JohnG@lt wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
I have a friend future stalking target who was there a couple of days ago. She got out just before the riots started. She was so darn lucky!
Last edited by Spark (2011-01-30 17:26:17)
lulz.Spark wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
I have a friend future stalking target who was there a couple of days ago. She got out just before the riots started. She was so darn lucky!
Sounds about right unless there are big cultural divides in the Country. They Could bring in units from the Southern most parts if they are organized along Regional lines. Local units would not likely Fire on citizens they have walked among. Now if You sent The Vermont National Guard to quell riots in L.A. that might work.CameronPoe wrote:
Prediction:
Army refuses to follow orders when Mubarak gives the go-ahead to violently repress the popular uprising, Mubarak finished. Gets on a plane to Switzerland and lives a life of luxury in exile.
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2011-01-30 18:37:49)
This is not correct. No such coalition existsBeduin wrote:
The opposition has formed a coalition with Mohamed Elbaradei as a leader. They are ready to take over.11 Bravo wrote:
no they really have not. rioting and looting is not taking matters into your own hands.
So Hosni...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JuS5AwR5Xg
Last edited by Beduin (2011-01-31 07:49:03)
Or a ' radical homicidal religion ' . I just want it to End on a good note but it seems less than likely.DBBrinson1 wrote:
I hope the uprising fails. I don't want another extremist regime under the guise of 'freedom' and 'democracy'.
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2011-01-31 09:31:15)
It's a DST traditionUnkleRukus wrote:
LoL religion debates shit throwing contests, it's not like we have 10 of those a day in D&ST.
omfg NWO tactics.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Sounds about right unless there are big cultural divides in the Country. They Could bring in units from the Southern most parts if they are organized along Regional lines. Local units would not likely Fire on citizens they have walked among. Now if You sent The Vermont National Guard to quell riots in L.A. that might work.CameronPoe wrote:
Prediction:
Army refuses to follow orders when Mubarak gives the go-ahead to violently repress the popular uprising, Mubarak finished. Gets on a plane to Switzerland and lives a life of luxury in exile.
Hope it doesn't come to that.
dug it up:Uzique wrote:
i remember reading a really good expose on mubarak and the history of egypt's so called 'democratic' politics in the economist about 6 months ago... basically they have a party-based system that is so stacked in favour of mubarak's party every time that it is effectively a dictatorship. the vote and the ability for the individual people of the country to make a difference is basically nil/worthless. he's a real crook and the only reason he has managed to keep his hold on power for so long is because he's pro-west and a puppet rather than anti-west and a pain in the ass.
more power to the egyptian people, i say... it would be hypocritical of us in the west to express displeasure at a TRUE act of democratic action/revolution. lets see how you americans handle a real act of self-determination from an important middle-eastern 'ally'.
yeah indeed, but then again the real change simply might be too complex and dynamic for them to get a handle on, so their focusing on something that might be relevant to their audience.Uzique wrote:
western news companies love to focus on minor trivial shit so that the bigger picture and the underlying ideological/political problems posed aren't too 'unsettling' for couch-surfing western audiences. nobody wants to think about the massive power-play at hand with the potential turning of egypt from america's bitch to a self-determining state... so it's all "OH! LOOK! museum got dumped!" western media is hilarious: when it suits them they're inciting terror, fear and mass paranoia to their ends, when the tide turns they just want to trivialize and marginalize real news.
Media critiques aside, it is a valid issue to discuss whether or not removing Mubarak will result in the formation of an Islamist state.Uzique wrote:
western news companies love to focus on minor trivial shit so that the bigger picture and the underlying ideological/political problems posed aren't too 'unsettling' for couch-surfing western audiences. nobody wants to think about the massive power-play at hand with the potential turning of egypt from america's bitch to a self-determining state... so it's all "OH! LOOK! museum got dumped!" western media is hilarious: when it suits them they're inciting terror, fear and mass paranoia to their ends, when the tide turns they just want to trivialize and marginalize real news.
nobody knows at this point, however there is a will to create an islamist government by some groupsTurquoise wrote:
Media critiques aside, it is a valid issue to discuss whether or not removing Mubarak will result in the formation of an Islamist state.Uzique wrote:
western news companies love to focus on minor trivial shit so that the bigger picture and the underlying ideological/political problems posed aren't too 'unsettling' for couch-surfing western audiences. nobody wants to think about the massive power-play at hand with the potential turning of egypt from america's bitch to a self-determining state... so it's all "OH! LOOK! museum got dumped!" western media is hilarious: when it suits them they're inciting terror, fear and mass paranoia to their ends, when the tide turns they just want to trivialize and marginalize real news.
On the one hand, Mubarak's rule has been authoritarian, and the people want more freedoms. On the other hand, Iran went through a similar process and ended up with a new government worse than the last.
would you deny americans the right to revolt against british authoritarianism because of the risk of america forming a christian state?Turquoise wrote:
Media critiques aside, it is a valid issue to discuss whether or not removing Mubarak will result in the formation of an Islamist state.Uzique wrote:
western news companies love to focus on minor trivial shit so that the bigger picture and the underlying ideological/political problems posed aren't too 'unsettling' for couch-surfing western audiences. nobody wants to think about the massive power-play at hand with the potential turning of egypt from america's bitch to a self-determining state... so it's all "OH! LOOK! museum got dumped!" western media is hilarious: when it suits them they're inciting terror, fear and mass paranoia to their ends, when the tide turns they just want to trivialize and marginalize real news.
