Thursday, February 03, 2011

Revolution in Egypt!

*******
Egyptian Freedom demands Muslim Brotherhood’s removal from Political Process
If the Muslim Brotherhood succeeds in dominating Egypt, Egypt will become America's newest terrorist threat
By George Koukeas
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Now that Mubarak is no longer in power, the Muslim Brotherhood needs to be neutralized or else Egypt will gradually become an Islamic dictatorship like Iran. The Muslim Brotherhood’s method of takeover is cultural jihad. That means the Brotherhood is going to infiltrate Egypt’s political and religious “cultures” with Islamic-fascist ideas. This will practically lead to an Islamic dictatorship. The Brotherhood is hiding behind opposition leader Mohamed Elbaradei. If Elbaradei gains influence, the Islamic radicals can influence Egyptian society. The necessity of destroying Muslim Brotherhood influence is a point most Yahoo news articles are missing.
In his article, “Post-Mubarak: How the U.S. Plans to Aid Democracy in Egypt”, Massimo Calabresi wrote, “…the US is preparing a new package of assistance to Egyptian opposition groups designed to help with constitutional reform, democratic development and election organizing…”. One of those groups is the Muslim Brotherhood. So, Obama is going to support them, as well.
The other problem is that “democratic development and election organizing” only means that the people will be able to vote for different parties. This does not guarantee a free society based on the supremacy of individual rights. Historically, German citizens voted Hitler’s Nazi Socialist Party into power. Consequently, a dictatorship hell-bent on world-domination was established. Further, Hitler got himself voted into power by waging his own version of “cultural jihad”: by spreading Nazi Socialist ideology into German society and taking advantage of the people’s disillusionment with pre-Nazi politics. So, the Muslim Brotherhood’s plan for an Islamic dictatorship in Egypt could be voted into power, too.
“Dictatorship” implies oppressing the people through governmental force. So the solution is for Obama and the Egyptians to recognize that a free society starts with banning oppressive force from the political process. Rule by force must be banished from that process by extirpating the despotic Muslim Brotherhood, which like the Nazis, wants a dictatorship in every nation.
If the Obama administration helps opposition parties including Elbaradei’s Muslim Brotherhood, then a coercive element is already tainting Egypt’s political machinery.
The Muslim Brotherhood has used force, supported terrorist violence and cultural jihad over the last few decades. If they run politically in Egypt, the Islamic radicals will represent future despotism as well as the past (and future) use of force. Representing that, the Muslim Brotherhood does not deserve to be competing for the people’s votes in Egypt’s political future. This holds equally true for the Brotherhood’s figure-head, Elbaradei. For a fuller explanation of here.
Obama’s failure to block the Muslim Brotherhood from political power is more than just a seriously bad oversight: it is an intentional decision! That is because Obama likes supporting dictators. He supported Mel Zelaya in Honduras against the authorities and people who were trying to remove him from power for violating their constitution.
Most relevantly, Obama had chosen Dahlia Mogahed, a dishonest Muslim propagandist, as his Muslim Affairs advisor. She was the corrupt Muslim who equated “Sharia Law” with women’s’ rights on the Islam Channel talk show. Read more about it here. In reality, Sharia Law blends “church and state” to the detriment of people’s rights. Read about it here.
Mogahed’s false information is the same propaganda the Muslim Brotherhood advocates. Therefore, collaboration between the two is highly plausible. As Mogahed’s appointer, Obama is complicit in any such connection.
As Obama permits the Muslim Brotherhood’s continued involvement with Egyptian politics, he is acting consistently with his support for dishonest Islamists and socialist despots. Hence, Obama’s “oversight” is likely deliberate.
If the Muslim Brotherhood succeeds in dominating Egypt, Egypt will become America’s newest terrorist threat. That means Brotherhood radicals will be better able to support other lslamic terrorists and deny the US benefits Mubarak gave Americans regarding Middle East operations. The Brotherhood will also have the illusion of legitimacy that being a “country” or “state” would create. Hence, America’s (and Israel’s) enemies will become more formidable to Western countries.
