held his hand.

"Mahmoud was a student in mechanical engineering, and he had gone to the square because he didn't have work," Ahmed said. His voice trembled.

"He didn't carry anything, only a Bahraini flag," Ahmed said, and then he leaned his face to his brother's and whispered to him.

Doctors later said that a fourth person had also died of injuries suffered in the crackdown.

Dr. Sediq Ekri, who had been treating patients in the square the night before, was a patient himself Thursday. From his hospital bed, in periodic gasps through his oxygen mask, he recalled how he was cuffed and kicked repeatedly by police. Pulled onto a bus, he was kicked and beaten once more, he said.

"They told me that 'if you fill the bus with your blood, we'll hit you again,' " he recalled.

The Obama administration urged restraint in the Persian Gulf nation of 800,000, which is home to the Navy's 5th Fleet. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called the foreign minister to express "deep concern about recent events," a State Department official said.

The protesters in Bahrain have largely appeared leaderless. They have included bloggers and longtime critics of the ruling family. Much of the unrest is based on long-held feelings by impoverished Shiites that the royal family discriminates against them and abuses its power.

The protesters, who include a small number of Sunnis, insist that their demands transcend sectarian concerns. Still, demonstrators said they didn't expect the ferocity of the overnight assault on the square. After two protesters were killed early in the demonstrations, the king apologized.

Demonstrators insisted Thursday on their dignity and said the protests were a means to gain greater freedom.

"Just like Martin Luther King, we have a dream," one of them said.

In anger, the main Shiite opposition party said its 18 members would leave the 40-member parliament. Instead of holding a mass demonstration Friday, protest leaders said they would try to go ahead with the funerals they could not hold Thursday, despite the violence exhibited by authorities.

"I believed because I was a doctor they would have mercy," Ekri said. "But there was no mercy."

Libya: Benghazi clashes deadly - witnesses

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12506787" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Click to play
Amateur video posted online recently purportedly shows unrest in Libya

Libya: Benghazi clashes deadly - witnesses

There have been renewed clashes between protesters and police in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi, witnesses say.

They say three people were killed in the city's el-Kish area and at least a dozen others elsewhere. The claims cannot be independently verified.

Benghazi has been the scene of protests in recent days, with reports that at least 15 people were killed in clashes with security forces on Thursday.

Reports are also coming about clashes in the neighbouring city of Al-Bayda.

Two exile groups told Reuters news agency that al-Bayda was now "out of the control of the Gaddafi regime".

It has been impossible for the BBC to verify this information on the ground.

Large public protests are rare in Libya, where dissent is seldom allowed by long-serving leader Col Muammar Gaddafi.

Pro-democracy protests have been sweeping through several Arab nations, with the presidents of Tunisia and Egypt forced from power amid growing unrest.

'Big massacre'
On Friday, thousands of people took to the streets of Benghazi for the second day, with many gathering outside the courthouse in the port city, witnesses say.

libya.gif (9.94 KiB) Viewed 1010 times

Col Muammar Gaddafi has led since 1969
Population 6.5m; land area 1.77m sq km
Ranks 146 out of 178 on corruption
Population with median age of 24.2, and a literacy rate of 88%
Gross national income per head: $12,020 (World Bank 2009)
Protests country-by-country
Country profile: Libya
Some demonstrators were calling for change, while others said they only wanted more freedoms.

Three people were killed in the clashes with the police in el-Kish and a dozen others elsewhere, the witnesses say.

A medical source told CNN that 20 people were killed and 200 injured.

Several government and security offices were reportedly set ablaze during the demonstrations during the protests.

None of this information can be independently verified as foreign correspondents are banned from reporting from Benghazi.

A leading pro-government newspaper, Al-Zahf Al-Akhdar, called for tough action against the protesters.

"Any risk from these minuscule groups [protesters] - this people and the noble revolutionary power will violently and thunderously respond," the paper said.

"The people's power, the Jamahiriya [system of rule], the revolution, and Colonel Gaddafi are all red lines and those who try to cross or come near these lines are suicidal and playing with fire."

The US-based pressure group Human Rights Watch said at least 24 people had been killed across Libya in unrest on Wednesday and Thursday.

Many others were wounded in the clashes between security forces and protesters, the campaign group said.

Pro-Gaddafi rallies
Meanwhile the chief editor of the Quryna newspaper, Ramadan Briki, told the BBC that some prisoners had escaped from Benghazi's al-Kuifya prison and set fire to the local prosecutor's office, a bank and a police station.

Police later arrested 100. It was not clear if any prisoners remained at large, Mr Briki said.

A doctor at Benghazi's Jalla hospital told the BBC that he had seen 15 bodies - all dead from gunshot wounds - by the time he left the hospital in the early hours of Friday.

He said one of them was a 13-year-old boy.

Other witnesses claimed that six police cars in front of the hospital had been set on fire by relatives of the victims.

Our correspondent Jon Leyne in Cairo says violent confrontations are reported to have spread to five Libyan cities in demonstrations so far, but not yet to Tripoli, the capital, in any large numbers.

Activists supporting Col Gaddafi have also been out on the streets in Tripoli, chanting pro-government slogans in Green Square.

Col Gaddafi briefly visited the square in the early hours of Friday, according to images aired by state TV.

He is the Arab world's longest-serving leader, having ruled oil-rich Libya since a coup in 1969.

Gaddafi power is worth protecting,
if his opposition had a decent bone in their body

they would be shipping off to egypt and marching on the wall isreal imposes between them and gaza

At Least 20 Killed in Libya Protests Today
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/afric ... tml?hpt=T2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CNN) -- Thousands of Libyans took to the streets Friday to voice their discontent over leader Moammar Gadhafi, witnesses said.

At least 20 people were killed and 200 were injured Friday in the northern Mediterranean city of Benghazi, Libya's second-largest, said a medical source in Benghazi who was not identified for security reasons.

Friday's killings brought to 50 the number of people killed since Tuesday, when the protests began, the medical source said.

CNN was unable to independently verify the information.

Also on Friday, the bodies of those killed in clashes with security forces earlier this week were carried to a cemetery by a crowd of protesters, said a protester whose name also has been withheld for his safety.

