Egypt's Revolution (Poll added)

[BigBallinStalin]

For anyone to come in here and say, "YEAH, THOSE GUYS ARE GONNA WIN" without providing any good reasoning, is only basing that on pure speculation. I'd love to hear from you, saxi, and GabonX about which group will dominate and how and why.

you asked for it

Somewhere near Cairo there's an Egyptian Army depot or munitions dump that's guarded by a motor rifle regiment or reinforced battalion or something along those lines. Despite the relatively mundane nature of this facility it probably, at this hour, has a flag officer - maybe a Maj.-Gen. or Field Marshal - running the place with a CIA liaison holding a briefcase full of cash and the deed to a beachfront home in Miami at his right-hand.

Meanwhile the US embassy is busy chartering every out-of-work tour bus it can get its hands on. If Mubarak falls there will be a few days for the dust to settle and figure out who is going to emerge as the new headman. If this is a person who does not have Israeli interests at heart, aforementioned rifle regiment will all be granted a weekend's holiday, said charter buses will roll-up, unload a few hundred ideologically like-minded activists who will have a two-hour shopping spree and then return to Cairo armed-to-the-teeth.

IOW, yes-man out / yes-man in. It is utterly impossible for any nation that finds itself geographically positioned in a strategic zone in which the U.S. has taken interest to extricate itself. No spontaneous street demonstration, no matter how well-intentioned, can overcome years of well-financed planning for every possible contingency.

I wouldn't even be surprised if this were all a U.S. instigated event. Maybe Mubarak made a misstep behind the scenes somewhere. We didn't learn for several years later, for instance, that the wonderful Serbian "youth movement" everyone was cheering as an explosion of democratic populism (just like now in Egypt) that overthrew Milošević was all organized and run out of Embassy Belgrade ... it's all the same storylines being rolled out, once again -- tales of individual heroism, some sexy gadget-of-the-year protesters are using in the face of guns (is it Twitter this time or FourSquare? hard to keep track), a well-dressed charismatic leader flying-in from out of country to rally the nation, etc. etc. etc. The usual.

You're making the assumption that if this motor brigade could squeeze out the OK chance of taking control of Cairo (or really a few government buildings), that the rest of the country and its organizations would suddenly align itself with them--or wouldn't pose a big enough problem against them. There's still plenty of tension between the current government (and its military) and its people, and the people, especially in the form of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, have connections everywhere within Egypt, are well-organized, and are extremely dissatisfied.

Your proposal has a much higher chance of working if they had an extremely charismatic, respected-enough-at-the-time leader in charge after the motor brigade steps in. Someone who can align the interests of the military, the commercial classes, and enough of the theocrats together--unfortunately, intellectuals like professors are irrelevant.

[And to nitpick, instead of the CIA, it's probably a member of the Mossad. =P ]

[Baron Von PWN]

Well that, and the Georgians shelled a Russian military installation. People like to forget that.

The Georgia affair was quite fascinating to me, actually. You see, Georgia, every year at about the same time, they would go into South Ossetia and whip up on those people. Something about a holiday that the Ossetians celebrate in regards to some independence or something. Anyway, the Ossetians would always get all riled up and the Georgians would always come in and bomb em a little bit, smack em around and then go home until next year.

However, in 2008, the Georgians got a nice surprise. The Russians were waiting for them. You see, the Russians had an entire division. 10,000 men standing ready. You can't mobilize that many men that quickly and throw then into combat. The Russians had planned it.

The Russians knew we wouldn't do a thing about it because our forces were stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, many don't realize this, but the Russians hated Bush for some reason. The Georgians on the other hand, loved Bush. I believe the Russian actions in August, 2008, was a deliberate "thumb the nose" at Bush and a chance to whip up on the poor ole Georgians.

I remember the conflict, Bush had stern words for Russia, but the Ossetians consider themselves Russian. They identify with Russian far more than they do with Georgia.

I don't know anything about Georgia bombing a Russian position which prompted a Russian attack, maybe so. All I know is that Russia had 10,000 troops sitting a waiting in just the right spot at just the right time to beat down the Georgians. It was kinda hilarious in a way. The Georgians, like clockwork, go in for their annual Ossetian bashing and in turn got the snot kicked out of them.

Well, serves em right I suppose in a way.

Well Russian "peace-keepers" have been in south ossetia since the 90's. The Georgian attack, shelling of south ossetia's capital, also hit a Russian barracks *oops*. It also bears pointing out Georgia is right on the border of the North Caucuses which is where Russia's major insurgent problems are located (frequent bombings, ambushes that sort of thing). So at any time it's quite likely the Russians would have major troop deployments there.

All that said, Russia really doesn't like Georgia's president and it would not surprise me if they had those troops set aside "just in case". Also the Russian's were no fans of Bush, allot of this had to do with doing things like Missile shields, strong rhetoric, expansion of NATO, setting up big bases on/near Russia's central Asian border. However they also got along on allot of matters too, war on terror, bombing Muslims that sort of thing. So there was some ambiguity to the relationship.

[Baron Von PWN]

However regarding this sentence: "I would ask, even if they were a member of NATO, would the US risk a terrible war with Russia for the sake of Georgia?"
I would respond with "If Georgia were a member of NATO, would Russia risk a terrible war with the US (and allies) for the sake of conquering Georgia?" It's something we'll never know, but worth considering.

Technically, Georgia was a member of NATO in all but name. They contributed armies to the Afghan effort, contributed in joint military practices, and were one step officially into NATO until the Russians completed discouraged such a thought.

So to answer your question, No, the US wouldn't risk war with Russia over a nation not worth protecting for such high costs.

With #2, the chances of all-out war with the US from an aggressive yet shady Russian maneuver are extremely slim, which is why the Russians took that chance.

