PDA

View Full Version : The Million March Countdown has begun. People are slowly hitting the streets



SarasotaRepub
01-28-2011, 06:46 AM
The DUmmies are just having kittens over the mess in Egypt!!! (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=290516&mesg_id=290516)




Catherina (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-28-11 04:21 AM

Original message The Million March Countdown has begun. People are slowly hitting the streets


Edited on Fri Jan-28-11 05:11 AM by Catherina
Edit to add the twitter link http://fr.twitter.com/search?q=egypt%20Jan25


ameerdaou RT @Farrah3m: THE MILLION MARCH COUNTDOWN HAS BEGUN! I'M SO SCARED I THINK IM GONNA CRY! people slowly beginning to hit the streets #jan25 #egypt #jan28 half a minute ago via web


# Mafalda-a-la-playa-24239_normal fcoel RT @bencnn: Cairo streets full of trucks with riot police. Tentions EXTREMELY #egypt #jan25 half a minute ago via web


# Use_it__i_ll_give_u_100___normal DrBaher RT @AJEnglish You can follow all the latest news from #Egypt on our special coverage page: http://aje.me/eNopaX #Jan25 half a minute ago via Twitterrific


MKillustration RT @SawsanGad: IT people, please bring Egypt back online by giving them global proxy http://bit.ly/iiLnw5 #Jan25 #Egypt #DayofAnger #techsavvy #ITnerds less than a minute ago via web


chaoticbr RT @hilalchouman: RT @ArabRevolution: RT @najibcherif #Egypt:Foreign journalists are not allowed to leave their hotels #jan25 less than a minute ago via TweetDeck


# Avatar_normal 8s RT @Karoli: via @RickSanchezTV reports of govt. thugs posing as extremists to splash acid on protesters. #jan25 #praynot http://bit.ly/foEKqK less than a minute ago via Echofon


metaphytwit RT @HaninSh: RT @SultanAlQassemi: Joe Biden on Mubarak "I would not refer to him as a dictator." http://bit.ly/f6Ypya http://bit.ly/f6Ypyanly #Jan25 less than a minute ago via TweetDeck




Haroon_Siddique RT @GabyVerdier: RT @haroon_siddique ALARMING NEWS OUT OF EGYPT: http://on.fb.me/gxXA7j plz HELP & share, we're their voice now #Jan25 #Egypt


Alarming News out of Egypt
by Egyptian Association for Change - USA الجمعية المصرية للتغيير on Thursday, January 27, 2011 at 4:36pm
by Stephen McInerney on Thursday, January 27, 2011 at 7:07pm



Tomorrow the Egyptian people are planning to take to the streets to protest against the repressive, corrupt government of Hosni Mubarak, in numbers far greater than we saw on Tuesday. The government seems to be pulling out the stops to prevent this.



We've been getting phone calls from Egyptian activists that we work with in the past 90 minutes saying the following:

* The internet went down entirely in Egypt roughly an hour ago, 12:30 am Egypt time - first all access to the internet via computers, then also via cell phones (they could initially access the internet via cell phone after computers were not working).

* 1-2 hrs prior to that, all SMS text messaging went down.

* currently, we're being told that large numbers of plainsclothes police officers and security officers are going through the streets covering parked cars with gasoline. The activists expect that the govt plans to light all the cars on fire, claim that the protesters were burning everything, and use that as a pretext to use severe violence to repress the protests, and eliminating all means for the people to relay the truth out of the country.

* they are being told by sources within the regime that very large groups of govt-organized thugs, calling themselves "ikhwan al-Haq" , are going to be in the streets with knives, swords, etc..., attacking and killing protesters in the streets tomorrow; they don't know whether this may be deliberately and falsely leaked to discourage demonstrators; but they do see evidence that these groups are being organized. they may also claim that these violent groups are the demonstrators as a pretext to use violence on the real demonstrators.

* they are all expecting all mobile phone service to go down shortly

They are asking us to help spread the word on all of this information.

Please pass this along to anyone interested.


DUDE!!!! SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER my Muslim Friends!!!1!!!:rolleyes::D

These morons are living their life dream through the rioters in Egypt. Funny, I don't see any of them buying a plane ticket...:D

It's much more fun to sit on your ass here and knock the USA.

txradioguy
01-28-2011, 07:05 AM
The DUmmies are just having kittens over the mess in Egypt!!! (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=290516&mesg_id=290516)




DUDE!!!! SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER my Muslim Friends!!!1!!!:rolleyes::D

These morons are living their life dream through the rioters in Egypt. Funny, I don't see any of them buying a plane ticket...:D

It's much more fun to sit on your ass here and knock the USA.