In front of the main courthouse in a square in Benghazi, thousands of demonstrators filled the streets demanding a change of government, another protester said. He said people were chanting for Gadhafi and his children to get out of Libya. He called Gadhafi's authoritarian rule "the biggest dictatorship in history."

Late Friday, a witness said more people were still streaming into the already crowded plaza, with some erecting tents, apparently planning to spend the night.

There was no sign in the square of police or military forces except for the presence of three tanks, which were not moving, he said.

Another source said that he saw three Libyan army tanks in the square and that young demonstrators were engaging the tank crews in conversation. He said government forces were not visible in or around Benghazi.

He added that he visited Al-Jala hospital and that it was "full of dead and wounded."
Electricity was lost in parts of the city but had been restored by late Friday, when the city was quiet, he said.

Farther east, in al-Baida, thousands of people showed up to bury 13 protesters killed in clashes in recent days, said Mohamed Abdallah of the opposition National Front for the Salvation of Libya, who has been receiving information about Libya from sources there.

Plainclothes members of the Revolutionary Committee reportedly fired at the protesters, Abdallah said.

Demonstrations unfolded Friday in other cities as well, he said.

CNN has not been permitted to report from Libya and cannot confirm information about the demonstrations.

The government maintains strict control of the news media and telephone services, and many people expressed fear of talking openly amid what they described as a climate of fear. CNN has been relying on information from protesters, human rights groups and foreign-based Libyan organizations assessing the situation through their sources on the ground.

The demonstrations erupted Tuesday after the detention of a human rights lawyer. Before Friday's reports of new deaths, Human Rights Watch said security forces cracking down on the protesters had killed at least 24 people and wounded many others.

U.S. President Barack Obama condemned the government crackdowns in Libya, Bahrain and Yemen, which are all embroiled in unrest.

"Wherever they are, people have certain universal rights, including the right to peaceful assembly," Obama said. "The United States urges the governments of Bahrain, Libya and Yemen to show restraint in responding to peaceful protests, and to respect the rights of their people."

The protests spread Thursday across Libya -- from Benghazi in the north to Kufra in the south.

"The security forces' vicious attacks on peaceful demonstrators lay bare the reality of Moammar Gadhafi's brutal rule when faced with any internal dissent," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director for Human Rights Watch.

Navi Pillay, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, also condemned the crackdown in Libya and other countries "as illegal and excessively heavy-handed."

Referring to Libya, she said, "This is a country where the human rights situation has generally been very closed to international scrutiny, including by us, but much of the population seems nevertheless to have the same human rights aspirations as people everywhere else."

Abdallah, the spokesman for the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, reported that protesters in Benghazi had freed people who had been detained during the first two days of the unrest. He said protesters also set afire a police station and the Revolutionary Committee headquarters in Benghazi, al-Baida and Darna.

Gadhafi's regime, however, has sought to portray a different picture of events and sent out tacit warnings via mobile phone texts to Libyans planning to make their voices known.

"The inappropriate use of telecommunications services contradicts our religion ... our customs ... and our traditions," said a text from the General Communications Body.

Another said: "We commend the conscious youth who have realized that sedition destroys his family, his city, his country. And we commend our cities who have realized that touching national unity destroys the prospects of future generations. Together for the sake of the Libya of Tomorrow."

A screen grab of the messages was sent to CNN by Abdulla Darrat, spokesman of Enough Gadhafi, a U.S.-based organization that has been in close touch with people on the streets of Libya.

State-run television countered the anti-government protests with coverage of pro-Gadhafi demonstrations.

It showed men chanting pro-Gadhafi slogans, waving flags and singing around the Libyan leader's limousine as it crept through Tripoli. Scores of supportive demonstrators packed the roadway and held up pictures of their leader as fireworks burst into the night sky.

The images followed reports from protesters, witnesses and human rights activists who described brutality by internal security forces, sometimes dressed in plain clothes.

One of the protesters likened the situation in Libya to that which occurred early this month in Egypt, telling Human Rights Watch that "they are sending baltaqiyyas (thugs) to beat us."
Libya, like many of its Arab neighbors, is suffering from economic hardship and a lack of political reform. Youth unemployment is high.

Gadhafi is acutely aware of popular grievances and has spoken with groups of students, lawyers and journalists in the past few weeks, a source told CNN this week.

Nearly 100 killed in Libyan crackdown on unrest


Old Majnoon has always been a one-trick-pony.

~O~
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110219/ap_ ... a_protests" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

By MAGGIE MICHAEL, Associated Press – 57 mins ago
CAIRO – Libyan forces opened fire on mourners leaving a funeral for protesters Saturday in the flashpoint city of Benghazi, and a medical official said 15 people were killed, with bodies piling up in a hospital and doctors collapsing in grief at the sight of dead relatives.

The deaths pushed the overall estimated death toll to 99 in five days of unprecedented protests against the 42-year reign of Moammar Gadhafi.

Government forces also wiped out a protest encampment and clamped down on Internet service throughout the North African nation.

As relatives buried their dead, they fell victim to a mixture of special commandos, foreign mercenaries and Gadhafi loyalists armed with knives, Kalashnikovs and even anti-aircraft missiles trying to quell the demonstrations, witnesses said.

"The blood of our martyrs is still leaking from coffins over the shoulders of the mourners," one female protester, who is also a lawyer, said while standing in front of about 20 coffins lined up in front of the Northern Court building in Benghazi, Libya's second-largest city and the epicenter of the current unrest.
Before Saturday's violence, Human Rights Watch had estimated at least 84 people have been killed.

Hospitals ran low on medical supplies and were packed with bodies shot in the chest and head, said the medical official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of fears of reprisal.

"Many of the dead and the injured are relatives of doctors here," the official, who provided the figure of 15 dead, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. "They are crying, and I keep telling them to please stand up and help us."

Information is tightly controlled in Libya, where journalists cannot work freely, and some of the accounts could not be independently confirmed. Other information comes from opposition activists in exile.

Gadhafi has been trying to bring his country out of isolation, announcing in 2003 that he was abandoning his program for weapons of mass destruction, renouncing terrorism and compensating victims of the 1986 La Belle disco bombing in Berlin and the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland.

