Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
lostinshanghai
Social climber
someplace
|
|
Fatty
Better yet rather than go there, when Mubarak seeks asylum, why don't you invite him to stay with you. Then there will be two people that are ahole that suppress, mislead, ill-informed, corrupt, evil and profit off the poor. Then you can boost another famous person you are in contact with and has phone #.
|
|
ahad aham
Trad climber
|
|
obama administration sent Frank Wisner to coach mubarak on exit strategy & power transfer prior to that speech which is being called a joke by the people. Frank Sr. headed up office of special plans in the 50's, started Operation Mockingbird, and was instrumental in the overthrow of the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran. Nothing like the same old, warn out, tired hubris
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Frank Wisner must then be well over 80, if he had any real role in overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953, etc. Seems unlikely that he'd still be active.
Edit: Thanks - I understand now. Two Wisners, father and son. Not that the son is necessarily cut from the same cloth as the father.
|
|
ahad aham
Trad climber
|
|
his son Frank G wisner mh, if i recall corectly frank wisner sr later offed himself
|
|
ahad aham
Trad climber
|
|
here it is in wiky
In 1947 Wisner established Operation Mockingbird, a program to influence the domestic and foreign media. In 1952, he became head of the Directorate of Plans, with Richard Helms as his chief of operations. This office had control of 75% of the CIA budget. In this position, he was instrumental in supporting pro-American forces that toppled Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran and Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán in Guatemala [7] following the Alfhem affair.
and his son frank g
Frank George Wisner II (born 1938) is an American businessman and former diplomat. He is the son of Frank Wisner (1909 – 1965). On 31 January 2011, he was sent to Egypt by President Barack Obama to negotiate a resolution to the popular protests against the regime that have swept the country.[1] A White House spokesman said that Wisner had vast experience in the region as well as close relationships with many Egyptians in and out of government. The New York Times reports that he is a personal friend of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak.[2]
|
|
lostinshanghai
Social climber
someplace
|
|
Omar Suleiman (Arabic: عمر سليمان; born July 2, 1936) is an Egyptian politician and military figure who was appointed Vice President of Egypt on 29 January 2011. Previously, he was Minister without Portfolio and Director of the Egyptian General Intelligence Directorate (EGID), the national intelligence agency, from 1993 to 2011. In his role as Director of EGID, the British Daily Telegraph dubbed him as "one of the world's most powerful spy chiefs". Foreign Policy magazine ranked him the Middle East's most powerful intelligence chief, ahead of Mossad chief Meir.
Dagan. Source Wikipedia just a short paragraph.
But get’s better:
Mubarak's deputy linked to secret CIA program
Reputation of Omar Suleiman – Mubarak's first VP – marred by allegations of torture, extracting false confessions
Middle East Online
By Dan De Luce - WASHINGTON
The man named by President Hosni Mubarak as his first ever deputy, Egyptian spy chief Omar Suleiman, reportedly orchestrated the brutal interrogation of terror suspects abducted by the CIA in a secret program condemned by rights groups.
His role in the shadows of the "war on terror" illustrates the ties that bind the United States and the Egyptian regime, as an unprecedented wave of protests against Mubarak present Washington with a difficult dilemma.
With Mubarak's rule in jeopardy, Suleiman was anointed vice president last week and is now offering wide ranging talks with the opposition in a bid to defuse the crisis.
Suleiman is a sophisticated operator who carried out sensitive truce negotiations with Israel and the Palestinians as well as talks among rival Palestinian factions, winning the praise of American diplomats.
For US intelligence officials, he has been a trusted partner willing to go after Islamist militants without hesitation, targeting homegrown radical groups after they carried out a string of attacks on foreigners.
A product of the US-Egyptian relationship, Suleiman underwent training in the 1980s at the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare School and Center at Fort Bragg in North Carolina.
As spy chief, Suleiman reportedly embraced the CIA's controversial "extraordinary rendition" program under ex-president George W. Bush, in which terror suspects snatched by the Americans were taken to Egypt and other countries without legal proceedings and subjected to harsh interrogations.
He "was the CIA’s point man in Egypt for rendition," Jane Mayer, author of "The Dark Side," wrote on the New Yorker's website.
After taking over as spy director, Suleiman oversaw an agreement with the United States in 1995 - during Bill Clinton's presidency -- that allowed suspected militants to be secretly transferred to Egypt for questioning.