Russia was just testing the waters at the expense of several millions of people's livelihoods. Isn't statecraft, national security, and international affairs fun? :/

Well that, and the Georgians shelled a Russian military installation. People like to forget that.

I haven't forgot that the Georgians supposedly initiated a conflict with a country 1000 times stronger than them, but...

Was it provoked? Did the Russians through Georgian communication give them misinformation that other positions were under attack? There's plenty of unanswered questions, and plenty of other options available at that time.

[Wasn't most of the news on the beginnings of the conflict only coming from Russian mass media sources?]

Allot of people have said the Russian's through the South ossetians were hoping to provoke the Georgians. Maybe that's true, in general relations with Georgia had been pretty tense for quite a while so it likely would not have taken much to set Russia off.

Although I wonder how the US would react if say Iraq were to shell a US military installation in Kuwait pre- 911 but post first gulph war.

I think the Georgians (shakishvili) miscalculated and thought they could retake south ossetia, and the Russian's wouldn't bother to fight for it. That the attack happened isn't really questionable, the Georgians definitely shelled the South ossetian capital and in the process hit a Russian barracks("Peace Keepers") there.

[saxitoxin]

For anyone to come in here and say, "YEAH, THOSE GUYS ARE GONNA WIN" without providing any good reasoning, is only basing that on pure speculation. I'd love to hear from you, saxi, and GabonX about which group will dominate and how and why.

you asked for it

Somewhere near Cairo there's an Egyptian Army depot or munitions dump that's guarded by a motor rifle regiment or reinforced battalion or something along those lines. Despite the relatively mundane nature of this facility it probably, at this hour, has a flag officer - maybe a Maj.-Gen. or Field Marshal - running the place with a CIA liaison holding a briefcase full of cash and the deed to a beachfront home in Miami at his right-hand.

Meanwhile the US embassy is busy chartering every out-of-work tour bus it can get its hands on. If Mubarak falls there will be a few days for the dust to settle and figure out who is going to emerge as the new headman. If this is a person who does not have Israeli interests at heart, aforementioned rifle regiment will all be granted a weekend's holiday, said charter buses will roll-up, unload a few hundred ideologically like-minded activists who will have a two-hour shopping spree and then return to Cairo armed-to-the-teeth.

IOW, yes-man out / yes-man in. It is utterly impossible for any nation that finds itself geographically positioned in a strategic zone in which the U.S. has taken interest to extricate itself. No spontaneous street demonstration, no matter how well-intentioned, can overcome years of well-financed planning for every possible contingency.

I wouldn't even be surprised if this were all a U.S. instigated event. Maybe Mubarak made a misstep behind the scenes somewhere. We didn't learn for several years later, for instance, that the wonderful Serbian "youth movement" everyone was cheering as an explosion of democratic populism (just like now in Egypt) that overthrew Milošević was all organized and run out of Embassy Belgrade ... it's all the same storylines being rolled out, once again -- tales of individual heroism, some sexy gadget-of-the-year protesters are using in the face of guns (is it Twitter this time or FourSquare? hard to keep track), a well-dressed charismatic leader flying-in from out of country to rally the nation, etc. etc. etc. The usual.

You're making the assumption that if this motor brigade could squeeze out the OK chance of taking control of Cairo (or really a few government buildings), that the rest of the country and its organizations would suddenly align itself with them--or wouldn't pose a big enough problem against them. There's still plenty of tension between the current government (and its military) and its people, and the people, especially in the form of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, have connections everywhere within Egypt, are well-organized, and are extremely dissatisfied.

Your proposal has a much higher chance of working if they had an extremely charismatic, respected-enough-at-the-time leader in charge after the motor brigade steps in. Someone who can align the interests of the military, the commercial classes, and enough of the theocrats together--unfortunately, intellectuals like professors are irrelevant.

[And to nitpick, instead of the CIA, it's probably a member of the Mossad. =P ]

no, sorry, I typed too quickly --- the Egyptian Army will never intervene; there needs to be stability among the cadre from regime to regime so that presidents can be added and replaced as the winds blow (direct action by the Army risks a changeover in the General Staff by a new administration which would lose the levers of US influence) - the Army will intentionally lose control of a facility to civilian activists ... that's the easiest way to realize a sudden influx of guns to the protesters if worse comes to worse and the U.S. is left with the choice between (A) a less-than-desirable president, or, (B) a chance to spin the roulette wheel with a civil war and see if a better option comes up

the point is ... at the end of the day Big Daddy will still be wearing the pants in Egypt; Big Daddy may be the one behind the protests themselves

[BigBallinStalin]

However regarding this sentence: "I would ask, even if they were a member of NATO, would the US risk a terrible war with Russia for the sake of Georgia?"
I would respond with "If Georgia were a member of NATO, would Russia risk a terrible war with the US (and allies) for the sake of conquering Georgia?" It's something we'll never know, but worth considering.

Technically, Georgia was a member of NATO in all but name. They contributed armies to the Afghan effort, contributed in joint military practices, and were one step officially into NATO until the Russians completed discouraged such a thought.

So to answer your question, No, the US wouldn't risk war with Russia over a nation not worth protecting for such high costs.

With #2, the chances of all-out war with the US from an aggressive yet shady Russian maneuver are extremely slim, which is why the Russians took that chance.

Russia was just testing the waters at the expense of several millions of people's livelihoods. Isn't statecraft, national security, and international affairs fun? :/

Well that, and the Georgians shelled a Russian military installation. People like to forget that.

I haven't forgot that the Georgians supposedly initiated a conflict with a country 1000 times stronger than them, but...

Was it provoked? Did the Russians through Georgian communication give them misinformation that other positions were under attack? There's plenty of unanswered questions, and plenty of other options available at that time.

[Wasn't most of the news on the beginnings of the conflict only coming from Russian mass media sources?]