None of them have the stones to be the next Rachel Corrie! :D

SarasotaRepub
01-28-2011, 07:12 AM
None of them have the stones to be the next Rachel Corrie! :D


Ooooooo...that was eeeeevil. :D

SarasotaRepub
01-28-2011, 07:15 AM
blogslut (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-28-11 06:59 AM
Original message I made a live Twitter thing for the Uprising in Egypt


My blog is under hiatus so I reconfigured it to provide a live feed that displays tweets with the hashtags #Egypt and #Jan25.

http://blogslut.com/blogslut


Isn't this special!!! (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x290768) :rolleyes::D

SarasotaRepub
01-28-2011, 07:19 AM
tekisui (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-28-11 06:47 AM
Original message Al Jazeera English - Live Streams--ElBaradei Arrested


Edited on Fri Jan-28-11 06:47 AM by tekisui
Al Jazeera says up to a million protests could march today. Friday prayers just ended.

ElBaradei reportedly arrested.

follow live here: http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/


DEAR GOD (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x290744)...what will the DUmmies do??? Post more drivel of course!!! :D

Bailey
01-28-2011, 08:41 AM
The DUmmies are saying "is this the beginning of global revolution"? They are just so antsy to go after the rich lol

Calypso Jones
01-28-2011, 08:46 AM
The Muslim Brotherhood are as crafty as Leftists.

Here's some info from David Horowitz' site and i'd trust him before i'd trust our own state department.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/01/28/khomeinis-return/

This smelled like Carter's help in overthrowing the Shah of Iran and didn't that work out well. Here we go again.

Rebel Yell
01-28-2011, 08:47 AM
Isn't this special!!! (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x290768) :rolleyes::D

The interent has been shut down in Egypt.

http://i369.photobucket.com/albums/oo132/Vito_1502/1soup-nazi.jpg
No Twitter for you!!!!

noonwitch
01-28-2011, 09:12 AM
The DUmmies are saying "is this the beginning of global revolution"? They are just so antsy to go after the rich lol



They are stupid enough to think that the uprising in Egypt is about the rich?


It's about Mubarak being too friendly to the west and to Israel to please the radical muslims in his nation's borders.

Bailey
01-28-2011, 11:56 AM
They are stupid enough to think that the uprising in Egypt is about the rich?


It's about Mubarak being too friendly to the west and to Israel to please the radical muslims in his nation's borders.

Sorry I meant that they use the riots in Egypt as a pretext to go after the rich.

AmPat
01-28-2011, 12:25 PM
Better the devil you know,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

noonwitch
01-28-2011, 12:49 PM
Sorry I meant that they use the riots in Egypt as a pretext to go after the rich.


You don't have to apologize-they probably are stupid enough to think it's about the rich.

Odysseus
01-28-2011, 03:27 PM
The DUmmies are just having kittens over the mess in Egypt!!! (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=290516&mesg_id=290516)

DUDE!!!! SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER my Muslim Friends!!!1!!!:rolleyes::D

These morons are living their life dream through the rioters in Egypt. Funny, I don't see any of them buying a plane ticket...:D

It's much more fun to sit on your ass here and knock the USA.
They'd last about two minutes there. The people rioting are Islamist radicals. They don't like Americans, much less leftist Americans who are in favor of women's rights, gay rights, interfaith dialogue, choruses of Kumbaya or any of the other permissive things that enfuriate Islamists when they think about the West.

None of them have the stones to be the next Rachel Corrie! :D
Oh, they'd have the stones if they showed up in Egypt. They'd be buried up to their waists first, but they'd have plenty of stones after that.

You don't have to apologize-they probably are stupid enough to think it's about the rich.
They think that revolution is automatically a good thing, since the status quo is evil in their world. They view the world through a Bolshevik lens that assumes that all people who oppose a government that is allied with the US are on their side. What they don't understand is that there are some people in the world who need to be repressed.

Apache
01-28-2011, 04:00 PM
Idiots have no clue what they are cheering on, for them its get rid of the establishment, whatever that might be...

Dan D. Doty
01-28-2011, 05:38 PM
They are stupid enough to think that the uprising in Egypt is about the rich?


It's about Mubarak being too friendly to the west and to Israel to please the radical muslims in his nation's borders.

The Muslim Brotherhood have their sticky fingers right in the middle of this mess, and the DUers are too stupid to know it ... or they just don't care.

malloc
01-28-2011, 05:46 PM
I would be cheering the protesters on as well. I don't like a big, repressive government that's practically a monarchy any more than the next American. However, I gather the end state the protesters have in mind isn't a government with checks and balances which exists to protect the natural rights and freedom of citizens.

AmPat
01-28-2011, 05:48 PM
I would be cheering the protesters on as well. I don't like a big, repressive government that's practically a monarchy any more than the next American. However, I gather the end state the protesters have in mind isn't a government with checks and balances which exists to protect the natural rights and freedom of citizens.
Ding, ding, ding. WINNER!

Think Islamic Republic of Beheadistan.

