PDA

View Full Version : More good news out of Egypt



Fenris
Mar 31st 2011, 02:33 PM
Iran on Wednesday received well a recent proposal by Egypt's newly appointed Foreign Minister Nabil al-Arabi for the promotion of the bilateral ties between the two sides, and said it is ready to resume relations with Cairo.

Yep, that guy Mubarak just had to go....

sigh.

RabbiKnife
Mar 31st 2011, 04:36 PM
You mean someone didn't think this all the way through????

I heard a great line yesterday.

"Obama and the State Department are playing a brilliant game utilizing checkers strategy. Too bad they are playing chess, though."

Fenris
Mar 31st 2011, 04:46 PM
You mean someone didn't think this all the way through????'Fraid not...

The boy wonder Assad is a "reformer" but Mubarak had to go. Mommar has to go but we won't be the ones to do it. Ahmanutjob can't harm his own people but arming Hamas and Hezbullah or building nukes is perfectly ok. Israeli settlements "devastates trust" but Palestinian terror attacks are simply "wrong and does not succeed".


"Obama and the State Department are playing a brilliant game utilizing checkers strategy. Too bad they are playing chess, though."He ain't as smart as he thinks he is...

Vhayes
Mar 31st 2011, 05:05 PM
So - it's ok with all of you that both of those men had police forces that regularly brutalized their own citizens as long as they were "our" puppets? Or that the Libyan blew up planes with people in them?

Fenris
Mar 31st 2011, 05:10 PM
So - it's ok with all of you that both of those men had police forces that regularly brutalized their own citizens as long as they were "our" puppets?
Mubarak was an autocrat but not a despot a la Saddam or Assad.

If Mommar has to go then we should do the job ourselves, not outsource it to Al Qaida-affiliated rebels.

mattlad22
Mar 31st 2011, 05:11 PM
And here by the topic of the thread i expected something like "The Egyptians are giving each individual in the world a free peice of pure honey, yay!" and no, what do i see, this stuff......*walks off in disappointment*

I said this because i dont really know what this thread is...is it really just a thread to get around to ripping on another human being?
I'm just curious Rabbiknife, we all crack jokes about obama ext, they are jokes but when you think of him do you heartfully think he's stupid as a human being?

Fenris
Mar 31st 2011, 05:13 PM
So - it's ok with all of you that both of those men had police forces that regularly brutalized their own citizens as long as they were "our" puppets? Or that the Libyan blew up planes with people in them?

BTW V You didn't address the OP. Egypt is opening ties with Iran. Is this a good development?

Vhayes
Mar 31st 2011, 05:13 PM
Mubarak was an autocrat but not a despot a la Saddam or Assad.

If Mommar has to go then we should do the job ourselves, not outsource it to Al Qaida-affiliated rebels.

You do know the impetus behind the Egyptian uprising, right?

Fenris
Mar 31st 2011, 05:15 PM
I said this because i dont really know what this thread is...is it really just a thread to get around to ripping on another human being?

It's a thread about how actions have consequences. An ally just had to go, and now his replacements are reaching out to our enemies.

Fenris
Mar 31st 2011, 05:16 PM
You do know the impetus behind the Egyptian uprising, right?

High food prices?

It's irrelevant. I posted an article from the NY Times last week about how all those young, idealistic protesters have no say-so in this new Egypt. It's all the Muslim brotherhood now. Isn't that great?

Vhayes
Mar 31st 2011, 05:17 PM
His own PEOPLE said he had to go.

We will deal with the consequences just like we did with our "ally" Saddam and our "ally" Noriega.

mattlad22
Mar 31st 2011, 05:18 PM
It's a thread about how actions have consequences. An ally just had to go, and now his replacements are reaching out to our enemies.

ok thanks for clearing that up lol, i got it through your last post to V, heh.
I dont think its good developement, i dont think theres alot of good developements in this world, i flipped on Cnn last night for a few minutes and they were talking about simular uprisings in Syria also...the whole area is volatile, I pray something happens for the benefit of all people.

