Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Earlier today, former President of Egypt Mohamed Morsi appeared for his trial. He is accused of escaping from jail in 2011, conspiring to kill Egyptian Army officers, and aiding Hezbollah and Hamas.

The irony in this situation is so thick you could cut it with a knife. Abdel Al-Sisi, the head of Egypt's military, is the architect of Morsi's ouster. Yet he owes his current position to Morsi, who replaced Mohamed Tantawi as the military's head.

Early in his presidency, Morsi struck a bargain with Egypt's military: they cooperate with his rule and hand over some governing power to him. In return, most of the military's command structure (save a few heads who were head of the military under Mubarak) would be untouched. Al-Sisi had served in the military for years and was a prominent figure under Mubarak, so it's not exactly like he was Morsi's handpicked puppet.

My own opinion on Morsi is mixed, and I'm not a fan of his, but seeing him in the soundproof cell, I couldn't help but empathize. He got completely screwed over by the man he put in charge and thought he could strike a deal with. Who would've thought a year ago that Morsi would be in jail and Mubarak would be (somewhat) free?

What're your takes on the trial?

At 1/27/14 11:03 PM, Light wrote: Everyone would be better off because, you know, 'murrica.

I am sick to death of people saying "'Murica." It reduces the idea of patriotism to blind jingoism. 99% of people who say it, say it ironically, thinking that those who are genuinely patriotic think the same way - "Murica!"

I Support Supergandhi64's Rhyme Scheme. Lay Off Him, OP, Don't Be So Mean!

I believe you forgot to use the words "illumanti," "zionist conspiracy," "petrodollars," "US propaganda," and my favorite, "WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!"

If you want to make everybody happy, politics is the wrong job for you.

At 1/20/14 06:46 PM, Feoric wrote:

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. For example, Iran supports Hamas and Islamic jihad. At the end of the day, Hamas and Islamic jihad are just as Sunni as Al Qaeda is. The difference is what role they play in the ME and abroad. Iran certainly is no friend of Al-Qaeda, but keep in mind why, and primarily where Iran is interested in fighting them: Syria and Iraq, both of which are Shia majorities.

The difference between Al-Qaeda and Hamas is that while Al-Qaeda's goals are to spread across the region, break down the Sykes-Picot borders, and establish a caliphate again, Hamas just wants Israel to get out of Palestine. Doesn't make Hamas by any means better morally than Al-Qaeda but their goals are a bit more narrow. Hamas doesn't care what goes on around the rest of the Middle East as long as they can continue to wage war against Israel. Al-Qaeda on the other hand is focused on more than Afghanistan; they've been infiltrating anywhere where there is unrest, including Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Northern Africa. Iran is not a target of Hamas's, but it is of Al-Qaeda's.

During and after the Second World War, Iran would be in the very uncomfortable position of being a puppet for the Big Three. Because of this, Iran had to exercise extreme diplomatic maneuverability and dirty tricks to escape their grasp of power. So the pendulum swings again, this time towards Russia. Russia and Iran are the counterbalance to US/Saudi interests. It's the same game, not a whole lot has changed.

I still think the US/Russia pendulum explanation is a bit outdated. I think Iran sees itself as its own country and that it will choose its sides based off of who is friendly to it. Their swing towards Russia doesn't necessarily mean that they are doing it to counterbalance the US; they're doing it because Russia and China are being friendly (and of course offering financial incentives, like any "friend.") They don't do what they do because of East/West, they do what they do if they think they will get some gain out of it.

Nixon and Kissinger were actually fully prepared to sell out Taiwan to China in the course of rapprochement, and Alexander Hague actually tried to in 1981. The world really is a crazy place. It took Nixon to go to China, after all.

What I at least take away from Nixon and China is that it is possible to make enemies "friends." I'm sure it's possible with Iran but it will be much much harder than China. And of course the political blowback will make it near impossible. Obama is no Richard Nixon.

At 1/19/14 04:35 PM, Razefan wrote: The whole point was that I'm sick of people saying "America is horrible now!" "What happened to our freedom!" When in fact America has never been a paradise and the good ole days weren't all that good.
I'm not anti american, far from it. People need to realize our history so we don't repeat it.

