U.S. launches airstrikes on Libya

[bmags]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12295864

 

via globalvoices

YA RABB! (Oh God!) The Arabs have TRULY AWOKEN!

 

Malcolm Gladwell wrote an article about how the twitter revolutions were media narratives, clearly that was full of s***. The ability for the students and youth to coordinate in mass is huge.

[lostfan]

The Twitter revolutions in Iran WERE media narratives

[bmags]

disagree, it's misinterpretation. A stupid one at that.

[Balta1701]

As you know, PKI [Public Key Infrastructure] is my field, I have played a significant role in creating the system that secures Web sites. I am not speaking for my employer here though.

 

We need to be careful not to leap to conclusions. At this point we do not have proof that Egypt actually did compromise a CA certificate. In fact we have very little firm evidence coming from Egypt at all because the Internet is offline.

 

The original PKI design for the Internet was not designed to withstand government coercion. There were good reasons for this approach in 1995, the objective was to secure E-commerce and make Internet commerce possible. Attempting to make the system secure against every possible risk would have led to no system at all.

 

That said, it has been clear that we need to address this vulnerability for some time and there are efforts underway to that end. Efforts whose prospects of success will probably not be helped by describing them in detail in a thread likely to be read by oppressive regimes looking for ideas.

 

Looking to the role of Twitter and Facebook in the current unrest, the most important message that Internet users in Egypt have received from their government through the Internet is that it is scared and panicked. A government that has told its people that is scared of them is not likely to last very long. Blocking the Internet may be seen in retrospect as the Ceausescu moment for the regime.

 

Twitter and Facebook can bring people together, but once they connect they have the opportunity to establish other methods of contact. Mubarak was safe while people were sitting on their butts twittering. He is much less safe now he has taken away Twitter and forced them to come out into the streets.

 

In the Iranian demonstrations, Twitter played an important role but it was a supporting one. The most important driver was the BBC World Service broadcasting pictures and videos of government thugs murdering protestors via satellite. It is not just the Internet that is a technology of freedom here, it is every laptop, cell phone and USB memory stick that can carry the information across a border.

Link

[bmags]

Link

 

that's a good way of putting it.

[Balta1701]

It's Wednesday, which means 2 things. First, it's snowing in Chicago. Second, some network is trying to kill Anderson Cooper.

Anderson Cooper and his crew have been attacked by supporters of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, according to CNN.

 

CNN's Steve Brusk tweeted that "Anderson said he was punched 10 times in the head as pro-Mubarak mob surrounded him and his crew trying to cover demonstration."

 

A CNN update said that "no one was seriously hurt" in the attack.

[bmags]

That'll be some good coverage.

[lostfan]

the whole thing about Twitter in Iran was, for lack of a better explanation, wishful thinking combined with just something that sounded cool. There were like 60 people inside Iran who had Twitter and when they shut the internet down that number was reduced to about 5 or 6. The Iranian government (and the Egyptian government too) is just as able to use social media to oppress as would-be revolutionaries are to use them for organizing or whatever.

 

What you really see is spontaneous mass protests organized the old-fashioned way like the sit-ins in the 60s and basically every other protest that's happened before social media. People just tired of the Mubarak regime and joining in when they see there's really a chance for it to happen.

[kapkomet]

Um, it's called a food riot. That's what started this whole thing in Tunisia, now Eqypt, etc.

 

People are getting sick of not being able to eat. Funny how that snowballs.

 

I also love the extremely hypocritcal stance from our great leader of the free world when contrasting Iran and Egypt. Allah-meni-f***tard = government's right to excercise authority over one's people. Mubarack = evil dictator who needs to get the f*** out and let the hardcore islamists take over.

 

Egypt2010 = Iran1979.

 

[Balta1701]

Um, it's called a food riot. That's what started this whole thing in Tunisia, now Eqypt, etc.

 

People are getting sick of not being able to eat. Funny how that snowballs.

 

I also love the extremely hypocritcal stance from our great leader of the free world when contrasting Iran and Egypt. Allah-meni-f***tard = government's right to excercise authority over one's people. Mubarack = evil dictator who needs to get the f*** out and let the hardcore islamists take over.

 

Egypt2010 = Iran1979.

Well, first of all, would you expect any other leader of the U.S. to respond differently?

 

Secondly, this isn't an Islamic led revolution, at least not yet.

[lostfan]

kap you're badly mischaracterizing the government's message/foreign policy on those 2 things.