*******
'Egypt is Free' chants Tahrir after Mubarak quits
Associated Press Maggie Michael And Lee Keath
11 Feb 2011
*******
Egyptians celebrate in Tahrir Square after President Hosni Mubarak resigns in Cairo, Egypt.

CAIRO – Cries of "Egypt is free" rang out and fireworks lit up the sky as hundreds of thousands danced,
wept and prayed in joyful pandemonium Friday after 18 days of peaceful pro-democracy protests forced President Hosni Mubarak to surrender power to the military, ending three decades of authoritarian rule.
Ecstatic protesters in Cairo's Tahrir, or Liberation, Square hoisted soldiers onto their shoulders and families posed for pictures in front of tanks in streets flooded with people streaming out to celebrate. Strangers hugged each other, some fell to kiss the ground, and others stood stunned in disbelief.
Chants of "Hold your heads high, you're Egyptian" roared with each burst of fireworks overhead.
"I'm 21 years old and this is the first time in my life I feel free," an ebullient Abdul-Rahman Ayyash, born eight years after Mubarak came to power, said as he hugged fellow protesters in Tahrir Square.
An astonishing day in which hundreds of thousands marched on Mubarak's palaces in Cairo and Alexandria and besieged state TV was capped by the military effectively carrying out a coup at the pleas of protesters. After Mubarak's fall, the military, which pledged to shepherd reforms for greater democracy, told the nation it would announce the next steps soon. Those could include the dissolving of parliament and creation of a transitional government.
Mubarak's downfall at the hands of the biggest popular uprising in the modern history of the Arab world had stunning implications for the United States and the West, Israel, and the region, unsettling rulers across the Mideast.
The 82-year-old leader epitomized the complex trade-off the United States was locked into in the Middle East for decades: Support for autocratic leaders in return for stability, a bulwark against Islamic militants, a safeguard of economic interests with the oil-rich Gulf states and peace — or at least an effort at peace — with Israel.
The question for Washington now was whether that same arrangement will hold as the Arab world's most populous state makes a potentially rocky transition to democracy, with no guarantee of the results.
At the White House, President Barack Obama said "Egyptians have inspired us." He noted the important questions that lay ahead, but said, "I'm confident the people of Egypt can find the answers."
The United States at times seemed overwhelmed during the upheaval, fumbling to juggle its advocacy of democracy and the right to protest, its loyalty to longtime ally Mubarak and its fears the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood — or more radical groups — could gain a foothold. Mubarak's fall came 32 years to the day after the collapse of the shah's government in Iran, the prime example of a revolution that turned to Islamic militancy.
In Egypt, persecuted democracy activists frequently denounced the U.S. government for not coming down harder on Mubarak's rights abuses. Washington's mixed messages during the crisis frustrated the young protesters. They argued that while the powerful Brotherhood will have to be allowed to play a future political role, its popularity would be diminished in an open system where other ideologies are freed to outweigh it.
Neighboring Israel watched with the crisis with unease, worried that their 1979 peace treaty could be in danger. It quickly demanded on Friday that post-Mubarak Egypt continue to adhere to it.
Any break seems unlikely in the near term. The military leadership supports the treaty. Anti-Israeli feeling is strong among Egyptians, and a more democratic government may take a tougher line toward Israel in the chronically broken-down peace process. But few call for outright abrogating a treaty that has kept peace after three wars in the past half-century.
From the oil-rich Gulf states in the east to Morocco in the west, regimes both pro- and anti-U.S. could not help but worry they could see a similar upheaval. Several of the region's rulers have made pre-emptive gestures of democratic reform to avert their own protest movements.
The lesson many took: If it could happen in only three weeks in Egypt, where Mubarak's lock on power appeared unshakable, it could happen anywhere. Only a month earlier, Tunisia's president was forced to step down in the face of protests.
"This is the greatest day of my life.", Nobel Peace laureate Mohammed ElBaradei, whose young supporters were among the organizers of the protest movement, told The Associated Press.
"The country has been liberated after decades of repression," he said adding that he expects a "beautiful" transition of power.
Perhaps most surprising was the genesis of the force that overthrew Mubarak.
