sharkman Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 I also read a story today about journalists being forced to only show pro-mobarak forces. Apparently the plan is to control whatever media they can, and hit the rest of them in the face with a bottle. I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 80 years later and Fascist's simply do not change,do they? Not one bit... I Wonder who wrote that script? They're following it to the T... Even I was kinda shocked when the CBC reported that the Mubarak family had assets of around $40 BILLION and Mubarak himself over $17 BILLION... That kinda loot takes some time to get it all out of Dodge before riding away... CLASSIC Fascism, even Mussolini could've taken lessons & learned from this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 I like how they described (not Fox but the Mubarak types" describing the horse and camel riders as,and I quote... "Disgruntled workers from the Cairo Zoo who were upset about the fact that the protests were hurting business." I'm not joking,I heared that yesterday... Right out of the Goebbels playbook,I suppose,in that if you tell an outrageous lie most people are apt to believe it... I also like how the Mubarak gov't is calling his thugs,"Pro-Stability"... Owch, stop that, I just woke my wife up when I started laughing, and now my stomach aches! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Supposedly a march to Mubarak's palace is planned and jpunalists have noted alot of armoured personnel carriers... Many journalists have been attacked and beaten into silence... Very ominous and remeniscent of Tiannemen Square... Indeed... Showdown today?!?! Resolution of revolution could be in the offing today... Turn on your recorders... I knew there was a reason that the Mubarak forces were shutting down, or at least trying to, the media... If Mubarak wins today, it would probably be the WORST outcome of all, even worse than Egypt becoming an Islamist state like Iran... No way could "the west" be seen as supporting his regime after that and then it end's up as the next (Saddam Hussain's) Iraq... GROUND HOG DAY (NOT the movie just the content)... It sure seems humanity's inhumanity to man is elemental to humanity's survival and ultimate demise... Makes one think the 2012ers may end up being RIGHT... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 .....and I am surprised at your short memory....it already happened in the USA...we call it The Civil War (north) and War Between the States (south). I agree that Canadians are far too docile for that sort of thing, save for an occasional October Crisis. You may have a point given how the "South" feels about Obama and the Democrats... Civil war round 2? Canada? Just don't touch Canada's health care or pensions or you'll find out what "Grey Power" really means... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 What news coverage were you watching? Foxnews! Right from the time these pro-mubarak mobs entered the city square on camels and horseback, they have engaged in violence against the peaceful pro-democracy demonstrators. They have been caught on video throwing molotov cocktails and rocks from nearby buildings; they have beaten, in one case - stabbed, Egyptian and foreign reporters, and are now threatening to kill them if they don't get out. There are no reports of journalists being attacked by pro-democracy demonstrators, and even the crowd demographics betray the fact that the mubarak supporters are a typical fascist mob -- motivated by promises of money, jobs, or are members of the secret police, which has been proven from confiscated ID cards. They are also uniformly male and came in brandishing homemade weapons, while the pro-democracy demonstrators included a broad cross-section of the public, with large numbers of women, older people, and even children in the first few days. Making a claim that mubarak supporters have been peaceful is an outright lie to fit pre-existing ideological needs. This begs a question: why is it largely our conservatives who are (to their credit, uneasily) aligning themselves with the dictator and his supporters? These are the same folks, are they not, who a few years back were asserting that those opposed to the Iraq war were "objectively pro-Saddam" and "supporters of tyranny over liberty." Now, it's not as if any of us took that laughable nonsense seriously; but how do we explain the strange contradiction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 The fact is I've gloated about my role. This was a mistake. Pure and simple, I took offense at the word "Jew" being screened. I sent out an e-mail that made its way to the press. With Martin getting ready to drop the writ, the government didn't need another mess on its hands and the Board, no question, was far messier than it had been a few years earlier. I did not think my e-mail to the Canadian Jewish Congress would cause a shutdown. It did. Pure and simple I made a mistake, but who knows, maybe it would have happened anyway. You complained to the CJC? That's an oddly Canadian thing to do, jbg: to complain to the authorities about (perceived) bigotries. Didn't you agree with me about the essential awfulness of Canada's HRC? Well, it isn't about the HRC, so much as the impulses that allow such a thing to come into being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Supposedly a march to Mubarak's palace is planned and jpunalists have noted alot of armoured personnel carriers... Many journalists have been attacked and beaten into silence... Very ominous and remeniscent of Tiannemen Square... For such a long-term and successful dictator, the man isn't behaving intelligently. But maybe when tyrants get boxed into a corner, they always behave stupidly. I dunno.