RabbiKnife
Mar 31st 2011, 05:20 PM
1. I do not understand why the USA is involved in the internal politics of either Egypt or Libya as neither is a threat to US security or national interests. However, buying off a wacko like Mabarack to keep Egypt stable to keep a modicum of peace in the region wasn't such a bad policy idea. Having people beaten by secret police is never something that anyone is "OK with", V. Geez. come on. But unless we are willing to declare the USA the lords of the universe and invade half of the globe, then we have no business being involved directly in a foreign country's local politics. If we are going to be involved, it would be helpful to pick the right group of rebels to support because we will have to live with the mess.

2. Someone should have put a bullet in Wacky Quaddy's skull years ago.

3. I don't know what "baka" is.

4. I try not to think about PresBO and his administration unless I have to do so.

5. I pray for PresBo, his family, and his administration on a regular basis. In addition to praying for his health and wisdom and the ability to hear from God, I also pray that he will be able to move out of public housing in 19 months.

Fenris
Mar 31st 2011, 05:21 PM
His own PEOPLE said he had to go.

Mmm no. Protesters said he had to go. Not the same thing at all.

And so now we have the Muslim Brotherhood. Aka "Hamas in Egypt".

mattlad22
Mar 31st 2011, 05:25 PM
1. I do not understand why the USA is involved in the internal politics of either Egypt or Libya as neither is a threat to US security or national interests. However, buying off a wacko like Mabarack to keep Egypt stable to keep a modicum of peace in the region wasn't such a bad policy idea. Having people beaten by secret police is never something that anyone is "OK with", V. Geez. come on. But unless we are willing to declare the USA the lords of the universe and invade half of the globe, then we have no business being involved directly in a foreign country's local politics. If we are going to be involved, it would be helpful to pick the right group of rebels to support because we will have to live with the mess.

2. Someone should have put a bullet in Wacky Quaddy's skull years ago.

3. I don't know what "baka" is.

4. I try not to think about PresBO and his administration unless I have to do so.

5. I pray for PresBo, his family, and his administration on a regular basis. In addition to praying for his health and wisdom and the ability to hear from God, I also pray that he will be able to move out of public housing in 19 months.

Sorry, yeah i changed the "baka" in an edit because i got it from when i read japanese, which it means "stupid" in most cases, so i changed it after i realised i used it.

Ok, thats all i was asking. Thank you for responding, you didnt have to but you did 8)

Fenris
Mar 31st 2011, 05:27 PM
"Let me be perfectly clear"

The end game here is not, and should not be, "democracy". It's a "democracy" when 51% of the population votes to slaughter the other 49%. The end game should be a government that respects the rule of law and human rights. If "the people" vote to put the Muslim Brotherhood into power, nothing has been gained. We were better off with Mubarak.

This shouldn't be a difficult point to grasp.

RabbiKnife
Mar 31st 2011, 05:32 PM
Well, since even our "constitutional scholar" President doesn't seem to understand that the USA is NOT a democracy but is instead a republic, it is not surprising that many Americans don't know the difference, either.

Fenris
Mar 31st 2011, 05:36 PM
What the people want is important. If they want to vote for Hamas in Egypt, who are we to say otherwise?

mattlad22
Mar 31st 2011, 05:46 PM
What the people want is important. If they want to vote for Hamas in Egypt, who are we to say otherwise?

Well say they all do want to vote for hamas...any country that goes in to change that is a dictatorship arnt they? (asking)

Fenris
Mar 31st 2011, 05:50 PM
Well say they all do want to vote for hamas...any country that goes in to change that is a dictatorship arnt they? (asking)

Not understanding your question here.

mattlad22
Mar 31st 2011, 06:03 PM
Not understanding your question here.

Sorry,

uh ok so Egypt, Syria and uhh Iraq, the majority of its people in election vote for Hamas (the terrorist) (hypothetical btw)

So they go into power, but another country or country's dont like that because well thier terrorist's.
So they go into these countries and try to take out and change what the majority of those countries voted in.....does that make those other country/s a Dictatorship? Could even relate to Communism in a sence also?

RabbiKnife
Mar 31st 2011, 06:07 PM
No.

Dictatorship means rule by one person or at best, very small group of people.

