If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Egyptian president has sudden "health crisis"   (foxnews.com) divider line 71
    More: News  
•       •       •

12257 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Nov 2003 at 10:04 AM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-11-19 06:52:16 AM
Crazy conspiracy theorists blame Bush in 5...4...3...2...
 
2003-11-19 10:07:45 AM
Nah, they know Bush isn't that clever.
 
2003-11-19 10:08:07 AM
I guess PNAC is getting ready to replace him with a totalitarion puppet regime.
 
2003-11-19 10:09:11 AM
Perhaps this is just a simple case of the "common cold" which all those dead Soviet Union leaders had? Move along, nothing to see here, pay no attention to the dead body behind the curtain!
 
2003-11-19 10:10:02 AM
What's this? A special coffee creamer from my friend Usama?

/nothin
 
2003-11-19 10:10:05 AM
This is really not good. Mubarek is one of the stable, relatively pro-West leaders in the Middle East, isn't nuts against Israel, etc.

And his country has a HUGE fundamentalist problem that he's managed to keep his thumb on pretty well. But without him, a power vacuum could emerge and be replaced by someone who's not as good for the West.

Of course, if Bush had advanced a foreign policy where they didn't all hate us, then maybe we'd have a bit more say in the outcome...
 
2003-11-19 10:12:06 AM
Allah hates him.

Eh, Egypt isn't even interesting anymore aside from when they get their butts kicked by Israel.
 
2003-11-19 10:14:04 AM
Will he be mummified?

/Lame
 
2003-11-19 10:14:07 AM

"I'm sorry to hear about Clemenza. Heart attack, eh?"
"No no, that was no heart attack..."


On a serious note, beeferoni has the right of it: this is not a good thing.
 
2003-11-19 10:15:17 AM
"Of course, if Bush had advanced a foreign policy where they didn't all hate us, then maybe we'd have a bit more say in the outcome..."
----------------------------------------------------------
you can't really please everyone tho. we might please the degenerate half of the world if we become communist and legalize baby rape and we might please the other half if we throw a drape over our women and cut out their clits.

I think america will just go about pleasing themselves.
 
2003-11-19 10:15:39 AM
Where will you be when your laxative kicks in?
 
2003-11-19 10:17:45 AM


Duh!
 
2003-11-19 10:18:27 AM
I understand doctors found a large mass blocking his sphinxter.
 
2003-11-19 10:19:10 AM
"health crises" == "prarie doggin"
 
2003-11-19 10:19:12 AM
Mr.Bastardo observes: you can't really please everyone tho. we might please the degenerate half of the world if we become communist and legalize baby rape and we might please the other half if we throw a drape over our women and cut out their clits.

True, you can't please everyone. But Bush has chosen a path that has had the effect of alienating much of the US's traditional allies, and it has made it more difficult than usual for Arab countries with moderate leaders, like Egypt, to remain vocally pro-West.
 
2003-11-19 10:19:14 AM
The thing that caught me here was the following:

Mubarak has led Egypt since Anwar Sadat (search) was assassinated by a Muslim extremist on Oct. 6, 1981

Does anyone else here find this innacuracy odd? Is it a case of ignorance on the part of the reporter or something different?
 
2003-11-19 10:19:14 AM
if he croaks i call dibs on the position.
 
2003-11-19 10:19:25 AM
Mubarek is an asshole. He'll never be Sadat or Nasser.

Just die.
 
2003-11-19 10:24:31 AM
bump, that's the worst joke I've heard all morning.

I also think it's the only joke I've heard all morning, so don't feel bad.

 
2003-11-19 10:25:54 AM
Actually sounds like a diabetic sugar crash to me.
 
2003-11-19 10:29:31 AM
2003-11-19 10:19:14 AM Dancin_In_Anson

The thing that caught me here was the following:

Mubarak has led Egypt since Anwar Sadat (search) was assassinated by a Muslim extremist on Oct. 6, 1981

Does anyone else here find this innacuracy odd? Is it a case of ignorance on the part of the reporter or something different?


What this refers to is speculation that Mubarek was involved in the assassination of Sadat and that the official story - that the assassination was the work of Muslim extremists angry at Sadat for the Camp David Peace Accords - was just a cover.

Anyone got links for this? A good conspiracy theory could be interesting...
 
2003-11-19 10:29:42 AM
/2003-11-19 10:19:12 AM beeferoni


Mr.Bastardo observes: you can't really please everyone tho. we might please the degenerate half of the world if we become communist and legalize baby rape and we might please the other half if we throw a drape over our women and cut out their clits.