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 You complained to the CJC? That's an oddly Canadian thing to do, jbg: to complain to the authorities about (perceived) bigotries. Didn't you agree with me about the essential awfulness of Canada's HRC? Well, it isn't about the HRC, so much as the impulses that allow such a thing to come into being. ALL bigotry should be reported to the appropriate authorities... That's what I'd do when I find it, and have, both in Canada and the U.S.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) ALL bigotry should be reported to the appropriate authorities... That's what I'd do when I find it, and have, both in Canada and the U.S.... First of all, I disagree, even as you've framed it. Who exactly--exactly--are the "appropriate authorities" to determine acceptable versus unacceptable forms of speech and writing; and what exactly constitutes "bigotry"? Related, and this is important, we're not talking about some sort of objective bigotry, which must be plain to all sensible people, but of jbg's perception of bigotry. The matter isn't clear. Edited February 4, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 This begs a question: why is it largely our conservatives who are (to their credit, uneasily) aligning themselves with the dictator and his supporters? These are the same folks, are they not, who a few years back were asserting that those opposed to the Iraq war were "objectively pro-Saddam" and "supporters of tyranny over liberty." Now, it's not as if any of us took that laughable nonsense seriously; but how do we explain the strange contradiction? Hmmmm, good question... But then again, under and because of, Harper coming to power, Canada is no longer seen as an "honest broker" on world issues such as this... Perhaps a ruthless (as is now evident) dictator in power trumps even the possibility of a less "friendly" to Isreal regime coming to power for certain "Conservatives" both here and the U.S.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 I didn't suggest the demonstration was spontaneous. I wouldn't doubt those whose bread is buttered by the current regime were behind its organization. But the majority of those who actually demonstrated to not appear to be people who were paid to do so, ie, a mass of brown shirts, as has been suggested. Most of the pro-Mubarak demonstrations were quite peaceful. I guess you and me are watching two completely different things. Watching the news and seeing what is happening to that country, my question to anyone here is, could the same thing happen here in Canada or the US? It can. Depends what austerity measures are put in place here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Hmmmm, good question... But then again, under and because of, Harper coming to power, Canada is no longer seen as an "honest broker" on world issues such as this... Perhaps a ruthless (as is now evident) dictator in power trumps even the possibility of a less "friendly" to Isreal regime coming to power for certain "Conservatives" both here and the U.S.... Maybe you're right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 This begs a question: why is it largely our conservatives who are (to their credit, uneasily) aligning themselves with the dictator and his supporters? Perhaps conservatives are looking at the broader picture, and looking past the immediate visceral satisfaction of seeing a dictator brought down. Perhaps they remember Iran and are extremely leery of a repeat. Perhaps it's because no one has yet determined what sort of government might take the place of Mubarak, but the odds seem high it will be far less pro-west than the current regime, while at the same time have no greater respect for human rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Maybe you're right. Thank you... I think I am... That's not saying I agree with any of it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) Hmmmm, good question... But then again, under and because of, Harper coming to power, Canada is no longer seen as an "honest broker" on world issues such as this... People have been basking in self aggrandizing praise over Lester Pearson's activities for quite some time now. But I can't seem to recall a situation since then where Canada played any kind of important diplomatic role as an "honest broker". Perhaps you could produce a list...? Perhaps a ruthless (as is now evident) dictator in power trumps even the possibility of a less "friendly" to Isreal regime coming to power for certain "Conservatives" both here and the U.S.... Let's say the slight possibility that an actual democratic government with any degree of stability will emerge and have staying power might be trumped by the unmitigated disaster an Islamist inspired regime would likely produce in the region. Edited February 4, 2011 by Scotty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitsy Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Perhaps conservatives are looking at the broader picture, and looking past the immediate visceral satisfaction of seeing a dictator brought down. How do you explain the conservatives support of and delight in seeing Saddam deposed by a foreign power? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Thank you... I think I am... That's not saying I agree with any of it... I think you're wrong, at least for the time frame. Canada hasn't been an honest broker for quite some time...here is an example for his Liberal predecessor: http://www.canpalnet-ottawa.org/shift2.