Your question is whether a big, nasty country, oh, for instance, the LandofStarsandStripes, didn't like the fact that when the Dictator of TheLandofPyramids was run out of town on a rail, and the new election elected the President from, oh, say, Hamas, who started shooting rockets into the neighboring country, a friend of TheLandOfStarsAndStrips, (we'll call them FunnySkullCapLand), and then the LandOfStarsAndStripes invaded the newly "democratic" country of TheLandOfPyramids and removed the nutjob from power, would the LandOfStarsAndSTripes then be a dictatorship?

The answer is "no." It would be a much hated by everyone except the FunnySkullCapLandians, unless the WorldUnited organization said it was OK...

Fenris
Mar 31st 2011, 06:12 PM
FunnySkullCapLand
:rofl:


On a more serious note, no one in the 1940s was saying "Hey, the Germans voted for the Nazi party, so we all have to respect their choice". But if a modern state votes for genocidal nutjobs, we're all talking about "democracy" and how wonderful it is that they get to express their political opinion.

mattlad22
Mar 31st 2011, 06:15 PM
No.

Dictatorship means rule by one person or at best, very small group of people.

Your question is whether a big, nasty country, oh, for instance, the LandofStarsandStripes, didn't like the fact that when the Dictator of TheLandofPyramids was run out of town on a rail, and the new election elected the President from, oh, say, Hamas, who started shooting rockets into the neighboring country, a friend of TheLandOfStarsAndStrips, (we'll call them FunnySkullCapLand), and then the LandOfStarsAndStripes invaded the newly "democratic" country of TheLandOfPyramids and removed the nutjob from power, would the LandOfStarsAndSTripes then be a dictatorship?

The answer is "no." It would be a much hated by everyone except the FunnySkullCapLandians, unless the WorldUnited organization said it was OK...

Haha, ok got it, when i could stop laughing.

RabbiKnife
Mar 31st 2011, 06:15 PM
:rofl:


On a more serious note, no one in the 1940s was saying "Hey, the Germans voted for the Nazi party, so we all have to respect their choice". But if a modern state votes for genocidal nutjobs, we're all talking about "democracy" and how wonderful it is that they get to express their political opinion.

Oh, I don't know. Chamberlain was OK with Hitler, and so was half the US population and Congress until Pearl Harbor. Sadly, sometimes ox goring ain't thought of as too bad until your ox gets gored...

Fenris
Mar 31st 2011, 06:26 PM
Oh, I don't know. Chamberlain was OK with Hitler
Yeah kinda sad, that. Still, no one was talking about the wonders of "democracy". They knew what the Nazi party was.

RabbiKnife
Mar 31st 2011, 06:34 PM
Yeah kinda sad, that. Still, no one was talking about the wonders of "democracy". They knew what the Nazi party was.

The one's not suffering from CRTD, anyway.

Vhayes
Mar 31st 2011, 10:39 PM
High food prices?

It's irrelevant. I posted an article from the NY Times last week about how all those young, idealistic protesters have no say-so in this new Egypt. It's all the Muslim brotherhood now. Isn't that great?

Here - watch this. People being beaten to death by their own government is NOT irrelevant.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQfgSg1Vvlo

Fenris
Apr 1st 2011, 10:06 AM
Here - watch this. People being beaten to death by their own government is NOT irrelevant.

You think that's going to change under the Muslim Brotherhood? :rofl:

Fenris
Apr 1st 2011, 10:17 AM
To review:

The end game here is not, and should not be, "democracy". It's a "democracy" when 51% of the population votes to slaughter the other 49%. The end game should be a government that respects the rule of law and human rights. If "the people" vote to put the Muslim Brotherhood into power, nothing has been gained. We were better off with Mubarak.

This shouldn't be a difficult point to grasp.

Fenris
Apr 5th 2011, 07:34 PM
And...sigh...yet more good news out of Egypt. From NRO-


El Baradei’s Dumb and Dangerous Threat to Declare War on Israel
April 5, 2011 2:59 P.M.
By Mario Loyola

This is just great. Mohammed El Baradei, the former International Atomic Energy Agency chief who is running for president of Egypt, just promised to declare war on Israel if Israel attacks the Hamas-controlled Gaza strip. So dramatic a change in Egypt’s declared policy on the Palestinian territories would have grave consequences for the whole U.S. position in the Middle East — to make no mention of Israel’s security.