History has been sugarcoated. That being said, acknowledge that the whole world was terrible too. If you're going to bash America, fine, but do it in the context of a certain action, no matter who does or has done it, is bad. All countries have blood on their hands, so if you hate America because of the Iraq War, then hate Britain for colonization, Iraq for invading Kuwait, Finland for allying with the Nazis in WWII, etc.

At 1/18/14 11:30 PM, Feoric wrote:

That's a really good question. I'm not entirely sure myself, largely because I just don't see us having friendly ties with Iran anytime soon, especially when you have Israel and other third parties that actively try to sabotage the peace process. I think our Sunni allies largely made it out okay in the grand scheme of things: Saudi Arabia was largely untouched (if anything bolstered), and Egypt's deep state emerged and reverted the country back to military dictatorship. Business as usual as far as our two closest Sunni allies (or partners at the very least) is concerned. Now, you say that our Sunni allies have been unreliable, but I take it that you're mainly referring to Saudi Arabia. It may seem that way, but in the grand scheme of things I don't think the script isn't being followed. Saudi has, for many many years, been trying to contain and dispel Iran's influence.

I should've been more clear: the perceived benefit of allying with Iran is not so much to supplant their influence with our own, but to attack Al-Qaeda. Iran, for all of its faults, is not a friend of Al-Qaeda nor has any reason to secretly bolster it like Pakistan, since the average Iranian does not like Al-Qaeda much.

Iran aligned itself with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, so when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan it was pretty obvious that Saudi was going to heavily arm Islamic fighters to fight a proxy war in a foreign country.

Iran's and Saudi Arabia's actions here can't be explained in the traditional Cold War conflict. Iran's revolution was a big f*ck you to the US but they didn't exactly fall into the loving arms of the USSR. Khomeini was neither aligned with the US nor USSR; he was his own man. In response to the revolution, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, who were Iran's main competitors in the region, started doing what they could to counter Iran's revolutionary influence. For Iraq, the solution was to invade Iran, and for Saudi Arabia, the solution was to arm Muhajideen in Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia did not do what they did to help the US by countering a Soviet puppet (which Iran wasn't.) They did what they do to help re-exert their own influence as the true head of Islam.

Why do this? Here's some historical context.
At the time, which was the late '70s, Arab nationalism was a steaming mess. Egypt and Syria had gone to war with Israel twice and lost, Nasser had died, and Sadat had just made peace with Israel. Saudi Arabia knew that this was its opportunity to regain some influence. Why was this their time? Well first off, Arab socialist secular nationalism, the stuff that Egypt and Syria trumpeted, was plummeting. Radical Islamism was on its way in.

Egypt also renounced its position as the most influential Arab country after making peace with Israel (Sadat's assassination reflected a lot of popular sentiment across the region). So Saudi Arabia took this as its opportunity to regain its influence as the true head of Islam and thus the region by shouting "look at what I'm doing! I'm helping spread Jihad because we Saudis are so great and awesome!"

That's the thing that makes me laugh the most about the Iraq War: Bush installed a readymade Iranian ally in the region. You can't just simply go from one administration that is literally killing everything in it's path while sanctioning the hell out of you and then have the next administration say "we take that back" and expect that country to not be skeptical.

True, but then again up until Nixon we supported Taiwan as the sole legitimate representative of China. Then again we knew (and they probably knew) that buddying up to them would take advantage of the Sino-Soviet Split. But this could be an opportunity to take back some influence and make "allies," but of course ignoring all the political blowback we'd receive we'd need another Richard Nixon to make it believable.

At 1/16/14 11:34 PM, orangebomb wrote: Hello, Earth to leanlifter, Syria, Iraq and much of the middle east are one giant backwards shithole.

Hey, that's not the argument here. Attack leanlifter's ideas, not his homeland.

At 1/17/14 11:17 AM, morefngdbs wrote: While I haven't been in an American courtroom , i most certainly have been in courtrooms here in Canada many times

I once visited a physics lab; therefore I am a master of physics.

At 1/6/14 05:34 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Rather I have just been "DE" Propagandized ! Please do this in an intelligent and mature manor with links to hopefully quantified and unbiased sources.

Leanlifter1, you yourself are unable to back up your arguments without ad hominem attacks. Believe it or not, it is possible for someone to have the exact same views you do as the result of propaganda.

