Update : Egypt Unrest

Originally posted by Deetermined

Originally posted by khimbar


They must have known. I knew, ATS knew, everyone knew!

Therefore it must be planned and deliberate?

I don't think they knew. If they knew this was going to happen and it was deliberate, they would go ahead and intervene in Syria too and just hand it over to the Muslim Brotherhood. I honestly think that Obama's administration was shocked when the Muslim Brotherhood went ahead and entered the Presidential race, because in the beginning, they claimed that they weren't going to get involved in Egypt's election. Live and learn. That's why the situation in Syria is moving so slow.

I'm not so sure. And Syria is just about done, only a few days ago the UK and Europe recognised the FSA as the leaders over there didn't they?

I just really don't see why? What does the US/UK and everyone gain by this?

reply to post by khimbar


It's all about trying to maintain stability in the Middle East.

If all these nations get taken over by radicals, they know Israel is done for, not to mention the impact it has on the entire region.

All of the Middle East nations will be involved in one long continuous and never ending war.

Once the Arab Spring is over and "political Islam" has taken foot in the region, the next huge fight will be between the Sunnis and the Shiites on who's going to rule over the new "Caliphate" in the region.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by khimbar

 

It's all about trying to maintain stability in the Middle East.

If all these nations get taken over by radicals, they know Israel is done for, not to mention the impact it has on the entire region.

All of the Middle East nations will be involved in one long continuous and never ending war.

Once the Arab Spring is over and "political Islam" has taken foot in the region, the next huge fight will be between the Sunnis and the Shiites on who's going to rule over the new "Caliphate" in the region.

But the UK and US must have known by backing the Muslim Brotherhood they were opening the door to the new Caliphate? Surely. I did.

And the Arab Spring hasn't bred stability at all. If anything it's created a power vacuum.

You're right about the one never ending war though.

reply to post by UltraMarine


So much for the theory that Israel is the only problem in the middle east.

Originally posted by UltraMarine

edit on 23-11-2012 by UltraMarine because: (no reason given)

Here we have two groups of people praying to the same god for a different solution.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Undeniably , Israel is the No.1 problem in the Middle East .

reply to post by Deetermined


The situation in Syria is moving "so slow" because NATO isn't involved YET. Don't think for one minute this isn't exactly what the west wanted.

Originally posted by khimbar

But the UK and US must have known by backing the Muslim Brotherhood they were opening the door to the new Caliphate? Surely. I did.

And the Arab Spring hasn't bred stability at all. If anything it's created a power vacuum.

You're right about the one never ending war though.

From the beginning, the US tried to put on a "united front" with the people of Egypt. If they didn't stand with the people regarding the Muslim Brotherhood, it would have made the US look like a bunch of hypocrites on our involvement in the Arab Spring. They didn't have a choice, but you have to know they were cringing behind the scenes. In fact, once the Muslim Brotherhood was in, didn't Congress start having meetings on whether or not we should give Egypt any more foreign aid? In the end, they decided to put on a "united front" too, knowing it could damn well backfire.

The same thing started happening in Libya too. We jumped in too early thinking we were creating a US friendly government and then Libya started talking about setting up a government based on Sharia Law, when they originally were against it.

Funny how all of these nations were leading us to believe they wanted a non-dictatorship secular government and then they changed their minds after we came in and helped them.

I think that was the Muslim plan all along.

Originally posted by Deetermined

Funny how all of these nations were leading us to believe they wanted a non-dictatorship secular government and then they changed their minds after we came in and helped them.

I think that was the Muslim plan all along.

So why did everyone but the governments see it coming?

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by Deetermined

 

The situation in Syria is moving "so slow" because NATO isn't involved YET. Don't think for one minute this isn't exactly what the west wanted.

Now you have to ask yourself why NATO was so quick to jump into Libya and not Syria. Everyone's starting to wake up to what the "Arab Spring" was really all about.

reply to post by Deetermined

Now you have to ask yourself why NATO was so quick to jump into Libya and not Syria.

Because Russia and Iran are not allowing NATO to enter Syria .