Allot of people have said the Russian's through the South ossetians were hoping to provoke the Georgians. Maybe that's true, in general relations with Georgia had been pretty tense for quite a while so it likely would not have taken much to set Russia off.

Although I wonder how the US would react if say Iraq were to shell a US military installation in Kuwait pre- 911 but post first gulph war.

I think the Georgians (shakishvili) miscalculated and thought they could retake south ossetia, and the Russian's wouldn't bother to fight for it. That the attack happened isn't really questionable, the Georgians definitely shelled the South ossetian capital and in the process hit a Russian barracks("Peace Keepers") there.

A good point. But as long as we're open to the possibility that Russia was an aggressor, then I'm satisfied.

[BigBallinStalin]

@saxitoxin

I got'cha. I'd imagine that gun control laws are very strict in Egypt, so such an opportunity would prove very influential.

[saxitoxin]

@saxitoxin

I got'cha. I'd imagine that gun control laws are very strict in Egypt, so such an opportunity would prove very influential.

During the Serbian revolt everyone briefly wondered where the "spontaneous" youth movement OTPOR got 100,000 professionally designed, screen-printed t-shirts overnight but didn't dwell on it too much and were just happy at all the made-for-Hollywood storylines they were getting. I imagine t-shirts will be to Serbia as guns will be to Egypt.

"Hey, where'd the neighborhood Block Watch / Feminist Democracy Reading Group get all those field mortars they're using to shell the Interior Ministry?! "

"Good ques-oh, wait - hey look! Someone's using Twitter! YAY! TWITTER! It's a Twitter Revolution!"

[Baron Von PWN]

A good point. But as long as we're open to the possibility that Russia was an aggressor, then I'm satisfied.

Russia may have provoked Georgia, by allowing South Ossetian auxiliaries to raid into Georgia, and then prepared for the possibility of a Georgian escalation.

Here's what I think happened. The Russian's were letting south Ossetian geurilas (or at least not really trying to stop them) raid Georgia, the Georgians had enough and decided to slap down the Ossetians. The Georgians went too far(Shelling the Ossetian capital, Hitting a Russian barracks) and as a result, considering the already tense relations, forced the Russian's hand. The Russian's then sent in troops already in or near the North Causcases (due to insurgencies in Chechnya, Daegestan and ingushetia) into Georgia.

Celarly the Russian response was heavy handed, however this is a country run by a former KGB agent so its not entirely surprising. I don't truly believe the event was engineered by Moscow though, if it had been I don't believe shakashvili would still be around.

[FabledIntegral]

I'm sure Israel is shitting their pants right now at the prospect of someone other than Mubarak being next door and ordered Obama to get things under control. Will Obama use U.S. drones to get rid of Mubarak opponents, like he does in Pakistan, I wonder?

No, I do not write for Reuters in my spare time ...

Israel shocked by Obama's "betrayal" of Mubarak
If Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak is toppled, Israel will lose one of its very few friends in a hostile neighborhood and President Barack Obama will bear a large share of the blame, Israeli pundits said on Monday. Political commentators expressed shock at how the United States ... http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/to ... 3720110131

So what's your point?

Yes, if the current government of Egypt falls it will likely be replaced by an extremist Islamic theocracy. Yes the Arab population of Egypt is likely to support the Palestinian pursuit of genocide as they've openly declared is their goal and have been actively seeking for the last 90 years.

I'm not sure why you're so giddy about this.

I highly doubt it would be replaced with an extremist theocracy when the root cause for the revolution isn't even concerning religious tensions in the first place. Rather, it's concerning rather poor economic conditions in the country, where the gap between the wealthy and the poor is only widening. The Muslim Brotherhood, for the most part, is filled with moderates that are more focused on building schools, community centers, hospitals for people, providing food and shelter, etc. than with fundamentalism; although I'm sure there are some extremists there, I personally doubt they could climb to power when, unlike Iran, Egypt isn't looking for an Islamic revolution.

If you recall, the revolution of 1979 in Iran was started by many different groups, which nearly all had an anti-monarchy motivation. The theocrats (COPYRIGHT, BBS 2011) in the beginning weren't set up for a guaranteed or even a high chance of winning all the spoils; however, after the king fell and shit got real, the main groups didn't plan and organize well enough while the theocrats were the best organized and best positioned to take control. But with such events, they were a little lucky too.

For anyone to come in here and say, "YEAH, THOSE GUYS ARE GONNA WIN" without providing any good reasoning, is only basing that on pure speculation. I'd love to hear from you, saxi, and GabonX about which group will dominate and how and why.

Although I generally tend to try to keep up to date with my foreign policy/international relations/history since I'm specializing in it in college, I must admit my knowledge on the Middle East is rather limited. Most of what I know, or believe to be true, I already posted. From what I was aware, the revolution in Iran wasn't necessarily anti-monarchy but anti-secular, with a large majority holding the common belief that they were ruled by a Shah who cared much more about monetary wealth and materialistic possessions than valuing religion as a priority. In short, the Shah had sold out to Western powers for his own benefit, rather than the benefit of the people, because he was focused on wealth rather than being moral or righteous.

That's all I'm really aware of off the top of my head, sorry to disappoint, I'd have to start wikipedia-ing if I wanted to get more details on the motivations. I'm welcome to being enlightened though if I'm misinformed, or just slightly off, or whatever^.

[FabledIntegral]

However regarding this sentence: "I would ask, even if they were a member of NATO, would the US risk a terrible war with Russia for the sake of Georgia?"
I would respond with "If Georgia were a member of NATO, would Russia risk a terrible war with the US (and allies) for the sake of conquering Georgia?" It's something we'll never know, but worth considering.

Technically, Georgia was a member of NATO in all but name. They contributed armies to the Afghan effort, contributed in joint military practices, and were one step officially into NATO until the Russians completed discouraged such a thought.