Those decisions opened the door for warmer relations with the West and the lifting of U.N. and U.S. sanctions, but Gadhafi continues to face allegations of human rights violations in the North African nation.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague called reports of the use of snipers and heavy weapons against demonstrators in Libya "clearly unacceptable and horrifying," and criticized restrictions on media access.

Before the Internet was shut down, videos posted on a Facebook page showed Libyan protesters smashing a stone representation of the "Green Book," which is Ghadhafi's manifesto, as well as destroying billboards of the Libyan leader.

Video of torched Revolutionary Committees buildings also were posted.

Protesters say that defiance is growing with the increasing bloodshed and attempts by authorities to silence them by offering financial compensation to relatives of the dead.

"Gadhafi's men came to us and tried to bribe many of our colleagues," said the female protester, but she added that the opposition would not agree to any negotiations with the regime because of the bloodshed.

Her account could not be verified independently but was identical to those of several others contacted by the AP.

Hatred of Gadhafi's rule has grown in Benghazi in the past two decades. Anger has focused on the shooting deaths of about 1,200 inmates — most of them political prisoners — during prison riots in 1996.

Families of the dead since then have been holding small demonstrations calling for the prosecution of those responsible for the killings. But the current protests have been larger, apparently spurred by revolts that ousted the Tunisian and Egyptian leaders.

"There's no turning back," said Mohammed Abdullah, a Dubai-based member of the Libyan Salvation Front. "It is over for Gadhafi."

According to several accounts, police in Benghazi initially followed orders to act against the protest but later joined with them because they belong to the same tribe and saw the foreign mercenaries taking part in the killings.

A similar scenario took place in other eastern cities, including Beyda, which once housed Libya's parliament before Gadhafi's military coup in September 1969 toppled the monarchy.

Protests spread to outside the southern city of Zentan and west to Mesrata, the third-biggest city in Libya.

"Now people are tearing down the posters of Gadhafi. This never happened before," a protester from Mesrata said by phone who did not want to give his name because of fear of reprisal.

The capital of Tripoli, however, remained a stronghold of support for Gadhafi, with security forces swiftly curbing small protests erupting in the outskirts. Secret police were heavily deployed on the streets, as residents kept their opinions and emotions secret.

Residents reported receiving short messages on their mobile phones warning about taking any action against Gadhafi, national security and the oil industry, which are among "red lines" in Libya that must not be crossed.

A female protester said she tried to rally people in the streets Friday but ended up among 150 protesters detained by police at the end of the day. She was let go because she was the sole woman among them.

"It is very, very difficult for protesters to appear in the streets of Tripoli, except at night. People are under siege and those who dare to show up are arrested," she said.

State-run media show only footage of the flamboyantly dressed Gadhafi, which it called "the inspiring leader," waving to hundreds of cheering loyalists.

Libyan author Hisham Matar, whose novel "In the Country of Men" was shortlisted for the 2006 Man Booker Prize, said the regime wants to make "an example of Benghazi."

"The danger now is that because of the extraordinary impunity with which the Gadhafi regime and security apparatus are able to act, we might see the death toll rise even higher," said Matar, whose father, a political dissident, was kidnapped in Egypt in 1990 and never seen again.

Libya protests: Reports of intense Benghazi violence


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12516156" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Intense violence has been reported in Libya's second city, Benghazi, with troops said to have opened fire again on anti-government protesters.

At least 15 people were killed and many more wounded, unconfirmed reports say.

Witnesses described scenes of chaos as snipers opened fire. Some reports spoke of machine-guns and mortar bombs being fired.

At least 84 people have died, rights groups say, but reports have been hard to verify amid tight controls.

US-based group Human Rights Watch said the 84 had died in Benghazi as well as in a number of other cities in eastern Libya.

BBC Middle East correspondent Jon Leyne says that for much of the day, it seemed as if the government had lost control of the eastern cities of al-Badai and Benghazi. Now witnesses in Benghazi are describing what sounds like a sustained battle with government forces, he adds.

Reports emerging from Libya are sketchy and sporadic, after the government moved to control internet access, but the Associated Press news agency and al-Jazeera television both said troops had opened fire on people attending a funeral on Saturday, killing 15.

Citing witnesses and medical staff in Benghazi, the reports told of snipers firing on crowds gathered to mourn some of those killed on Friday.

"We have no choice - we have been suffering for 42 years and we are not going”

One doctor told the BBC that situation in the city was "like hell".

"I have been seeing injured people being carried in all day. They have been shot in the head and chest. They have broken arms and legs. There is shooting going on everywhere," said the doctor.

There were also widespread reports that foreign mercenaries from sub-Saharan Africa - paid by the Libyan government - had been brought in to attack protesters.

Another resident told the BBC that 40 people had been killed in a short space of time.

"Just about an hour ago, more than 40 people have been shot dead in the streets of Benghazi," he said, blaming the violence on the country's veteran leader, Colonel Muammar Gadaffi.

"Please, please tell the world - let the world know that he's killing the people for no reason. They're very peaceful protesters. He's bringing foreigners from nowhere, from nowhere, Africans, black African snipers shooting the people in the streets of Benghazi, now he's attacking Benghazi itself with rocket missiles."

Another eyewitness, named only as Ahmed, told al-Jazeera the killing in Benghazi was unprecedented.

"We've never heard of anything like this before. It's horrible," he said.

'Horrifying'
Benghazi, which is about 1,000 km (600 miles) from the capital, Tripoli, has been the main focus of the demonstrations against Col Gaddafi's 42-year rule. State media had warned of retaliation if the unrest continued.


But although unrest has spread to other towns and cities, there have been no reports of major protests in Tripoli.

Media restrictions make it difficult to verify reports independently but the BBC has confirmed that websites including Facebook and al-Jazeera Arabic were blocked on Saturday.

Despite the drop-off in internet traffic, social networks including Twitter were awash with reports of events in the city.

One protester told the BBC that those rallying in Benghazi would stand firm.

"We have no choice. We have been suffering for 42 years and we are not going," she said.