Like I stated before; "Better the devil you know,,,,,,,,,,,,"

malloc
01-28-2011, 05:55 PM
Ding, ding, ding. WINNER!

Think Islamic Republic of Beheadistan.

Like I stated before; "Better the devil you know,,,,,,,,,,,,"

I hope it's not like I stated earlier. I'm not really up to date on internal Egyptian affairs, sects, groups or whatever, so to be honest, I'm not entirely sure what kinds of people are doing the protesting. I'm afraid that if the protesters prevail and dismantle the government, a radical element will emerge as the loudest voice. That's the story of these things. People are angry at government, so they institute anarchy by dismantling the government. Then the most radical elements seize power in the vacuum. If the group's only goal is to destroy the government they have because they are angry, even if the reasons are legitimate, and they don't have an agreed upon end-state, like in the case of the American Revolution, things can end up worse off than they started.

AmPat
01-28-2011, 05:58 PM
It won't matter who is doing the protesting. The ones pulling the strings want destabilization so that they can install their version of tyranny.

SarasotaRepub
01-28-2011, 07:08 PM
What they don't understand is that there are some people in the world who need to be repressed.

Major, the only people who fit that description in the DUmmies eyes are Republicans. :D

Lanie
01-28-2011, 10:13 PM
The DUmmies are just having kittens over the mess in Egypt!!! (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=290516&mesg_id=290516)




DUDE!!!! SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER my Muslim Friends!!!1!!!:rolleyes::D

These morons are living their life dream through the rioters in Egypt. Funny, I don't see any of them buying a plane ticket...:D

It's much more fun to sit on your ass here and knock the USA.


Isn't that what some of us did regarding Iran?

Lanie
01-28-2011, 10:16 PM
What they don't understand is that there are some people in the world who need to be repressed.

Yeah, they're called Nazis and Skinheads. An entire culture should not be repressed. They should be given more options besides Islamist extremists, but that doesn't mean they should be repressed. Did we repress Iraq's Islamic choice? Nope. That's because we wanted them to have sovereignty. To say a group of people should be repressed is wrong and highly offensive.

Rockntractor
01-28-2011, 11:22 PM
Isn't that what some of us did regarding Iran?

You honestly see no difference do you.

FDK
01-29-2011, 10:02 AM
Think Islamic Republic of Beheadistan.

That's some sig line material right there.

Lanie
01-29-2011, 10:05 AM
You honestly see no difference do you.

Nope. People should have sovereignty. To suggest that people should be repressed is beyond offensive. It's very wrong.

on edit: The dictators in Eygpt will probably get violent, just like in Iran. If you all throw your support behind some dictator murdering hundreds of people, then that will be supporting murder.

Lanie
01-29-2011, 10:15 AM
On another note, just a question.

If they start shooting their protesters, can we finally stop being their buddy and giving them millions of dollars a year in aid?

FDK
01-29-2011, 10:22 AM
On another note, just a question.

If they start shooting their protesters, can we finally stop being their buddy and giving them millions of dollars a year in aid?


It's $1.5 billion per year.

Lanie
01-29-2011, 10:32 AM
It's $1.5 billion per year.

Thank you for that correction.

I mentioned earlier having an online friend in Eygpt. Well, he doesn't support the dictatorship and he just told us elsewhere that there's been a massacre in Cairo. In light of the fact that the Eygptian government is trying to block all media, I can believe it.

This isn't a damn Presidental race that ends like a football game of somebody winning. This is about people's lives. I'm not saying to support the Muslim Brotherhood, but we cannot support the murderous dictators of Eygpt either. I can only imagine how Americans would react to a man who has ruled for thirty years and plans on killing people who get in his way. Supporting him is wrong.

AmPat
01-29-2011, 11:15 AM
You are missing the big picture. It isn't as though we are flush with choices here. Egypt is facing a dictator who provides stability in the country and by extension, the region, OR, Replacing him with chaos that will end in many more deaths and an Islamic republic along Iranian lines. If you believe that is a better solution you are completely blind to history.

Nobody is a Mubarak cheerleader here, we are simply not for mob rule turned mullah rule.

Lanie
01-29-2011, 11:26 AM
You are missing the big picture. It isn't as though we are flush with choices here. Egypt is facing a dictator who provides stability in the country and by extension, the region, OR, Replacing him with chaos that will end in many more deaths and an Islamic republic along Iranian lines. If you believe that is a better solution you are completely blind to history.

Nobody is a Mubarak cheerleader here, we are simply not for mob rule turned mullah rule.

Do you really think everybody is going to blindly turn everything over to the Muslim Brotherhood? If so, do you think it will last? Iran was up against a dictator years ago before the Islamic people took over, creating another dicatorship. Now, people there are trying again. AmPat, everybody has a right to be free. Just because people can't get it right the first time doesn't mean they don't have the right to try. Everybody deserves freedom.

