Its all kicking off in downtown Cairo...

[LMNO]

Hey, if a new government comes in, and they are much more (actively) pro-Palestinian, what would that mean for Gaza?  Would they open borders, provide supplies, etc?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Hey, if a new government comes in, and they are much more (actively) pro-Palestinian, what would that mean for Gaza?  Would they open borders, provide supplies, etc?

They might provide supplies, but they won't open their borders.  EVERYONE, I mean EVERYONE, hates the Palestinians over there.  Even the Bedouins hate them like they were Pol Pot's personal testicle lickers.

[Adios]

Hey, if a new government comes in, and they are much more (actively) pro-Palestinian, what would that mean for Gaza?  Would they open borders, provide supplies, etc?

Good question.

[Don Coyote]

Yeah, the level of violence (or lack thereof) smacks of foreign influence. It's exactly within the CIA's MO to pull something like this to preserve Egypt's role in the balance of power. Alternatively, they could be using it as means of keeping Mubarak in power ("see? see? he's not a mean ol' violent dictator like those other ones"), but I think your scenario plays out more in the fashion of CIA's penchant for Xanatos Roulette. Of course, it may not be just the CIA, or the CIA at all. Which means my idea means absolute jack. 

You have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about.

Why would the CIA gamble with the stability of a dependable foreign dictator who has been their ally for three decades?  In order to believe that scenario, you'd have to assume the CIA give a shit about democracy, a laughable assertion on the face of it.  You'd then have to believe the CIA somehow hid all knowledge of this planning from the White House, State Dept and Pentagon.

In fact, a foreign influenced revolution would be more violent, especially if the CIA were behind it.  The CIA dont shy away from terrorism when it suits their purposes, and in which case the coup would definitely come from within the military and intelligence circles, instead of spontaneous street protests.

This isn't fucking Iran.  You do not overthrow dictators unless your own allies are going to benefit.  Mubarak was a pliable ally on most issues, and the ones he was not pliable on were not important enough for him to be overthrown for.

That's what I was thinking.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I may be off on this, but I hear that Abdullah II has pretty broad support by the population. It may be to head off any unrest, but if I'm not confusing him with some other monarch, he's probably not just doing it for political posturing, but rather seeing that its the best way to keep anything from erupting.

Also, I've been wondering this for for the past couple of days. What does this potentially mean for Iran? Could we see a sequel to what happened there last year?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Mubarik gives historic Butthurt Address, promises to not run again, says "I've spent enough time serving you ungrateful bastards Egypt".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41363935/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

[Adios]

Mubarik gives historic Butthurt Address, promises to not run again, says "I've spent enough time serving you ungrateful bastards Egypt".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41363935/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

LOL.

I think he has been planning to install his son for some time now anyway. This guy just isn't getting the message.

[Phox]

Yeah, the level of violence (or lack thereof) smacks of foreign influence. It's exactly within the CIA's MO to pull something like this to preserve Egypt's role in the balance of power. Alternatively, they could be using it as means of keeping Mubarak in power ("see? see? he's not a mean ol' violent dictator like those other ones"), but I think your scenario plays out more in the fashion of CIA's penchant for Xanatos Roulette. Of course, it may not be just the CIA, or the CIA at all. Which means my idea means absolute jack. 

You have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about.

Why would the CIA gamble with the stability of a dependable foreign dictator who has been their ally for three decades?  In order to believe that scenario, you'd have to assume the CIA give a shit about democracy, a laughable assertion on the face of it.  You'd then have to believe the CIA somehow hid all knowledge of this planning from the White House, State Dept and Pentagon.

In fact, a foreign influenced revolution would be more violent, especially if the CIA were behind it.  The CIA dont shy away from terrorism when it suits their purposes, and in which case the coup would definitely come from within the military and intelligence circles, instead of spontaneous street protests.

This isn't fucking Iran.  You do not overthrow dictators unless your own allies are going to benefit.  Mubarak was a pliable ally on most issues, and the ones he was not pliable on were not important enough for him to be overthrown for.

It wasn't obvious I was being facetious? I thought Roger got it. I thought the last sentence and the lulz would be indication of that. Ah well, they can't all be funny. Never stopped me from trying yet.

[Adios]

Clashes have erupted in Cairo between supporters of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and demonstrators calling on him to step down immediately.

Thousands of rival protesters have been throwing stones at each other and fighting with fists, whips and sticks in the capital's Tahrir Square.

Earlier, the army urged people to return home after nine days of anti-government demonstrations.

Mr Mubarak has pledged he will not stand for re-election in September.

On Tuesday, hundreds of thousands had protested across the country against Mr Mubarak, the culmination of more than a week of demonstrations that have left about 300 people dead according to UN estimates.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12345656

Now it's starting to look more like a revolution.

[Whatever]

No matter the outcome it's fucking impressive.  People actually got out and fucking DID something.  You don't see stuff like this in the US.  We just bitch and moan and put a one line rant as our facebook status.

[Adios]

No matter the outcome it's fucking impressive.  People actually got out and fucking DID something.  You don't see stuff like this in the US.  We just bitch and moan and put a one line rant as our facebook status.

It's because we are worried about the important things.

It's a multi-tasking world, where people walking and texting or listening to an iPod are everywhere.

Sara Freund loves listening to her iPod while she runs errands, but New York State Senator Carl Kruger wants her to turn it off - at least while she's going places. Kruger has proposed legislation about distracted walking that would ban texting, talking or using iPods while walking or running.
http://www.cnycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=572746

[Whatever]

No matter the outcome it's fucking impressive.  People actually got out and fucking DID something.  You don't see stuff like this in the US.  We just bitch and moan and put a one line rant as our facebook status.

It's because we are worried about the important things.

It's a multi-tasking world, where people walking and texting or listening to an iPod are everywhere.

Sara Freund loves listening to her iPod while she runs errands, but New York State Senator Carl Kruger wants her to turn it off - at least while she's going places. Kruger has proposed legislation about distracted walking that would ban texting, talking or using iPods while walking or running.
http://www.cnycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=572746

I completely understand no texting while driving but while walking?  WTF?  That is insane.

[Adios]

It's the government we deserve.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

The reason why they're getting out an doing shit is because of where they are. People will deal with a gradual reduction in freedoms. Once those freedoms are gone, they'll put up with it for a certain amount of time until they just can't deal with it anymore. We're nowhere near that point yet.

[*GrumpButt*]

It's because we are worried about the important things.

It's a multi-tasking world, where people walking and texting or listening to an iPod are everywhere.

Sara Freund loves listening to her iPod while she runs errands, but New York State Senator Carl Kruger wants her to turn it off - at least while she's going places. Kruger has proposed legislation about distracted walking that would ban texting, talking or using iPods while walking or running.
http://www.cnycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=572746

Why would they ban that? Don't they know the joys of watching stupid mofos run into stuff and hurt themselves. Myself I live for that kind of shit.

Eta: Noticed that my post was not in sync with Cb's. >.>