 

On Iran in 2009 they came just short of calling the thing an outright fraud and didn't want to give the impression they were directly interfering in Iran's internal politics since that would fall right in line with their propaganda (which is based in truth pre-1979). Over time the support for the protesters got louder and stronger, but the "revolution" eventually faded since the military and security services still support/are controlled by the regime. Never at any point do I recall them saying Iran had the "right" to govern aside from bland diplomat-speak.

 

In Egypt, right now, they are trying to hedge their bets so they don't end up on the wrong side and trying to walk a fine line. And still they don't want to be seen as directly interfering and don't want to put a "made in America" stamp on it since it really doesn't have anything to do with the US one way or another really. This is decades of foreign policy, having nothing to do with this administration and Mubarak's regime is fatally wounded but might still survive. They aren't going to come right out and say "Mubarak, time to go." Given the choice between letting the Muslim Brotherhood take over and having Mubarak stay in power, they'd keep Mubarak. Welcome to American foreign policy for the last 30 years. Least bad of a series of bad options.

[lostfan]

Well, first of all, would you expect any other leader of the U.S. to respond differently?

 

Secondly, this isn't an Islamic led revolution, at least not yet.

Any comparisons are premature. Although, in 1979, those were originally student protests and a few months later the Islamists hijacked it.

[Balta1701]

kap you're badly mischaracterizing the government's message/foreign policy on those 2 things.

 

On Iran in 2009 they came just short of calling the thing an outright fraud and didn't want to give the impression they were directly interfering in Iran's internal politics since that would fall right in line with their propaganda (which is based in truth pre-1979). Over time the support for the protesters got louder and stronger, but the "revolution" eventually faded since the military and security services still support/are controlled by the regime. Never at any point do I recall them saying Iran had the "right" to govern aside from bland diplomat-speak.

 

In Egypt, right now, they are trying to hedge their bets so they don't end up on the wrong side and trying to walk a fine line. And still they don't want to be seen as directly interfering and don't want to put a "made in America" stamp on it since it really doesn't have anything to do with the US one way or another really. This is decades of foreign policy, having nothing to do with this administration and Mubarak's regime is fatally wounded but might still survive. They aren't going to come right out and say "Mubarak, time to go." Given the choice between letting the Muslim Brotherhood take over and having Mubarak stay in power, they'd keep Mubarak. Welcome to American foreign policy for the last 30 years. Least bad of a series of bad options.

One other point...so far this month, we've seen the Sudanese referendum, we've seen the government of Tunisia fall, we've seen the government of Egypt almost fall, and we've seen the King of Jordan fire his government.

 

A lot of dominos have already fallen. There's kind of one more, really big, dictatorial, country sitting in the MIddle East, next to Egypt, Jordan, etc., which the U.S. happens to have a gigantic vested interest in...due to the oil, and if that one were to start to teeter, that would be much more likely an actual Islamic one.

 

For that reason...the U.S. would absolutely play anything like this close to the chest, because the House of Saud is the one we can't lose.

[Cknolls]

Um, it's called a food riot. That's what started this whole thing in Tunisia, now Eqypt, etc.

 

People are getting sick of not being able to eat. Funny how that snowballs.

 

I also love the extremely hypocritcal stance from our great leader of the free world when contrasting Iran and Egypt. Allah-meni-f***tard = government's right to excercise authority over one's people. Mubarack = evil dictator who needs to get the f*** out and let the hardcore islamists take over.

 

Egypt2010 = Iran1979.

 

 

I cannot imagine what country would export inflation throughout the world with over a trillion dollars of easy money? But who cares stock prices are up.

[Balta1701]

I cannot imagine what country would export inflation throughout the world with over a trillion dollars of easy money? But who cares stock prices are up.

Actually, the commodity price inflation right now appears to have a lot more to do with growing demand and in fact hording of goods in china than anything else.

 

Edit: oh, and there is also a second thing really driving certain commodities; weather-related disasters. For example, Australia has had major shutdowns of its mining industry due to flooding, and Russian resource production was devastated last year by drought and fires. (Of course, I'm not sure I'm allowed to note that, since that would wind up being evidence supporting the scientific community's conclusion of "Holy f***, we didn't know the climate would change this fast.")

[Soxbadger]

Democracy can have unintended consequences. The truth is Egypt could turn into another Iran, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind this is a possibility. But that is the price of allowing other people to be free, they may not agree with us.

 

That being said, there have been elected European leaders who are arguably far worse than any leader in the Middle East. Who knows how it will turn out, but in my opinion there is a very real possibility that revolution/reform does not end in the US being on great terms with Egypt.

 

If we truly believe in people's right to freedom, then we have to accept that there may be adverse consequences.

[StrangeSox]

US interests aside, a democratic revolution to overthrow a dictator can still end up with things being worse off for many people in the country. How good is a democracy without protections for minority rights, free press, and stable relationships with regional neighbors?

