What the heck is REALLY happening lately in the Middle East???
 

cnn.com just did a story that included a map that really got my attention.
Not like I didn't have a clue already, but when you see it, it's really striking.
The area where there's protests now is TRULY massive; and includes almost
every Arabic country except for Saudi Arabia. I feel there's several obvious
questions that haven't really been answered; and I'd love to throw them out
there to get everyone's thoughts:


The most obvious one is, Why now? SURE, sure, Facebook "caused" this, it started in
Tunisia and spread to Egypt and onward but - that's not a root cause. Why now?

What and who is really behind this?

Why has it spread so rapidly, like wildfire in a gasoline-soaked woods?

What exactly (really...) is The Muslem Brotherhood? Who are they really,
and what is their agenda?

How is all this going to pan out?

Please add any other questions that occur to you, as well.

...This situation could get REALLY interesting!

I didn't find it. Did it include Morocco as well?

I've been wondering the same thing the past few days. The situation in the entire region appears to be extraordinarily fragile... and the media is just fanning the flames. I'm about the furthest thing from a paranoid conspiracy theorist... but it was worldwide economic collapse followed by regional instability and unrest which lead to both WW I and WW II. I hope whatever happens in the Middle East goes down peacefully... I'm just so sick of bad news and hard times.

Since when have you ever disliked anything hard?:lol:;)

I don't believe Morocco was on there, no.
As I recall, so far it's (to one degree or another)
in Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, The Sudan, Yemen,
the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Iraq, Iran and Lebanon.

Here's a copy of the map.


http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/201...larg.intro.jpg

Ok no. Morocco is the country west of Algeria.

Anything that genuinely threatens the regimes in Algeria or Libya is going to be stamped on quickly - those countries aren't the relatively relaxed places that Tunisia and Egypt are. Sudan is splitting up - the southern part (the more pleasant part) has voted for independence, so that should settle things down there a little bit, but Sudan is just one of those countries that's permanently in uproar. They stuck their oar into the civil war in neighbouring Chad, they're fighting rebels in the east on the border with Eritrea, and obviously there's the Darfur situation. There are untold wars in Africa that we never hear about.

I wouldn't bet on Iran changing hands anytime soon, though I guess it's possible. Bahrain's protests are not really aimed at getting rid of the real leaders (the royal family), rather the prime minister, who has been in office since the Brits gave them independence in 1971. But the prime minister is the King's uncle, so it's not straightforward.

Yemen is a bit of a basket case, pretty backward, and they had a civil war in the 90s. They also have a terrorist-harbouring issue which they're not capable of addressing properly, and it's the kind of place where tourists get kidnapped. There are a number of groups who would jump on a protest bandwagon to get rid of the government, so I'd say it's the most likely place for any regime-toppling that might occur in the near future.

There's no common cause for the wave of protests - it's just a case of individual nations experiencing a rise in protests, the kind of protests that other countries have all the time when there's an economic downturn. The reason for them all happening at once in this area is simply that ordinary people are encouraged by what happened in Tunisia, where it kicked off. In some places like Tunisia and Egypt, they're able to get a result relatively peacefully. In other countries, like China and Burma, and Saudi Arabia for example, that's a dreamworld.

I found the news of CBS reporter being repeatedly raped and beaten by the mob of protesters absolutely horrendous. :distress: most likely they will never find and punish those that did that to her. I hope those animals burn in some sort of hell. :sorry:

You dont have to be sorry for making that statement at all. I completely agree with you.:mad:

She wasn't raped.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...656309184.html

Should this invalidate what happened to her?

Its a clarification to stave off unfounded unbridled speculation, not an invalidation.

A "brutal and sustained sexual assault" sounds a bit vague to me. It sounds like "rape," but it was not described as such. So I suppose it could be anything from "merely" a groped boob to something more intrusive, albeit, just short of some type of "penetration." But something about her story doesn't pass the sniff test to me. If it was as "brutal" as described, why wasn't she hospitalized immediately? After all, they do have hospitals in Egypt! Instead, she waits a day, takes an arduous 12+ hour flight back to the U.S. and then goes to the hospital? :shrug: Call me cynical, but could this be manufactured drama? Could this be an obscure reporter trying to get her 15 minutes of fame? Sure, she could have been swept up in some kind of a rampaging street mob... and yes, when you have lots of people densely packed together like that, body parts are going to tend to get touched and you're gonna get hurt. Yes, she may have felt violated, but everyone else in that mob was probably groped and shoved around too. If it was me, and if I was swept up in an angry mob like that, my first instinct would be about getting the eff away from the rampage, not obsessing about whether someone incidentally groped my ass.

wow. I wonder what scrutiny someone you know (or even you) would fall under, particularly in looking at decisions they felt necessary or how they handled a situation similar to this. :distress:

without even being there, I know this woman for 'her 15 mins' of fame did not call out "feel my ass, touch by (o)(o), brutally sustain sexual assault on me, beat me pulpless!" :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

unbelievable.

