Talk:Anti-Mubarak protesters in Cairo beaten by the police

This story is part of World War III; the link below shows, perhaps, how WWIII was engineered ?

[[1]]

Isn't this guy who has been in power 24 years, Mubarak, on our side? one of the "good guys"? If so, then why is this the"first in 24 years presidential elections with more than one candidate"? I hope the people overthrow this one more slimy dictator who's on our side (Suharto,Batista,Marcos,Pinochet,Shah of Iran,Saud club)

George Bush Sr. has 12 prime military aged grand children(7 men and 5 women). None of them are fighting for freedom; they are all lounging in Maine and Palm Beach. The link above shows how Bush Team #1 engineered WW III by giving Saddam the "green light" for attacking Kuwait; If you do not feel like reading the entire transcript, you can scroll to the section in red where the U.S. Ambassador,upon instructions from President Bush Sr., assures Saddam that the U.S. will not intervene in the Iraq/Kuwait conflict.

"We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. we express no opinion on this issue and the issue is not associated with America."

Then, like a good papa hyena, Bush Sr. left some of his catch for his cub to finish eating. As Paul Harvey always said.."now, that's the rest of the story." Paulrevere2005 19:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

May I refer you to the talk page guidelines on Wikipedia where we learn that Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article. I don't believe your comments on this talk page (or other comments on other talk pages consisting of similar content) concern improving articles. It may be we should develop a policy to address this situation. --Chiacomo (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we can have a special area for random news chatter? :) Or we might point to another wiki..? Guaka 11:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• The word "chatter" means this type of back and forth..similar to a "chat" room; not one person's opinions about the background contributing events relating,in his opinion, to the particular article; events he may believe actually belong in the story. The focus of an article must be narrow; the focus of the talk page is allowed to be broad and free. Also, the community has already addressed this topic on the water cooler[[2]](1.6 Talk page comments) and as Dan says, one of the problems is where to draw the line e.g.; should these comments about "assault rifles" not be allowed?[[3]];who will be the censor? you?..and remember, this is not Wikipedia. Paulrevere2005 12:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

You've posted the same chunk of text on these article discussion pages. That's not discussion. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 14:32, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Typo

{{editprotected}}
"presidental" => "presidential" Van der Hoorn (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Done ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 18:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)