Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Troy wrote:The so called freedom fighters are not giving up the Lockerbie terrorist. Yea this is going to turn out great.

Oh no, a country in political transition is more concerned with domestic political issues than with those of the West regarding some old guy who killed some people.

I have no faith in any of these uprisings. The Tahir square was the site of a rape of a CBS news reporter by more then 30+ men, while the clowns behind the desks were saying: "Isn't this great?!" "Democracy for Egypt!" Bunch of naive fools. The Muslim Brotherhood put on a happy mask and renamed themselves the Peace & Unity Party and are gaining quite a bit of support.

The scariest part about this rape/sexual assault was that the men were chanting "JEW!" while they did it.

Pardon my skepticism of the ME as the people rioting and rebelling are being used as pawns.

Stormrider wrote:
The scariest part about this rape/sexual assault was that the men were chanting "JEW!" while they did it.

Why is that scary? Are you concerned that the US would support Israel in the event of a conflict? Or are you concerned that Israel would do something most unwise if threatened by a hostile Egypt?

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
The scariest part about this rape/sexual assault was that the men were chanting "JEW!" while they did it.

Why is that scary? Are you concerned that the US would support Israel in the event of a conflict? Or are you concerned that Israel would do something most unwise if threatened by a hostile Egypt?

Wouldn't the US support Israel though, if need be of course. Its not like Israel hasn't fought Egypt, along with Syria, at once, and won before.

They might, or they might not. And the issue isn't so much direct conflict, because no one is going to bother with that, its Egypt's willingness to control its border with Gaza.

People need to realise this was more of a civil war than a popular uprising. What happens from here is entirely up in the air. The new cause is attached to the West, though, thanks to our support. That doesn't guarantee anything, but it is a good start.

Meanwhile, the wave of cynicism towards each of the uprisings across the Middle East is just sad. "Okay, yes, another corrupt and repressive regime is gone, but I'll only maintain my hardened internet cynic reputation if I predict doom and gloom."

We had the same videos when Saddam was turned out. We know whats coming next and it won't be pretty.... You can not bomb a population and expect them to love you afterward.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:We had the same videos when Saddam was turned out. We know whats coming next and it won't be pretty.... You can not bomb a population and expect them to love you afterward.

The Iraqi insurgency had more to do with being under the government of a hostile, occupying force.

Do you think all of them hated their government? Many of them likely think they are under a hostile, occupying force now.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:Do you think all of them hated their government? Many of them likely think they are under a hostile, occupying force now.

A civil war is very different to an invasion by a foreign nation. And Gaddafi's actions against his own people seem to outwiegh any casualties the rebels have inflicted by accident.

Actually our lack of direct intervention (instead providing air support, essentially) may very well be what makes this work.

Stormrider wrote:I have no faith in any of these uprisings. The Tahir square was the site of a rape of a CBS news reporter by more then 30+ men, while the clowns behind the desks were saying: "Isn't this great?!" "Democracy for Egypt!" Bunch of naive fools. The Muslim Brotherhood put on a happy mask and renamed themselves the Peace & Unity Party and are gaining quite a bit of support.

It's pretty common in journalism and, hell, politics in genearl. If a reporter gets shot, that's a sad tale to be regaled throughout the news, but if something even more traumatic happens, they try to push it under the rug.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:Do you think all of them hated their government? Many of them likely think they are under a hostile, occupying force now.

No, I guarantee that they don't. You cannot compare an invasion by the United States, or any other sufficiently alien nation-state, to a civil war within a single nation-state.

They might not like who has power, but at the very least the people in power are Libyan.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:We had the same videos when Saddam was turned out. We know whats coming next and it won't be pretty.... You can not bomb a population and expect them to love you afterward.

There's a difference between transparently artificial photo ops manufactured for Western consumption and actual reporting from the ground.

And no-one is saying this is going to be pretty, just that in the long run there's a really good chance its going to be better than life under Gaddafi.

Melissia wrote:Actually our lack of direct intervention (instead providing air support, essentially) may very well be what makes this work.

Stormrider wrote:I have no faith in any of these uprisings. The Tahir square was the site of a rape of a CBS news reporter by more then 30+ men, while the clowns behind the desks were saying: "Isn't this great?!" "Democracy for Egypt!" Bunch of naive fools. The Muslim Brotherhood put on a happy mask and renamed themselves the Peace & Unity Party and are gaining quite a bit of support.

It's pretty common in journalism and, hell, politics in genearl. If a reporter gets shot, that's a sad tale to be regaled throughout the news, but if something even more traumatic happens, they try to push it under the rug.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/347100.page

Cheese Elemental wrote:

Troy wrote:The so called freedom fighters are not giving up the Lockerbie terrorist. Yea this is going to turn out great.