So to answer your question, No, the US wouldn't risk war with Russia over a nation not worth protecting for such high costs.

With #2, the chances of all-out war with the US from an aggressive yet shady Russian maneuver are extremely slim, which is why the Russians took that chance.

Russia was just testing the waters at the expense of several millions of people's livelihoods. Isn't statecraft, national security, and international affairs fun? :/

You can't say that at all. Being a member of NATO in name is potentially just as significant as the contribution of armies, joint military practices, and "almost being part of NATO" combined, if not more! The entire point of being in the alliance system is deterrence. "You attack my ally, we retaliate. You attack us, you have to deal with our allies." Nice and dandy, but it's a double edged sword, because it makes you that much more likely to be dragged into a war you originally weren't even involved in. The United States would probably try to come up with any excuse it could to get out of a war with Russia no matter Georgia's status as a member of NATO or not, because, like you said, it's a nation that seems not worth protecting for such high costs. Not being a member of NATO is the *perfect* cop-out for the United States to not support Georgia.

Because NATO is such a huge, huge alliance involving countless countries, if the United States didn't support a member, they'd lose an immense amount of credibility amongst all allies because the United States had pledged support, and didn't follow through. There's no reason that any country should readily believe that the United States (or other NATO members in general, depending on how the situation unfolded) would honor their alliance if they weren't considered to be an incredibly valuable asset. Potential results, I presume, could be as far as NATO even collapsing upon itself, seen as a facade that never actually amounted to more than empty threats.

Faced with this scenario, while it would be less likely for Russia to attack in the first place as there'd be "more deterrence" if Georgia was in NATO than a nonmember, the United States would feel immense pressures to come to the aid of Georgia. Thus, not being a member in name, saved the United States from having to make a decision that would have massive repercussions either way.

[angola]

the point is ... at the end of the day Big Daddy will still be wearing the pants in Egypt; Big Daddy may be the one behind the protests themselves

And that is different from the U.S. how?

[saxitoxin]

the point is ... at the end of the day Big Daddy will still be wearing the pants in Egypt; Big Daddy may be the one behind the protests themselves

And that is different from the U.S. how?

Ummm ... when I say Big Daddy I'm not referring to Denmark ...

[BigBallinStalin]

However regarding this sentence: "I would ask, even if they were a member of NATO, would the US risk a terrible war with Russia for the sake of Georgia?"
I would respond with "If Georgia were a member of NATO, would Russia risk a terrible war with the US (and allies) for the sake of conquering Georgia?" It's something we'll never know, but worth considering.

Technically, Georgia was a member of NATO in all but name. They contributed armies to the Afghan effort, contributed in joint military practices, and were one step officially into NATO until the Russians completed discouraged such a thought.

So to answer your question, No, the US wouldn't risk war with Russia over a nation not worth protecting for such high costs.

With #2, the chances of all-out war with the US from an aggressive yet shady Russian maneuver are extremely slim, which is why the Russians took that chance.

Russia was just testing the waters at the expense of several millions of people's livelihoods. Isn't statecraft, national security, and international affairs fun? :/

You can't say that at all. Being a member of NATO in name is potentially just as significant as the contribution of armies, joint military practices, and "almost being part of NATO" combined, if not more! The entire point of being in the alliance system is deterrence. "You attack my ally, we retaliate. You attack us, you have to deal with our allies." Nice and dandy, but it's a double edged sword, because it makes you that much more likely to be dragged into a war you originally weren't even involved in. The United States would probably try to come up with any excuse it could to get out of a war with Russia no matter Georgia's status as a member of NATO or not, because, like you said, it's a nation that seems not worth protecting for such high costs. Not being a member of NATO is the *perfect* cop-out for the United States to not support Georgia.

Because NATO is such a huge, huge alliance involving countless countries, if the United States didn't support a member, they'd lose an immense amount of credibility amongst all allies because the United States had pledged support, and didn't follow through. There's no reason that any country should readily believe that the United States (or other NATO members in general, depending on how the situation unfolded) would honor their alliance if they weren't considered to be an incredibly valuable asset. Potential results, I presume, could be as far as NATO even collapsing upon itself, seen as a facade that never actually amounted to more than empty threats.

Faced with this scenario, while it would be less likely for Russia to attack in the first place as there'd be "more deterrence" if Georgia was in NATO than a nonmember, the United States would feel immense pressures to come to the aid of Georgia. Thus, not being a member in name, saved the United States from having to make a decision that would have massive repercussions either way.

Fair enough. What this event did show is that being a member of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), or a NATO partner (not member)--which Georgia was at that time, is pretty much meaningless in terms of national security.

[Baron Von PWN]

However regarding this sentence: "I would ask, even if they were a member of NATO, would the US risk a terrible war with Russia for the sake of Georgia?"
I would respond with "If Georgia were a member of NATO, would Russia risk a terrible war with the US (and allies) for the sake of conquering Georgia?" It's something we'll never know, but worth considering.

Technically, Georgia was a member of NATO in all but name. They contributed armies to the Afghan effort, contributed in joint military practices, and were one step officially into NATO until the Russians completed discouraged such a thought.

So to answer your question, No, the US wouldn't risk war with Russia over a nation not worth protecting for such high costs.

With #2, the chances of all-out war with the US from an aggressive yet shady Russian maneuver are extremely slim, which is why the Russians took that chance.

Russia was just testing the waters at the expense of several millions of people's livelihoods. Isn't statecraft, national security, and international affairs fun? :/

You can't say that at all. Being a member of NATO in name is potentially just as significant as the contribution of armies, joint military practices, and "almost being part of NATO" combined, if not more! The entire point of being in the alliance system is deterrence. "You attack my ally, we retaliate. You attack us, you have to deal with our allies." Nice and dandy, but it's a double edged sword, because it makes you that much more likely to be dragged into a war you originally weren't even involved in. The United States would probably try to come up with any excuse it could to get out of a war with Russia no matter Georgia's status as a member of NATO or not, because, like you said, it's a nation that seems not worth protecting for such high costs. Not being a member of NATO is the *perfect* cop-out for the United States to not support Georgia.