Human rights groups charge the detainees have often faced torture and mistreatment in Egypt and elsewhere, accusing the US government of violating its own legal obligations by handing over suspects to regimes known for abuse.
In the run-up to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the CIA relied on Suleiman to accept the transfer of a detainee known as Ibn Sheikh al-Libi, who US officials hoped could prove a link between Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda.
The suspect was bound and blindfolded and flown to Cairo, where the CIA believed their longtime ally Suleiman would ensure a successful interrogation, according to "The One Percent Doctrine" by author Ron Suskind.
A US Senate report in 2006 describes how the detainee was locked in a cage for hours and beaten, with Egyptian authorities pushing him to confirm alleged connections between Al-Qaeda and Saddam.
Libi eventually told his interrogators that the then Iraqi regime was moving to provide Al-Qaeda with biological and chemical weapons.
When the then US secretary of state Colin Powell made the case for war before the United Nations, he referred to details of Libi's confession.
The detainee eventually recanted his confession.
In "Ghost Plane," a book about the rendition program, journalist Stephen Grey writes that Egypt faced regular public criticism from lawmakers in Congress about its rights.
|
|
lostinshanghai
Social climber
someplace
|
|
President Barack Obama will speak about the turmoil in Egypt this evening.
Don't look for anything encouraging or leadership.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
I distorted nothing. Allow me to summarize:
1. You are terrified of the muslim brotherhood.
2. You think a dictator who tortures his own is preferable to the alternatives you envision most likely.
Me? I don't hold out any hopes for democracy in Egypt at all. But its none of my business really. Exporting democracy at the point of a gun is no different than exporting terrorism, or religion, or cupcakes, at the point of a gun.
Yall want free elections in Egypt? Head on over there and affect change!
DMT
Yes you do distort what I say.
When did I say I was terrified of the MB? They pose no direct threat to me. I dislike thier ideology and what they stand for.
I DO hold out hope for democracy eveywhere, not just Egypt. It just seems that democracy is incompatible with hardline Islamic republics. Egypt was not really that, and hence the hope.
Yeah, democracy at the barrel of gun is not a good thing. But was that even suggessted in Egypt? Did it occur in the past? No. Relations with Egypt were done through diplomacy and the promise of 'foreign aid' (guns).
I never called for free elections in Egypt, but would welcome them. So again your typically mundane, "You wantit, you go do it" crap.
That's like saying if you profess higher taxes, then pay them yourself, and leave me alone.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
Their calls for jihad, their hatred of Israel, and their desires to spread Sharia throughout the West.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
lost,
I've never expected anything from Obama to be encouraging or enlightening.
Yeah, I think you two may have different expectations of those two things, Fatty.
Donald Trump had some choice words on this today. Trump 2012!!! Ya outta here him talk about trade imbalances with China, India, and Mexico.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
No military service is nothing like that at all,
I never said military action was necessary to support their gov't. AGAIN!!! You twist my f*#king words. You are stuck on this obsession that I never served. And as a result, I should have no opinions on geo-politics where I never advocated military action. Or even when I did.
Get over it, dude!
This is a discussion. Get it??? People's opinions, whether it involves US military action or not. Not everybody serves in the military, but I'd hope you agree that everybody is entitled to an opinion.
Dingus is the only one who can have any righteous say on military matters because 'he served'. That's f*#king weak. And you go on to imply that I have no regard for troops because I never 'served'. Ohhhhh.
F*#king weak.
EDIT:
No military service is nothing like that at all, but I suppose its understandable in some weird neoconservative post modern hippy way... comparing death to taxes, lol.
You obviously either don't get the analogy, or can't refute it...
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
It may be that the US, and Obama, will get considerable credit for a relatively peaceful transition to something like a democracy in Egypt, even if its a military-backed democracy with a limited role for the religious. Starting with Obama's speech to the Arab and Islamic world in Cairo in June 2009 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/opinion/05fri1.html?scp=1&sq=obama%20cairo%20speech&st=Search);, and now speaking strongly but constructively in favour of change. I suspect there has been a lot of work by US diplomats behind the scenes, to learn about what was happening, and support a constructive transition.
After hard-earned lessons in Iran, Iraq, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile, and elsewhere, the US may have done the right thing in terms of one of its dictators, and democracy.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
This analyst at the Brookings Institute asks a couple of interesting questions but suggests negative feelings in the ME about past western influence will not be reduced were the US to make the present situation about us.
