I was curious about something Glenn Beck has been trotting out over the last week. He is saying that Jared Cohen, who is now employed at Google as the head of “Google Ideas” which somehow deals with the 3rd world and social media, somehow spurred on the revolts in Egypt or at least enabled them with ties to the US State Department. Prior to being hired by Google, apparently he worked for the State Department and had some type of involvement in Iran’s 2009 protests.
So I’m wondering whether or not there is a real connection between the protests and if the United States actually wanted them to happen? If that’s the case, then it doesn’t mesh with the Lew Rockwell-ish mantra that Mubarak had the support of the United States government as a puppet dictator. But then again, you can never really know when the government removes their support–After all, they did support Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden once upon a time.
How could Mubarak not have US support what with all the aid Egypt receives and all the american weapons they hold? Of course I wouldn’t rule out the possiblity of them playing both sides. The middle east is constantly in use as a bunch of political science experiments one after another.
If you can play both sides, then you win either way. I would be surprised if the events in Egypt and elsewhere are not at least partially contrived. That is also why I have been very leery of all of the self-congratulation seemingly on all sides.
Yeah, I mean that’s where I was headed. It seemed like the US liked Mubarak enough to send his military aid because he was kind of a useful guy in charge; as long as he didn’t give Israel any problems, his military would be funded and his police would be trained by the FBI. So why then would the State Department try to usher on a revolt? It wouldn’t surprise me if Google and Youtube spur this activity because they view it as a sort of humanitarian cause, but then again, I don’t know what the State would have to gain from it. Something doesn’t mesh here.
Of course this is granting that Beck’s conspiracy theory is on the mark.
Do you think the CIA guys and gals are just sitting around with their thumbs up their asses? I mean it’s conjecture, but it’s at least plausible. The state would have a lot of things, potentially, to gain. Perhaps one benefit would be an even more pliable puppet government with the appearances of democracy. Perhaps a new strategy or agenda is being implemented. It could be a distraction. I mean, hell, there are tons of possibilities.
Of course. I’m just trying to avoid being the “Wikileaks is obviously a government plant because they didn’t release anything that shows 9/11 was a fraud” guy. I think there may be a thing as being too conspiratorial. I agree that it is conjecture, but the reason I posted this on the Mises board is because mainly on Rockwell’s blog, the mantra was that the US government was being defied by the revolts in Egypt because the US wanted Mubarak in.
In essence, the point I’m making was made in another thread about the Kosovo War. Even though there may be politically motivated reasons involved instead of governments using force for the betterment of humanity, there could still be positive benefits. I wouldn’t want to assume that provoking an Egyptian revolt is a bad thing just because it may of had the support of the State department.
Of course, “sources” at the Times and Post said that Google would not release personal information to the NSA, but who knows if that’s really true. I don’t know what Beck’s evidence is concerning Google and Egypt, but I think one way you could start figuring this out is by looking at what corporations will benefit from new government protections in Egypt, etc. etc.