It could be that El Baradei — who already demonstrated, while dealing with the Iran issue at the IAEA, that he has no capacity whatever for strategic analysis — made the comment off the cuff. But, regardless, the comment must be taken at face value, because he’s obviously playing to public opinion in Egypt. And we have already seen other signs that Egyptian public opinion is moving further away than ever from the 30-year peace agreement with Israel. Until now, Egypt has been a partner (however feckless) with the U.S. and Israel in the “peace process.” By keeping the border crossing from Gaza into Egypt closed, Egypt has helped Israel to maintain both pressure on Hamas and its negotiating posture, which is to resist major changes in the status quo except through negotiated agreements. Egypt has helped Israel demonstrate to Hamas that there is little return on investment from attacking Israeli civilians and much to lose — one of the reasons why the last few years have been relatively quiet on the Gaza front.

What El Baradei is now proposing as the new declaratory policy of the Egyptian government (even if they don’t act on it) could fundamentally change Egypt’s role in the region and dramatically increase tensions in an already brittle situation. The only reason Israel would attack Gaza is if Hamas attacks Israeli civilians in large numbers, as occurred before Operation Cast Lead at the end of 2008. By adopting the stance advocated by El Baradei, Egypt would in essence be abandoning the Camp David Accords in favor of a hostile posture primed for offense. It’s not just that such a declaration creates a huge incentive for Hamas to attack Israeli civilians where Egypt’s policy had previously been to discourage such attacks. Strategically speaking, Egypt would be embracing Hamas as the tip of its spear, turned now against Israel. Best of all (from the point of view of a Hamas terrorist), Egypt would be giving Hamas the ability to trigger a state of war between Egypt and Israel.

Violent crises such as what we see in Libya have major consequences, but changes in declaratory policy can be just as devastating. The posture that El Baradei promises to assume if elected would be highly destabilizing to the balance of the power in the Middle East, and threatens to tilt the ground under the U.S. position there. The Obama administration should reach out to the Egyptian military and make it clear to them that threatening to declare war on Israel in case of conflict with Gaza is incompatible with Egypt’s obligations under the Camp David Accords, is deeply damaging to the vital U.S. interest in maintaining peace and stability, and will have unavoidably painful consequences for everybody involved — including them. Maybe someone in Egypt’s military can prevail on El Baradei to think a little more before the next time he opens his mouth.


Yep. Mubarak just had to go....

Fenris
Apr 5th 2011, 07:49 PM
Here's some other Egyptian running for president-


Secretary-General of Egypt's Amal Party Magdi Hussein said confronting Israeli plans in occupied Palestine and supporting the Palestinian nation stand atop his agenda for presidential campaign.

Speaking in an interview with FNA on Tuesday, Hussein announced his candidacy for the upcoming presidential election in Egypt to help establish democracy in his country and materialize people's demands.

Hussein said "confrontation against the Zionist plans in occupied Palestine", among others, is his top priority on the scene of foreign policy.

He viewed Egypt's relations with the Zionist regime as detrimental to his country.

He said "contents and clauses of the agreements signed between Egypt and Israel will certainly be revised" if he is elected president.

Yep, the one thing they all agree on is that they hate Israel.

Fenris
Apr 5th 2011, 07:53 PM
Hey here's a kind of legalistic question. Since Israel gave the Sinai back to Egypt in exchange for a peace treaty, if Egypt tears up the treaty can Israel get the Sinai back?

What are you all laughing at?!

RabbiKnife
Apr 6th 2011, 12:44 PM
Let's see.

F-15s and F-16s. Check.
US manufactured M1A3 Abrahams Heavy Battle Tanks with enhanced optic package. Check.
An incentive to win (as opposed to being pushed into the Med). Check.

Yes. If Egypt tears up the treaty, Israel can definitely get the Sinai back...

Fenris
Apr 6th 2011, 12:51 PM
Egypt also has state-of-the-art American military hardware.

It also has ten times the population of Israel and almost 50 times the landmass of Israel.