At 1/15/14 11:59 PM, Feoric wrote: Looks like the West has finally started providing intelligence assistance. For Assad:

"European intelligence agencies secretly met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's delegates to share information on European extremists operating in Syria, Western and Middle Eastern officials said, the first known encounters since withdrawing their ambassadors.

The meetings were intended to gather information on at least 1,200 European jihadists that Western officials say have joined militant groups in Syria, amid European concerns these citizens will pose a threat when they return home.

The talks are narrowly focused on the extremists and on al Qaeda's growing might in Syria and don't represent a broader diplomatic opening, the Western and Middle Eastern officials and diplomats said.

But Mr. Assad's opponents in Syria and in Istanbul, where the political opposition is based, said they are concerned that the information sharing suggests Western capitals are starting to accept the possibility the Syrian leader will retain power for the foreseeable future."

I wonder if this may lead to a paradigm shift about Western support to Middle Eastern countries. I've been thinking this for a little bit - and let me know what you think - what are possible consequences of the US opening up relations with Iran?

The reason I bring this idea up is because many of our Sunni-majority allies are very unreliable, like Saudi Arabia and especially Pakistan. Even if their governments officially do not like Al-Qaeda, you cannot deny there are bases of support in those countries that are tolerated by the governments.

I have no love for Iran's government or their disregard of human rights they are not exactly friends of Al-Qaeda. They have offered aid to both Iraq and Syria to fight Al-Qaeda, because the mess in Iraq and Syria gives them a brand-new opportunity to reassert their influence. Let's face it, the Iraq War and Syrian Civil War have greatly expanded Iran's influence, and they know it. It's also expanded Al-Qaeda's influence, and our Sunni allies have either been overthrown in the Arab Spring or have been downright unreliable.

I think that if the US were to open relations with Iran and take the wheel on delivering aid to Iraq, we could regain some influence in Iraq and possibly in Syria. Right now we are allies with Iraq, a state that is sandwiched in between two of our enemies, while our "friends" are not helping.
Furthermore, Russia and China have been doing the same thing for awhile. They've both prevented the UN from sanctioning Al-Assad, and have been stonewalling the US and the West's attempts at diplomacy in the region.

I think opening up relations with Iran would not only help us arm Iraq, but potentially snag some of the Chinese and Russian influence in the region. Because make no mistake, it's there, and the days of the US being allies with many of the Sunni countries is fading, if not over.

I know this may dangerously veer into "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" territory, but frankly I hate Al-Qaeda a lot more than I hate Al-Assad or the Ayatollah. If we abandon Iraq to be helped by Iran, they will essentially become an arm of Iran and Syria, and be subject to Russian and Chinese influence. We would have a strong Al-Qaeda and a strong Shia/Syrian influence in the region, and be friends with neither.

Of course I know were we to do this there would be TONS of political blowback from the EU, NATO, UN, Israel, and within the US. But just a thought - what do you think?

At 1/15/14 07:59 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Subtitle B—Matters Relating to Pakistan

Hmm, looks to me like we're giving foreign aid to Pakistan. Like we do to a ton of other countries. So what?

And honestly, neoconservative is one of the most misused and misunderstood terms used in politics. But rest assured I am not by any stretch of the imagination a neoconservative.

At 1/15/14 06:53 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: I am pretty sure the American's have Pakistan in their crosshair's for 2014 and not Syria.

Leanlifter1, go away. It's obvious you have nothing to add to this conversation but your propaganda and empty expressions.

At 1/14/14 06:52 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: When I see "civil war", I can't help but think of Wriggle lol

This is meant to be a debate and discussion with people who know the topic. If you want to comment by all means do but say something meaningful.

Note: I meant rational actor, not natural actor.

At 1/13/14 05:12 PM, Camarohusky wrote: No current regime has ever had to deal with the possibility of its cities being sieaged, sacked, razed, and have every male killed, with every female raped and forced into slavery.

But keep in mind, with the rising tide of Islamism, there's no guarantee that whoever takes over the land would be a natural actor. Hitler and the Taliban both brought stability to their respective countries, and their actions resulted in gigantic wars.