Because NATO is such a huge, huge alliance involving countless countries, if the United States didn't support a member, they'd lose an immense amount of credibility amongst all allies because the United States had pledged support, and didn't follow through. There's no reason that any country should readily believe that the United States (or other NATO members in general, depending on how the situation unfolded) would honor their alliance if they weren't considered to be an incredibly valuable asset. Potential results, I presume, could be as far as NATO even collapsing upon itself, seen as a facade that never actually amounted to more than empty threats.

Faced with this scenario, while it would be less likely for Russia to attack in the first place as there'd be "more deterrence" if Georgia was in NATO than a nonmember, the United States would feel immense pressures to come to the aid of Georgia. Thus, not being a member in name, saved the United States from having to make a decision that would have massive repercussions either way.

Fair enough. What this event did show is that being a member of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), or a NATO partner (not member)--which Georgia was at that time, is pretty much meaningless in terms of national security.

Russia is/was also a NATO partner.

[BigBallinStalin]

[GabonX]

But, even if a new Egyptian theocracy does enthrone itself it's not - in the long term - a sustainable situation to have the direction of movement of a hundred million people in a dozen different countries weighed or restrained by how it might impact Zionism. That's a paralyzing state-of-affairs.

This is a bunch of garbage and you're making insinuations that have no basis in reality. Prey tell, who are these "hundred million people" and what are the "dozen different countries" they're from?

The only reason people have been adversely effected by Israel is because the Arab world is composed primarily of religious zealots and bigots who seek dominance of Islam and subjugation to it, and a genocide on the Jewish population of Israel. Look up the terms Pan-Arabism and Pan-Islamism. I prefer racism, fascism, and Islamo-Fascism, but Pan-Arabism and Pan-Islamism are the titles the Arab world has chosen to self apply.

You throw around the term "Zionism" as though it were a dirty word. Zionism is nothing more and nothing less than a social movement whereby people who perceive a historic connection to the places in the bible feel they have a right to go to those places. Zionism is free migration of people to a given place.

Now, if people legally buy land and move into my state or town and I don't want them there, do I have the right to force them to leave? Do I have the right to kill them if they will not leave? Imagine if in Arizona today bands of white Americans began rounding up and killing Mexican immigrants and smashing Mexican infant's heads in with rocks. Imagine if they also began killing American Hispanics who refused to turn over Mexican immigrants over to be tortured and killed. This is exactly what the Palestinians did to the Jews, both immigrants and those descended from families who lived in Israel since antiquity, in Hebron in 1929.

If you oppose "Zionism" you are by definition a racist and antisemitic bigot as you are stating Jews should not have freedom of mobility (to a country where such immigration is legal and favored BTW). If you oppose Zionism and favor amnesty for Mexican illegals you are a hypocritical racist and antisemitic bigot.

I suspect that you know very little about Israel, Zionism, and the nature of the region as I've seen some of the sources you look at (like Russia Today) and the information they feed you is selective propaganda. You won't get the full story from sources like that.

If the perpetuity of Israel's existence is tied to the U.S.

It's not.

it may be time for them to come up with a Plan B.

There is a plan B. It's called Dimona.

If Israel is ever pushed to the brink of destruction, and it looks like the Arabs will succeed in achieving their open and frequent calls for a genocide, the result will be far more devastating to world stability than any of the Israeli victories.

[GabonX]

I highly doubt it would be replaced with an extremist theocracy when the root cause for the revolution isn't even concerning religious tensions in the first place. Rather, it's concerning rather poor economic conditions in the country, where the gap between the wealthy and the poor is only widening.

There are stark parallels between Egypt today and Iran in 1979.

The Muslim Brotherhood, for the most part, is filled with moderates that are more focused on building schools, community centers, hospitals for people, providing food and shelter, etc. than with fundamentalism; although I'm sure there are some extremists there, I personally doubt they could climb to power when, unlike Iran, Egypt isn't looking for an Islamic revolution.

I believe (don't quote me) that the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood also said he had no intention on assuming a governmental leadership role or even participating in new elections if they were to be held. I would be much quicker to equate the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt with Christian evangelical groups in the United States helping build churches, schools, etc. in poverty stricken areas. And you can equate the extremists they have with the idiot hellfire preachers we have that condemn everyone to hell and advocate removal of separation of church and state.

The Muslim Brotherhood is not a moderate organization. Al Qaeda is a direct offshoot of the organization, and there are already calls from the brotherhood to seek war in the region.

Muslim Brotherhood: ‘Prepare Egyptians for war with Israel'

A leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt told the Arabic-language Iranian news network Al-Alam on Monday that he would like to see the Egyptian people prepare for war against Israel, according to the Hebrew-language business newspaper Calcalist.

Muhammad Ghannem reportedly told Al- Alam that the Suez Canal should be closed immediately, and that the flow of gas from Egypt to Israel should cease “in order to bring about the downfall of the Mubarak regime.” He added that “the people should be prepared for war against Israel,” saying the world should understand that “the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime.”

Ghannem praised Egyptian soldiers deployed by President Hosni Mubarak to Egyptian cities, saying they “would not kill their brothers.” He added that Washington was forced to abandon plans to help Mubarak stay in power after “seeing millions head for the streets.”
http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=206130

I've heard that the European media tends to portray a much less negative light on anything concerning "Muslim" than the United States... can only hope, the U.S. media seems to portray anything associated with Islam as "hostile" and "extremist" even when it usually isn't the case.