If I may be so bold as to paraphrase this content. What we appear to be doing may damage us more than whatever it is we are actually doing.
Another commentator on the site argues the most immediate effect of the uprising is on the US/Israeli relationship. Egypt formed an anchor for the policies of both countries. Our bilateral relationship necessarily needs to adjust.
From the Brookings Institute website:
Don't Make Egyptian Upheaval About Washington
Wednesday February 2, 2011
Shibley Telhami, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy
January 31, 2011 —
Ever since Egypt’s public demonstrations calling for regime change began, Washington has been debating what the White House should or should not say, as if American words in the middle of an upheaval that is not our doing can affect the outcome in Egypt and turn the tide of Arab public opinion in favor of the United States.
But if there is any lesson to be learned from Tunisia, and from the U.S. policy in the region in the past few years, it is that these historic and indigenous events in Egypt must not become about the United States. One reason the Tunisian revolution succeeded in toppling the president without major ramifications for the U.S. is that the revolt was not viewed as directly related to the West.
When the Bush administration used the Iraq War as a vehicle to spread democratic change in the Middle East, anger with the United States on foreign policy issues — particularly Iraq and the Arab-Israeli conflict — and deep suspicion of U.S. intentions put the genuine democracy advocates in the region on the defensive. The outcome has been that, every year since the Iraq War began, polls of Arabs revealed their sense that the Middle East is even less democratic than before.
As we witness the remarkable and inspiring events in both Tunisia and Egypt, one has to wonder whether these events could have taken place even earlier had there not been the diversion of the Iraq War — and whether these upheavals might have swept away Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship without shots being fired from the outside.
Even in Iran, where there is obvious public opposition to the clerical regime, as indicated by the contestation over the 2009 presidential election, one wonders whether the Iranian people might succeed if the regime were robbed of its ability to point fingers at the West.
The United States, for its own sake, must side with people standing for self-determination and freedom, who are prepared to risk their lives for them.
But let’s have no illusion about the effect of what we say on the outcome in Egypt — or throughout the Arab world. Events in Egypt are mostly out of our control. It’s not up to the United States to determine who the next president of Egypt will be. In any case, America’s inability to engineer political outcomes in the region — or even predict them — has been demonstrated in events ranging from the outcome of the Iraq War itself to contests for power in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.
Whether President Barack Obama publicly calls for President Hosni Mubarak to resign will very likely have little effect on Arab and Egyptian public opinion.
To be sure, many democracy advocates want to see a more forceful U.S. voice on behalf of regime change in Cairo. But others, including those in places supporting an Egyptian revolution, like the Al Jazeera network, are already asking whether the Egyptian upheaval was instigated by Washington — with some “evidence” presented.
If and when the United States does take a forceful position, we must have no illusion about how it will be spun by many Arabs. Washington is likely to be seen as attempting to control events — moving to pre-empt the public will and engineering an outcome to its liking. It will quite likely be mocked by Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah — just as he mocked France for how quickly it abandoned its client after Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali’s departure from Tunisia.
There is a sense in U.S. national discourse that the anger with the United States is only about its support for authoritarian governments in the region. It is partly about that. But it’s deeper and more complex — as we have seen in the attitudes of the Iraqi people, many of whom were happy to get Washington’s support to throw off their dictator but were still unhappy with U.S. foreign policy.
Resolving Washington’s dilemma in its relationship with authoritarian rulers in the region will not be addressed by White House speeches or even the elimination of U.S. foreign aid.
As long as the United States has a heavy military footprint in the region, is fighting wars in the Middle East and is invested in the outcome of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it will continue to prefer cooperative regimes over a public will that goes against it.
The Iraq War was most telling. Even as the United States was waging a war partly in the name of democracy, the vast majority of the Arab public passionately opposed it, and even many governments counseled against it — largely for fear of public opposition.
But we insisted and we rewarded and we threatened — and got our way with most. The net result was that those governments that went against the will of the overwhelming majority, which made them even more insecure, reacted in the way they knew best: They became even more repressive.
Today, our closest institutional relationships in the Arab world, driven by strategic U.S. priorities, are military to military, intelligence to intelligence, security service to security service. These agencies are the anchors of repression in the region, regardless of who rules at the top. Given that repression now appears to be failing, this is a moment for a bigger assessment of U.S. policy in the region — beyond what happens in Egypt.