At 1/13/14 05:02 PM, Camarohusky wrote: A civil war in the region may be good for the mIddle East as a whole. The region, for whatever reason, seems to do best under a very strong single power. The region was at its height under large empires such as the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, The Caliphs, The Persians, and the Ottomans.

Perhaps if we let this conflict fester, it will overflow into other countries, allowing for a large power to rise and conquer the region bringing it under one rule. Hopefully this will create the stability needed to wrench the region out of the politicial and economic doldrums it has been stuck in since the turn of the 20th Century.

There are some issues with that idea.

-The examples you bring are all giant empires or powers absorbing the land into one gigantic mass. There is no such power at this point that would interfere and annex the land. And for an example of a superpower trying to control the land, what about the US and the coalition forces? It wasn't exactly stable then.

-The Middle East is not some gigantic amorphous blob that can be taken over. Granted, the Sykes-Picot lines were arbitrary but there were still some borders. Syrian Arabic is different from Libyan Arabic is different from Iraqi Arabic, etc. Also, some countries in there do have their own nationalism outside of pan-Arab. Egypt, for example, has a collective identity extending back thousands of years.

-As for a large power rising out of the land to take over, that very well could be Al-Qaeda. I wouldn't want them to be in control of the land, no matter how stable it is.

-Tribal control is still strong and has if anything strengthened as more and more centralized governments lose control. Allowing civil war to lead to a great power rising up won't likely happen.

At 1/12/14 11:23 PM, Feoric wrote: Well, let's assume that it was indeed ISIL who captured Fallujah. Before I even attempt to address this let me start off by saying that I wouldn't use ISIL and Al-Qaeda interchangeably. AQ, believe it or not, looks like a liberal Islamist group compared to them.

That's something I haven't thought of. How is AQ more "liberal" than ISIS? I figured that their visions were mostly the same, the only difference being that they each want power.
And if ISIS is not Al-Qaeda, does that say anything about their role in the Middle East? There's been conflicting reports on their strength; some say they've been mortally wounded for awhile, others say they're on the rebound.

I think what a lot of people (not you, Feoric, but others who may read this) like saying that it's Islamists vs Democracy, or Sunni vs Shia. It's a simple answer that seems believable at first. I hear a lot of cynicism from people saying that ideology is the main cause of the fighting, when really that's just a rhetoric. I think it's different competing groups trying to fill the power vacuum left by the Maliki government.

One thing that helps make some sense is the fact that the borders for the Arab states are European creations. They're not formed by culture lines or even natural boundaries. ISIS's actions are a reflection of the rejection of the age-old Sykes-Picot lines. And I'm not saying this to bash European colonialism or blame them for this, but we should remember that a lot of the radical groups focus on ideas like the Caliphate, or a pan-Muslim state. We are not seeing terrorists operate only within a defined country's borders, because to them Syrians and Iraqis are really the same group of people. Or at least certain groups within those groups. You're absolutely right that nobody here knows 100% about what's going on.

At 1/12/14 02:55 PM, Feoric wrote: This should raise immediate concerns because if that really is the case then this suggests that the situation in Iraq follows the traditional sectarian Sunni-Shia divide, which doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this can quickly spell another civil war.

It's very easy to say that sectarianism is the cause of all fights but I don't know if that's completely true in this case. What motivates people more than belief is power, and local tribesmen and sheikhs have had power in that area for awhile. I don't think they'd want to give up their power to Al-Qaeda like that so that they could be rewarded by Allah. Many Anbar tribes fought alongside US, British, and Iraqi troops in Fallujah against Al-Qaeda in 2004, and they've been trying to fill the power vacuum left by Maliki's Shia-led government.

I guess the question is, is Al-Qaeda taking over Anbar because it is more powerful than the sheikhs, or because Sunni sheikhs want an ally to fight against the Shia?

At 1/11/14 05:13 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Democracy LOL that's propaganda shit talk if you thin America is a Democracy LOL. America is an authoritarian dictatorship ultimately run by the Banks. It's no accident that the political party with the most monetary backing always get's into power.

I would love to see where you get these ideas. How about some actual research from a credible source? Be careful, though - reality is not on your side.

At 1/11/14 05:24 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Anyway this thread is ridiculous. It is based on personal opinion at best and is a weak generalization based on propaganda from the american media because they shit talk and influence your mind set against the people of the middle east.

