|
You realize that this is more or less exactly what people were saying about Mubarak in the early 1980s after the Islamic Group killed Sadat, right? Sisi is selling the exact same bill of goods that all of his military predecessors were selling. The whole "I'm the only thing standing between the civilized world and the Islamic hordes" suit hasn't worn well since the 1950s.
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:01 |
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:They forfeited their right to participate in the democratic process when they made the decision to join a movement headed by a man who has been quite explicit and consistent in advocating the execution of apostates. The fact that he and his followers claim to "only" want to execute and enforce religious law on fellow muslims does not make them meaningfully better than Daesh. What a piece of poo poo post this is. I think my favorite part was this: People attempting to overthrow a constitutional government and replace it with theocracy being framed as "peaceful protestors" rankles me, even if their conduct was not immediately violent (although in the case of the pro-Morsi protesters, it certainly WAS violent in at least some cases). So, who are these "peaceful protesters" (in quotation marks of course!) that were trying to overthrow the constitutional government? Do you mean the protesters, who were overwhelmingly peaceful even in the face of extreme violence, that were protesting against al-Sisi's coup? Or do you mean the demonstrators that helped overthrown Morsi, whose government actually was constitutional, and elected? The Brotherhood protesters were shockingly peaceful. There were some acts of violence, some shootings some beatings and many threats. But compare this to what they were up against: police and military literally gunning them down in the streets. Over a thousand killed in a few days, and at no point did the protesters as a whole rise up violently. You'd probably like this article, that also sucks al-Sisi's dick. It even calls him a great "man of iron". quote:Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi is proving that there is only one leader in the Middle East who can be compared to Winston Churchill, and he sits in Cairo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:You'd probably like this article, that also sucks al-Sisi's dick. It even calls him a great "man of iron". Well to be fair, like Churchill, Sisi probably also thinks that using poison gas against uncivilized tribes would be a really swell idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Well to be fair, like Churchill, Sisi probably also thinks that using poison gas against uncivilized tribes would be a really swell idea. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Unlike Sisi, Churchill fit a very specific need at a very specific time in British history and was promptly voted out when his usefulness expired.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Unlike Sisi, Churchill fit a very specific need at a very specific time in British history and was promptly voted out when his usefulness expired. and then the gits voted his useless party back into power five years later those five years immediately following the war were some really good years for british governance, though
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Also, Winston Churchill upheld British interests and protected Britain from falling under Nazi Fascism. For him to be like Sisi then he would've taken money, weapons and training from the gestapo to keep Britain weak, poor, uneducated, and subservient to Hitler. all the while screaming and shouting about the 'dignity' of the British armed forces and killing every member of the Labour Party for being 'radical backwards communist extremists'. Al-Saqr fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Is Sisi actually that worse than Mubarak or Nasser? I would gleefully be supporting his new capital proposal in my current shoes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Is Sisi actually that worse than Mubarak or Nasser? I would gleefully be supporting his new capital proposal in my current shoes. Its good to know you value real estate scams more than human rights, freedom and democracy. it's real comforting to the slowly dying human rights activist in a dungeon somewhere that a couple of buildings funded by the least democratic countries in the world is somehow a positive step forward for the country he gave up his life trying to improve. and that the best his country can hope for is the feudalist royal gulf system of tall buildings=progress. Al-Saqr fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:Its good to know you value real estate scamre than human rights, freedom and democracy. In a region of the world where democracy's quite frowned upon as Imperialistic and lacking grassroots? That seems to be the impression ive been getting lately. Ill shut up now. (God I feel like a jerkass for saying that now that I think about it.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Ill shut up now. Please do. BTW if any of you are impressed by this whole 'capital' nonsense, back in 2006-2007 King Abdullah promised FIVE huge economic cities in Saudi Arabia by this time. Guess how many were actually built? also, how's that second Suez canal and the cure for AIDS coming along? Al-Saqr fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
