CIA declares Mission Accomplished, Mubarak says not so fast

[lupercal]

"I'd suggest that the Egyptians solicit the assistance of the Swiss in adding certain aspects of direct democracy to their future representational democracy system. I.e. initiative, referendum (plebiscite), and recall.
They have a golden opportunity to show the rest of the world what direct democracy can look like."

Yeah, in your delusional anarchist pipe dream. In reality the real powers-that-be will find a new, more fitting, person to do the job and appease the Twitter crowd. The western media is gloating about all this. I just read the entirety of "The Economist's" coverage of it- everyone should read it. This is a good thing, they say, the west should embrace it, the west has looked bad by prioritizing "stability" over "democracy," and now is our change to change all that. It's a Facebook-facelift regime change, clear as fucking day. Looks like George Soros' fingerprints on it, too, hardly unusual. If you want to see what the capitalists are thinking read their publications. It's been nothing but hoots and hollers on this one.

Indeed.

Meanwhile, interestingly, it's very likely not good for Israel. That's what they're all saying, at least, especially in Israel. Israel may lose its only regional ally.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... ?track=rss

Things in the Middle East may be on the verge of getting a lot muddier than they already are. Don't think intelligence agencies aren't playing their little chess games. It was already a perilous situation in the Middle East, with Israel poised to strike Iran at any point, and this will most certainly make it worse, as a "friendlier fascist" face is installed.

Oh I think Netanyahu will get exactly what he wanted, which is water from the Nile (Mubarak said no deal) and a green light to point his made-in-the-US firepower at Gaza and whatever else suits his fancy, which Mubarak also tried to stop. But as usual the Empire got its way.

[23]

It was already a perilous situation in the Middle East, with Israel poised to strike Iran at any point, and this will most certainly make it worse, as a "friendlier fascist" face is installed.

It's clear, wordspeak2, that you don't have faith in the Egyptian people. Otherwise, you wouldn't be anticipating their future willingness to be governed by a "friendlier fascist" face.

I, however... and because of what I saw these past two weeks... have more faith in them than I do in my own country(wo)men.

Friendly fascism is alive and well in the United States, and my neighbors are happily ensconced in it.

I cannot influence whom you have faith in, and under what circumstances; nor would I want to. Your life experiences have shaped that dynamic for you, and I won't pretend to know what they were.

But as for me... and because of what I saw for the first time in my 50 years of existence on his tiny planet... I have more faith and confidence in the Egyptian people than I do in any other people.

Hopefully, others will follow their example. To the benefit of my daughter's future.

[Joe Hillshoist]

"Looks like you're the putz singing Murdoch's tune, Joe. As usual."

Yeah cept I've been saying the same thing for weeks, while Murdoch and co weren't.

Here's the deal Lupercal, if Sulieman goes ballistic on the protesters then obviously the CIA and Istrael have installed their man, but what does that say about the protesters?

Well? IT says what? Come on?

That they were what? Just out there cos someone paid them?

getting into the music in tahrir?

Millions and millions of fucking people went out onto the street over the last 3 weeks. They all working for the CIA?

All you do is post sources from the western media talking about Egypt. Sorry as far as I'm concerned there hasn't been much in the Western media that is worth considering wrt to this revolution, nothing in fact, tho you may consider twitter or the internet a western source thats your blind spot not mine.

So when you start posting non western discussion about this then maybe I'll take something you say seriously. Other wise you're basically saying:

Oh read the NYT or the WaPo or Cryptome or Lyndon Tarpley and look what they say! This must be real (does best Bill Hicks voice.)

Plus what 23 said.

[winsomecowboy2]

This "faith in the people" that is being spoken of. Is there any contemporary instance of it ever being anything other than a geopolitical tool?

Cos I want to believe but I'm handicapped by my faith that anything delivered to me by the media is shallow distracting by design premasticated pap.

And I have a heap of contemporary evidence for that.

I suppose it doesn't matter what is believed as time will tell in short order as to whether "the people" can achieve anything as extraordinary as governance by and for. Whatever that looks like.

It sure wouldn't look like any western country I know of. Switzerland ? Ok then. Is the military in charge there? Time will tell if dreams really can come true in a land that for most is far far away. It's got fairytale written all over it.

Sorry, resume tube fed optimism in 1..2..3

[23]

Cos I want to believe but I'm handicapped by my faith that anything delivered to me by the media is shallow distracting by design premasticated pap.