I would love, love, LOVE some actual research done behind this. Does your claim include all American media? And that it influences everyone's mindset against all of the Middle East? Good luck backing up that fruitless generalization.

This morning, former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon died at age 85 after 8 years in a coma following a stroke suffered in 2006.

So is this the death of a hero, villain, or more likely, a bit of both?

At 1/11/14 01:33 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Perhaps when you tone down on being an ignoramus than we can talk. My arguments here is not angry at all they are just what they are a response to an ignoramus.

I have yet to see an actual argument from you that is either backed up by research or not an emotional outburst that tries to cram in as many big words --fascist, neoconservative, new world order, megacorporations-- as possible. If you want to debate, please do, but angry sentences like "google is propaganda!" or blanket quotations without using your own words do not count.

At 1/11/14 03:10 PM, orangebomb wrote: The only reason why that the rebels are sympathetic in America is because we were quick to demonize Al-Assad, which is pretty much justified considering...

True, and I think another reason why we tend to see the rebels in a more positive light is because our country was founded by revolution. That doesn't naturally make us all revolutionaries but the word "revolution" has a more positive connotation in the US than probably in other countries. We see revolutionaries in the world and even if they are not, we tend to think "Oh, a revolutionary, like Washington!"

But also there is the dominant belief in the world (not just the US, but Europe and by many in the Arab World) that in order to have a stable, fair and prosperous country you need democracy and free elections. I could go on and on about how wrong that idea is, but my point is that the rebels are all fighting against authoritarian states, and that as long as they shout "we want democracy, we want equality!" (even if they really don't) people will tend to view them in a better light than the authoritarian they are opposing.

At 1/10/14 08:00 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: What do you define as hate speech ?

Most of the stuff you say I'd call hate speech. Seriously, calm down before you post on here. Every other word out of your mouth is a swear or insult. If your arguments are so perfect then why try to supplement them with anger?

2014 has not been looking good for Iraq. Hardly two years after the United States and United Kingdom withdrew their last troops, the less-than-stable country has endured continued insurgency by Al-Qaeda and its allies.

About one week ago, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) captured the city of Fallujah and declared it and most of Anbar province independent from Iraq. Anbar province has been a hotbed of extremism, partially since many Sunnis living there do not trust Maliki's government, which they claim has marginalized them.

So I wonder, what does this mean for Iraq's role in the Middle East and abroad? Both the United States and Iran have offered help in terms of weapons and advice, but both US Secretary of State John Kerry and Deputy Commander of Iran's military both promised that they would not send troops. Besides money, weapons, and words, it seems that this fight is Iraq's alone.

Or is it Iraq's alone? It seems that part of the fighting is spillover from the raging Syrian Civil War. Iraq and Syria's hardly enforced broad border is in the middle of the desert. Much like the US/Mexico border, it exists mostly on paper and is difficult to control. Syria's war is increasingly becoming Iraq's war.

The United States finds itself in a strange situation. Public opinion is mostly anti-Assad and sympathetic to the rebels, although the United States has not taken much action to help the rebels besides small amounts of aid. However, the US is also aiding the Iraqi government in attempts to stop in some ways the same rebels they are aiding in Syria. I know that's a huge overgeneralization, as the US is trying to make sure the rebels it aids are not radical Islamists. But still, in an area as chaotic as Syria, any aid to rebels will sometimes fall into the wrong hands.

This is painfully reminiscent of the Fall of Saigon. Except, more complicated.

At 1/5/14 07:32 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Stop believing everything the Media tells you to think.

Oh sure, and you're just a freethinker whose opinions come from his own research spanning multiple sides and sources?

At 1/5/14 06:54 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

That's the thing the "Federal" Reserve is no more Federal than Federal Express. The Federal Reserve is a private Corporation and has no regulation or input from Congress contrary to popular belief.

Janet Yellen Confirmed by the US Senate to head the Fed

At 1/9/14 06:51 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: It's merely a wedge issue meant to divide people along stupid, arbitrary lines. However, it is not purposeless. A divided house cannot stand against an agenda.

I don't understand what you're saying. Could you be a bit more concrete? That was pretty abstract what you said.