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said reports of heavy weapons and sniper fire being used on protesters were unacceptable.

"This is clearly unacceptable and horrifying," Mr Hague said, adding: "The absence of TV cameras does not mean theattention of the world should not be focused on the actions of the Libyan government."

'Violently and thunderously'
Security forces opened fire in Benghazi on Friday when protesters approached a compound used by Col Gaddafi when he visits the city, eyewitnesses say.


The unrest in Libya sparked demonstrations outside Libyan embassies overseas
The city's al-Jala hospital received the bodies of 35 people killed in the shooting, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW) and media reports.

Amid the crackdown, the semi-independent Quryna newspaper reported that the government would replace many state executives and decentralise and restructure the government.

It was unclear whether the political move was in response to growing unrest.

Friday also saw the pro-government Al-Zahf Al-Akhdar newspaper threaten that the authorities would "violently and thunderously respond" to the protests.

Col Gaddafi is the Arab world's longest-serving leader, having ruled oil-rich Libya since a coup in 1969.

Libya is one of several Arab countries to have experienced pro-democracy demonstrations since the fall of long-time Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in January. Egypt's Hosni Mubarak was forced from power on 11 February.

The British Foreign Office is now advising UK citizens against all but essential travel to Benghazi, Ajdabiya, al-Bayda, al-Marj, Darnah, Ajdabiya, Tobruk and areas bordering Sudan, Chad, Niger and Algeria.

The police, of course, are all a bunch of brainwashed street tyrants who say "I didn't write or support the laws, I'm a mindless putz who enforces them.

Libya revolt spreads to Tripoli

They're out for blood in Libya. That's why the Dauphin was on the tube last night saying that he'd have to go out like Uday and Qusay instead of retiring to Knightsbridge like the Mubarak and Ben Ali boys. They're tired of being treated like dogs, and they'll do it the hard way if they have to. And, of course, the Gadaffi's don't actually have anywhere to go having long ago burned their bridges. No Europe or Saudi for them. They're Euro-assets are probably informally frozen as I write, and the Saudis breathlessly anxious to decline a request. Maybe Nigeria? Sudan? Cuba? Nowhere worth giving up for until you're whipped at least.

~O~

Gunshots heard in capital amid reports of army units defecting in Benghazi and tribal leaders criticising government.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/afric ... 91589.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Last Modified: 21 Feb 2011 03:37 GMT
Email ArticlePrint ArticleShare ArticleSend Feedback


Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi will fight a popular revolt to "the last man standing," one of his sons said on Monday as people in the capital joined protests for the first time after days of violent unrest in the eastern city of Benghazi.

Anti-government protesters rallied in Tripoli's streets, tribal leaders spoke out against Gaddafi, and army units defected to the opposition as oil exporter Libya endured one of the bloodiest revolts to convulse the Arab world.

Speaking on state television on Monday, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi said: "Our spirits are high and the leader Muammar Gaddafi is leading the battle in Tripoli, and we are behind him as is the Libyan army.

"We will keep fighting until the last man standing, even to the last woman standing ... we will not leave Libya to the Italians or the Turks."

In the coastal city of Benghazi protesters appeared to be largely in control after forcing troops and police to retreat to a compound. Government buildings were set ablaze and ransacked.

Soldiers defect

In the first sign of serious unrest in the capital, thousands of protesters clashed with Gaddafi supporters.

Gunfire rang out in the night and police used tear gas to disperse demonstrators, some of whom threw stones at Gaddafi posters.

Human Rights Watch said at least 223 people have been killed in five days of violence.

Most were in Benghazi, cradle of the uprising and a region where Gaddafi's grip has always been weaker than elsewhere in the oil-rich desert nation.

Habib al-Obaidi, a surgeon at the Al-Jalae hospital, said the bodies of 50 people, mostly shot dead, were brought there on Sunday afternoon. Two hundred wounded had arrived, he said.

"One of the victims was obliterated after being hit by an RPG (rocket propelled grenade) to the abdomen," he said.

Members of an army unit known as the "Thunderbolt" squad had brought wounded comrades to the hospital, he said.

The soldiers said they had defected to the cause of the protesters and had fought and defeated Gaddafi's elite guards.

"They are now saying that they have overpowered the Praetorian Guard and that they have joined the people's revolt," another man at the hospital, lawyer Mohamed al-Mana, told Reuters by telephone.

'Gunshots in the street'

While Gaddafi attempted to put down protests centred in the eastern city of Benghazi against his four-decade rule, Al Jazeera began receiving eyewitness reports of "disturbances" in the capital Tripoli early on Monday.

There were reports of clashes between anti-government protesters and Gaddafi supporters around the Green Square.

"We are in Tripoli, there are chants [directed at Gaddafi]: 'Where are you? Where are you? Come out if you're a man," a protester told Al Jazeera on the phone.

A resident told the Reuters news agency that he could hear gunshots in the streets and crowds of people.

"We're inside the house and the lights are out. There are gunshots in the street," the resident said by phone. "That's what I hear, gunshots and people. I can't go outside."

An expatriate worker living in the Libyan capital told Reuters: "Some anti-government demonstrators are gathering in the residential complexes. The police are dispersing them. I can also see burning cars."

There were also reports of protesters heading to Gaddafi's compound in the city of Al-Zawia near Tripoli, with the intention of burning the building down.

'Tribal revolt'

Meanwhile the head of the Al-Zuwayya tribe in eastern Libya has threatened to cut off oil exports unless authorities stop what he called the "oppression of protesters", the Warfala tribe, one of Libya's biggest, has reportedly joined the anti-Gaddafi protests.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Shaikh Faraj al Zuway said: "We will stop oil exports to Western countries within 24 hours" if the violence did not stop.

The tribe lives south of Benghazi, which has seen the worst of the deadly violence in recent days.

Akram Al-Warfalli, a leading figure in the Al Warfalla tribe, one of Libya's biggest, told the network: "We tell the brother (Gaddafi), well he's no longer a brother, we tell him to leave the country." The tribe lives south of Tripoli.

Protests have also reportedly broken out in other cities, including Bayda, Derna, Tobruk and Misrata - and anti-Gaddafi graffiti adorns the walls of several cities.