The guy's comatose and on death's door. Nothing at all will be gained from detaining or killing him now.

Except of course, justice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:Do you think all of them hated their government? Many of them likely think they are under a hostile, occupying force now.

A civil war is very different to an invasion by a foreign nation. And Gaddafi's actions against his own people seem to outwiegh any casualties the rebels have inflicted by accident.

For exactly 7 seconds. Its a tribal conflict. Khaddafy's tribe was in power but now is going to get wacked.

Maybe it will be better, but then again it never is in the ME.

Is it worth pointing out that Libya is an African state and not associated with the Middle East?

Of course is we are going to be coloured by the fact that it is a Muslim country and therefore to be banded in with all the others some seem to disprove of I'm sure it doesn't matter.

As an aside I did enjoy the sudden acceleration of the "Rebel" gains recently at the same time as the sudden appearance of US/European AT weapons and arms within the rebel ranks.

Has anyone seen reports of how the support was being provided. i.e were the Nato Forward Air controllers mixing in the ranks or was it Nato trained locals? I saw some footage of some very precise bomb drops that would indicate more that just ramdom fly overs and potshots.

dogma wrote:The Iraqi insurgency had more to do with being under the government of a hostile, occupying force.

Spoken like a true believer.

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:The scariest part about this rape/sexual assault was that the men were chanting "JEW!" while they did it.

Why is that scary?

It's scary because it shows the motive of her assailants. They apparently believed that it was OK to sexually assault a Jew. This may also say something about whether the protestors were hoping for Democracy or a Theocracy.

See e.g. Jimmy Carter circa 1978.

biccat wrote:It's scary because it shows the motive of her assailants. They apparently believed that it was OK to sexually assault a Jew. This may also say something about whether the protestors were hoping for Democracy or a Theocracy.

And as we all know, Egypt is a singular hive mind, in which the actions of one group define the actions and motivations of the entire nation.

It is good of the Egyptians to be such simple people, because it sure does make foreign affairs simple for the rest of us.

Hive mind is best mind.

Troy wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:

Troy wrote:The so called freedom fighters are not giving up the Lockerbie terrorist. Yea this is going to turn out great.

The guy's comatose and on death's door. Nothing at all will be gained from detaining or killing him now.

Except of course, justice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:Do you think all of them hated their government? Many of them likely think they are under a hostile, occupying force now.

A civil war is very different to an invasion by a foreign nation. And Gaddafi's actions against his own people seem to outwiegh any casualties the rebels have inflicted by accident.

For exactly 7 seconds. Its a tribal conflict. Khaddafy's tribe was in power but now is going to get wacked.

Maybe it will be better, but then again it never is in the ME.

Except for that brief period of time known as the past 1000 years when they were the most stable and prosperous nations on the planet of course.

Did we really have to bring the rape incident into this?

I'm not sure how really aware some of you guys are of this, but a LOT of women are raped in Chicago every day..just in my city.

Its not unusual in bad neighborhoods and rundown areas for things like this to happen, let alone a warzone....

Seriously, leave that subject alone.

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:The Iraqi insurgency had more to do with being under the government of a hostile, occupying force.

Spoken like a true believer.

Of what, pray tell?

I mean, I'm fairly certain that you're attempting to insinuate that I am somehow incapable of attributing any particular causal force to the Iraqi political situation prior to the American invasion, and that it was therefore the American invasion which caused the insurgency. Unfortunately, that isn't what I'm doing. There is a notable distinction between a war instigated by domestic rebellion, and one instigated by foreign invasion. In the case of domestic rebellion any serious threat to the regime implies either a great deal of physical power (as in cases of military coup) or a great deal of political power (as in cases of classical insurrection, in the vein of the Sandinistas). In each case you're dealing with a domestic actor that either has broad support by definition, or the ability to lay claim to legitimacy by way of domestic origin.

Now compare this to a foreign occupier which has no domestic legitimacy, will be opposed by nearly every domestic political faction (especially if it is unwilling to work with those factions, something Petraeus changed in Iraq), and has the unenviable task of shifting from "belligerent" to "occupier" to "ally" in the course of a financially, logistically, and politically, realistic timetable. Now I'm not saying that the American invasion somehow created political division in Iraq where there was none before, I'm merely claiming that it was the driving factor in determining the duration, and severity, of the insurgency by way of its necessary character as a hostile occupier.

Perhaps if you spent less time perceiving this as a matter of conservatism versus liberalism you would be able to make more nuanced comments.

biccat wrote:
It's scary because it shows the motive of her assailants. They apparently believed that it was OK to sexually assault a Jew. This may also say something about whether the protestors were hoping for Democracy or a Theocracy.

