Am i the only one who finds it curious that:
1. ALL the Middle East unrest happened so concurrently.
2. They were able to mobilise so many people in such a short time.
3. They were able to mobilise so much logistical and financial support so quickly - in almost no time.
4. Most of these "revolutions" start nameless, with the name of a mob, and dont get a leadership face until later, and yet, they seem to be remarkably well directed?
5. They get military support from NATO, no less, in a jiffy?
That all of this coincides with the worst period in US domestic economy, a time when there is exactly ONE economic threat to the US - the cash rich, low debt middle east?
That all of this coincides with the time when the President is grappling with BIG internal issues and his ratings are at all time nadirs?
On the Osama death that was announced earlier today: Am i the only one who finds it weird that all the stories come with no pictures at all? Not even pictures of the mansion that was ambushed? When the Iraqi dictator was captured, it was all over the place.. the pics, the works.. how come its different this time? maybe its too early to be curious.. so i will wait..
3 comments:
Yes, I did think something was not quite what it looked like...
the pictures are there now.
and as for the revolutions, yes it is good to be a cynic, but then fire spreads with no destination in mind!
@ Ihm: :-) we think alike..
@ Adee: I have problems with these "images". But lets not go there. The thing is, this fire appears to be incredibly well fuelled and very well destinated.. thats why i m surprised.. the "rebels" have no idea what they want to do with the govt, but they seem to be pretty focused on getting rid of the current rule..
Post a Comment