AmPat
01-29-2011, 11:34 AM
Do you really think everybody is going to blindly turn everything over to the Muslim Brotherhood? If so, do you think it will last? Iran was up against a dictator years ago before the Islamic people took over, creating another dicatorship. Now, people there are trying again. AmPat, everybody has a right to be free. Just because people can't get it right the first time doesn't mean they don't have the right to try. Everybody deserves freedom.

Your desire doesn't turn into reality. These people will end up in a much worse state after Mubarak. I pointed out Iran as a somewhat recent example. Iranians would love to have the freedoms back they enjoyed under that horrible Shah Palavi. Too late for them. The Mullahs will not be so easy to overthrow.

Egyptians will fare no better. They will not install a pro democracy govt at the end of this rioting.

Odysseus
01-29-2011, 02:16 PM
Major, the only people who fit that description in the DUmmies eyes are Republicans. :D
The DUmmies love freedom of speech, so long as it's theirs.

Yeah, they're called Nazis and Skinheads. An entire culture should not be repressed. They should be given more options besides Islamist extremists, but that doesn't mean they should be repressed. Did we repress Iraq's Islamic choice? Nope. That's because we wanted them to have sovereignty. To say a group of people should be repressed is wrong and highly offensive.
If the culture destroys everything that it touches, it does. History is full of toxic cultures that demanded repression. The Spanish destroyed the Incan empire, which practiced human sacrifice on a mass scale, as did the Druids that Rome eliminated. Not all cultures are equal, and when one demands utter subservience from everyone else, claims universal sovereignty and turns its own children into bombs in order to achieve it, it needs to be repressed.

Nope. People should have sovereignty. To suggest that people should be repressed is beyond offensive. It's very wrong.

on edit: The dictators in Eygpt will probably get violent, just like in Iran. If you all throw your support behind some dictator murdering hundreds of people, then that will be supporting murder.
In order to prevent a greater number of murders. What do you think an Islamist regime in Egypt will do? Do you understand that if we had supported the Shah and allowed him to suppress Khomeini, that we would have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people? There is no good choice here, just conflicting evils, and I'm advocating the least of them.

On another note, just a question.

If they start shooting their protesters, can we finally stop being their buddy and giving them millions of dollars a year in aid?
We do if we want them to buy more bullets to replace the ones that they expended.

Thank you for that correction.

I mentioned earlier having an online friend in Eygpt. Well, he doesn't support the dictatorship and he just told us elsewhere that there's been a massacre in Cairo. In light of the fact that the Eygptian government is trying to block all media, I can believe it.

This isn't a damn Presidental race that ends like a football game of somebody winning. This is about people's lives. I'm not saying to support the Muslim Brotherhood, but we cannot support the murderous dictators of Eygpt either. I can only imagine how Americans would react to a man who has ruled for thirty years and plans on killing people who get in his way. Supporting him is wrong.
Allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to take over is worse.

Do you really think everybody is going to blindly turn everything over to the Muslim Brotherhood? If so, do you think it will last? Iran was up against a dictator years ago before the Islamic people took over, creating another dicatorship. Now, people there are trying again. AmPat, everybody has a right to be free. Just because people can't get it right the first time doesn't mean they don't have the right to try. Everybody deserves freedom.
No, I think that the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the best organized, most heavily-armed and largest faction in the opposition, will seize power as soon as the government collapses. The case that you are making for supporting the revolutionaries ignores the history of revolutionary regimes. First, a coalition will take over, then, one faction will come to the fore, at which point it will take on the other factions and either remove them from power through intimidation, or outright violence. After a coup, or civil war, the hardiest faction will take power and purge its opposition, using the same means that the previous regime used to keep itself in power, but with the added zeal of revolutionary fanatics. The very people that you are arguing for supporting will be the first ones purged by the new regime. It will be a bloodbath, followed by a virulent, hostile dictatorship which will work to export its ideology to its neighbors. Expect to see Jordan, Morocco, the UAE and every other less than zealously Islamic regime under increased military pressure, with each subsequent takeover emboldening the jihadis. Is that the world that you want?

Dan D. Doty
01-29-2011, 03:58 PM
After the Fench Revolution, there came the Reign Of Terror, after that unemployed men were drafted into the French Army, then Napleon came to power.

Sadly, this has been the world model for revolution rather then America's.

I think Egypt may go this way and very quickly; and they'll need an enemy. France choose the Britian, Egypt will of course choose Isreal ( nothing like having someone you hate next door).

SarasotaRepub
01-29-2011, 06:28 PM
Nope. People should have sovereignty. To suggest that people should be repressed is beyond offensive. It's very wrong.

on edit: The dictators in Eygpt will probably get violent, just like in Iran. If you all throw your support behind some dictator murdering hundreds of people, then that will be supporting murder.