From a memorial service for Halabja in Duhok. From 11:00 to 11:05, traffic stops and everyone has a moment of silence while the sirens go off. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:In a region of the world where democracy's quite frowned upon as Imperialistic and lacking grassroots? That seems to be the impression ive been getting lately. Ill shut up now. Got your parties a bit muddled there. It's more that secularism is viewed as imperialistic and lacking grassroots. Which is largely true, mostly because of the west making sure it stays true. Democracy is heavily linked with Islamist ideologies, and the clergy are normally heavily involved in any sort of populist movement opposing the currently entrenched power structures. It's a large part of how the Ayatollahs were given political power in Iran. Many of the pre Revolution protests and boycotts were led by the clergy, even pre Khomenei. Giving them a major role in government didn't seem to clash with the notion of democracy in Iran as heavily as it does here in the west.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:Please do. Hey, just you wait, this time next year Sisi will be revealing his plan to carve his face onto Mars with a giant laser to kick start the Egyptian economy for real this time you guys.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Got your parties a bit muddled there. It's more that secularism is viewed as imperialistic and lacking grassroots. Which is largely true, mostly because of the west making sure it stays true. Democracy is heavily linked with Islamist ideologies, and the clergy are normally heavily involved in any sort of populist movement opposing the currently entrenched power structures. It's a large part of how the Ayatollahs were given political power in Iran. Many of the pre Revolution protests and boycotts were led by the clergy, even pre Khomenei. Giving them a major role in government didn't seem to clash with the notion of democracy in Iran as heavily as it does here in the west. Iran is really unique. The Muslim Brotherhood is mostly intertwined with democratic movements in the rest of the region, and while they're Islamist, they don't operate anything like the clergy system in Iran.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Let's not neglect a crucial point: America, Israel and Britain attacked democratic, secular and leftist movements throughout the Middle East and supported nationalist dictators and Muslim fanatics they knew would crush and kill any democratic secular voices. Look at Mossadegh, the rise of Hamas (Israel gave them aid and amnesty because they undermined the mostly socialist PLO). There's a lack of democracy in the Middle East for the same reason there was for many years in Latin America: the United States won't allow democracy because democracy in poor countries hurts the profits of big American businesses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:BTW if any of you are impressed by this whole 'capital' nonsense, back in 2006-2007 King Abdullah promised FIVE huge economic cities in Saudi Arabia by this time. Guess how many were actually built? I'm sure that those projects have fully accomplished their intended purpose, i.e. to funnel as much cash as possible into the pockets of Sisi and his cronies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Iran is really unique. The Muslim Brotherhood is mostly intertwined with democratic movements in the rest of the region, and while they're Islamist, they don't operate anything like the clergy system in Iran. Oh I know they're night and day. One functions as an international political party with clergy support and advice, and one is more or less just the clergy. It's just the general trend of religion and populism being linked by the forces of history and foreign intervention. Schizotek fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Oh I know they're night and day. It's just the general trend of religion and populism being linked by the forces of history and foreign intervention. Mostly history. You'd be hard pressed to find a country that was conservative and unanimously followed one religion that didn't find a role for religion in government.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Mostly history. You'd be hard pressed to find a country that was conservative and unanimously followed one religion that didn't find a role for religion in government. I'm probably overestimating how much secular ideas informed western democracy because I've been reading a bit about the French Revolution lately. I guess they kind of stand out among other grassroots movements and I was stupidly extrapolating that instance into a larger trend, even though I should honestly know better. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Let's not neglect a crucial point: America, Israel and Britain attacked democratic, secular and leftist movements throughout the Middle East and supported nationalist dictators and Muslim fanatics they knew would crush and kill any democratic secular voices. Look at Mossadegh, the rise of Hamas (Israel gave them aid and amnesty because they undermined the mostly socialist PLO). There's a lack of democracy in the Middle East for the same reason there was for many years in Latin America: the United States won't allow democracy because democracy in poor countries hurts the profits of big American businesses. The United States could not control the politics of one M.E. country even when the had conquered it, stationed their military there and turned on a firehouse of money aimed at anyone even vaguely pro America seeming.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:The United States could not control the politics of one M.E. country even when the had conquered it, stationed their military there and turned on a firehouse of money aimed at anyone even vaguely pro America seeming. They certainly managed to destroy the [edit] Actually, this entire sentence is absurd, the direct influence of USA in the politics of most ME countries is well documented and been ongoing for well over half a century. Nosfereefer fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:The United States could not control the politics of one M.E. country even when the had conquered it, stationed their military there and turned on a firehouse of money aimed at anyone even vaguely pro America seeming. You do realize that it's actually easier to control the politics of a contry that's not literally on fire, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:The United States could not control the politics of one M.E. country even when the had conquered it, stationed their military there and turned on a firehouse of money aimed at anyone even vaguely pro America seeming. Are you denying that America and England removed Mossadegh from power and brought back the Shah? Even the CIA admits it. It's declassified. Or that America helped Saddam overthrow his predecessor? Or that they gave support to Saddam and the precursors of al-Qaeda? Or that the CIA helped to get rid of numerous democratically elected leaders in Latin America and Africa? They can't "control the politics" permanently but they can and do create power vacuums and do give money, weapons and other support to ensure their side comes out on top just enough to kill their mutual enemy (in the case, democracy). OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Rudaw staff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