European media does try to portray Islam like it's sugar and spice, but even the Europeans are starting to wake up. Islam is an ideology of violent suppression. Statistics indicate that hundreds of millions of Muslims, possibly even the majority world wide, support what we would consider to be heinous acts of terrorism.

If you haven't read the Koran and you haven't done research to familiarize yourself with the genocidal actions of the megalomaniac Prophet Muhammad (his life and times and what he did to rise to prominence) you aren't qualified to comment or have an opinion.

[saxitoxin]

But, even if a new Egyptian theocracy does enthrone itself it's not - in the long term - a sustainable situation to have the direction of movement of a hundred million people in a dozen different countries weighed or restrained by how it might impact Zionism. That's a paralyzing state-of-affairs.

This is a bunch of garbage and you're making insinuations that have no basis in reality. Prey tell, who are these "hundred million people" and what are the "dozen different countries" they're from?

Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Libya, Tunisia

The only reason people have been adversely effected by Israel is because the Arab world is composed primarily of religious zealots and bigots who seek dominance of Islam and subjugation to it, and a genocide on the Jewish population of Israel.

If I'm not mistaken, Iran has Jews sitting in parliament - unlike America's Muslim allies.

Imagine if in Arizona today bands of white Americans began rounding up and killing Mexican immigrants and smashing Mexican infant's heads in with rocks. Imagine if they also began killing American Hispanics who refused to turn over Mexican immigrants over to be tortured and killed. This is exactly what the Palestinians did to the Jews, both immigrants and those descended from families who lived in Israel since antiquity, in Hebron in 1929.

In that situation, do Mexican immigrants have a right to appeal to China for arms and munitions?

it may be time for them to come up with a Plan B.

There is a plan B. It's called Dimona.

Then they don't have anything to worry about.

However, Israeli territory is so limited the entire country, and all its weaponry, could be vaporized before anyone could enter a single launch code. Israel's entire nuclear deterrent only has any meaning at all because the Germans are sending them subs knowing full well the Israelis are illegally retrofitting them to carry nuclear weapons, making their deterrent survivable where otherwise it was not. At every corner Israeli continuity is dependent on their ability to curry either goodwill or guilt among foreign states.

[Baron Von PWN]

But, even if a new Egyptian theocracy does enthrone itself it's not - in the long term - a sustainable situation to have the direction of movement of a hundred million people in a dozen different countries weighed or restrained by how it might impact Zionism. That's a paralyzing state-of-affairs.

This is a bunch of garbage and you're making insinuations that have no basis in reality. Prey tell, who are these "hundred million people" and what are the "dozen different countries" they're from?

The only reason people have been adversely effected by Israel is because the Arab world is composed primarily of religious zealots and bigots who seek dominance of Islam and subjugation to it, and a genocide on the Jewish population of Israel. Look up the terms Pan-Arabism and Pan-Islamism. I prefer racism, fascism, and Islamo-Fascism, but Pan-Arabism and Pan-Islamism are the titles the Arab world has chosen to self apply.

You throw around the term "Zionism" as though it were a dirty word. Zionism is nothing more and nothing less than a social movement whereby people who perceive a historic connection to the places in the bible feel they have a right to go to those places. Zionism is free migration of people to a given place.

Now, if people legally buy land and move into my state or town and I don't want them there, do I have the right to force them to leave? Do I have the right to kill them if they will not leave? Imagine if in Arizona today bands of white Americans began rounding up and killing Mexican immigrants and smashing Mexican infant's heads in with rocks. Imagine if they also began killing American Hispanics who refused to turn over Mexican immigrants over to be tortured and killed. This is exactly what the Palestinians did to the Jews, both immigrants and those descended from families who lived in Israel since antiquity, in Hebron in 1929.

If you oppose "Zionism" you are by definition a racist and antisemitic bigot as you are stating Jews should not have freedom of mobility (to a country where such immigration is legal and favored BTW). If you oppose Zionism and favor amnesty for Mexican illegals you are a hypocritical racist and antisemitic bigot.

I suspect that you know very little about Israel, Zionism, and the nature of the region as I've seen some of the sources you look at (like Russia Today) and the information they feed you is selective propaganda. You won't get the full story from sources like that.

Its interesting that allot of the things you are so virulently attacking arabs for,, are perpetrated by Israel right now against the Palestinians. Israel quite regularly bulldozes Palestinian homes and denies Palestinians freedom of movement as well as frequently bombing and shooting them. Oh and for your analogy to be correct the Mexicans would have to have had Arizona declared the homeland for Mexicans and become a state with the express purpose of serving Mexicans. Too bad for the Arizonans.

I wonder how Arizonans would react if that happened?

By the way I wonder how many Palestinians were killed by Israels bombing and blockading of Gaza?

[GabonX]

But, even if a new Egyptian theocracy does enthrone itself it's not - in the long term - a sustainable situation to have the direction of movement of a hundred million people in a dozen different countries weighed or restrained by how it might impact Zionism. That's a paralyzing state-of-affairs.

This is a bunch of garbage and you're making insinuations that have no basis in reality. Prey tell, who are these "hundred million people" and what are the "dozen different countries" they're from? [/quote]

Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Libya, Tunisia [/quote]
I wasn't aware that Israel controlled the movements of people in those places. I didn't realize Israel had total control over the day to day life of the average Arab

The only reason people have been adversely effected by Israel is because the Arab world is composed primarily of religious zealots and bigots who seek dominance of Islam and subjugation to it, and a genocide on the Jewish population of Israel.

If I'm not mistaken, Iran has Jews sitting in parliament - unlike America's Muslim allies.

That's because Jews were expelled from most of America's Muslim allies' countries shortly after the creation of Israel. Jews that had nothing to do with the creation of Israel across the Arab world started facing persecution and it's estimated that Israel took on a refuge population of between 800,000 and 1,000,000 people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exo ... slim_lands

So that's one more thing you didn't know... Another is that Israel there is an Arab party in Israeli parliament. It's known as the Balad party.