Lanie...now you know uncle Joe Biden said Mubarak isn't a dictator!!! :p

SarasotaRepub
01-29-2011, 06:31 PM
Isn't that what some of us did regarding Iran?

Not me, I was pulling for the Shah and time has proven that correct. :D

Lanie
01-29-2011, 09:17 PM
If the culture destroys everything that it touches, it does. History is full of toxic cultures that demanded repression. The Spanish destroyed the Incan empire, which practiced human sacrifice on a mass scale, as did the Druids that Rome eliminated. Not all cultures are equal, and when one demands utter subservience from everyone else, claims universal sovereignty and turns its own children into bombs in order to achieve it, it needs to be repressed.

Eygpt does not do the things that you're talking about, so the point is moot.


In order to prevent a greater number of murders. What do you think an Islamist regime in Egypt will do? Do you understand that if we had supported the Shah and allowed him to suppress Khomeini, that we would have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people? There is no good choice here, just conflicting evils, and I'm advocating the least of them.

The Shah was overthrown because they were a dictatorship supported by us. When are you people going to get that other countries do not want to follow US puppets? You have to let the people grow on their own. They're NEVER going to follow a rule that isn't their own. That's why we allowed Iraq to have their Islamic ruler and didn't overthrow it.


We do if we want them to buy more bullets to replace the ones that they expended.

Uh, what if we don't? Seriously, if they're just going to murder their own people, why should we support them? Furthermore, what about us? We should not constantly be giving a billion dollars a year to other countries when we're in such bad shape. I understand some countries legitimately need help, but it's time to stop giving money to Egypt (or at least use our aid as power to get them to not kill).


Allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to take over is worse.

Why would it have to be the Muslim Brotherhood in the end? Do you really think they would have the power that they have if there wasn't legitimate grievances in Egypt which others might not be willing to go against?


No, I think that the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the best organized, most heavily-armed and largest faction in the opposition, will seize power as soon as the government collapses. The case that you are making for supporting the revolutionaries ignores the history of revolutionary regimes. First, a coalition will take over, then, one faction will come to the fore, at which point it will take on the other factions and either remove them from power through intimidation, or outright violence. After a coup, or civil war, the hardiest faction will take power and purge its opposition, using the same means that the previous regime used to keep itself in power, but with the added zeal of revolutionary fanatics. The very people that you are arguing for supporting will be the first ones purged by the new regime. It will be a bloodbath, followed by a virulent, hostile dictatorship which will work to export its ideology to its neighbors. Expect to see Jordan, Morocco, the UAE and every other less than zealously Islamic regime under increased military pressure, with each subsequent takeover emboldening the jihadis. Is that the world that you want?


Isn't that sort of what we did? We started off as colonies. We had war after war to gain sovereignty from the Native Americans. Then, we had a war with Britain to gain our independence. Not that our leaders were any better than theirs (freedom was only for the white man). We later had the War of 1812 for land. We later had the Civil War because we couldn't get our acts together regarding state vs. federal rights. After the Civil War, there was a fight for control between those who wanted some of what used to be and some who wanted blacks to have all the rights they could have. Blacks actually became part of Congress for a while. Couldn't have that. The Klan and probably others did many lynchings while the perfect North turned their backs. Let's see, what else? I've often looked at the history of the still very young United States and concluded that we've been in war after war after war after after war since we've been born. And not all of our wars were ethical. The War of 1812 sure wasn't. The point is that violence is part of gaining independence. Every country who wants freedom has to go through it. We did. The so peaceful Netherlands did.

DarkHalo
01-30-2011, 02:10 AM
Maybe they can send them pictures of their hands.....

AmPat
01-30-2011, 12:24 PM
Eygpt does not do the things that you're talking about, so the point is moot.

The point is about POST Mubarak, please keep up.:rolleyes:


The Shah was overthrown because they were a dictatorship supported by us. When are you people going to get that other countries do not want to follow US puppets? You have to let the people grow on their own. They're NEVER going to follow a rule that isn't their own. That's why we allowed Iraq to have their Islamic ruler and didn't overthrow it.
What people?" Are you referring to the people who knew an Iran with a westernized Shah was better than a Taliban like, 8th century barbaric madmen run Iran? Let's see, hmmmm, oh yes! Jimmah Carter, DIMWIToRAT was in charge with his DIMWIToRAT Congress.:cool:


Uh, what if we don't? Seriously, if they're just going to murder their own people, why should we support them? Furthermore, what about us? We should not constantly be giving a billion dollars a year to other countries when we're in such bad shape. I understand some countries legitimately need help, but it's time to stop giving money to Egypt (or at least use our aid as power to get them to not kill).
Whatever keeps the population of muzzies down is ok with me. As long as they export terror, I'm for sending them more bullets to kill each other. If they weren't so bent on spreading their virus through violent means, I wouldn't even notice them.