If Egypt, Syria, Hamas, and Hizbullah all decide to attack Israel at the same time, the situation could get ugly very quickly...

spookytooth
Apr 10th 2011, 09:22 AM
Seems like things aren't so kumbyah in Tahir Square anymore, wonder how the 'youth protestors' of Egypt are feelin right now; maybe kinda like they've been 'turned out' by the powers that be? And where are the cries of FOUL from the sheepherder in D.C., maybe he needs to tell Tantawi 'its time to go', after all...it IS about his proclaimed role to protect CIVILIANS isn't it?

That's what happens when one is a dumb pawn; one gets used by whatever force comes ahknocken that promises to fulfill one's dreams and panders to one's ambitions... in other words ... panders to the ego.

Ah well, ... Democracy in action... mob rule at its best!

spookytooth
Apr 10th 2011, 09:48 AM
Egypt also has state-of-the-art American military hardware.

It also has ten times the population of Israel and almost 50 times the landmass of Israel.

If Egypt, Syria, Hamas, and Hizbullah all decide to attack Israel at the same time, the situation could get ugly very quickly...

Think: Iran, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Lebenon, Libya, Hamas, Hizbullah, with a little help from their friends. Then throw Saudi Arabia, Bahrain (OOPS the Saudi PROVINCE of Bahrain... http://debka.com/article/20817/ .... ) UAE and Ethiopia... not to forget Morocco, Yemen into the mix.

Now you got the makins for a go round. And where would one find the Israeli PM and the Saudi FM discussing all this? Moscow of course; doesn't do any good to go to D.C. , doing that just gets you either ignored or slapped in the face or both. http://debka.com/article/20795/

Guess Judah decided it wanted a lil STRANGE after turnin its back on God. He does say Judah will seek out strange lovers rather than turning to Him. One can't get much stranger than these for bedfellows, except perhaps China, ... thinkin of that, where's Netanyahu now?

spookytooth
Apr 10th 2011, 10:05 AM
BTW.... I'm sure you folks here have noted the strategic placement of Ethiopia, Morocco, Bahrain, Yemen, and Egypt a far as the 'sea gates' to the world's oil are concerned. If you haven't, you SERIOUSLY NEED to pull up a map of the region.

You'll note that each of the countries noted have strategic placement to the region's shipping choke points. Good military strategy says one MUST control an enemie's ingress and egress routes in order to overcome him. For those who are still asleep, Iran is the Puppet Master behind the strategy being played out in the Middle East. All the nations listed above WILL turn to Islam, perhaps not directly but indirectly, and ally with Iran.

Don't think so? ..... Iraq already has. Just keep watching... IRAN will move on Israel; but not until an alliance is formed that it thinks is strong enough to withstand the EU. Iran isn't so worried about us, as in U.S., it ALREADY has us in the bag; the folks in America are just to ignernt to know it as yet.

Arnie Madsen
Apr 10th 2011, 11:37 AM
102123.8:00:00-8:00:32.CST.01.02.03.102123
.
.
.
Shortly Israel will greatly expand it's borders to the original Land of Jacob. It will include parts of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, almost half of Iraq as well as the southern parts of Syria and Lebanon. That is what comes next.

It will have all the hallmarks of the miraculous. God himself will do it . The surrounding nations and much of the world will recognize it is the hand of God at work. This will be clear. No longer will Israel be surrounded by nations that are thorns and briers . The people of Israel will live in peace and safety. Some of the inhabitants of the reclaimed Lands will recognize and serve the God of Israel . It will be a wide buffer zone around the new borders. No more grenades tossed over walls , no more missiles fired from afar.

God will arise and have favor and compassion on Zion. The appointed time has come.

EarlyCall
Apr 10th 2011, 01:08 PM
Here - watch this. People being beaten to death by their own government is NOT irrelevant.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQfgSg1Vvlo

No, you're right, it isn't irrelevant and should never be so. However, aren't the replacements the ones that like to use human shields?

Vhayes
Apr 10th 2011, 02:52 PM
No, you're right, it isn't irrelevant and should never be so. However, aren't the replacements the ones that like to use human shields?

Maybe. But that's still no reason to say Mubarak as "good".

For too many years America has been seen by people around the world as deaf, dumb and blind to the people who live and die in these countries. We seem to have only been concerned about how the people in power effect us, not the citizens of the country itself.

EarlyCall
Apr 10th 2011, 03:22 PM
Maybe. But that's still no reason to say Mubarak as "good".