Army 'defects'

Anti-government protesters in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi have reportedly seized army vehicles and weapons amid worsening turmoil in the African nation.

A local witness said that a section of the troops had joined the protesters on Sunday as chaos swept the streets of the city, worst hit by the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi's 42-year old rule.

Mohamed, a doctor from Al Jalaa hospital in Benghazi, confirmed to Al Jazeera that members of the military had sided with the protesters.

"We are still receiving serious injuries, I can confirm 13 deaths in our hospital. However, the good news is that people are cheering and celebrating outside after receiving news that the army is siding with the people," he said.

"But there is still a brigade that is against the demonstrators. For the past three days demonstrators have been shot at by this brigade, called Al-Sibyl brigade."

The witness reports came on a day in which local residents told Al Jazeera that at least 200 people had died in days of unrest in Benghazi alone. The New York-based Human Rights Watch on Sunday put the countrywide death toll at 173. The rights group said its figure was "conservative".

'Massacre'

News of the rising death toll came as residents of Benghazi, Libya's second largest city, reported renewed gunfire from security forces in the city.

Sadiq al Ghiryani, a Libyan religious leader, told Al Jazeera a "massacre" was under way in the city and troops firing shots were mostly mercenaries.. Kamal Hudethifi, a judge, described the killings as "ethnic cleansing".

The Reuters news agency said at least 50 people had been killed in Benghazi since Sunday afternoon.

Moftah, a Benghazi resident , who requested Al Jazeera use only his first name, said the city had become a "war zone" in recent days.

Residents have barricaded the streets with overturned trash cans and debris, and security forces have largely confined themselves to two compounds, though snipers continue to target protesters, he said.

The forces who remain are "thugs" loyal to Gaddafi, Moftah said, and they are firing high-calibre ammunition at protesters.

The eyewitness report came a day after security forces opened fire at a funeral in the eastern coastal city on Saturday, killing at least 15 people and injuring scores more.

A group of six alleged mercenaries - reportedly brought in from Tunisia and other African nations to bolster pro-Gaddafi forces - were captured and arrested by demonstrators in the city of Shahat.

Appeal for calm

Against this backdrop of violence, opposition groups said some 50 Libyan Muslim leaders have urged security forces to stop killing civilians.

"This is an urgent appeal from religious scholars, intellectuals, and clan elders from Tripoli, Bani Walid, Zintan, Jadu, Msalata, Misrata, Zawiah, and other towns and villages of the western area," the appeal, signed by the group of leaders, stated.

"We appeal to every Muslim, within the regime or assisting it in any way, to recognise that the killing of innocent human beings is forbidden by our Creator and by His beloved prophet of compassion, peace be upon him ... Do not kill your brothers and sisters. Stop the massacre now!"

Around the world, people have been gathering in solidarity with the protesters at Libyan consulates and at the White House in Washington, DC, the US capital.

Libya's government has responded to the international criticism by threatening retaliation against the European Union. It said on Sunday that it would stop co-operating with efforts to try and stop illegal migrants heading to Europe.

Bahrain protest continues

There's no need for over-reaction here if the monarchy's ready to reform, which, with our push. seems likely. Time and again Arab Shia choose their Arab identity over Shia solidarity; it's time the Sunni Arabs in the Gulf respect that rather than continue treating them like internal enemies. Bahrain's a good place to start. Not as good as Eastern Province SA, but good enough.

~O~

Hundreds of demonstrators occupy Manama's landmark junction as uprising enters ninth day.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middl ... 85788.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Last Modified: 21 Feb 2011 14:02 GMT

Hundreds of demonstrators are gathered at the Pearl roundabout in Manama, Bahrain's capital, as their protest against the government and ruling royal family entered its ninth day.

The protesters are camped around the 90-metre monument on the junction, with make-shift kitchens serving meals to those staying in the small village of tents.

At several stalls, demonstrators queued for hot drinks and joked about the weather, which turned windy and whipped up sand and litter.

At sunrise on Monday, Hossain Kasar, who has spent the past two nights camped at the monument, said: "I'm feeling happy. But all the people of Bahrain, they don't want the government of Bahrain."

Bahrain's opposition wants the nation's rulers to guarantee they will back up recent conciliatory words with solid actions, as the regime offered talks after nearly a week of protests and deadly clashes that have divided the Gulf nation.

Opposition leaders have laid down a list of demands that include releasing prisoners and giving residents a greater role in politics.

Hassan Mashaima, an exiled opposition figure, told AFP he would return to Manama on Tuesday, as protesters gear up for a rally they hope will bring tens of thousands to Pearl roundabout.

"I have decided to return to my country," Mashaima said. The leader of the opposition Haq movement, or the Movement of Liberties and Democracy is based in London and faces charges of terrorism in his native Bahrain.

In a telephone call from the British capital, Mashaima said he would land in Manama on Tuesday at and had "no guarantees" he would not be arrested on arrival. "But under the current circumstances, I cannot remain outside my country," he added.

The streets in the tiny but strategically important island kingdom were calmer as efforts shifted towards political haggling over demands for the monarchy to give up its near-absolute control over key policies and positions.

But bitterness and tensions still run deep after battles that included riot police opening fire on protesters trying to reclaim the Pearl roundabout and then pulling back to allow demonstrators to occupy the site.

At least seven people have been killed and hundreds injured since anti-government protests reached the Gulf last Monday.

On Friday, army units shot at marchers streaming towards the roundabout, injuring more than 50 people and preventing protesters from gathering there. But after security forces withdrew, the protesters swarmed back to the square and confidently set up camp for a protracted stay.

On Sunday, a general strike by opposition groups and workers' unions was called off, saying their demand for the right to protest peacefully had been heeded.

Conciliatory tone

In an interview to CNN, Sheikh Salman said on Sunday that protesters would "absolutely" be allowed to stay in the Pearl Roundabout area.

"All political parties in the country deserve a voice at the table," he said of the proposed dialogue, adding the king had appointed him to lead it and to build trust with all sides.


"I think there is a lot of anger, a lot of sadness, and on that note I would like to extend my condolences to all of the families who lost loved ones and all of those who have been injured.