The protests were started by a small core of secular, liberal youth activists organizing on the Internet who only a few months earlier struggled to gather more than 100 demonstrators at a time. But their work through Facebook and other social network sites over the past few years built greater awareness and bitterness among Egyptians over issues like police abuse and corruption.
"Facebook brought down the regime," said Sally Toma, one of the main protest organizers.
When the online activists called the first major protest, on Jan. 25, they tapped into a public inspired by Tunisia's revolt and thousands turned out, beyond even the organizers' expectations. From there, protests swelled, drawing hundreds of thousands. The Muslim Brotherhood joined in. But far from hijacking the protests as many feared, it often seemed co-opted by the protesters, forced to set aside its hard-line ideology at least for now to adhere to democratic demands.
About 300 people were killed in the course of the turmoil. Police attacked the first protests with water cannons and gunfire and then a force of regime supporters _believed to be paid thugs — assaulted Tahrir trying to dislodge the protesters, only to be beaten back in two days of pitched battles.
Wael Ghonim, a Google Inc. executive who earlier this year secretly created a Facebook page that became a crucial protester organizing forum, said he "went mad" when he heard the news of Mubarak's ouster.
"I expect a bright future. I trust in 80 million Egyptians," Ghonim, who was arrested immediately after the protests began and held for 12 days, told The Associated Press.
Mubarak, a former air force commander came to power after the 1981 assassination of his predecessor Anwar Sadat by Islamic radicals. Throughout his rule, he showed a near obsession with stability, ensuring control through rigged elections, a constitution his regime wrote, a ruling party that monopolized the levers of state, and a hated police force accused of widespread torture.
He resisted calls for reform even as public bitterness grew over corruption, deteriorating infrastructure and rampant poverty in a country where 40 percent live below or near the poverty line.
Throughout the crisis, Mubarak backpedaled with concessions, replacing his government, purging his ruling party and moving to prosecute some of its most unpopular figures. But the moves did nothing to diminish the regime's power — and did not satisfy the steadily swelling protests.
Up to the last hours, Mubarak sought to cling to power, handing some of his authorities to his newly appointed Vice President Omar Suleiman while keeping his title.
But an explosion of protests Friday rejecting the move appeared to have pushed the military into forcing him out completely.
Hundreds of thousands flooded the main squares of cities around the nation. Soldiers stood by, even threw cookies and biscuits to protesters who massed in front of Mubarak's palaces in Cairo and Alexandria, chanting for him to go. Others blockaded the towering State Television and Radio Building overlooking the Nile River in Cairo, blocking employees from entering.
Ahmed Kassam, an engineer, said he marched with crowds for two hours across Cairo from Tahrir to the Oruba palace. "We were shouting at people standing in their balconies and they came down and joined us. We have thousands behind us," he said. "Today I feel that something is going to change. I feel very, very powerful."
Protesters stormed the main security headquarters in southern Egypt's main city Assiut, and two were killed by police opening fire before the province's governor was forced to flee, escorted to safety by the army.
The ousted Mubarak himself flew to his isolated palace in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, 250 miles from the turmoil in Cairo.
Suleiman — who appears to have lost his vice president's post as well in the military takeover — appeared grim as he delivered the short announcement on state TV Friday night that Mubarak was stepping down.
"In these grave circumstances that the country is passing through, President Hosni Mubarak has decided to leave his position as president of the republic," he said. "He has mandated the Armed Forces Supreme Council to run the state. God is our protector and succor."
The question now turned to what happens next. Protesters on Friday had overtly pleaded for the army to oust Mubarak. The country is now ruled by the Armed Forces Supreme Council, consisting of the military's top generals and headed by Defense Minister Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi
After Mubarak's resignation, a military spokesman appeared on state TV and promised the army would not act as a substitute for a government based on the "legitimacy of the people."
He said the military was preparing the next steps needed "to acheive the ambitions of our great nation" and would announce them soon. He praised Mubarak for his contributions to the country. Pointedly, he did not salute his former commander-in-chief. Instead he stood at attention and raised his hand to his cap in a salute to protesters killed in the unrest.
