The Middle East Uprisings: video, links, and more

This is a kinda open-ended question; but what do think the conditions would be necessary to call this unprecedented wave of revolts and revolutions: World War III? (World War Wikileaks?)

Not that I'm calling it WWIII now, but I asking what would you think needs to happen before we could call it that? Revolution in Iran? In China? America?

Historical note: World War II wasn't called "World War II" until several months into 1942, after the declaration of war on Axis forces, and months after fighting in the Pacific had already taken place.

On a related note: World War I wasn't called "World War I" until the term "World War II" was coined, up to that point, it was called "The Great War."

We all expected WWIII to be a titanic (thermonuclear) battle of superpowers: namely the U.S. (and friends) vs. the U.S.S.R. (and friends), but the two stars respective power's has faded, and the two side's mechanisms and various proxy-wars in the decades since WWII resulted in much of the current mess we're in (supporting both dictators and terrorists). With the advent of the second decade of the 21st Century we may have to readjust our perceptions regarding American-centricness...

War?

Try outcry for freedom.

Calling this world war wikileaks totally undermines the fact that Egyptian youth tried THIS EXACT THING 2-3 years back, had facebook blocked, then regrouped and attacked again.

Tunisia sparked Egypt, but in reality that nation was sparked by a fruit vendor getting literally slapped in the face.

So I disagree. Wikileaks has as much to do with this as you or me talking about it here.

If I were to bet; I would have bet Egypt was going to revolt some time this year even if Tunisia hadn't led the charge.

Saying that Wikileaks isn't important in the genesis of the revolutions in the middle East and Northern Africa is, at best, disingenuous, but at this point saying that Wikileaks isn't involved AT ALL is pure fiction, bordering on complete denialism.

If the call for freedom for coming out of Tunisia or Egypt or Libya or Bahrain or Iran or Iraq or Syria or Yemen or Oman or Jordan or Algeria or Morocco or Saudi Arabia came separately, or staggered, that argument could be made...

However,
the respective peoples' of Tunisia and Egypt and Libya and Bahrain and Iran and Iraq and Syria and Yemen and Oman and Jordan and Algeria and Morocco and Saudi Arabia all started calling for freedom simultaneously.

The internal factors are largely the same (corrupt un-impeachable leaders, lack of personal freedom, lack of political freedom, lack of human rights, general inequality, Jew sharks, ect...) but, logically, there must ba an external cause. It's statistically impossible for all the revolts to happen simultaneously without a central origin point: Was it George W Bush's 8 years in office? Was it Obama's Nobel Peace Prize? Was it from the lunar eclipse that happened on the Winter Solstice? Was it fucking dumbass Lindsay Lohan leaving the Betty Ford Center?

No.

Fuck no!

If the situation is right , and the tinder is dry, a single match can start a massive forest fire. The current, on-going, revolutions is the forest fire, the social inequality was the dry tinder, the wikileaks was the single fucking match.

People get the government they deserve.
Bad government is like the weather, everyone talks about it but no one actually does anything about it. Due to the nature of bad government, anyone who stands up to demand their freedoms loudly, and forcefully, enough to be heard, is probably going to be shot in face by agents of that bad government. It's serious business.
In order people to actually get their freedom, a lot of people have to stand up and demand their freedoms together. To get enough people together to mitigate the risk (but not eliminate) of getting shot in the face by agents of bad government (herd defense), you need a central issue to rally people around (politics in naturally divisive; you need simple slogans and simple goals to avoid factionalization and/or splintering): the leaks provided that.


It's not that hard to understand.

As much as I'd like to believe Bradley Manning isn't being tortured for nothing, I don't find your argument very compelling.

Wonk on, though.

NeoTheranthrope said:

Saying that Wikileaks isn't important in the genesis of the revolutions in the middle East and Northern Africa is, at best, disingenuous, but at this point saying that wikileaks isn't involved AT ALL is pure fiction, bordering on complete denialism.

If the call for freedom for coming out of Tunisia or Egypt or Libya or Bahrain or Iran or Iraq or Syria or Yemen or Oman or Jordan or Algeria or Morocco or Saudi Arabia came separately, or staggered, that argument could be made...

However,
the respective peoples' of Tunisia and Egypt and Libya and Bahrain and Iran and Iraq and Syria and Yemen and Oman and Jordan and Algeria and Morocco and Saudi Arabia all started calling for freedom simultaneously.