"We are terribly sorry and this is a terrible tragedy for our nation."

Barack Obama, the US president, has discussed the situation with Sheikh Hamad, asking him to hold those responsible for the violence accountable.

He said in a statement that Bahrain must respect the "universal rights" of its people and embrace "meaningful reform".

For his part, William Hague, the British foreign secretary, in a telephone call to Sheikh Salman, said he welcomed the government's military withdrawal and strongly supported efforts to initiate a dialogue.

Bahrain holds particular importance to the United States as the host of the US Navy's Fifth Fleet, which Washington sees as the main military counterweight to Iran's alleged efforts to expand its armed forces and reach into the Gulf.

Bahrain's ruling Sunni dynasty has strong backing from other Gulf Arab leaders, who fear that Shia powerhouse Iran could gain further footholds through the uprising led by Bahrain's Shia majority. The Shia majority has often complained of discrimination by the Sunni rulers.

Seems appropriate

The Popular Uprising in Egypt: The Military Machine Remains Intact, The Political Status Quo Prevails

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya


Global Research, February 21, 2011


The same group of Egyptian generals running Cairo presently also formed the backbone of the Mubarak regime. There has been no real change in government. The military junta represents a continuation of the Mubarak regime. The previous so-called civilian administration and the Egyptian High Council of the Armed Forces are virtually the same body.

The generals would have run Egypt either way, under the so-called civilian government formed by Mubarak before he resigned or the current military government. While the generals rule the Nile Valley, a “controlled opposition” is being manufactured and nurtured by the U.S. and its allies.

Change is forthcoming. Whose interests will it serve? Those of Washington and Brussels or those of the grassroots movements in North Africa and Southwest Asia?

The Imperial Province of Egypt

Since its inception as a Roman province, Egypt was always a valuable and important territory, its role as a breadbasket and economic hub were so significant for the Romans that it had a status as a special “imperial province” ruled directly by the Roman emperors.

Today, Egypt is of immense importance to America’s imperial ambitions. The Suez Canal is a global artery of maritime trade and of vast strategic importance as a military and energy corridor. The “Global Constabulary” that is Washington’s self-imposed role as global arbiter would be crippled without Egypt firmly in place.

Even if speaking hypothetically, when U.S. General James Mattis says that if the Suez Canal is closed, then the U.S. military will engage Egypt offensively (meaning attack or invade), he is not joking. [1] The Suez Canal is an important part of the global economy, the military network of the U.S. and NATO, and Washington’s modern-day and ever more mutinous empire.

What has changed in Post-Ben Ali Tunisia and Post-Mubarak Egypt?

Aside from the spirit and the confidence of the people, both Tunis and Cairo have not seen any substantial changes. The English playwright William Shakespeare said it best: “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” [2] In the case of post-Mubarak Egypt and post-Ben Ali Tunisia it must be said that “dictatorship and tyranny by any other name is still dictatorship and tyranny.” The point simply is as follows; what is important is what something is and not what something is called.

The chiefs of two oppressive Arab regimes are gone, but their actual regimes still remain in one form or another. Mubarak and Ben Ali were dominant actors within the power structure of the regimes in Tunis and Cairo. Yet, there is still an oligarchic supporting structure which remains intact. Both Mubarak and Ben Ali could almost be thought of in terms of the firsts amongst a set of peers or primus inter pares. Both dictators were members of a cast of oligarchs within their respective authoritarian republics.

The regime structures remain. Also, the external forces that supported the Tunisian and Egyptian regime structures persist. These external forces are the United States and the European Union.

The Phasing in of the Military Junta in Cairo

Before and after Mubarak stepped down from his office, the military in Egypt started being presented as a circumvent third party actor and as the “protector” of the Egyptian people. It is not coincidental that Mohammed Al-Baradei (El-Baradei/ElBaradei) was calling for the military to takeover. [3] In pertinence to this there has been a calculated ongoing public relations campaign to support the Egyptian military.

The military junta was slowly phased in. Signs of this included the political statements that the Egyptian military had started releasing to the public before Mubarak formally resigned. [4] The journalist Hamza Hendawi, who has been actively covering Egypt, spells this out:

Egypt’s 18-day uprising produced a military coup that crept into being over many days — its seeds planted early in the crisis by Mubarak himself.

The telltale signs of a coup in the making began to surface soon after Mubarak ordered the army out on the streets to restore order after days of deadly clashes between protesters and security forces in Cairo and much of the rest of the Arab nation.

“This is in fact the military taking over power,” said political analyst Diaa Rashwan after Mubarak stepped down and left the reins of power to the armed forces. “It is direct involvement by the military in authority and to make Mubarak look like he has given up power.” [5]

Moreover, the Egyptian military is not the neutral actor that it is being portrayed as. It is a backbone of the dictatorial establishment in Egypt that hoisted Mubarak. The Egyptian military is also Washington’s best bet for holding onto Egypt and to maintain the status quo.

The Egyptian Military is a Continuation of the Mubarak Regime

Presently the Egyptian High Council of the Armed Forces runs Egypt. It is a military junta that rules by degree. Similarly in Tunis, Fouad Al-Mebazaa, one of the “old guard” of Ben Ali, is also ruling by decrees that bypass any democratic process. [6]

The rule of the military generals in Cairo is only a formality; the military has always run Egypt under the guise of civilian government. The Egyptian protests have served to solidify and consolidate the hold of the Egyptian military over the Egyptian government. It is likely that Mubarak, before he stepped down from his office, was preparing the grounds for a military junta to take over with his new cabinet appointments. As a precaution, the new cabinet may have been part of a phasing in of open military rule.

Moreover, Mubarak’s regime began as a continuation of the regime of Mohammed Anwar Al-Sadat. Mubarak and Sadat both also came from within the ranks of the Egyptian military. Sadat was an Egyptian Army officer and Mubarak was a commander in the Egyptian Air Force. The Sadat-Mubarak regime can best be described as a club of military generals. In other words, Egypt’s top military brass and the regime are cast from the same lot.