I still don't see why that's scary. If the crowd was willing to shout "Jew" why sexually assaulting a woman during a riot, then they would probably be willing to do it outside a riot as well; meaning that all that may have been exposed is a characteristic of the Egyptian citizenry which everyone was well aware of before hand.

Of course, there are also reports that the Mubarak regime paid people to not only riot, but display antisemitic tendencies; a technique for the suppression of dissent which has quite a bit precedent in the Middle-east and elsewhere.

biccat wrote:
See e.g. Jimmy Carter circa 1978.

I don't see why a theocracy is scary, nor do I see why its surprising that, 3 years after Vietnam, American leaders would be reticent to engage in a counter-revolutionary conflict; particularly one bordering the Soviet Union, instead of China.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Hive mind is best mind.

Our Great Leader, leader of all the Koreas has declared war on the Hive Mind to protect us from the evil imperialist Hive Mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

youbedead wrote:[Except for that brief period of time known as the past 1000 years when they were the most stable and prosperous nations on the planet of course.

Except of course, thats not the case. The ME has not been stable since the Sassanids. North Africa hasn't been stable since the Pax Romana.

dogma wrote:I don't see why a theocracy is scary

Dunno, to certain groups it certainly is.

You know, groups like women (the apologists will defend Sharia law of course, but I'm not stupid enough to believe it when I can see the REAL results of practicing that backwards piece of crap by actually paying attention-- women being STONED to death for even being suspected of adultery, for example, or being gang-raped as punishment for something their family did-- and then stoned to death for being raped as that's adultery in their eyes and not a crime on the male's end), homosexuals (death penalty is common for this in theocracies, or worse, they force people to go through sex changes), anyone who's different from normal (BURN THE WITCH!), etc.

Theocracy is fething scary to me.

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:It's scary because it shows the motive of her assailants. They apparently believed that it was OK to sexually assault a Jew. This may also say something about whether the protestors were hoping for Democracy or a Theocracy.

And as we all know, Egypt is a singular hive mind, in which the actions of one group define the actions and motivations of the entire nation.

It is good of the Egyptians to be such simple people, because it sure does make foreign affairs simple for the rest of us.

Not like the West hasn't generalized the Middle East forever right?

To the average Westerner you have ONLY To types of "Arabs":

1. Terrorists (The majority and out to kill us)

2. Freedom Fighters (The terrorists that we have currently given a free pass to so we can arm them to fight the specific ones we currently want dead)

3: That guy who runs the quik mart and gas station down the street.

Melissia wrote:3: That guy who runs the quik mart and gas station down the street.

Kumar?

Troy wrote:
Except of course, thats not the case. The ME has not been stable since the Sassanids. North Africa hasn't been stable since the Pax Romana.

You mean the Ottomans, not the Sassanids. But then given you claim about North Africa, I'm also wondering what you mean by "stable".

dogma wrote:

Troy wrote:
Except of course, thats not the case. The ME has not been stable since the Sassanids. North Africa hasn't been stable since the Pax Romana.

You mean the Ottomans, not the Sassanids. But then given you claim about North Africa, I'm also wondering what you mean by "stable".

The Ottomans had to routinely put down revolts especially in the Arabian peninsula. They were only occasionally stable.

Melissia wrote:
You know, groups like women (the apologists will defend Sharia law of course, but I'm not stupid enough to believe it when I can see the REAL results of practicing that backwards piece of crap by actually paying attention-- women being STONED to death for even being suspected of adultery, for example, or being gang-raped as punishment for something their family did-- and then stoned to death for being raped as that's adultery in their eyes and not a crime on the male's end),

Well, you don't see the "REAL" results, unless you've made it a point to frequent countries in which Sharia is the law of the land, or paid attention beyond the occasional news report or journalistic account. Additionally, you seem to think that Sharia is one, monolithic, thing. It isn't, and practices vary widely across the Muslim world.

Melissia wrote:
homosexuals (death penalty is common for this in theocracies, or worse, they force people to go through sex changes), anyone who's different from normal (BURN THE WITCH!), etc.

Theocracy is fething scary to me.

Homosexuals, and those who differ from the norm, are often persecuted in non-theocracies as well.

That said, if we're being particularly strict, then there are only, maybe, 2 (3 if we count Tibet's government in exile) significant theocracies in the world: Iran and the Vatican. If we're not being strict, then we include states like Israel, Pakistan, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, etc. Using the less-strict understanding (really the only understanding which is likely to see a theocratic state in Egypt) abuses against homosexuals become significantly less common.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Troy wrote:
The Ottomans had to routinely put down revolts especially in the Arabian peninsula. They were only occasionally stable.

So did the Sassanids, particularly on the Mediterranean coast. Imperial stability is not the same thing as the stability of a nation-state, especially going that far back into history.