Abdel-Rahman Samir, one of the protest organizers, said the movement would now open negotiations with the military over democratic reforms but vowed protests would continue to ensure change is carried out.
"We still don't have any guarantees yet — if we end the whole situation now, then it's like we haven't done anything," he said. "So we need to keep sitting in Tahrir until we get all our demands."
But, he added, "I feel fantastic. .... I feel like we have worked so hard, we planted a seed for a year and a half and now we are now finally sowing the fruits."
For the moment, concerns over the next step were overwhelmed by the wave of joy and disbelief — and an overwhelming pride that they had waged a peaceful campaign crowned with success.
In Tahrir Square, the crowds of several hundred thousand watched and listed to Suleiman's speech on televisions and on mobile-phone radios. When he finished, they burst into wild cheers, waving flags and chanting "Allahu akbar," or "God is Great" and "the people have brought down the regime."
Spontaneous lines of dancers threaded through the packed mass of people. One man kissed the ground and thanked God while others screamed, "Hosni is gone, Hosni is gone." Around the capital of 18 million, cars honked their horns in celebration.
"I am 42 years old and my children can finally live in free," said Mahmoud Ghandem, who joined the Tahrir protests five days ago from his Nile Delta town of Kafr el-Sheikh.
Outside the Oruba presidential palace, one man sprawled on the grass in shock amid the cheers. Others handed out sweets and waved their hands in V-for-victory signs. The crowd then began to march in a sea of Egyptian flags back to the protest's heart, Tahrir.
Throughout the night, Tahrir Square and the surrounding downtown streets were transformed into a massive party. Thousands streamed in from across the city, jamming bridges over the Nile. Army checkpoints surrounding the square for days melted away as some soldiers threw themselves into the throngs. In the streets, parents took pictures of their children posing with Egyptian flags.
State television, a bastion of unwavering support for Mubarak, had an almost instant change of tone. After disparaging the protesters as foreign-backed troublemakers for days, it began reporting the celebrations as a victory for freedom. Egyptians, one reporter outside Oruba palace proclaimed, "are able to move the waters that have been still for 30 years."
Ala Moussa, a 24-year-old from Alexandria who came Friday to join the Cairo protests, took off his glasses to wipe away tears. He had been shot by a rubber bullet during earlier protests in his hometown.
"For 50 years, it was a police state and we adapted ourselves to it," he said. "The question now is, can we take another route. I hope so."
AP correspondents Paul Schemm, Ryan Lucas, Hamza Hendawi, Sarah El Deeb, Hadeel al-Shalchi, Tarek el-Tablawy and Maggie Hyde contributed to this report.
*******
Bush W & Mubarak
Clinton & Mubarak
Bush Sr. & Mubarak
******* 
*******
Hurriya is Arabic for Freedom: Just Listen to Egypt Roar
By Ramzy Baroud
Global Research, February 10, 2011
“Just listen to that roar,” urged a CNN correspondent in Egypt, as thousands of Egyptian protesters charged, fists pumped, against hundreds of armed Egyptian security forces. What a roar it was, indeed. The protests have shown the world that Arabs are capable of much more than merely being pitiable statistics of unemployment and illiteracy, or powerless subjects of ‘moderate’ but ‘strong’ leaders (an acronym for friendly dictators).
The times are changing, and British MP George Galloway’s comment about the Arab lion roaring again seems truer by the day. The Egyptians have revolted in style, and their revolution will go down in history books with such adjectives as “great”, “noble” and “historic”.
Truth be told, Arabs have had their fair share of conjured ‘revolutions’. Arab regimes have always been generous in how they ascribed the loaded term to their military coups or other stunts designed to impress or intimidate the masses. Any modern history of the Arab world will reveal an abundant use of the term ‘thawra’ – revolution. The label has been useful, for those who dared criticize a regime, or demanded basic rights (such as food) could then be dubbed enemies of whatever make-belief revolution the men in power
championed. Innumerable Arab political prisoners were designated ‘a’da’ al-thawra’ – enemies of the revolution – and they paid a heavy price for their ‘crimes’. In Egypt alone, rough estimates put the current number of political prisoners (from different ideological backgrounds) at 20,000. The figure must be much larger now that the new enemies of the revolution – i.e. most of the Egyptian population – have dared demand freedoms, rights, democracy, and the biggest taboo of all: social justice.