I don't understand your point. The article clearly pointed out that she was not "raped," so what does the wiki definition of rape have to do with this? I am not even going to attempt to try to speculate what happened to her. All I am saying is that her alleged "brutal and sustained sexual assault" is not consistent with her ability to wait around and then take a long-haul flight home the following day before being hospitalized. I envision a "brutal assault" would necessitate immediate medical intervention to prevent loss of life or permanent injury.

:lol: yes, that's exactly what luke was implying!

I didn't really get the point of the wiki link either other than it was the first link with mentions of the varying descriptives of sexual assault. I had to step away from the computer as the read of doubtful words verged perez hiltony, for me. I don't need to research numbers to know that there is an underreporting of sexual assault. One could summize there is a reason for this. The fact that people in mass came forward to rescue this person leads me to believe there was no choice other than truly a public display, as well there must have been something amiss or why would they come to her aid? I have to say, if I was attacked in a foreign country I'd want to get the FCK OUT TOO. :shrug:

Amen.

And just because a "person familiar with the matter" stated it wasn't a rape, doesn't mean that's the case. "Raped" or "sexually assaulted for 20-30 minutes... " either way, no thanks.

I'm not sure that's fair. Lara Logan isn't an obscure reporter--she's CBS's chief foreign affairs correspondent. She's a serious journalist in a high profile position. I'd certainly heard of her before this, and I don't watch 60 Minutes.
And I don't think she's desperate for her 15 minutes of fame. Her marriages have gotten some attention in the past, and by all accounts she was horrified by the interest in her personal life. There are people who are desperate to gain fame at any cost and for anything--Lara Logan is not one of them.
She might not have been raped (although I certainly think it's possible--we don't know who that quote came from), but whatever transpired it was certainly more than having her ass incidentally groped. If a group of civilians helped her, they must have seen something beyond what was happening to everyone else. And without getting too graphic, there are other types of penetration than P to V--the distinction of what counts gets pretty blurry in some of these cases. Nor does the fact that she didn't go to the hospital there necessarily indicate anything, except that her life wasn't in danger from any injuries.
Of course we don't know all the facts, and we may never. But doubting the veracity seems a little tasteless when a woman is recovering from a traumatic assault.

The Arab world -- GET ME OUTTA THERE!!!!!!

I am sure many people, not just this reporter, who required assistance when this mob started rampaging. There was no mention of this angry mob of people all on the attack after her specifically; rather, it sounds like something happened and she was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm not saying that it was all nothing. I'm just questioning how "brutal" the assault and beating must have been if she was fine enough to fly away. If I was bloody and my bones were broken, I think I would have been hospitalized. And yes, perhaps sexual assaults are underreported, I don't know. But there have also been high profile cases of manufactured rapes/sexual assaults, e.g., Tawana Brawley (sp?).

I agree that the phrase "brutal and sustained sexual assault" is quite vague and doesn't specify the specific details of the event. However, with all due respect, it really doesn't take much to see that "brutal" + "sustained" + "sexual assault" probably doesn't equal "groped boob."

The official statement came from the CBS Corps. news unit, so I assume they made sure that just enough information was released while protecting Lara Logan's privacy. If she (or her family) had wanted more information released, they probably would have released an additional statement. They did not, as they asked for privacy. If, at some point, LL decides to share her story, she may or may not choose to use the phrase "brutal and sustained sexual assault" to describe her experience.

It's possible that she did receive treatment for the more severe injuries and CBS did not mention it. It's also possible that treatment was received before or after her return to the hotel. It's even possible that after receiving treatment for the more brutal injuries, someone (her boss, medical personnel, etc.) decided that she was in decent enough shape to travel home to the states for the rest of her recovery. The point is, we don't have a minute-by-minute play of what happened, where it happened, and who was involved.

He didn't volunteer an explanation behind his post. I asked for one.

Never heard of her. I doubt 99.9% of the public have heard of her either.

Do you know her? You state this with such veracity.

Why do you still think it could have been a rape despite statements to the contrary? Did Lara Logan call it a rape? Did a source close to the matter call it a rape? No. Most likely it's because it's NOT A RAPE. Nobody knows exactly what happened since "sexual assault" could encompass so many things. So it's a "brutal sexual assault," yet it's not rape. :shrug: I just can't imagine what that could be. If she was being held down by a mob and forced to do things against her will... that's rape. So if it wasn't rape... then what could have happened?

Were you there? How do you know nobody else was being assisted/rescued? Soldiers were there to try to keep the peace. People were also there to protect reporters.

Exactly. This is why I am a bit baffled by what transpired. If it was a "brutal sexual assault" and "beating," I am thinking of blood gushing out of orifices, broken bones and perhaps even loss of consciousness.


If I don't have details, I question everything. If I receive contradictory information, I question everything. I'm not saying with certainty that she is lying or sensationalizing her story, which, after all, journalists would never do :rolleyes:. I'm just saying that I don't know what to make of a story that does not seem to add up in my estimation.

Anything is "possible," including manufactured drama. I would "assume" that airlines would be loathe to take on the liability of boarding a very sick passenger onto a commercial flight.

And thanks for doing your due diligence- really.