There is a wide gulf between supporting a coup in Iran in the 1950s and actually controlling Mideast politics. America has given direct and indirect support to Sisi but it didn't put hundreds of thousands of people in the streets. In the halls of U.S. power you'd be lucky to find people who can even tell the difference between Sunni and Shia. Assuming american super competence is laughable, and sidelines the real power of local forces and actors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
So which is it, is United States foreign policy completely inept and incompetent or are Americans masterful manipulators single-handedly keeping democracy blossoming in the Middle East?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:There is a wide gulf between supporting a coup in Iran in the 1950s and actually controlling Mideast politics. America has given direct and indirect support to Sisi but it didn't put hundreds of thousands of people in the streets. In the halls of U.S. power you'd be lucky to find people who can even tell the difference between Sunni and Shia. Assuming american super competence is laughable, and sidelines the real power of local forces and actors. Dude, just as a heads-up, you were the first one in this conversation to start talking about anyone fully controlling Mideast politics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:So which is it, is United States foreign policy completely inept and incompetent or are Americans masterful manipulators single-handedly keeping democracy blossoming in the Middle East? United States foreign policy is completely inept and incompetent and as a by product sometimes helps keep democracy from blossoming in the Middle East?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:United States foreign policy is completely inept and incompetent I like this kind of statement. The most powerful nation on earth is oh course never able to do anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Kilometers Davis posted:Negotiating with Assad? What the hell is going on? How can John Kerry be so entirely worthless? God drat. Having read an actual interview with Assad, he comes across as much more personable and nicer than say, Bibi.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Nosfereefer posted:I like this kind of statement. The most powerful nation on earth is oh course never able to do anything. Being incompetent doesn't prevent you from doing things, you know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Nosfereefer posted:I like this kind of statement. The most powerful nation on earth is oh course never able to do anything. I like how Assad puts it. quote:Abdelnour then recalled—by way of explaining why Assad was so difficult to take down—something the young president would tell his inner circle about their foreign adversaries. “They are here for a few years,” Assad would say. “My father, seven presidents passed through him.” Our inability to act 100% according to the whims of one man is our biggest weakness. In Iraq, 10 voices were pulling 20 different ways, and the result was an incoherent clusterfuck. Obviously the juice is worth the squeeze in that regard, but being the most powerful nation on earth doesn't make us the most efficient or capable. ascendance posted:I fail to see how Assad has been worse than any other dictators or other sketchy people the US has kept propped up to protect its interests over the years. And don't get me started on chemical weapons. There really isn't much evidence that Assad did it, given that it was going to be used as a pretext for intervention. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Nosfereefer posted:I like this kind of statement. The most powerful nation on earth is oh course never able to do anything. 1. Protect American economic interests in the region (mostly oil) 2. Assist Israel 3. Maybe encourage democracy or something in a half-assed way when we can find the time We've also had a new directive input after 9/11 of "fight ~the extremists~" which has not yet clearly fallen into the hierarchy; most of the yelling about Obama seems to be that he dares, while being a black President, to put it above 2 instead of under 2. We also only admit to directive #3 clearly in public. Bibi is a shithead, but he hasn't dropped sarin gas on Gaza. (He also might leave power by the end of the week.) Nessus fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Being incompetent doesn't prevent you from doing things, you know. Yeah, but being completely inept and incompetent is not really in line with the reality of the US setting up client states across the world, even if they don't prove to last forever. Not having a 100% command economy control over these territories doesn't mean the US state is exclusively made up of Mr. Beans', who just happened to stumble haplessly into the role of global hegemony.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Nosfereefer posted:Yeah, but being completely inept and incompetent is not really in line with the reality of the US setting up client states across the world, even if they don't prove to last forever. Not having a 100% command economy control over these territories doesn't mean the US state is exclusively made up of Mr. Beans', who just happened to stumble haplessly into the role of global hegemony. Well, true. However, if you have enough money it can make up for a whole lot of ineptness and incompetence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