The internal factors are largely the same (corrupt un-impeachable leaders, lack of personal, lack of political freedom, lack of human rights, general inequality, Jew sharks, ect...) but, logically, there must ba an external cause. It's statistically impossible for all the revolts to happen simultaneously without a central origin point. Was it George W Bush's 8 years in office? Was it Obama's Nobel Peace Prize? Was it from the lunar eclipse that happened on the Winter Solstice? Was it fucking dumbass Lindsay Lohan leaving the Betty Ford Center?

No.

Fuck no!

If the situation is right , and the tinder is dry, a single match can start a massive forest fire. The current, on-going, revolutions is the forest fire, the social inequality was the dry tinder, the wikileaks was the single fucking match.

People get the government they deserve.
Bad government is like the weather, everyone talks about it but no one actually does anything about it. Due to the nature of bad government, anyone who stands up to demand their freedoms loudly, and forcefully, enough to be heard, is probably going to be shot in face. It's serious business. In order people to actually get their freedom, a lot of people have to stand up and demand their freedoms. To get enough people together to mitigate the risk (but not eliminate) of getting shot in the face by agents of bad government (herd defense), you need a central issue to rally people around (politics in naturally divisive; you need simple slogans and simple goals to avoid factionalization and/or splintering): the leaks provided that.


It's not that hard to understand.

Click to expand...

Please take Iran off your list of simultaneous freedom callers. Iran has been protesting for years. It has been off and on because the state has cracked down violently on protesters and brought in broke ass foreigners from palestine to fight the citizens.

In Yemen:

State media says embattled leader sacks his cabinet after weeks of pro-democracy protests demanding his resignation.

Diplomat quits in protest against the killing of 52 demonstrators, while president Saleh's tribe urges him to step down.

UPDATE: In Yemen, part of of the army has split from the government and joined the protesters, sending a detachment to protect protesters in Sanaa.

In Syria: Protesters have burned the headquarters of the ruling Ba'ath party, the main court's complex, and two Syrian telephone company branches.

Suddenly, there it was... the dreadful spectacle of an armoured column devastated from the air

B-2 stealth jets return after epic 11,500 mile journey (25 hours!) to bomb Libyan aircraft shelters

Gannicus said:

Please take Iran off your list of simultaneous freedom callers. Iran has been protesting for years. It has been off and on because the state has cracked down violently on protesters and brought in broke ass foreigners from palestine to fight the citizens.

Click to expand...

He shoudl take simultaneousness out of his main argument and then I'd maybe read his long ass post.

Dominos dont fall over simultaneously.

These states believed revolution was possible thanks to prior examples of its success, by their neighbors. Did they all have the spirit and desire to revolt, simultaneously? Yes. But did they outcry for freedom all at the same point? Not at all.

Theranthrope also didnt read my post or address the fact that Egypt tried this exact thing 3 (I think.) years back. And that had what to do with wikileaks?

Also, what did wikileaks have to do with the Tunisian fruit market vendor getting literally slapped in the face then setting himself on fire? NOTHING.

Popcorn Sutton said:

Dominos dont fall over simultaneously.

These states believed revolution was possible thanks to prior examples of its success, by their neighbors. Did they all have the spirit and desire to revolt, simultaneously? Yes. But did they outcry for freedom all at the same point? Not at all.

Click to expand...

You're only half-right, dominoes fall over sequentially:

1, then 2, then 3, then 4, then 5...

That natural progression would be first Tunisia, the Egypt, then Yemen, then the UAE, then Saudi Arabia, then Quatar, then Bahrain... Each old government falling as a new revolution starts in the next neighboring country. Which isn't what's happening. (If it were, I would be suspicious of some kind of puppetmaster/mastermind, be it: America, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, or possibly China, but everything come up as a chaotic, uncontrollable, mess which destroys that theory.)

It's closer to this:

1, then 2, then 5 ,then 17 and 8, then 3, then 7 and 12 and 4...

However, lack of external central control does not preclude external influences, I.E. the wikileaks...

(btw, I already laid out what the wikileads did in the fucking OP. I'm not going to repost that, just as I'm not going to chew your food for you or change your diaper)

Popcorn Sutton said:

Also, what did wikileaks have to do with the Tunisian fruit market vendor getting literally slapped in the face then setting himself on fire? NOTHING.