Maybe nothing's changed around here after all.

The protests have now spread to Morocco and Syria, at least according
to the map that cnn.com's been putting up. -



http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/WO...urmoil.map.jpg

So when are the news outlets going to get around
to stating bluntly that an all-out civil war has broken
out in Libya?

It hasn't, to be fair. It might, but it hasn't yet. There's a line between revolution and civil war, and civil war entails at least two organised groups trying to gain control of the country, or part of it. There's no coherent organisation within the revolutionaries as yet, and they're not actively trying to gain control of the country, rather to just get rid of the government and its leader. There's no idea of a plan after that, apparently.

The reality of what is happening in Libya right now is nothing short of awful. I don't understand the scarce coverage being given on U.S. television, and while I'm not sure that foreign intervention is the right thing yet, scenes like these:

(WARNING: THESE ARE VERY GRAPHIC)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...s-and-video/4/

...are very disturbing and leave me wondering how long the world will continue to sit back and carry on with this 'wait and see' approach while Gaddafi orders the murder of civilians.

I think it's tempting to think that the U.S. or some western alliance should intervene, despite the fact that we're already fighting two wars. Three, if you count the so-called "war on terror." But at the end of the day it's another "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If we sit on our hands and do nothing, the U.S. will be accused of tacitly condoning the corrupt regimes fighting against their own people; the last thing U.S. needs is yet another leaderless, broken country on its hands full of ethnic tribes that hate each other. On the other hand, if the U.S. does support the rebels, the U.S. then gets accused of "nation building" ala Iraq or scouring to feed its oil addiction. And Iran will find it yet another excuse to rally the Arab countries to fight off "the infidels" and give them further reasons for trying to wipe Israel off the map. After all, the Jews are the enemy, not the Arab dictators robbing their own countries blind! :rolleyes:

If nothing else, this is not a referendum on the state of theocratic absolute governmental authority in the Middle East as much as it is a referendum on Facebook! My goodness, Mark Zuckerberg must feel quite pleased with himself knowing that he is responsible for what is becoming one of the most significant socio-political movements in modern history. And to think... it all started because he wanted to start a "hot or not" website for Cambridge-area universities...

The West would do well to stay out of it, that is unless we want a whole row of Afghanistans. Western intervention in these things does not generally result in fewer lives being lost, and it causes resentment among the inhabitants of whichever country we're talking about at the time. The current trouble in Libya is a recent thing, and it may well only last a few more days. Western leaders can use diplomatic means to make it clear whose side they're on, and other non-military means. The one thing that will aid the religious nut-jobs over there is Western powers throwing their weight around, trying to "help".

Corrupt and brutal regimes are slaughtering their people in many countries, yet the West is only interested in oil-rich countries. Nobody helped the Sudanese, the Zimbabweans or the Burmese. How about Rwanda, which the US called a "local conflict" and refused to step in - 800,000 people get killed making Libya look like a play school. We just sat and watched. Nobody gives a toss because we can't use those countries. Nobody talks about invading China because they brutalise the Tibetans - too much trouble. Keep buying their cheap crap, give them the Olympics and let's hope they lighten up a bit. It's a bad joke.

Facebook didn't cause the latest round of revolutions - Facebook gets used in the course of events, like new technology gets used in the course of everything. Nobody blamed the telephone for the First World War.

Reporter's movements and what they're able to say and do are being very tightly controlled by Ghadaffi's government.

I'll give you one guess who put Ghadaffi into power in the first place.
He's "our guy."
This whole thing has served to help cement an opinion I've been forming
for some time; the U.S. needs to mind its own damn bidness.
(Although I have mixed feelings about it and feel it's "not that simple."
And surprise, surprise, we sold him a truckload of F-14 fighters, RECENTLY
sold him attack helicopters, and sold him 14 heavy seriously kick-ass 155 mm
Paladin howitzers. The French sold him high-tech machine guns and have a billion-
dollar contract to sell him high-tech fighter planes which are more advanced than
an F-18. Italy sold him truckloads of Baretta submachine guns. The Chinese are
also in on the high-tech cutting-edge fighter game. Everybody and their dog has
gotten in on this money-making machine, and now i.m.o. we're paying the price.
We never seem to be able to learn this lesson.

I've heard that the actual role of Facebook in all this is still "up for debate"
(and will probably be debated for years to come). There's speculation that it was
actually the Israeli Intelligence services that were behind all of this - and I've heard
that there's some evidence for this.
In my opinion though, Mark Zuckerberg knew exactly what he was doing all along. :nod:

Oh, by the way, just a thought that occurs to me -

Don't forget that China has veto status at the U.N. Security Council.

With billions of dollars at stake - well, they've done it before.
And I would bet any amount of money that they're going to
weigh displeasing us against the oil supply and money from
the sale of the new figher plane, etc. - Whatever fits in more
with their long-term plan is what they're gonna go with, I'd say.

They have *very* heavy involvement in many other African
nations, by the way - it's all on Wikipedia if I remember right.
(There's a lot of mines there that are supplying them with raw
materials for their growing industry.)