So much for Israel being an "apartheid state"...

Imagine if in Arizona today bands of white Americans began rounding up and killing Mexican immigrants and smashing Mexican infant's heads in with rocks. Imagine if they also began killing American Hispanics who refused to turn over Mexican immigrants over to be tortured and killed. This is exactly what the Palestinians did to the Jews, both immigrants and those descended from families who lived in Israel since antiquity, in Hebron in 1929.

In that situation, do Mexican immigrants have a right to appeal to China for arms and munitions?

Anyone who comes to America legally (as the Jews did under Turkish rule prior to the establishment of the modern state of Israel) is entitled to the right to bear arms for the purpose of self defense. Arizona is a right to carry state...

A Mexican immigrant could choose to purchase a weapon of Chinese manufacture if they so desire. I would personally recommend the Smith and Wesson model 60, which is American made.

it may be time for them to come up with a Plan B.

There is a plan B. It's called Dimona.

However, Israeli territory is so limited the entire country, and all its weaponry, could be vaporized before anyone could enter a single launch code. Israel's entire nuclear deterrent only has any meaning at all because the Germans are sending them subs knowing full well the Israelis are illegally retrofitting them to carry nuclear weapons, making their deterrent survivable where otherwise it was not.

At least you understand this...

At every corner Israeli continuity is dependent on their ability to curry either goodwill or guilt among foreign states.

And of course you have to take a swipe at the end...

What you've said there applies to every nation in our age of international trade. I'm guessing you have no idea how many products you use that have roots in Israel, so let me just give you a few examples of what Israel has done for the world.

Cell phones: The technology was developed in Israel and every time you make a call Israel receives proceeds.
Computer hardware: Modern computers rely on technology which was first developed in Israel.
Instant messaging software: First developed by Israeli students.
Microsoft: A huge proportion of windows software is developed in 3 major facilities in Israel. I'm not sure about Apple...
If you live in the UK you cannot use the internet without supporting an Israeli company. The government contracted with and Israeli company and a Chinese company to install the lines. Guess which of the two companies cut corners and did shoddy work...

This is all just the tip of the iceberg. Despite their meager population and constantly being under threat of annihilation, Israel is one of the leaders of technological development in the world today. If you want to boycott Israel you basically have to boycott modern technology all together.

Israel exists by the virtues of creativity and innovation rather than, as you put it, "their ability to curry either goodwill or guilt among foreign states."

[saxitoxin]

I wasn't aware that Israel controlled the movements of people in those places. I didn't realize Israel had total control over the day to day life of the average Arab

When the foreign policy of the regional protecting power - the United States - is dictated by how it may or may not offend the sensibilities of Zionism they, de facto, do have total control over the day-to-day life of the average Arab.

The only reason people have been adversely effected by Israel is because the Arab world is composed primarily of religious zealots and bigots who seek dominance of Islam and subjugation to it, and a genocide on the Jewish population of Israel.

If I'm not mistaken, Iran has Jews sitting in parliament - unlike America's Muslim allies.

That's because Jews were expelled from most of America's Muslim allies' countries shortly after the creation of Israel. Jews that had nothing to do with the creation of Israel across the Arab world started facing persecution and it's estimated that Israel took on a refuge population of between 800,000 and 1,000,000 people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exo ... slim_lands

So that's one more thing you didn't know... Another is that Israel there is an Arab party in Israeli parliament. It's known as the Balad party.

So much for Israel being an "apartheid state"...

But I didn't say any of those things. All I said was: "If I'm not mistaken, Iran has Jews sitting in parliament - unlike America's Muslim allies." The statement should be taken at face value. There's no code or hidden message.

If you want to boycott Israel you basically have to boycott modern technology all together.

I don't want to boycott Israel.

Israel exists by the virtues of creativity and innovation rather than, as you put it, "their ability to curry either goodwill or guilt among foreign states."

Great. Then the U.S. can terminate the $3 billion/year in payments. Germany can stop giving Israel cut-rate discounts on weapons or writing new cheques every few years when Israel wants to build a new bridge or amusement park and recalculates their reparations bill to determine that they still owe a couple billion. People generally respect those who are self-sustaining. If Israel was they'd probably have a lot more friends. People, however, also get tired when they're threatened with a lawsuit every six years like clockwork, called racist/anti-Semitic if they don't write a cheque for X-amount, or have their local politicians flooded with cash to elicit favourable votes.

If you haven't read the Koran and you haven't done research to familiarize yourself with the genocidal actions of the megalomaniac Prophet Muhammad (his life and times and what he did to rise to prominence) you aren't qualified to comment or have an opinion.

I'll admit that I have not read the Koran, though it's hard not to be familiar with the incendiary stories of Mo that get paraded around with frequency.

However, I think it's pretty hard to make the argument - and, in fairness, I don't think you were - Egypt is more democratic, or even as democratic, as Iran. The latter is demonized in western media because of their intolerance for the kind of socially deviant behaviour that is normalized and celebrated in the modern west.

Its interesting that allot of the things you are so virulently attacking arabs for,, are perpetrated by Israel right now against the Palestinians. Israel quite regularly bulldozes Palestinian homes and denies Palestinians freedom of movement as well as frequently bombing and shooting them. Oh and for your analogy to be correct the Mexicans would have to have had Arizona declared the homeland for Mexicans and become a state with the express purpose of serving Mexicans. Too bad for the Arizonans.

I wonder how Arizonans would react if that happened?

By the way I wonder how many Palestinians were killed by Israels bombing and blockading of Gaza?

Gabs - I don't agree with BvP on these points. I think the IDF blockade of Gaza is a justifiable self-defence action. Not that I disagree with BvP strongly enough to make any argument, just to note that so often the cause of Anti-Zionism is forcibly linked to Palestinian liberation, the latter of which is not of any interest to me.