Why would it have to be the Muslim Brotherhood in the end? Do you really think they would have the power that they have if there wasn't legitimate grievances in Egypt which others might not be willing to go against?
Missing the point again. The question isn't "Why would it have to be the Muslim Brotherhood in the end?" The "end state" is the certain probability that whatever comes to the top is the strongest in the region ready to fill the void. Now who do you think that is? This isn't hard to figure. Stop with the head in the sand fantasy and wake up to reality.


Isn't that sort of what we did? We started off as colonies. We had war after war to gain sovereignty from the Native Americans. NO! We had multiple wars with the natives due to expansion of one culture into the midst of another. We also had European governments enlisting the aid of natives.


Then, we had a war with Britain to gain our independence. Not that our leaders were any better than theirs (freedom was only for the white man). WRONG!!! This is a lie. "Ours" were much better as "ours" were representing the interests of US, not the King. Trying to add the race card hundreds of years later is merely a juvenile (liberal) attempt to change the argument. The reason for the war of independence was never about race, it was about sovereignty from a distant govt that no longer represented the interests of the colonists.


We later had the War of 1812 for land. Against a FOREIGN govt. Not the same for comparison.


We later had the Civil War because we couldn't get our acts together regarding state vs. federal rights. After the Civil War, there was a fight for control between those who wanted some of what used to be and some who wanted blacks to have all the rights they could have. Blacks actually became part of Congress for a while. Couldn't have that. The Klan and probably others did many lynchings while the perfect North turned their backs. Let's see, what else? I've often looked at the history of the still very young United States and concluded that we've been in war after war after war after after war since we've been born. And not all of our wars were ethical. The War of 1812 sure wasn't. The point is that violence is part of gaining independence. Every country who wants freedom has to go through it. We did. The so peaceful Netherlands did.Welcome to reality. Yes, even Jesus said there would be wars and rumors of wars, so what? You are trying to justify what is happening in Egypt by equating it with whatever American war comes to your mind. The point you keep missing isn't that this war is right or wrong, but about the probable and most likely outcome. This will most likely turn out exactly opposite of what they are claiming they are revolting against. I don't see anybody attempting to make the argument against Egypt's right or business. Let them kill each other, I have no dog in that hunt. But for them (and you) to believe this will gain them any independence or freedoms is illogical.

FDK
01-30-2011, 01:09 PM
Maybe they can send them pictures of their hands.....

LOL. I like the way you're thinkin'....

Or maybe an online petition will get Mubarak to step down.

SarasotaRepub
01-30-2011, 07:48 PM
It's too much fun watching the DUmp, they just can't wait for Egypt to fall.

Malaise is becoming one of my favorite DUmmies now, I can't count the number of times this weekend she's posted Mubarak is "Bye,Bye" but he's still there.

It's almost getting boring at this point.

Odysseus
01-30-2011, 10:24 PM
Eygpt does not do the things that you're talking about, so the point is moot.
Islam does everything that I'm talking about. What is the stoning of women and gays about, if not a human sacrifice to Allah? The Muslim Brotherhood will impose everything that I'm talking about, just as their offshoot, Hamas, did in Gaza.


The Shah was overthrown because they were a dictatorship supported by us. When are you people going to get that other countries do not want to follow US puppets? You have to let the people grow on their own. They're NEVER going to follow a rule that isn't their own. That's why we allowed Iraq to have their Islamic ruler and didn't overthrow it.
The Shah was overthrown because Carter demanded that he allow Khomeini to return, and then wouldn't allow him to suppress his followers when they took to the streets. Now, the Iranian people loathe the mullahs and want nothing better than to be rid of them, but when the opportunity came, Obama sat on his hands. In fact, the Shah was controversial among the mullahs because he emancipated women, allowed religious freedom and worked to modernize. In order to do that, he had to suppress the radicals who wanted a return to the seventh century. It was brutal and ugly, but the alternative was far worse.


Uh, what if we don't? Seriously, if they're just going to murder their own people, why should we support them? Furthermore, what about us? We should not constantly be giving a billion dollars a year to other countries when we're in such bad shape. I understand some countries legitimately need help, but it's time to stop giving money to Egypt (or at least use our aid as power to get them to not kill).
Because if we don't support them, the next government will be murdering Americans.


Why would it have to be the Muslim Brotherhood in the end? Do you really think they would have the power that they have if there wasn't legitimate grievances in Egypt which others might not be willing to go against?
Because the Muslim Brotherhood has been organizing, training and arming for this since 1920. No matter how legitimate the grievances of the other factions are, at the end of the day, the side with the guns and the will to use them will win. If the government falls, that will be the Muslim Brotherhood.