True, you can't please ever yone. But Bush has chosen a path that has had the effect of alienating much of the US's traditional allies, and it has made it more difficult than usual for Arab countries with moderate leaders, like Egypt, to remain vocally pro-West.
--------------------------------------------------------
egyptians were joyous about 9/11...they were joyous when the USS Cole was attacked...they would have been overjoyed if their egyptian brethren would have taken down the WTC in the first attempt ( the blind cleric feller was egy I believe ). we could please the egyptians by dying, many of them could please me greatly by dying...but no one chooses suicide to please their enemies. As for "traditional allies" would that be your beloved France?
 
2003-11-19 10:30:20 AM
Dancin_In_Anson
I don't understand. Are you being sarcastic? President Anwar Sadat was attending an annual military on October 6, 1981 when he was attacked and killed by an assassination team composed of members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. They killed him because of the peace treaty he had signed with Israel, and wanted to turn Egypt into an Islamic theocracy. The reporter got it right.
 
2003-11-19 10:31:01 AM
Dancin_In_Anson
OK, I'll bite. Is it the Muslim part you are objecting too, or do I not remember the news report accurately when it happened ?
Zunigene
 
2003-11-19 10:33:07 AM
egyptians were joyous about 9/11...they were joyous when the USS Cole was attacked...they would have been overjoyed if their egyptian brethren would have taken down the WTC in the first attempt ( the blind cleric feller was egy I believe ).

Exactly my point, Mr.Bastardo about Egypt being full of extremists. But the official position of Egypt wasn't joy, but rather sorrow and grief. And Mubarek went back to the work of stamping out the extremists with his huge iron fist.

All I'm saying is that the US will be in a bad place if Egypt goes fundamentalist.
 
2003-11-19 10:34:20 AM
No...that was the point that I was making. He was killed by a truckload of soldiers during a military parade. Why then, did the reporter of this storey sa hew was assainated by "A muslim extremist" (singular). I was just trying to decide if the reporter was ignorant of history or deliberately trying to rewrite history...I wasn't trying for any hidden thing...it was merely an observation.
 
2003-11-19 10:35:27 AM
beeferoni

Somehow I feel you would find fault with whatever foreign policy espoused by President Bush and through support to those it would upset. You would simply twist your own diatribe to oppose George Bush.

Why else would someone even mention George Bush in a discussion about the Egyptian Prime Minister having a Health Crisis?
 
2003-11-19 10:36:02 AM
Yeeps...if that's the best spelling I can manage with the preview on then I'm in deep kim shee!
 
2003-11-19 10:38:07 AM
Why else would someone even mention George Bush in a discussion about the Egyptian Prime Minister having a Health Crisis?

Because, Huskadoodle, if this Health Crisis leads to a Death Crisis, Egypt will be picking a new leader. And the US has managed to make itself wildly unpopular in the region over the Iraq invasion and associated saberrattling against Syria and Iran.

Just taking a look 2 steps ahead...
 
2003-11-19 10:38:21 AM
Through = Throw

Dam Spellchucker
 
2003-11-19 10:38:31 AM
Eh, even if Mubarak kicks it, the Egyptians aren't changing their stance. They're getting WAY too much money and military equipment from the US. You might see some extremists attempt something, but government Mubarak has in place will crush them fast.
 
2003-11-19 10:38:55 AM
So it's "not good" because it might lead to Egypt getting a less repressive regime that might actually promote the good of his people instead of whoring for aid from The West?
 
2003-11-19 10:40:37 AM
Balk like an Egyptian.
 
2003-11-19 10:42:26 AM
yikes...

that could be the precursor to quite the shakedown.
 
2003-11-19 10:45:34 AM
DECMATH
So it's "not good" because it might lead to Egypt getting a less repressive regime that might actually promote the good of his people instead of whoring for aid from The West?

No.. it's "not good" because it might lead to Egypt getting a Taliban style theocracy that hates America and secretly aids terrorists in their fight agaist the US.

Some of us think that's a bad thing.
 
2003-11-19 10:45:38 AM
Mubarek won't be mummified, but he's already been Rummified
 
2003-11-19 10:48:37 AM
well said, BrotherMaynard
 
2003-11-19 10:48:40 AM
This just proves what I've always said: Mubarak and Meatloaf are the same person.
 
2003-11-19 10:52:05 AM
2003-11-19 10:34:20 AM Dancin_In_Anson


No...that was the point that I was making. He was killed by a truckload of soldiers during a military parade. Why then, did the reporter of this storey sa hew was assainated by "A muslim extremist" (singular
------------------------------------------------------
sadat was a rare muslim, the media would like to paint all muslims like they are sadat-like rather than admit that the vast majority of muslims were jumping for joy when sadat was killed. using the singular lets the younger readers that were not around at the time of sadat "know" that it was one of them rare murderous muslims that carried out the assasination. older readers normally just let this stuff slide right by without questioning media-motives...not sure what to make of it being FOX that has the story, they haven't really been promoting a false islamic picture as much as other networks.
 