And I have a heap of contemporary evidence for that.

Cool. My computer was on 24/7 the last couple of weeks. Affixed totally on Al Jazeera's coverage of the Egyptian revolution.

Please share some evidence of AJ's "premasticated pap". I took some piss breaks and had to sleep. Did I miss some then?

[23]

All you do is post sources from the western media talking about Egypt. Sorry as far as I'm concerned there hasn't been much in the Western media that is worth considering wrt to this revolution, nothing in fact, tho you may consider twitter or the internet a western source thats your blind spot not mine.

Amen.

Junk in; junk out.

Western propagandized news coverage in; propagandized opinion out.

The roots determine the fruit.

[lupercal]

All you do is post sources from the western media talking about Egypt. Sorry as far as I'm concerned there hasn't been much in the Western media that is worth considering wrt to this revolution, nothing in fact, tho you may consider twitter or the internet a western source thats your blind spot not mine.

Amen.

Junk in; junk out.

Western propagandized news coverage in; propagandized opinion out.

The roots determine the fruit.

And then...

Cool. My computer was on 24/7 the last couple of weeks. Affixed totally on Al Jazeera's coverage of the Egyptian revolution.

So you think Al "Radio Free CIA Voice of MI6" Jazeera English is some kind of non-Western non-progagandized news source?



Seriously, who the hell do you think runs the damn thing?

[23]

You sound like someone who didn't watch much of AJ's coverage of the Egyptian revolution.

If you did, are you saying that there wasn't much of a difference between how AJ covered it and how the US media covered it?

And if you didn't, then your opinion of AJ's coverage doesn't come from personal experience. And will be filed accordingly.

[lupercal]

You sound like someone who didn't watch much of AJ's coverage of the Egyptian revolution.

If you did, are you saying that there wasn't much of a difference between how AJ covered it and how the US media covered it?

And if you didn't, then your opinion of AJ's coverage doesn't come from personal experience. And will be filed accordingly.

I didn't say US media, I said CIA-MI6. I don't as a rule "watch" US media coverage of anything if I can possibly help it, but I read plenty of their fake news online, and in the main their take on Assmange, Tunisia and Egypt is identical to the one tediously echoed here. As for Al Jazeera English it's literally difficult to distinguish it from the BBC. More than once I've had to double check the URL to figure out which of the two I was looking at. Ditto their radio coverage which whaddya know, was picked up by Pacifica and pumped out daily along with Goodman's shameless cheerleading which I've also tried to avoid.

[23]

I know that you said CIA-MI6. The CIA was an American institution, the last time I checked.

For a moment I wondered if you were receiving your talking points, re. Al Jazeera, from FOX:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/fox- ... aljazeera/
Fox hosts slam ‘anti-Semitic, anti-American’ al-Jazeera amid Egypt protests

I found AJ's coverage significantly different from the American media's coverage. And I am grateful to them for that.

[lupercal]

^ "Fox hosts" and Limbaugh radio types are another discussion entirely but as far as I can tell they basically repackage the same AEI propaganda pushed in the NYT, WSJ, and on NPR, CNN, BBC-Jazeera and lately Pacifica to niche audiences, so inflammatory rhetoric aside, the differences between FOX and AJ are mainly cosmetic, like the differences between MI6 and the CIA, at least at present.

[winsomecowboy2]

Ok I see where you're coming from. You were watching a channel you believed was giving you 'the truth'. I can't argue any of it wasn't .

Certainly a lot of folk were very brave and courageous and took risks for ideals they believed in and made sacrifices across the spectrum.

They undoubtedly have aspirations too.

I just can't bring myself to get carried away, glued to the set for days. Sounds like second hand passion doesn't itwhether it's tv or computer it's all the same except the toothpaste commercials are more viral on the computer is about all.
The more you believe, the more faith you have, the more a couple of days worth of passionate tv watching in lue of an actual participating life has to mean something to you larger than disposable days being politically entertained by others passions as they may mirror your own inert political persuasions .

So back to 'the truth'. Obviously more than one. One is you are passively invested in a foriegn soap opera that somehow gives your life meaning. Have you done much else besides watch tv and eat deficate and sleep?

Are you aware your 'faith' could be seen in some technically objective sense as a form of hysteria? Not saying it is but try to see how it could be just as a mental exercise.