Isn't that sort of what we did? We started off as colonies. We had war after war to gain sovereignty from the Native Americans. Then, we had a war with Britain to gain our independence. Not that our leaders were any better than theirs (freedom was only for the white man). We later had the War of 1812 for land. We later had the Civil War because we couldn't get our acts together regarding state vs. federal rights. After the Civil War, there was a fight for control between those who wanted some of what used to be and some who wanted blacks to have all the rights they could have. Blacks actually became part of Congress for a while. Couldn't have that. The Klan and probably others did many lynchings while the perfect North turned their backs. Let's see, what else? I've often looked at the history of the still very young United States and concluded that we've been in war after war after war after after war since we've been born. And not all of our wars were ethical. The War of 1812 sure wasn't. The point is that violence is part of gaining independence. Every country who wants freedom has to go through it. We did. The so peaceful Netherlands did.
No, that is not what we did. The issue here is not the violence that drives out the oppressor, it's the violence that follows that. Our revolution was unique in that the government of the colonies was already in existence when the war began, and the revolutionaries were dedicated to maintaining a liberty that had already been established. There was no period of terror after the Revolutionary War, no factional warfare that resulted in a coup, as there was in the Russian Revolution (remember Kerensky?), the French Revolution (remember the terror and the Jacobins?), and the various Islamic revolutions (Khomeini's first act in Iran was to purge the other members of the coalition, just as the Taliban drove out the other mujahedeen who had fought against the Soviets). The Continental Congress was elected by the states, and their legislatures were elected by their citizens, just as they were before the revolution. Power was transfered peacefully in every way after the British were driven out, just as it had been before among the colonists. In fact, the one time that a coup almost occurred, Washington circumvented it by confronting the plotters and refusing the crown.

Equating the American Revolution with what is happening in Egypt is a facile, superficial game of moral equivalence that ignores the critical differences between a democratic movement of free people who were dedicated to liberty, and a totalitarian movement that has been biding its time for decades, awaiting the opportunity to create a theocratic dictatorship. Only an idiot or a liar would equate the two.

NJCardFan
01-30-2011, 10:32 PM
Isn't that sort of what we did? We started off as colonies. We had war after war to gain sovereignty from the Native Americans. Then, we had a war with Britain to gain our independence. Not that our leaders were any better than theirs (freedom was only for the white man).
This is one of the most ill informed and naive statements I've ever seen.

Odysseus
01-31-2011, 09:45 AM
This is one of the most ill informed and naive statements I've ever seen.

Yeah, an example of our public schools at work...

fettpett
01-31-2011, 09:51 AM
Isn't that sort of what we did? We started off as colonies. We had war after war to gain sovereignty from the Native Americans. Then, we had a war with Britain to gain our independence. Not that our leaders were any better than theirs (freedom was only for the white man).

this is one of the most idiotic views I've ever heard about the lead up to the US Independence and Colonization of North America, even from leftist. We didn't fight for "sovereignty" from the Indian's, we allied with some, fought others, bought land, traded goods, etc. There weren't that many wars with the Local tribes as many were way more powerful than the colonists.

Also freedom wasn't just for the "white man" but for all free, land owners at the time of the Constitution ratification. In fact Massachusetts allowed voting for free blacks from 1780 on, New York had property ownership laws in place for both black and white's to vote. http://en.allexperts.com/q/U-S-History-672/2008/10/Black-Vote-1.htm



We later had the War of 1812 for land. We later had the Civil War because we couldn't get our acts together regarding state vs. federal rights. After the Civil War, there was a fight for control between those who wanted some of what used to be and some who wanted blacks to have all the rights they could have. Blacks actually became part of Congress for a while.

wow...you're showing even more ignorance. 1812 was not about land. There were a lot of reasons for the war, but largely was about the British forcing US sailors to serve in their Navy, even going so far as to drag guys through US streets kicking and screaming in chains. Yeah, we tried invading Canada, but that ended largely in failure and we had the Capital sacked.




Couldn't have that. The Klan and probably others did many lynchings while the perfect North turned their backs. Let's see, what else? I've often looked at the history of the still very young United States and concluded that we've been in war after war after war after after war since we've been born. And not all of our wars were ethical. The War of 1812 sure wasn't. The point is that violence is part of gaining independence. Every country who wants freedom has to go through it. We did. The so peaceful Netherlands did.

Go back and look at what you're talking about. I THINK you mean the Mexican-American War, NOT War of 1812. I'll agree that there were some possible ethical reasons for not going to war, as any saw it as a war that was to spread slavery, which Texas was and the Missouri Compromise made almost all the territory that was gained slave territory. But Texas was an independent country that wanted to join the US and Mexico went to war with us over it.

I highly suggest you do some reading on American history before you go posting stupid ignorant crap again

Lanie
02-01-2011, 10:11 PM
this is one of the most idiotic views I've ever heard about the lead up to the US Independence and Colonization of North America, even from leftist. We didn't fight for "sovereignty" from the Indian's, we allied with some, fought others, bought land, traded goods, etc. There weren't that many wars with the Local tribes as many were way more powerful than the colonists.

