backtoiam » Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:34 pm wrote:My assertion in the first few pages of this thread is that Egyptian intelligence and its military is deeply in bed with American intelligence. Draw from that what you will.
I think you are probably correct. If you were incorrect Egypt would have bombs raining from the sky on it. Let us be realistic. These people have fighter jets. They bomb people they don't like. Egypt is not getting bombed.
Of course, people are free to believe whatever they like. OMH, your "assertion" is not very convincing, given that you have put forth neither facts, nor logic, nor much beyond the most superficial knowledge about the issue to back it up.
As for Egypt not being bombed, that's not quite true. Just two days ago, near dawn on Friday morning, a friend of mine was evacuated from her building because a sharp-eyed porter's wife next door noticed piles of strange-looking rocks surrounding the building and piled up against trees, etc. The porter's wife informed one of the residents, who called the bomb squad. Every one of those rocks turned out to be camouflaged bombs. The likely target was a police check-point that is positioned there every Friday. There were enough bombs to kill hundreds of people in those buildings and on the street. Unfortunately, although such incidents are becoming increasingly rare (mostly because they are stopped in time), the terrorists show no signs of having given up. All too often, the attacks are successful. Every single day, we lose at least one police officer or army officer or soldier to bombs planted on roadsides, in residential neighborhoods, in college bathrooms, or wherever the sickos have access. Every single day.
The purpose of such attacks, along with the relentless propaganda against Egypt, is to scare away tourists and investors and prevent Egypt's economic recovery after the devastation of the past five years; an equally important objective is to create a sense of distrust and insecurity about the police and army's ability to defend people's lives.
The US doesn't militarily attack countries that are strong, united and defended by powerful armies. Egypt is. The Egyptian army is the 12th most powerful army on earth, and despite the relentless efforts of George Soros and his cohorts, the overwhelming majority of the people are united with each other and with their president.
The US only attacks countries that are either already weak , or that it has "softened up" via its agents; the US only attacks countries that are politically and economically isolated. Egypt is not weak, though it has some major challenges to overcome, and despite the US' best efforts to isolate Egypt, a lot has been accomplished during the past two years: Egypt's membership in the Union of African states has been reactivated (after it was frozen due to US pressure in 2013); Egypt has established very close ties with Russia and China and France and Italy and Greece, and is closely allied with almost all Arab countries (with the sole exception of Qatar, if one chooses to define it as an Arab country); just recently, Egypt was elected to a non-permanent seat at the UN Security Council by 93% of the vote (though the US, Israel, the UK, Qatar, Turkey, Iran and Ethiopia were among those which either abstained or voted against).
So, to sum up, Egypt doesn't currently fit the profile of a country that either the US or Israel would directly attack. A direct attack against Egypt would only serve to further unify and mobilize not only Egypt, but it would empower and solidify the front that is forming in the region and globally to counter the US and its imperialist bullying. But indirect attacks, now that's another story. We've had plenty of those, with no end in sight. And of course, Russia is the US' number one target. Targeting a Russian airplane and murdering 224 innocent Russians on their return from an Egyptian tourist holiday would kill a number of birds with one shot. If this could also send a message about the US/Israel's acquisition of technology to rival the Russians' A2/AD capabilities, this would be a bonus.
Given the available facts, this scenario is not at all unreasonable.