[GabonX]

Its interesting that allot of the things you are so virulently attacking arabs for,, are perpetrated by Israel right now against the Palestinians.

Like it or not I'm stating facts.

Israel quite regularly bulldozes Palestinian homes and denies Palestinians freedom of movement as well as frequently bombing and shooting them.

And those things are a direct result of Palestinian terrorism and oppression. If a home is found to have been used as a hub for terrorists the house is rightfully taken or destroyed. There are also many homes where Jews were forcibly expelled from during the period between the first war and 1967. Such wrongfully obtained properties are also forfeit.

We hear about stories like these frequently, but I've yet to see a story on a leftist outlet which examines the ruling, or the reasons why the ruling was such. Any story which does not look at both sides should be ignored.

Oh and for your analogy to be correct the Mexicans would have to have had Arizona declared the homeland for Mexicans and become a state with the express purpose of serving Mexicans. Too bad for the Arizonans.

You've just revealed your ignorance in regards to Mexican sentiment towards the Southern United States. There's a reason why advertisements like this:

http://www.absolutads.com/?p=815

.. are made to cater to Mexicans. Talk to nietzsche, he'll set you straight...

By the way I wonder how many Palestinians were killed by Israels bombing and blockading of Gaza?

There were regrettably a lot of them. Such is the nature of war.

Worth noting is that the Hamas has admitted to lying about the figures in regards to the ratio between civilians and combatants killed, and that internal documents from Hamas indicate that they purposefully conduct combat operations in civilian areas with the goal of increasing casualties, thereby gaining international sympathy...

[Baron Von PWN]

Its interesting that allot of the things you are so virulently attacking arabs for,, are perpetrated by Israel right now against the Palestinians.

Like it or not I'm stating facts.

Sure "facts" like "Arabs want to commit genocide" That's a fact ladies and gents, if you're an Arab I'm sorry to inform you, but you want to commit genocide against the Jews, just because.

Israel quite regularly bulldozes Palestinian homes and denies Palestinians freedom of movement as well as frequently bombing and shooting them.

And those things are a direct result of Palestinian terrorism and oppression. If a home is found to have been used as a hub for terrorists the house is rightfully taken or destroyed. There are also many homes where Jews were forcibly expelled from during the period between the first war and 1967. Such wrongfully obtained properties are also forfeit.

We hear about stories like these frequently, but I've yet to see a story on a leftist outlet which examines the ruling, or the reasons why the ruling was such. Any story which does not look at both sides should be ignored.

Oh yes those Palestinians sure are oppressing the poor Isrealis. When will they ever get a state?! oh wait.... They got one from the Palestinians. What about all the Palestinian homes forcibly acquired in Israel as a result of the war? Of course isreal would never, ever do anything untoward!

Oh and for your analogy to be correct the Mexicans would have to have had Arizona declared the homeland for Mexicans and become a state with the express purpose of serving Mexicans. Too bad for the Arizonans.

You've just revealed your ignorance in regards to Mexican sentiment towards the Southern United States. There's a reason why advertisements like this:[/quote]
I will admit I'm completely ignorant of Mexican sentiments about just about anything. What does that have to do with the analogy?

Would it be unjust for Mexicans to move into Arizona and then backed by some foreign power have it declared their own country? Would it be unreasonable for the Arizonans to be pissed off?

By the way I wonder how many Palestinians were killed by Israels bombing and blockading of Gaza?

There were regrettably a lot of them. Such is the nature of war.

Palestinian deaths, oh well regrettable result of war. Israeli deaths; EVIDENCE OF ARAB ATTEMPTS AT GENOCIDE!

Worth noting is that the Hamas has admitted to lying about the figures in regards to the ratio between civilians and combatants killed, and that internal documents from Hamas indicate that they purposefully conduct combat operations in civilian areas with the goal of increasing casualties, thereby gaining international sympathy...

A shady quasi terrorist group has lied and uses despicable tactics! What a shocker! Good thing Israel didn't play right into their hands by indiscriminately bombing Gaza and then trying to starve it to death... oh wait.

[bedub1]

Hosni Mubarak vows to stand down at next election – but not now

Egypt's embattled president Hosni Mubarak has bowed to the pressure of millions of people massing on the streets, pledging to step down at the next election and pave the way for a new leader of the Arab world's largest country.

Mubarak, effectively abandoned by the US in a day of fast moving developments, said he would not be a candidate for a seventh term but would remain in power to oversee reform and guarantee stability — a position that was immediately rejected by angry crowds and promised yet more drama in Egypt's extraordinary crisis.

"In the few months remaining in my current term I will work towards ensuring a peaceful transition of power," Mubarak said. "I have exhausted my life in serving Egypt and my people. I will die on the soil of Egypt and be judged by history" – a clear reference to the fate of Tunisia's president who fled into exile last month.

Looking grave as he spoke on state TV in front of the presidential seal, Mubarak attacked those responsible for protests that had been "manipulated by political forces," caused mayhem and chaos and endangered the "stability of the nation."

In a defiant, finger-wagging performance the 82-year-old said he was always going to quit in September – a position he had never made public until now.

Anybody believe him? Think the crowds will go away and leave it be until September?

[BigBallinStalin]

By the way I wonder how many Palestinians were killed by Israels bombing and blockading of Gaza?

There were regrettably a lot of them. Such is the nature of war.

Palestinian deaths, oh well regrettable result of war. Israeli deaths; EVIDENCE OF ARAB ATTEMPTS AT GENOCIDE!

This pretty much makes clear GabonX's line of reasoning.

Gabon, are you Jewish? I'm Jewish, and I've talked to plenty of fellow Jews, Israelis, Palestinians, Arab-Israelis, (you name it) about this matter, and yet not one of them has portrayed such a fucked-up worldview as yours, sir.