No, we didn't fight for sovereignty from the Indians, but the Britains. Meanwhile, some of the Native Americans were pissed that we already took their land and fought us. Oh, and some slaves did the same.


Also freedom wasn't just for the "white man" but for all free, land owners at the time of the Constitution ratification. In fact Massachusetts allowed voting for free blacks from 1780 on, New York had property ownership laws in place for both black and white's to vote. http://en.allexperts.com/q/U-S-History-672/2008/10/Black-Vote-1.htm

For all free land owners at the time. How noble. NOT. That fact about Mass. is interesting. However, the majority of blacks in the area were slaves. Blacks were usually the ones targeted for slavery. Therefore, freedom did not exist for the vast majority of black people. That's like saying black people have money because Obama's in the White House. Meanwhile, women had no right to vote. Freedom sure did mean a lot to these people. Uh, yeah. All our independence meant was that we were no longer under Britain's rule. That was good because we no longer paid taxes for their wars, but it really didn't mean much of anything else in regards to "freedom."



wow...you're showing even more ignorance. 1812 was not about land. There were a lot of reasons for the war, but largely was about the British forcing US sailors to serve in their Navy, even going so far as to drag guys through US streets kicking and screaming in chains. Yeah, we tried invading Canada, but that ended largely in failure and we had the Capital sacked.

Link?

We invaded what's now Canada and Florida to get land. Don't you think that's ridiculous?



Go back and look at what you're talking about. I THINK you mean the Mexican-American War, NOT War of 1812. I'll agree that there were some possible ethical reasons for not going to war, as any saw it as a war that was to spread slavery, which Texas was and the Missouri Compromise made almost all the territory that was gained slave territory. But Texas was an independent country that wanted to join the US and Mexico went to war with us over it.

Good point, and thank you for making it. We actually had the nerve to say Texas wasn't free because they wanted to keep slavery (not the only reason, but that was a big one). Doesn't this go into the "WTF" radar for you?


I highly suggest you do some reading on American history before you go posting stupid ignorant crap again

Hmmmm. Perhaps you could suggest some conservative pov only magazines I could wash my brain out with.

on edit: BTW, I'm not too much into this discussion, so it might be a while before I get back to you.

fettpett
02-01-2011, 11:21 PM
No, we didn't fight for sovereignty from the Indians, but the Britains. Meanwhile, some of the Native Americans were pissed that we already took their land and fought us. Oh, and some slaves did the same.

Only some of the tribes were pissed, and not even a majority of them, the Iroquois Nations (though 2 joined the US) fought against the US during the Revolution. After THEY attacked and slaughtered women and children during the Revolution did Washington send troops in and wipe them out. Settlers and Indians went back and forth, particularly in the Mid-Atlantic states, there were atrocities and stupidity on both sides their.



For all free land owners at the time. How noble. NOT. That fact about Mass. is interesting. However, the majority of blacks in the area were slaves. Blacks were usually the ones targeted for slavery. Therefore, freedom did not exist for the vast majority of black people. That's like saying black people have money because Obama's in the White House. Meanwhile, women had no right to vote. Freedom sure did mean a lot to these people. Uh, yeah. All our independence meant was that we were no longer under Britain's rule. That was good because we no longer paid taxes for their wars, but it really didn't mean much of anything else in regards to "freedom."


Link?

It was the time period and you can't put your 21st Century morals on them. The 1780 ruling in Mass is credited as getting the ball rolling in the the North on the the evils of slavery. Get off your high horse. Yes it was a war for our Independence from British rule and for self governance. Guess what, you wouldn't be here and have the freedoms you feel weren't earned if it wasn't for this war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Reasons_for_the_war Impression


We invaded what's now Canada and Florida to get land. Don't you think that's ridiculous?

all indications historically is that we went into taking Canada to use it as a bargaining chip to get the British either out of the West Indies or stop supplying the Indians with weapons. Jackson lead an illegal campaign against the Seminal tribes in Florida and it wasn't a war for land, hell the US probably couldn't give a shit about the land other than to keep it out of British hands and didn't want to start a war with the Spanish at the time so they bought the land



Good point, and thank you for making it. We actually had the nerve to say Texas wasn't free because they wanted to keep slavery (not the only reason, but that was a big one). Doesn't this go into the "WTF" radar for you?

As I said, there were a lot of unethical reasons why we brought Texas in to the Union, Polk was a dick through the Country into a tizzy about fighting the British for the whole of the Oregon territory then made a deal that got half the territory (though it was what probably for the best) then turned around and kicked Mexico's ass (though they were being asses)



Hmmmm. Perhaps you could suggest some conservative pov only magazines I could wash my brain out with.

on edit: BTW, I'm not too much into this discussion, so it might be a while before I get back to you.

nah, just reading some actual history books. and not surprised, you get owned for your ignorance and bail