Click to expand...

There is a tragic or heroic "Tunisian fruit vendor" or "Moroccan single mother" for EVERY country currently undergoing this wave of revolutions, each of which is each a separate "thread," which represents a symbol for the internal inequalities and injustices which are consistent across every country in the region (I expect to see to see flurry of books, scholarly papers, and maybe a PBS Frontline Special Report on these separate "threads" in the coming months). Wikileaks is the large external "thread" that weaves all these smaller, separate intra-national threads together into an amazing and evolving inter-national "tapestry" of change.

Saying North Africa and the Middle East is on fire because a fruit vendor got slapped by some bureaucratic bitch over a fruit scale is like saying the American Civil war was a dispute over shoes because of circumstances that led up to the attack on Fort Sumter.
It's missing the forest for the popsicle stick.

Popcorn Sutton said:

He shoudl take simultaneousness out of his main argument and then I'd maybe read his long ass post.

Click to expand...

The only person that can help you with your adult illiteracy problem is you. Can't help you man.

...but if you can't read my posts, why reply? ("Keepin' it REAL!" ?) Seriously.

NeoTheranthrope said:

The only person that can help you with your adult illiteracy problem is you. Can't help you man.

...but if you can't read my posts, why reply?

Click to expand...

Omg its world war wikileaks!!

Now I totally understand.

I'd share a trench with you brother!

Things are looking tense.

Popcorn Sutton said:

Omg its world war wikileaks!!

Now I totally understand.

I'd share a trench with you brother!

Click to expand...

Neotheranthrope has bought into the wikileaks marketing machine hook, line and sinker. Iran isn't getting toppled. The revolts in Iran have nothing to do with wikileaks. Those revolts have been ongoing for years. But whatever. It's his thread and he owns it so he can spread misinformation.

Last thing we needed was a third front. "All necessary means?" Who introduced that vague as fuck language into the resolution?

I don't see a good outcome for this so-called "No-Fly Zone."

Gannicus said:

Please take Iran off your list of simultaneous freedom callers. Iran has been protesting for years..

Click to expand...

Protesting mostly with their feet.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ave-known-whether-he-faced-friend-or-foe.html

Kind of shows the difference between the invasion of Iraq and the missions in Libya at the moment.

EDIT:

http://www.channel4.com/news/third-night-of-bombing-in-libya

Never fucking mind.

NeoTheranthrope said:

This is a kinda open-ended question; but what do think the conditions would be necessary to call this unprecedented wave of revolts and revolutions: World War III? (World War Wikileaks?)

Not that I'm calling it WWIII now, but I asking what would you think needs to happen before we could call it that? Revolution in Iran? In China? America?

Click to expand...

I think you'd get something close if the intervention by the GCC, led by KSA in Bahrain led Iran to get into an open conflict across the Gulf. That would cause such a massive destabilization of the world energy market --and totally bizarre alliances*, that you could come close.

*If you go by the enemy of my enemy is my friend, then you'd see Israel and KSA working together to fight Iran and perhaps Syria with the Iraqis probably, desperately trying to stay the hell out and avoid its own three-way Sunni/Shiite/Kurd civil war. I could see Jordan, Lebanon, Qatar, Turkey and possibly Kuwait trying to stay neutral.

Gannicus said:

Neotheranthrope has bought into the wikileaks marketing machine hook, line and sinker. Iran isn't getting toppled. The revolts in Iran have nothing to do with wikileaks. Those revolts have been ongoing for years. But whatever. It's his thread and he owns it so he can spread misinformation.

Click to expand...

Yes, the millions they spend on marketing really shows...

Bobak said:

I think you'd get something close if the intervention by the GCC, led by KSA in Bahrain led Iran to get into an open conflict across the Gulf. That would cause such a massive destabilization of the world energy market --and totally bizarre alliances*, that you could come close.

*If you go by the enemy of my enemy is my friend, then you'd see Israel and KSA working together to fight Iran and perhaps Syria with the Iraqis probably, desperately trying to stay the hell out and avoid its own three-way Sunni/Shiite/Kurd civil war. I could see Jordan, Lebanon, Qatar, Turkey and possibly Kuwait trying to stay neutral.

Click to expand...

Good point.
Iraqis hate The Jews just like everyone else in the region, but they hate the Iranians MORE because of the bad blood from the Iran-Iraq war, even if they are both mostly Persian (at least in the northern and eastern half of Iraq).

