So We Think the People of Egypt Revolted?

[steve_a]

Hi Everybody,

I understand the the situation in Egypt is a very fluid thing at the moment and it seemed that the people of Egypt had all of a sudden had enough of their regime, but the truth of the matter is that the revolution is US backed and had been planned for more than three years according to secret documents published in the Telegraph newspaper on the 28th January 2011: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8289686/Egypt-protests-Americas-secret-backing-for-rebel-leaders-behind-uprising.html

I posted this information on the Prison Planet website and it was taken down.... twice! (Could it be that I put an outside link?)

So why did the US invest in such a venture? Several reasons. But the main one is that the Egyptian president didn't do what the US wanted in relation to what's going on in the Middle East, after all the US was officially spending a billion dollars a year there in aid. So now there needs to be a replacement who fits in more with the US foreign policy.

This would mean easier access to invade Iran and more Israeli domination in the region, as once Egypt goes, so will Syria and other neighbouring States for more room for the settlers and Israeli "State": http://www.roytov.com/articles/triangle.htm

But also oil companies are gaining as the price of oil has passed 100 dollars a barrel on 'fears'. Nothing about production change, just fears. So the companies are having a 20% mark up on the price of their product, without having to lift a finger, as Tommy Cooper would say, "Just like that!".
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703439504576115512535632064.html

What the US didn't expect was the retaliation of the Egyptian president yesterday with his mob fighting back. This led to Obama calling his Egyptian counterpart, more or less ordering him to leave office immediately.

Will all this lead to yet another Halliburton free for all (war)? Why not? That's another faction to benefit from the three year plot.

The peaceful 'pro' president people don't neccessarily want the president to stay in power, they want SOMEONE to be in power. They are satisfied that a six month wait for new elections is reasonable as the natural course would be the better way to go. General elelctions.

They are really worried that without a definative leader in their country, things will go the same route as what Iraq did when Hussein was taken out. Bedlam.

Gerald Celente was right about riots in the streets this year, but I'm not too sure it's because of rising prices, not when you have the US planning and funding the thing from three years out.

Best regards,

Steve

[Icecold]

This would mean easier access to invade Iran

Can you elaborate on this statement?

[steve_a]

Hi Icecold,

There are so many ways to facilitate the invasion of Iran. Smoke screen - everybody is focussed on Egypt and the invasion of Iran wouldn't appear so important in relation to the rest of what is happening; Israel is already threatening the armed forces of Egypt as reported on CNN this morning; With Egypt controlled by both the US and Israel, the force is greater in the decision making in that region to allow the State of Israel to expand into Egypt and also, especially if Syria is controlled also, check your news reports about 'protests' in Syria: http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/31/syria-protests-set-for-feb-5-will-the-day-of-rage-mirror-eg/ the path into Iran is facilitated, not only physically, but also politically with neighbouring States obeying the US and Israeli foreign policies.

The writing is on the wall. You just have to read it. ;-)

Best regards,

Steve

[Icecold]

I know a thing or two about military operations. I have examined the possibilities of invading Iran. Tell me how you think the US will invade Iran? You say 'invasion' but what do you mean by that?

Do you propose that this invasion will happen from the Persian gulf? Or do you propose that the invasion occurs from Afghanistan? From Iraq? All of these directions. Tell me how many divisions you think will be needed to successfully invade Iran? How will they be deployed? What's your plan for air and naval assets? Where will the air assets be based to assist in the invasion? I believe it is not feasible at this time. Convince me that it is a realistic option? Please also consider the problems with Russian air corridors and air space.

[ponda]

steve said
to allow the State of Israel to expand into Egypt. This would mean easier access to invade Iran and more Israeli domination in the region, as once Egypt goes, so will Syria and other neighbouring States for more room for the settlers and Israeli "State":

Well it might not be so cut and dried as that.I doubt that the public of Egypt,Syria etc will just accept Israel expanding into their lands.The scenario in Egypt has a fair way to play out yet and Yemen is starting to warm up as well.If what you say is true then the whole thing could very easily backfire imo.

cheers

[steve_a]

Hi Icecold,

You're thinking too much like conventional war, like 'sending the boys in'. However if Yemen is covered ships could be laden and equiped there. With Egypt, which alread has British bases there (I lived in Alexandria when my dad was in the army) when I was a kid. But with Syria covered, there is another neighbour which may be used. Look at a map of the Middle East and you will see Egypt, Israel, Syria and Iraq to one side (Jordan is no threat) and Pakistan and Afghanistan to the other. That's a lot of short range missile silos.

However, unlike yourself I'm no expert on specific war strategies (I read Tsun Zu though) and so the hows I really don't know, I'm sure that the different factions have their ideas, but in a recent interview: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/bolton-israel-bomb-iran-mubarak-falls/

@ Ponda - I agree with Charles on this, that time is a man made thing. What will happen, will happen. Trying to put timescales on things will bring about problems. The masses will do what the leaders want. Just look at Egypt. A President in power for 30 years. Hussein when he was in power, Castro in Cuba, and all the others. The opinions of the populations are not important, I would have thought that the bank bailouts would have told you that by now.

Best regards,

Steve

[ponda]

@ Ponda - I agree with Charles on this, that time is a man made thing. What will happen, will happen. Trying to put timescales on things will bring about problems. The masses will do what the leaders want. Just look at Egypt. A President in power for 30 years. Hussein when he was in power, Castro in Cuba, and all the others. The opinions of the populations are not important, I would have thought that the bank bailouts would have told you that by now.

Yes but the masses have been asleep and are now waking up.There is a consciousness shift beginning to happen.The times they are a changing.What will manifest might depend on what the public is thinking and not the old school ptb control matrix.The publics 'apparent' acceptance of the bailouts is irrelevant as food was still on the table and jobs were saved.There was a perception of a calamity being averted.

The bailouts bought some time for the ptw.Do you think that the public will accept another round of bailouts ?

The publics resentment of austerity measures is growing through out Europe and the whole scenario is still to play out fully.

[Lord Sidious]

Most ''popular'' movements if not started by TPTB end up being taken over, much like the tea party group.
One reason for this is that the average guy in the street is naive in the ways of intelligence orgs and are easy to lead by the nose.

[ThePythonicCow]

Yes but the masses have been asleep and are now waking up.When I was a youth and my friends were protesting against the Vietnam war, they "knew that the masses were waking up." Looking back it seems that we were being "lead by the nose", as Lord Sidious puts it.

It will take (or is now taking ?) fatal divisions amongst the most powerful to loosen their grasp.