The United States must always stand for freedom and self-determination, and our leaders must articulate that — even when the outcome is uncertain and our interests are at stake.
Still, Egypt is not just another country in the Middle East. It has been the anchor of the U.S. approach to the region since the 1970s, and what happens in Cairo will inevitably have consequences.
Have no illusion: Egypt is already profoundly changed — no matter who will be at the top tomorrow or next year. But we must resist the temptation to insert ourselves in an environment in which we have little control. Washington must, of course, prepare for contingencies and assess ways to protect its interests regardless of the outcome.
But today, to honor those seeking freedom in the Arab world and the principles for which we stand, America must resist the temptation to make the Egyptian uprising about us.
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0131_egypt_telhami.aspx
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
There are factions at work this morning in Cairo who plainly don't want things to simmer down.
|
|
Majid_S
Mountain climber
Bay Area , California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 2, 2011 - 02:04pm PT
|
I smell big war in ME sometimes in 2012
|
|
ahad aham
Trad climber
|
|
green light from obama.
mubarak has released his dogs.
|
|
lostinshanghai
Social climber
someplace
|
|
Looks like Israel has sent in their paid Goon Squads helping with Mubarak’s Security Forces, thugs and police to create unrest and create chaos to reverse the freedom Egypt deserves. They want it back to status quo so Islamic parties cannot have a say in or in taking control. The US is in the same position, so don’t be surprised we are creating it too.
Best way to see or who they are is by the shoes they wear.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
1939-1954Main article: History of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (1939-1954)
In response to intense pressure from the Brotherhood's younger members, some historians believe that al-Banna accepted, albeit reluctantly, the creation of its military wing (the "secret apparatus"), but according to some authorities managed to keep it mainly inactive throughout World War II.[citation needed] During the 1940s, the Brotherhood continued to grow rapidly, and is thought to have had over a million members by the end of the decade.
Links to the Nazis began during the 1930s and were close during the Second World War, involving agitation against the British, espionage and sabotage, as well as support for terrorist activities orchestrated by Haj Amin el-Hussaini in British Mandate Palestine, as a wide range of declassified documents from the British, American and Nazi German governmental archives, as well as from personal accounts and memoires from that period, confirm.[2] Reflecting this connection the Muslim Brotherhood also disseminated Hitler's Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion widely in Arab translations, helping to deepen and extend already existing hostile views about Jews and Western societies generally.[3]
After the war, it continued to play a leading role in the nationalist movement, which swept the Arab world. Although the Brotherhood's leaders remained committed to a nonviolent approach, the secret apparatus began to disobey the leadership and carry out terrorist attacks inside Egypt.[citation needed] The organisation's increasing popularity led Egypt's pro-British ruling elite (which was still largely under British control) to consider it a threat to their power.[citation needed]
In November 1948 police seized an automobile containing the documents and plans of what is thought to be the Brotherhood's `secret apparatus` with names of its members. The seizure was preceded by an assortment of bombings and assassination attempts by the apparatus. Subsequently 32 of its leaders are arrested and its offices raided.[4] The next month the Egyptian Prime Minister of Egypt, Mahmud Fahmi Nokrashi, ordered the dissolution of the Brotherhood.
On December 28, 1948 Egypt's prime minister was assassinated by Brotherhood member and veterinary student Abdel Meguid Ahmed Hassan, in what is thought to have been retaliation for the government crackdown. A month and half later Al-Banna himself was killed in Cairo by men believed to be government agents and/or supporters of the murdered premier. Al-Banna was succeeded as head of the Brotherhood by Hassan Isma'il al-Hudaybi, a former judge. Hudaybi attempted to abolish the secret apparatus, but it continued to operate without the leadership's knowledge.
The Brotherhood supported the military coup that overthrew the monarchy in 1952, but the junta, though popular at first, was unwilling to share power or lift martial law; it quickly lost its public support,[citation needed] and began to provoke confrontations with the Brotherhood.[citation needed]
In 1952 members of the Muslim Brotherhood are accused of taking part in arson that destroyed some "750 buildings" in downtown Cairo — mainly night clubs, theatres, hotels, and restaurants frequented by British and other foreigners — "that marked the end of the liberal, progressive, cosmopolitan" Egypt.[5]
Terrorists since their begginings Crawley.
|
|
monolith
climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
Why such an incredible fear of the Brotherhood?
Egyptians will never let them take over.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!