For too many years America has been seen by people around the world as deaf, dumb and blind to the people who live and die in these countries. We seem to have only been concerned about how the people in power effect us, not the citizens of the country itself.

Right. Can't argue that point. As for these other nations, there isn't a one of them that has any room to speak without implicating themselves guilty of the very same thing. We as Americans need to know and understand this and tell the rest of the world where to get off, and stop taking their lip any longer.

moonglow
Apr 10th 2011, 03:49 PM
BTW.... I'm sure you folks here have noted the strategic placement of Ethiopia, Morocco, Bahrain, Yemen, and Egypt a far as the 'sea gates' to the world's oil are concerned. If you haven't, you SERIOUSLY NEED to pull up a map of the region.

You'll note that each of the countries noted have strategic placement to the region's shipping choke points. Good military strategy says one MUST control an enemie's ingress and egress routes in order to overcome him. For those who are still asleep, Iran is the Puppet Master behind the strategy being played out in the Middle East. All the nations listed above WILL turn to Islam, perhaps not directly but indirectly, and ally with Iran.

Don't think so? ..... Iraq already has. Just keep watching... IRAN will move on Israel; but not until an alliance is formed that it thinks is strong enough to withstand the EU. Iran isn't so worried about us, as in U.S., it ALREADY has us in the bag; the folks in America are just to ignernt to know it as yet.

My understanding is all those nations are mostly Muslims already so I don't understand your post. Also why would the dictator in Iran want to get rid of other dictators in other countries that are as ruthless as he is? :confused And how does Iran have us in the bag? No one here trusts him...in fact most think their President is insane. Our government sure doesn't trust him either and have made that very clear.

God bless

Fenris
Apr 11th 2011, 01:49 PM
Maybe. But that's still no reason to say Mubarak as "good".

If the Muslim Brotherhood comes to power, (which is certainly possible if not likely,) he will seem "good" by comparison.

Vhayes
Apr 11th 2011, 01:52 PM
If the Muslim Brotherhood comes to power, (which is certainly possible if not likely,) he will seem "good" by comparison.

And the people who live in Egypt will know they have made a mistake. A huge mistake. But THEY should be permitted the choice, not us.

Fenris
Apr 11th 2011, 01:57 PM
And the people who live in Egypt will know they have made a mistake. A huge mistake. But THEY should be permitted the choice, not us.
This "choice" does not take place in a vacuum. It has a direct bearing on our national security. That's why I don't understand why Obama weighed in that Mubarak "had to go" but he thinks that boy wonder Assad in Damascus is a "reformer". He's far more repressive than Mubarak ever was. And what about Iran? Obama thinks he can strike a deal with the Mullahs? They're laughing at us...

Of course people of every country should be free. But let's start with the worst offenders, first. Let's start with the countries that are a threat to us, first.

Obama's not a national security president.

Fenris
Apr 12th 2011, 01:54 PM
More good news out of Egypt.

From the NY Times


An Egyptian blogger was sentenced Monday to three years in prison for criticizing the military in what human rights advocates called one of the more alarming violations of freedom of expression since a popular uprising led to the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak two months ago.

The blogger, Maikel Nabil, 26, had assailed the Egyptian armed forces for what he called its continuation of the corruption and anti-democratic practices of Mr. Mubarak. Mr. Nabil often quoted from reports by established human rights groups.

The charges against Mr. Nabil included insulting the military establishment and spreading false information about the armed forces. The tribunal charged him with spreading information previously published by human rights organizations like Amnesty International on the army’s use of violence against protesters, the torture of those detained inside the Egyptian Museum and the use of forced pelvic exams, known as “virginity tests,” against detained female protesters.

The main evidence against Mr. Nabil, who blogged under the name “Son of Ra,” was a CD containing 73 screen shots of entries on his blog and his personal Facebook page, according to Heba Morayef, a researcher in Egypt for Human Rights Watch, which is based in New York.

Mr. Nabil has the unusual political position in Egypt of being a pacifist as well as a champion of Israel, often praising its democracy, educational standards and innovations.

Mona Seif, a rights advocate, said Mr. Nabil may have been singled out as an easy target partly because of previous run-ins with the military and partly because of his pro-Israel views.