 

I think it's safe to say that all forms of dictatorship are bad, but I don't know that all forms of democracy are better than all forms of dictatorships.

[BigSqwert]

Simon Jenkins of the Guardian and London Sunday Times knocks it out of the park in this op-ed.

[Balta1701]

That being said, there have been elected European leaders who are arguably far worse than any leader in the Middle East. Who knows how it will turn out, but in my opinion there is a very real possibility that revolution/reform does not end in the US being on great terms with Egypt.

The biggest reason why this might be true is that the tanks surrounding the capital are U.S. made M1A1 tanks, paid for with U.S. aid dollars. If they fire, the bullets are American made bullets. The Tear gas canisters proudly state that they're made in the USA.

 

If we wind up in a worse situation here, it's because we made 30 years of choices in favor of a stable Egypt and that's how things turned out.

 

If someone wants to argue that we'd have been better off with no Treaty between Israel and Egypt for the last 30 years and instead waiting for the population of Egypt to form a pro-u.s. democracy, they might have a point. But...favoring stability over favoring democracy, particularly in this region, has been a choice the U.S. has made for 75 years. It has cost us things like the pro-U.S. Iranian regime. But it has gained the U.S. 75 years of cheap, reliable, hydrocarbon supplies.

[Soxbadger]

I think the article loses steam when he starts to get into Iraq.

 

I was never a proponent of attacking Iraq to bring freedom, I always felt that posed a problem in terms of sovereignty. That being said, there is definitely a line that can be crossed by a govt when another outside govt has to interfere, regardless of sovereignty (example would be death camps.)

 

Where we draw the line, will ultimately depend on where we sit at that moment. Of course our interests are going to put us in awkward situations, of course our interests are going to make all of this murky. That is what happens when you want what is best for you and are trying to help other people achieve freedom. Once they are free, they may turn on us. They may become extremists, who knows.

 

The problem for US interests is that what we are seeing right now does not fit into the United States narrative. We are not good at being the bad guy, and that is the problem the US will face with the Muslim world. As long as some of the, perceive us as the great satan, etc, it is going to be hard for the US to blindly back their freedom.

 

How can you in good conscious help people come to power who may turn on you?

 

We sit on the sidelines things can go bad. We interfere things can go bad.

 

But...favoring stability over favoring democracy, particularly in this region, has been a choice the U.S. has made for 75 years. It has cost us things like the pro-U.S. Iranian regime. But it has gained the U.S. 75 years of cheap, reliable, hydrocarbon supplies.

 

This is the problem of the US. We want to control things, we want to use our power, but we want to use it in a way that we arent forcing people into things. We could easily take over a large portion of the worlds oil supply and not even blink But we dont, because we try and play nice.

 

The only problem is that the the other side doesnt always do what we want.

Edited February 3, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

This is the problem of the US. We want to control things, we want to use our power, but we want to use it in a way that we arent forcing people into things. We could easily take over a large portion of the worlds oil supply and not even blink But we dont, because we try and play nice.

I think the last 11 years has shown us...this really isn't true, unless we want to kill everyone who is already there.

 

Taking over it is easy. Having people who work on the oil rigs and don't destroy them is hard.

[Soxbadger]

I think the last 11 years has shown us...this really isn't true, unless we want to kill everyone who is already there.

 

Taking over it is easy. Having people who work on the oil rigs and don't destroy them is hard.

 

The last 11 years have shown that you cant play nice and still control territories. I assure you if we used more extreme methods, we could make sure that we had control of what we needed. We dont need the majority of the country, we just need the current oil rigs. We can easily set up security perimeters and kill on site. We can napalm cities, or massacre civilians to keep them in line.

 

Terrorism works against a country like the US, because most people in the US are unwilling to be evil.

 

If the US had a Nazi mindset, I have no doubt that we could easily control most of the worlds oil reserves.

 

Thankfully the US is unwilling to go there, but we do have the capability.

[BigSqwert]

You do realize there are lots of countries with nukes that would prevent us from deciding to take on all of the world's oil reserves, right?

[Soxbadger]

Which countries are going to interfere?

 

If the US started, most of the other powerful countries would just join in.

 

I really cant see France or England interfering for the sake of interference (nor are they going to take a nuke for Saudi Arabia.)

 

Most of the atomic countries are hands off internationally for fear of US strike. If the US started, you would see another era of imperialism. There may be small skirmishes in the imperial lands, but its unlikely that China/US/etc are going to fight if each of them get a piece of the pie.

Edited February 3, 2011 by Soxbadger

[BigSqwert]

If you say so.