warriorhun wrote:Mubarak is very sick: sooner or later he would have had to give over the wheel of the country. ... What we saw in Tunisia and Egypt is not even putsch or military putsch: it was a simple transition of power to the second line, in Egypt with Mubarak's approval. But they needed the manipulated crowds, the masses on the streets as alibi, so the live TV feed of the "easily winning democratic revolutions", with media altering and faking involved, could project these images into the anti-Western, anti-Israel Arabic dictatorships' TV viewers, so those TV viewers will copy-cat and start up their own "democratic revolutions", too. And also, Tunisia and Egypt was testing ground of inciting people with media imagery plus applying agent provocateurs plus Social Media applications (Facebook and so).
This plan is evil folks: it can lead to mounds of dead in the anti-Israel dictatorships which are the main targets. Peaceful and then violently escalating "democratic revolutions" will get the manipulated locals massacred: maybe as a lead-up to Western invasion to stop genocide, but democracies will not be born. And will have just as good results as the exporting of iraqi democracy would: nothing. So now they just want to stir up shit in the Muslim "Axis of Evil" countries, Iran and Syria.
What do you think?
Very good post, Warriorhun. Your first paragraph reflects my thoughts exactly. 2 hours ago I gave the exact same analysis to my girlfriend when she asked what I thought about Egypt.
No offense, but right now I don't agree with your second paragraph. No mass bloodshed is needed for the U.S.-Israel axis (the perps) to get what they want. In this case they are determined to keep complete control of Egypt. With Iran and Syria the leaders will be paid off, and people-power will install velvet-gloved dictators chosen by the U.S.-Israel axis - or that won't happen, since the perps have a permanent need for a fake enemy in Asia to justify their continued military presence. In either case, there is no need for mass murder.
I think the perps decided they had to replace Mubarek, most likely because he is near death from cancer, and the perps didn't want to risk any uncontrolled instability upon his death. They picked his replacement, whether it be Suleiman or El Baradei, and decided to give the Egyptian people the impression that people-power mattered (when in reality it changed nothing, since the dead weight of the Egyptian bureaucracy and military are still in complete control of the country).
Believe me, after the U.S. gave Egypt $50 (?) billion over the last 30 years, there isn't any possibility AT ALL that the U.S. hasn't already long ago picked out the next leader, and is in the process of putting him in power.