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Perhaps conservatives are looking at the broader picture, and looking past the immediate visceral satisfaction of seeing a dictator brought down. Perhaps they remember Iran and are extremely leery of a repeat. Perhaps it's because no one has yet determined what sort of government might take the place of Mubarak, but the odds seem high it will be far less pro-west than the current regime, while at the same time have no greater respect for human rights. I disagree, at least in part... Being pro-west isn't what it's about... This event is strictly bottom up, so much so that no one in "the west", including Governments, knows much more about what is taking place in Egypt than you or I watching the events... A bottom up revolution can turn out a lot of ways depending on how the "support" for the revolution shakes out... So far, in my opinion, the west's "reaction" has not been such that should the anti Mubarak population win this struggle they will view "the west" in a particularily favourable light... On the other hand, the support, in particular monetary support, to enhance the life of the general Egyptian population AND Egyptian Military after this uprising will be paramount in whether or not this all turns out favourably to "the west" or not... The life blood of Egypt is tourism, western tourism, every bit as much as oil, so that alone may play a big factor in Egypt's future... I remain hopeful... As the Egyptian Military goes, so does Egypt... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 How do you explain the conservatives support of and delight in seeing Saddam deposed by a foreign power? Well, for my part, I had hoped that with the United States present in force there was an opportunity to set up something that more closely resembled a rights respecting democracy. After all, they did it in Japan. And South Korea has graduated, under decades of American occupation, to a true democracy as well. I knew democracy was a foreign flower in a very hostile environment, but with the US there I thought it might well prosper. I had not counted on the decade of guerrila war, both against the Americans and between the various religious factions throwing a wrench into the works. I think Egypt is probably actually a less hostile environment for democracy to grow and prosper than most places in the middle east. But Mubaraks leaving creates a huge power vacuum and I see no one prepared or organized and able to step into that vacuum except the Muslim Brotherhood and the mullahs. With time, that might be remedied. My preference thus is for Mubarak to hang on at least until September, to give time for various parties and groups to organize for an election. Even then, unless the Egyptian Army can play a stabilizing role similar to that the Turkish army has played over the years, I don't know if a moderately inclined democracy can survive without being taken over by Islamists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 I think you're wrong, at least for the time frame. Canada hasn't been an honest broker for quite some time...here is an example for his Liberal predecessor: http://www.canpalnet-ottawa.org/shift2.html So? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 So? Sooooooo...it ain't just PM Harper...capiche? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 People have been basking in self aggrandizing praise over Lester Pearson's activities for quite some time now. But I can't seem to recall a situation since then where Canada played any kind of important diplomatic role as an "honest broker". Perhaps you could produce a list...? Sure, go to the link BC posted a couple of posts up to get an idea of Canada's diplomatic role in the world and as it regards the Israeli - Palestinian issue... Thanks BC... Let's say the slight possibility that an actual democratic government with any degree of stability will emerge and have staying power might be trumped by the unmitigated disaster an Islamist inspired regime would likely produce in the region. So what? Playing may, might, could, is a muggs game at this point... Whatever happens it's not "the west's" call to make... At best "the west" (read USA) can influence "what happens down the road" as long as they remember they are walking on egg shells doing it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Sooooooo...it ain't just PM Harper...capiche? You read something there I didn't? Nothing there particularily bothered me... Wasn't the first time nor the last that Canada voted instead of abstaining on those types of resolutions... - No one seemed to notice that on the same day, it voted in favour of or abstained from five other, less inflammatory pro-Palestinian resolutions. A few days after, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew belatedly explained that the contentious vote signalled the start of a new "principled" approach at the U.N. From now on, Canada would not automatically align with any one, but judge each of the 20 or so annual resolutions on its own merit, weighing the content and language against its Middle East policy. And that policy is not changing, stressed Pettigrew. Ottawa still advocates a two-state solution in the Middle East. It still supports the Palestinian right to self-determination, but not the use of terrorist attacks. It still defends Israel's right to live in peace and security, but not its settlement expansion. Only now, Canada truly will be the balanced, honest broker it claims to be. - http://www.canpalnet-ottawa.org/shift2.html Works for me! Thanks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 You read something there I didn't? Nothing there particularily bothered me... Wasn't the first time nor the last that Canada voted instead of abstaining on those types of resolutions... 2. Yes, you have acknowledged that "what works" for you represented a change from the previous policy that can be characterized as anything but "honest". Can't have it both ways. The truth is that depending on the issue, Canada may or may not be considered an "honest broker", particularly when narrowly focused on American policy as the benchmark. Was PM Chretien an "honest broker" in Eastern Europe? Nope...he helped to bomb their asses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.