ascendance posted:I fail to see how Assad has been worse than any other dictators or other sketchy people the US has kept propped up to protect its interests over the years. And don't get me started on chemical weapons. There really isn't much evidence that Assad did it, given that it was going to be used as a pretext for intervention. WOooooooowww are you just not reading anything at all about that whole thing? This is a serious question. Have you just not read any of the UN reports or anything about the day it happened? You do realize that the gas attack was only one aspect of an otherwise conventional military offensive and that plane-dropped bombs, artillery shells, mortars, and normal HE rockets were also fired at the same time and during the same salvos, right? Then it was followed up by a ground offensive by an elite Syrian armored division in the morning. How in the gently caress does that equate in your mind to "isn't much evidence" considering it was done with weapons the rebels didn't even possess, using delivery systems they didn't possess, onto their own positions during a general offensive by the Syrian Arab Army units located inside Damascus? Seriously Ascendance saying poo poo like that is the fastest way to make sure that nobody in this thread takes you seriously at all and you should be embarrassed for having posted this. That's the equivalent of saying the residents of Gaza bombed themselves with their own 2000 pound JDAMS using their Gaza Air Force. PS: gently caress Sisi, he's a murderous oval office and murdered way more people than the Muslim Brotherhood. Sergg fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
We have global hegemony because we have an unbelievably powerful economy and we won WWII. Some people can say one or the other but only we can say both, and more critically, only we could say both in 1946. It's not because Washington is full of super geniuses. After the world witnessed both Afghanistan and Iraq I'm not sure how the "the CIA is running the Middle East" narrative lives on in any form. America is garbage at doing anything but spending huge volumes of money and blowing people up. These skills enable us to do things like give material support for certain local actors, which is huge, and blow up countries, which is also huge. I'm not saying America is powerless. I am just saying that the idea America is what is keeping democracy from the Middle East in 2015 is absurd. Not just for the fact that U.S. policy for the past 20 years has been to try to support democratic or nascent democratic institutions (incompetently, as always). But even if we were trying full on to destroy democracy in the Middle East, we wouldn't know who to target. We're only having limited success destroying ISIS and those guys carry flags with them, and blowing up people is one of the only things we have a proven positive track record on. edit - the big difference between the U.S. in the Middle East and the U.S. in Latin America is the U.S. is full of people who know things and care about Latin America, for good or for mostly ill. Our "top minds" in contrast made Iraq happen. Best Friends fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:We have global hegemony because we have an unbelievably powerful economy and we won WWII. Some people can say one or the other but only we can say both, and more critically, only we could say both in 1946. It's not because Washington is full of super geniuses. After the world witnessed both Afghanistan and Iraq I'm not sure how the "the CIA is running the Middle East" narrative lives on in any form. America is garbage at doing anything but spending huge volumes of money and blowing people up. These skills enable us to do things like give material support for certain local actors, which is huge, and blow up countries, which is also huge. I'm not saying America is powerless. I am just saying that the idea America is what is keeping democracy from the Middle East in 2015 is absurd. Not just for the fact that U.S. policy for the past 20 years has been to try to support democratic or nascent democratic institutions (incompetently, as always). But even if we were trying full on to destroy democracy in the Middle East, we wouldn't know who to target. We're only having limited success destroying ISIS and those guys carry flags with them, and blowing up people is one of the only things we have a proven positive track record on. This is an excellent point and I wish more people would realize that local actors are far more important, but that would actually require people to research and find out who those local actors are. Also which democratic governments in the Middle East has the US specifically overthrown besides Iran? Sisi in Egypt was a military coup that we neither expected nor endorsed. I guess you could make the case that we deliberately provoked the civil war between Hamas and the PLO, but both of those factions were democratically elected and represented in their government. I guess you could try to make the case that Afghanistan's Communist government was overthrown by help from the US, but that ignores the fact that the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan was neither democratically elected nor was the civil war started due to US involvement. Sergg fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:01 |
|
|
You understand that countries that appear to you to be "ruined" and "out of control", like Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti and Honduras, are actually working exactly as intended? In one case you have warlords competing to bring the cheapest tantalum and diamonds to multinational companies so they can have arms money, and in Haiti and Honduras the persistent poverty, violence and lack of democratic control leads to a desperate populace that has to work for pennies. The American military may attempt to contain some of the violence and chaos so other important things don't get destabilized, but they much prefer a ruined and weak Middle East ruled by Sisi, House of Saud and a handful of greedy dictators who dont' care about their people than one with a stable, democratic governments who might decide to reevaluate their arrangements with BP and Exxon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:24
|
|