2003-11-19 10:52:12 AM
"Massive U.S. military support of Egypt ($38 billion since 1978) has coincided with 20 years of rule under Emergency Law, and continues despite regular reports of serious human rights abuses committed by the Egyptian government. According to the U.S. State Department's 2000 Human Rights Report, "The dominant role of the President and the entrenched NDP (National Democratic Party) control the political scene to such an extent that citizens do not have a meaningful ability to change their Government."
http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/egypt.htm

Wow, they sound like they need to be liberated. We love freedom SOOOO much. America. King of Hypocrisy.
 
2003-11-19 10:55:18 AM
beeferoni

I understand that war and battles are always controversial, but do you suggest that US policy decisions be made by sweating over how to appease people who hate the US simply for being?

Rule by paranoia?
 
2003-11-19 11:00:17 AM
I understand that war and battles are always controversial, but do you suggest that US policy decisions be made by sweating over how to appease people who hate the US simply for being?

Rule by paranoia?


Huskadoodle

No...but when making US policy decisions, take into account the likely consequences of such actions, rather than simply listening to the neocon assurances that the Iraqi people will greet us with parades, flowers, and overwhelming joy, and the rest of the region will fall in line.

And when going to the American people to tell them about your new change in US policy, be up front with them about the possible consequences, that this could make the US much more unpopular in the foreseeable future.

My problems aren't so much with the changes as they are with the total lack of planning and the tunnel vision that led to them.
 
2003-11-19 11:00:21 AM
No.. it's "not good" because it might lead to Egypt getting a Taliban style theocracy that hates America and secretly aids terrorists in their fight agaist the US.

They also have something called the Suez Canal... A very important shipping lane that if closed would surely lead to war ... There was nearly one in the 60s when Eygpt confiscated it, but the US got the French and British to back down...

If this were to happen this time, I think it would be a very different situation.
 
2003-11-19 11:00:26 AM
Quick, get Jack Bauer over at CTU. He'll know what to do.
 
2003-11-19 11:01:38 AM
Dancin_In_Anson


The thing that caught me here was the following:

Mubarak has led Egypt since Anwar Sadat (search) was assassinated by a Muslim extremist on Oct. 6, 1981

Does anyone else here find this innacuracy odd? Is it a case of ignorance on the part of the reporter or something different?


What innacuracy? That's pretty much happened. My main man got shot on a review stand during a parade in front of God and everyone. Unless the innacuracy is that the author attributes the action to an individual. I think there were three actual gunmen, but I could be wrong.
 
2003-11-19 11:02:03 AM
Pollexabator,

How is the US being a hypocrite in this instance? The US did not go into IRaw to liberate them. We went in looking for WMD. There are a lot of countries where people are being opressed and the US is not stepping in. No secret there. Are you advocating for the US to intervene where ever human rights violations are occurring? What is your point, exactly? SOunds like your playing on both sides of the fence...the US is damned if it does, damned if it don't.
 
2003-11-19 11:03:36 AM
Iraw = Iraq.
 
2003-11-19 11:04:08 AM
It's too late! Don't you see? When he came back to the podium after being gone for 30 minutes...that's when they switched him. He's a zombie robot now!
 
2003-11-19 11:14:54 AM
squidloe
Have you heard President Bush mention anything about WMD in the last two months? We are there because we love freedom. Our soldiers are being killed by "improvised exposive devices" because of the progress towards democracy we're making and evil doers hate that. While those evil doers are worse than us, it's no different, they're trying to serve their own interests and maintain the status quo.

Throughout the 20th century we've been picking and choosing which governments we will support based entirely on our own interests, not on the ideals of the Constitution. If you're still confused, ask a Chilean about our buddy Pinochet...he sure loved freedom too. It's hypocritical to put democratic ideals on high as justification in one instance, and support a government that oppresses it's people in another.
 
2003-11-19 11:17:06 AM
squidloe
How is the US being a hypocrite in this instance? The US did not go into [Iraq] to liberate them. We went in looking for WMD.

So.. Operation Iraqi Freedom has nothing to do with bringing freedom to Iraq? I must of missed something. Because over the past few months all I've been hearing is how Iraq was a terrible Dictatorship (sp?) that needed to be overthrown. The topic of WMD almost completely dissapeared from discussions on Iraq. To the point where it's almost a taboo subject.
 
Displayed 50 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report