Turkey I view more as a wild card: they have no great love for either Arabs or Persians (and would wipe out both the Jews and Kurds if given half a chance, like they did with the Armenians), but would side with whoever is most likely to help them regain their regional standing and territories that they lost to the British a century ago, or as you said; go neutral, if that better served their purposes.

The Kurds are also another wild card since basicly everyone hates them, but if they play their cards right they may end up creating their longed-for Kurdistan out of the coalition of states that emerge from the conflict (...which then can become the regional pariah and whipping-boy that Israel is now), assuming they don't get wiped out by the Turks or Arabs or Persians, first.

The Saudis are terrified of the Iranian mullahs (with good reason), but they absolutely can't be seen standing with Israel even if it's in their own self interest, and Bestest-best-friend America is having serious war-fatigue, preventing opening a third (or fourth) front, so they're already in a serious bind, as-is.

That kind of scenario could lead to all sorts of insanity: An U.S.-backed Israel protecting Saudi Arabia and a Pan-Arab Coalition of Secular-Democratic States from attacks by a Chinese-backed Iran and Central-Asian Fundamentalist-Islamic-Super-State. Real Tom Clancy shit.

NeoTheranthrope said:

Yes, the millions they spend on marketing really shows...

Click to expand...

don't flatter yourself. They don't need to invest more in winning you over.

Either way, you're wrong and sensationalist.

Gannicus said:

don't flatter yourself. They don't need to invest more in winning you over.

Either way, you're wrong and sensationalist.

Click to expand...

No.
I should rephrase my previous statement: Wikileaks is shining out despite the millions being spent to silence, diminish, and discredit the organization by both major corporations and my own fucking government.

I can understand those astroturfers who are doing it to get a paycheck. A job's a job. However, I am sorely disappointed by those, like you, who are doing the same thing pro-fucking-bono. You could get paid to argue uselessly with me. Doing it for free is like double stupid. Do you know what a "useful idiot" is?

NeoTheranthrope said:

No.
I should rephrase my previous statement: Wikileaks is shining out despite the millions being spent to silence, diminish, and discredit the organization by both major corporations and my own fucking government.

I can understand those astroturfers who are doing it to get a paycheck. A job's a job. However, I am sorely disappointed by those, like you, who are doing the same thing pro-fucking-bono. You could get paid to argue uselessly with me. Doing it for free is like double stupid. Do you know what a "useful idiot" is?

Click to expand...

None of your statements on Iran have been accurate. I understand you have a very high opinion of yourself but when you're wrong on an issue, just be a man and admit it. That you would try to argue that iran's protests are linked to Egypt and everyone else in any way more than tenuous is both ignorant and disrespectful to those who have been active protesting for months before and after Egypt. Try to be more conscientious in your reporting.

Gannicus said:

None of your statements on Iran have been accurate. I understand you have a very high opinion of yourself but when you're wrong on an issue, just be a man and admit it. That you would try to argue that iran's protests are linked to Egypt and everyone else in any way more than tenuous is both ignorant and disrespectful to those who have been active protesting for months before and after Egypt. Try to be more conscientious in your reporting.

Click to expand...

...and yet, you haven't backed up anything you've said with anything other than your word, which, of course, I'm supposed take for the unvarnished truth?

You're like stickmanloser, in that, the closest thing he could come up with approximating an argument was: "bu-bu-but it's the New Republic!" when I was giving links (not just my opinion) of when Reuter's got caught on one of their shameful fully-staged pro-Palestinian hit-pieces on Israel. And yet... I still link to Reuters newsfeed articles, full-well knowing that. Protip: if I stopped linking to any site which I had a personal difference of opinion on editorial direction, I wouldn't link to ANYONE. It's the message that matters, not the messenger.

So far, stick's half-assed attempt, is a one-up on what you've been posting. All of your responses to my arguments have been either "tl;dr" or longer, but not necessarily more articulated, variations of "Nuh-uh!" If you got links or an inside track: post em'. All else is butthurt.

Also, speaking of butthurt, what the hell's your beef with me and Iran? All I've said definitively was: that there were protests, they were put down, and not much else. There isn't much information to be had about this current wave of protests coming out of the county this time (at least, nothing I can link to, so far), so I haven't said much about Iran at all. A weird thing to get a hair up your ass about.