On the one hand, Mubarak's rule has been authoritarian, and the people want more freedoms. On the other hand, Iran went through a similar process and ended up with a new government worse than the last.
Different as they were escaping persecution and wished to be left alone. The Mooslim Brotherhood tends to produce characters that want to/try to/actually kill my brethren. Another iran isn't in the best interest of the world.Uzique wrote:
would you deny americans the right to revolt against british authoritarianism because of the risk of america forming a christian state?Turquoise wrote:
Media critiques aside, it is a valid issue to discuss whether or not removing Mubarak will result in the formation of an Islamist state.Uzique wrote:
western news companies love to focus on minor trivial shit so that the bigger picture and the underlying ideological/political problems posed aren't too 'unsettling' for couch-surfing western audiences. nobody wants to think about the massive power-play at hand with the potential turning of egypt from america's bitch to a self-determining state... so it's all "OH! LOOK! museum got dumped!" western media is hilarious: when it suits them they're inciting terror, fear and mass paranoia to their ends, when the tide turns they just want to trivialize and marginalize real news.
On the one hand, Mubarak's rule has been authoritarian, and the people want more freedoms. On the other hand, Iran went through a similar process and ended up with a new government worse than the last.
no?
okay then. it's their future.
Democratic liberty to impose shira law eh? I tell you what's hypocritical is to not support the people who really want democratic reform (Iran's last 'election') and to support this one. I'm sorry I don't give a fuck what type a government a state has -as long as its inhabitants want to kill me and my countrymen, fuck em -keep em down and controlled so they don't make it over to my neck of the woods. Sorry, its that simple.Uzique wrote:
it isn't different at all. they're trying to gain democratic liberty just in the same way the founding fathers were-- of course the context and the specifics are different, it would be impossible to find an exactly analogous match from within history. it is so hypocritical to preach 'democracy' to puppet-states and sycophant foreign nations whilst then getting your pants in a twist because somebody else's majority-rule differs in opinion/ideology to yours. if you believe in 'democracy', as you have preached to the skeptical afghanis and iraqis... then you'll surely and kindly let egypt have their own? they don't even want your military help on this one!
"another iran" isn't in your best interests? perhaps it shouldn't be in your interests at all. maybe that's your mistake, 'world police'.
I don't know who or what they are, but according to this. They're not the terrorist type. They are critical of Western policy though, which I guess makes them as good as the terrorist type for most people.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Different as they were escaping persecution and wished to be left alone. The Mooslim Brotherhood tends to produce characters that want to/try to/actually kill my brethren. Another iran isn't in the best interest of the world.Uzique wrote:
would you deny americans the right to revolt against british authoritarianism because of the risk of america forming a christian state?Turquoise wrote:
Media critiques aside, it is a valid issue to discuss whether or not removing Mubarak will result in the formation of an Islamist state.
On the one hand, Mubarak's rule has been authoritarian, and the people want more freedoms. On the other hand, Iran went through a similar process and ended up with a new government worse than the last.
no?
okay then. it's their future.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12325128The country's only properly organised mass political movement outside the ruling party is the Muslim Brotherhood, and it would do very well in any free election.
Unlike the jihadis, it does not believe it is at war with the West. It is conservative, moderate and non-violent. But it is highly critical of Western policy in the Middle East.
you have a severely retarded world view.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Democratic liberty to impose shira law eh? I tell you what's hypocritical is to not support the people who really want democratic reform (Iran's last 'election') and to support this one. I'm sorry I don't give a fuck what type a government a state has -as long as its inhabitants want to kill me and my countrymen, fuck em -keep em down and controlled so they don't make it over to my neck of the woods. Sorry, its that simple.Uzique wrote:
it isn't different at all. they're trying to gain democratic liberty just in the same way the founding fathers were-- of course the context and the specifics are different, it would be impossible to find an exactly analogous match from within history. it is so hypocritical to preach 'democracy' to puppet-states and sycophant foreign nations whilst then getting your pants in a twist because somebody else's majority-rule differs in opinion/ideology to yours. if you believe in 'democracy', as you have preached to the skeptical afghanis and iraqis... then you'll surely and kindly let egypt have their own? they don't even want your military help on this one!
"another iran" isn't in your best interests? perhaps it shouldn't be in your interests at all. maybe that's your mistake, 'world police'.
I disagree with your world police view also. Has looking the other way helped nations of Europe? I guess terrorist attacks have decreased over the years?
No one would care about Egypt if the Suez Canal didn't exist. They're more England's bitch than the US's bitch seeing as they're a former colony and all...Uzique wrote:
western news companies love to focus on minor trivial shit so that the bigger picture and the underlying ideological/political problems posed aren't too 'unsettling' for couch-surfing western audiences. nobody wants to think about the massive power-play at hand with the potential turning of egypt from america's bitch to a self-determining state... so it's all "OH! LOOK! museum got dumped!" western media is hilarious: when it suits them they're inciting terror, fear and mass paranoia to their ends, when the tide turns they just want to trivialize and marginalize real news.