Omar Suleiman, the man Mubarak selected to fill the long-time vacant post of Egyptian vice-president, too comes from the ranks of the Egyptian military. While a civilian clothed cabinet minister, General Suleiman was the head of Cairo’s intelligence services. This is clear evidence of the nature of the Egyptian regime as a military government or a general’s club.

Ahmed Al-Shafik, the prime minister that Mubarak appointed to his new 2011 government is also a general. Shafik was the head of the Egyptian Air Force. Nor is Shafik a new face to government; he was an Egyptian cabinet minister prior to his appointment as prime minister of Egypt.

Even Mohammed Hussein Tantawi, the deputy prime minister and defence minister of Egypt is a military general. Field Marshal Tantawi is also the supreme commander of the Egyptian military and heads the Egyptian High Council of the Armed Forces, which now officially governs Egypt. Under Mubarak’s rule, Tantawi has simultaneously served as the chief of the Egyptian military and the defence minister of Egypt since 1991 until the present. If not the second most powerful individual in Egypt, Field Marshal Tantawi is one of the most powerful members of the Egyptian ruling class.

These generals – officially retired or not – form the Egyptian High Council of the Armed Forces. In other words, Suleiman, Shafik, and Tantawi are running Egypt. They would have done it under a civilian regime or a military regime. Is there a real major difference between the previous so-called civilian government and the current military junta? The differences between the two are really nominal.

In reality, a carte blanche or blank cheque has been given to the same figures that were supposedly running the civilian regime. These officials and the Egyptian state ruled under a military junta will feel less pressure for suppressing the liberty and demands of the Egyptian people. The governing status quo is very much alive.

Washington’s Role in the Establishment of a Military Junta in Egypt

Like Rome in its day, the United States has established a series of global patron-client relationships as the basis of its empire. The Egyptian military is one of these U.S. clients. It is bankrolled by Washington. After Israel, Egypt is the second largest recipient of financial aid from the U.S., and the majority of this goes to the Egyptian military as a means of sustaining the patron-client relationship Washington has with Cairo.

It is because of the nature of this patron-client relationship that the U.S government had aided and abetted the takeover of Egypt by the Egyptian military. Washington presently has no other relationship in Egypt that is analogous in its strength to this. This would also not be the first time that Washington has helped prop a military government in an Arab country. In 1949, the U.S. helped secure another military takeover of the state in Syria. This has been part of the U.S. hegemon’s objective for preserving its control over its Egyptian province.

Sami Hafez Al-Anan (Al-Enan), the chief of staff of the Egyptian military, was in Washington for two days after the protests ignited in Egypt. [7] Undoubtedly, the U.S. government instructed him on what the U.S. wanted from the Egyptian regime and the military generals before his departure. After his return to Egypt, Ahmed Shafik was appointed the new prime minister and Field Marshal Tantawi became deputy prime minister. Martin Indyk, who is a former U.S. official, also openly said that the grounds should be prepared for the Egyptian military. [8] Since Indyk is no longer a U.S. official he was able to say what the White House and U.S. State Department could not openly express.

U.S. officials were also praising the Egyptian military before and after the resignation of Mubarak. The U.S. government also has not and does not intend to freeze or end its military aid to the junta in Cairo. U.S. officials are also complicit in all the acts of oppression committed under Mubarak and by the military junta.

The Egyptian Military Serves the Interests of Capital

The state and its military might are subordinated to organized capital. When Smedley D. Buttler, a retired U.S. Marine major-general, wrote in 1935 that he and the U.S. military served the interests of organized capital, he was being utterly frank. The Egyptian military, more specifically the leadership of the Egyptian military, serve the interests of capital, in both its local and global forms.

Under the Mubarak-Sadat regime the corrupt generals of Egypt have run Egypt as a vast estate. They run and control an extensive network of private enterprises and national assets, from the tourism sector and resort areas in Sharm el-Sheikh to construction companies. The lucrative Suez Canal is also under the control of the military.

No real changes can be expected under a group of generals who have an interest in maintaining the kleptocratic status quo. The Egyptian junta has also announced as the government of Egypt that it will continue the sanctions regime against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and maintain the treaty between Egypt and Israel.

Manufacturing Dissent through a Counter-Discourse

The U.S. government wants to control the situation in Egypt. In order to do this Washington is busy involved in setting up a “controlled counter-discourse” through “manufactured dissent.” The controlled counter-discourse is being shaped through the manufacturing of an opposition (pseudo-opposition).

In this regard, the U.S. has declared that it is preparing to bankroll the rise of new political parties in Egypt. [9] This aid is intended to control and manipulate the internal affairs of Egypt. One should ask, what would be the reaction of the U.S. government and the American people if countries such as Russia, China, Iran, and Venezuela where funding newly forming political parties in the United States?

Washington is also desperately trying to politically hedge its bets by making gestures of support and giving nominal support to some forms of authentic opposition. Yet, all the while the U.S. government is working to dilute the authentic opposition and infiltrate the protest movements with its own so-called opposition figures. There is also a synchronized effort by the Egyptian regime – which encompasses the military junta – to do the same. The so-called “Wise Men” group is a facet of this.

Mohammed Al-Baradei is also an opposition figure that is intended to preserve the status quo, albeit with cosmetic changes on the surface. Al-Baradei represent’s the imperial interests of Washington. Not only did he support the intervention of the Egyptian military, but he suggested the formation of “a transitional government headed by a presidential council of two or three figures, including a military representative.” [8] The Egyptian High Council of the Armed Forces in effect is what Al-Baradei demanded for before Mubarak’s resignation. In is also noteworthy to mention that Al-Baradei has also stated that he “respects Suleiman as someone to negotiate with over the transition [after Mubarak resigns].” [10] None of this is mere coincidence, including Al-Baradei’s calls for military intervention.

The so-called promotion of “civil society” in the form of non-government organizations (NGOs), which receive funding and training from the E.U. and Washington, are tied to creating a controlled opposition, a controlled counter-discourse, and political hedging. The declaration by the Egyptian High Council of the Armed Forces that it will govern Egypt for about six months or longer could be tied to the efforts to manufacture a “controlled opposition.” This could be one of the reasons that Martin Indyk, before Mubarak resigned, said “What we have to focus on now is getting the military into a position where they can hold the ring for a moderate and legitimate political leadership to emerge.” [11]

Since the end of the Second World War, the U.S. government has been engaged in manipulating political processes through non-state actors. This has been done through so-called democracy promotion, cultural, and educational programs. It is used as a tool of internal manipulation.