Now those people on tv you see, don't worry about the commentary whether us or aj. Could you see, not agree with but see those people as expressing a certain hysteria also?

I'm just personally so very wary of pretending that anything fed to us via media can be accepted at face value as the truth. It does allow folk drama though. I don't know what truth is quite honestly but I've had decades of experience with drama and on the face of it drama is hardly ever true. Truth if any is subtextual with drama.

I actually feel I may have a better chance of perceiving the truth in relation to this situation by watching less tv rather than more.

It can be a shock, or not, but narratives hardly ever write themselves. We are pattern seekers, easy meat.

So again, peoples revolutions not used as geopolitical tools. Examples anyone?

[WakeUpAndLive]

If you haven't been following the AJ thread, I think this post by vanloosekid describes it about as well as anyone right now in a concise manner:

1) earlier in the thread i asked folks to note the flash-organization and build up of an egalitarian society in Tahrir square as a counter-argument to the Leviathan thesis of government. as far as that is concerned: the people's demands, organization, patience, perseverance, nobility, etc., i find no fault, nor do i find an anomalous confirmation of the counter-thesis, as the counter-thesis, in my view, and history and anthropology support this, is the human norm. tyranny is the anomaly or aberration, if you will. – what the Egyptian people have achieved here is more than just noteworthy, it's very admirable.

2) i've been suspicious of the Egyptian military from the outset, and i still am. looking back at the stalemate of the past week or so – M naming a VP, handing over authority, Communique number two in response to M's second speech, etc., – i saw a play for stability on the part of the Egyptian regime and with the backing of the US. all along, stability ("orderly transition") was key to how the regime acted. this also explains the meandering response(s) from DC. the regime and its sponsors have all along played for stability or the "known knowns". if not M then Suleiman, and even though he'd have to stage some form of "orderly transition" with concessions and reforms of laws and so on, what he bought (what the "orderly transition" is meant to buy) was time. time to

(a) get to know and "shake hands" with whoever would be coming into power in Egypt or

(b) get whoever the US wanted in power in Egypt in place for the transition.
*

[DoYouEverWonder]

A vital point Lupercal to people who live on $2 a day.

It's a vital point. When $2 buys half of what it does today three months from now, and half of that next year, you'll see why.

In getting rid of Mubarak, it seems to me that Egypt at least has made a start.

A start at what, exactly? Please explain how ditching a civilian government for military dictatorship advances "democracy" or any other benefit to Egyptians. How it benefits BP, Boeing, Wall Street, and the IDF is manifestly clear.

Put down the crack pipe, Lupis. You're starting to sound like you're getting your talking points from Benjamin Netanyahu.

[wordspeak2]

From Netanyahu, huh? Even though he said it benefits the IDF? Oh, OK.

Joe, what on earth are you smoking? No one said that the people are the streets are all on the CIA's payroll, or that any of them are. It has nothing to do with that. That's obviously not how these things work. Intelligence agencies work with key movement leaders, on the internet, influence the media, and in various ways light the sparks for an instant mass-movement such as this. They're good at it; they've done it a few times before. Of course, I have no problem with the upper-class "Facebook crowd" of Egypt that was the face of this; in fact, I admire their courage to hit the streets. Their collective desire for better job opportunities and a less authoritarian state is shared by many people around the world. I wish that there were more of a cohesive left-wing vision behind the protests. Yes, there are some socialists involved in it, but if this were a Hugo Chavez-style left-wing mass movement about to take power and start disempowering the corporate state and giving back to the poor, *the global capitalist media wouldn't be treated it as it has," would it? Cover of The Economist: "EGYPT RISES UP" with a huge Egyptian flag, and inside an editorial about how the west needs to carpe diem. What's the point about how Al-Jazeera covered it? Look how the Murdoch media covered it. The street battles were always framed as "Mubarak army attacks protesters," rather than "Violent protesters incite riots," which is the MSM's slant when they don't like the protest movement. I was in the streets in Seattle protesting the WTO in 1999, and at follow-up protests to that (the energy of which 9/11 destroyed), and I can tell you a lot about how these things are framed. Not that it's not patently obvious. This was not one of those. Quite the contrary.

Lupercal, what did Mubarak do in opposition towards Israel's aggressive intentions towards Gaza?
I think that nexus is the key to understanding this thing. Should probably read the Israeli press right now, as well.