Originally posted by khimbar


So why did everyone but the governments see it coming?

The governments jumped in too quick and opened their mouths before they could take it all back.

I really think the governments thought that Egypt wouldn't risk all of their financial aid, even if the Muslim Brotherhood did win the elections. Remember, some groups hold money in higher regard than religion, like the western governments. They underestimated the power of religion.

Originally posted by UltraMarine
reply to post by Deetermined

 

Now you have to ask yourself why NATO was so quick to jump into Libya and not Syria.

Because Russia and Iran are not allowing NATO to enter Syria .

It looks like some countries decided to step back and not make a decision at all on Libya.

The Security Council vote was 10 in favor and five abstentions. The countries abstaining included Russia, China, Germany, Brazil and India. While, as permanent members of the council, both Russia and China had the power to defeat the resolution by casting “no” votes, they chose not to do so, ensuring that the UN continued to fulfill its function as a rubber stamp for the demands of the major imperialist powers.

www.wsws.org...

The thing about Syria is, we know that Russia is heavily invested there and has a Naval port there as well.

I may have to do some digging, but when was the last time a vote came up in the Security Council regarding intervention in Syria? Was it before the Muslim Brotherhood was elected in Egypt?

reply to post by Deetermined

when was the last time a vote came up in the Security Council regarding intervention in Syria? Was it before the Muslim Brotherhood was elected in Egypt?

Thats a very tough question . I will start googling .

reply to post by UltraMarine


So far I've only found the last vote on throwing sanctions on Syria, but nothing on a NATO invasion.

you guys are funny ... the UN backs the MB, always has, probably always will.
the MB has influenced the ME much longer than the UN has existed.
www.meforum.org...

besides, as most sons honor their father, why would Obama be any different ?
both his father and uncle were high ranking MB officials and played significant roles in the Kenyatta conflict.
quickie link although there are plenty others ... www.howdypodna.com...

the sooner ppl realize it IS planned and deliberate, the better.

Originally posted by UltraMarine
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

Undeniably , Israel is the No.1 problem in the Middle East .

undeniably ?? that's any awfully strong assumption based on the simple fact that it takes 2 to tango. one cannot step on anyone's toes when you're dancing alone.

reply to post by UltraMarine


Well, regardless of what the rest of the United Nations think, as of August 21st, it looks like Obama wants to stand in the face of terrorists and take them all on.

Yesterday US and NATO officials discussed plans for a US military invasion of Syria to bring down Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, after US President Barack Obama announced that the US was contemplating a direct attack on Syria at a press conference Monday night.

A delegation led by Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Beth Jones discussed US military plans with Turkey. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said that Defense Department and US intelligence officials met their Turkish counterparts “to share operational pictures, to talk about the effectiveness of what we’re doing now, and about what more we can do.”

Senior US officials said that contingency plans for US intervention in Syria include scenarios requiring tens of thousands of American troops.

At a press conference at the White House Monday, Obama declared: “I have indicated repeatedly that President al-Assad has lost legitimacy, that he needs to step down. So far, he hasn’t gotten the message, and instead has double downed in violence on his own people. The international community has sent a clear message that rather than drag his country into civil war he should move in the direction of a political transition. But at this point, the likelihood of a soft landing seems pretty distant.”

www.wsws.org...

Here's the problem. It's a problem if Assad stays and it's a problem if Assad goes. The Muslim Brotherhood definitely has the upper hand in Syria if Assad falls.

Expect a Muslim Brotherhood run Syria before it's all over, regardless of which side the U.S. picks to support.

Originally posted by UltraMarine
reply to post by Deetermined

 

when was the last time a vote came up in the Security Council regarding intervention in Syria? Was it before the Muslim Brotherhood was elected in Egypt?

Thats a very tough question . I will start googling .

they've been bouncing that question around since Feb 2012 or earlier, need a link ?
www.wsws.org...

egypt's elections were in June 2012, i think ... www.huffingtonpost.com...

reply to post by Honor93

the sooner ppl realize it IS planned and deliberate, the better.

So, what's the plan and what's going to be gained from it?