Arab Democracy

Hereto, there is no authentic Arab democracy. The consensus system in Lebanon is flawed and based on religious and confessional lines. Ironically, the only democratic system amongst the Arabs existed amid the occupied and downtrodden Palestinians.

The Palestinians had instituted a democratic system that lasted until the Hamas-Fatah split and the establishment of Mahmoud Abbas as a quasi-dictator in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Washington’s contempt for actual democracy amongst the Arabs is visible from its position on the Palestinian elections in 2006 that ushered in a Hamas government. Washington, Tel Aviv, the E.U., the House of Saud, Jordan, and Egypt were all instrumental is the debasement of democracy amongst the Palestinians.

In regards to Israel, Tel Aviv relishes calling itself a democracy in comparison to the Arabs, but claims that Israel is a democracy are also incorrect. Israel can best be characterized as an ethnocracy, which also embraces militarism and aspects of a theocracy. An ethnocratic state is a state where individual rights and state laws are based on ethnicity. Although Jews are not an ethnic group in the conventional sense, in Israel discrimination of non-Jewish Israelis is systematic and legal. Israeli Jewry and Israeli non-Jews do not have the same rights. For example, a non-Jewish Israeli citizen cannot marry someone from outside of Israel and live in Israel with them, but a Israeli Jew can. This type of discrimination is justified as legal “religious discrimination” to keep the so-called Jewish identity of Israel.

Washington’s Greater Middle East Project Will Not Materialize

If the Arab protesters are to make far-reaching changes they must persist with their demands and not back down. Nor can they ignore the role that foreign policy and economic factors play in their states. This is essential in order for genuine changes/revolutions to take place and not bogus shows of democracy. The current transitional government in Tunis and the Egyptian military junta are continuations of the old regimes. They will either try to maintain power or wait until a “controlled opposition” takes power and “managed democracies” are established in Tunisia and Egypt.

All is not doom and gloom. The U.S. government and the Egyptian junta are not omnipotent powers either. They have limited strength. Nor can they control the lower ranks of the Egyptian military. Washington and the Egyptian generals have been worried about defection amongst the ranks of the junior officers and the non-commissioned members of the military.

A new reality is setting in. A new Middle East is coming, but it will be one that no one expects. Creative destruction and political manipulation can only go so far. What is certain is that the new Middle East will not be the one that Condoleezza Rice and Ehud Olmert bragged about when Israel was bombarding Lebanon in 2006. The U.S. establishment will eventually realize that humans cannot control chaos.

The Shifting Sands

All things are finite and no empire lasts forever. Rome’s empire fell and eventually somewhere down the road so will the global empire of the United States. Washington and its cohorts are now beginning to sink in the sands of the Middle East. The U.S. government has put the United States on the wrong side of history. If Mubarak was the modern pharaoh of Egypt, then on the world-stage the U.S. is the pharaoh. Washington too will eventually see disgrace if it does not listen to the growing chorus.

In Washington there is a belief that the Arab protests can be manipulated, but the sands are shifting. The people of the region have realized that people should not be afraid of their governments, their governments should be afraid of them. The Rome of today, Washington, has been stopped in its tracks in the lands of North Africa and Southwest Asia.

Revolution is underway in the petro-sheikhdom of Bahrain, while the U.S. and E.U. have been silent as the Bahraini military and foreign mercenaries with Saudi and Jordanian help have been unleashed on civilian protesters. The Palestinian people’s morale has been lifted and pressure is being put on Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, which simply enforces the Israeli occupation in the West Bank. In Iraqi Kurdistan protests have started against Massoud Barzani and the Kurdistan Regional Government, which the U.S. and Britain have always tried to showcase as a model of Anglo-American success in Iraq. Protests have also broken out in Algeria, Jordan, Sudan, Iran, Turkey, and Libya. Yemen is rife with revolutionary fervour.

The bravery of the sons and daughters of Tunisia and Egypt have inspired and uplifted the Arabs as a whole and stirred the Turko-Arabo-Iranic World. Despite any attempts at managing these events, no one will be able to predict how they will play out. Still, one way or another, change will take shape.


Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).


NOTES

[1] Adrian Croft, “U.S. sees Suez Canal closure as inconceivable,” eds. Peter Griffiths and Elizabeth Fullerton, Reuters, February 1, 2011.
[2] William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet (Hauppauge, N.Y.: Barron’s Education Series, 2002), II.ii.44-45.
[3] Sarah El Deeb and Hamza Hendawi, “ElBaradei calls on Egyptian army to intervene,” Associated Press (AP), February 10, 2011.
[4] Hamza Hendawi, “Analysis: Military Coup was behind Mubarak’s exit,” Associated Press (AP), February 11, 2011.
[5] Ibid.
[6] “Tunisia calls up reserve troops amid unrest,” Associated Press (AP), February 7, 2011; Sofie Bouderbala, “Tunisian lawmakers approve emergency powers, Agence France-Presse (AFP), February 7, 2011; Kaouther Larbi, “Tunisia Senate grants leader wide powers,” Agence France-Presse (AFP), February 10, 2011.
[7] Philips Stewart, U.S. and Egyptian military chiefs meet in Washington,” ed. John O’Callaghan, Reuters, January 28, 2011; “Egypt general quits meeting to tend crisis at home,” Associated Press (AP), January 28, 2011.
[8] Elisabeth Bumiller, “Calling for Restraint, Pentagon Faces Test of Influence With Ally,” The New York Times, January 29, 2011.
[9] David E. Sanger, “Obama Presses Egypt’s Military on Democracy,” The New York Times, February, 2011, A7.
[10] Hamza Hendawi and Maggie Michael, “Egypt protestors throng square after violence, Associated Press (AP), February 4, 2011.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Bumiller, “Pentagon Faces Test,” Op. cit.