If there is any revolution deserving of the name, it is this one. Thanks to Egypt, people the world over have been forced to re-think their previous idea of “Arabs”. Even many of us who insisted that the future of the Middle East could only be decided by the people themselves had eventually started to lose hope. We were told our words were redundant, sentimental, and, at best, an opportunity for poetic reflection, but not realpolitik. Now we know we have been right all along. Egypt is the clearest possible manifestation of the truth of people shaping their own history - not just in the Middle East, but anywhere.
The spontaneous popular revolution in Egypt was a most befitting uplift to the collective humiliation that Arabs have felt for so many years, but even more acutely since the US invasion and utter violation of Iraq.
“It became almost a burden being an Arab”, a caller told Al Jazeera. Looking “Middle Eastern” became sufficient grounds for suspicion in international airports. It was not considered entirely racist to ask such questions as “Are Arabs capable of achieving democracy?” In fact, heated media discussions emanated from the type of questions that pondered what Arabs were – or rather, were not capable of achieving. Every war against the Arabs was done in the name of “bringing” something to people who seemed impeded by their own collective failures. In one of my first political science classes at the University of Washington, years ago, the professor told us that we would be “examining the Middle East, which consists of strong governments and weak peoples.” With the exception of Israel, of course.
The media has long repeated the mantra that Israel is the Middle East’s only democracy. Combined with serious doubts regarding the Arabs’ readiness for democracy, the conclusion offered is: Israel carries similar values to the US, the West, the First World, the civilized hemisphere, and the Arabs epitomize all the ailments of the world. It matters little that Arab regimes were made ‘powerful’ by the backing of their western benefactors, or that oppression – in the name of fighting the enemies of peace and progress – was urged, financed and orchestrated with western interests in mind. The fact that the bullets and canister teargas that killed and wounded numerous Egyptians had the following words inscribed on it in Arabic: ‘suni’a fi al-wilayat al-mutahida al-amrikyia’ – Made in the United States – was also deemed entirely irrelevant to any discussion on how and why Egyptians were being suppressed or why the Arab Lion must never find its roar.
“The much-feted Mossad was taken by surprise,” wrote Uri Avnery. The CIA was too, although US lawmakers are trying to determine “whether the CIA and other spy agencies failed to give President Obama adequate warning of the unfolding crisis in Egypt” (as reported by Greg Miller in the Washington Post,
February 4). Senator Dianne Feinstein who heads the Intelligence Committee, accused the intelligence community of ‘lacking” performance. The CIA should have monitored Facebook more closely, she suggested.
But there can be no telling when a nation revolts. Most of the chanting multitudes have no Facebook accounts. They don’t tweet either. In Tahrir Square, a man with a moustache, dark skin and handsome features carried a cardboard sign on which he had written, rather hurriedly: “I want to eat. My monthly salary is 267 (Egyptian) pounds – approx $45 – and I have four children.”
Others want to breathe the air of freedom. Others still want justice. Dignity. Equality. Democracy. Hope. How can such values be measured, or safeguarded against?
There is a very popular word in Egypt - al-Sabr. It means patience. But noone could predict when the patience would run out. Arab and Egyptian intellectuals didn’t see it coming, and even the country’s opposition parties were caught by surprise. Everyone tried to catch up as millions -of long-oppressed Egyptians erupted in astounding unison: hurriya, hurriya, adalah igtimayyia – freedom, freedom, social justice.
Just when we were told that a religious strife was about to engulf Egypt, and that the people were subdued to the point that there was no hope, millions of brave Egyptians declared a revolution that brought Muslims and Christians together. The courage and the bravery they displayed is enough to restore our faith in the world - in the human race, and in ourselves. Those who are still wondering if Arabs are capable of this or that need not ponder anymore. Just listen to them roar, and you will find the answer.
*******
Obama, Egypt & History of the Muslim Brotherhood
Barack's Reckless Aping of Dead Philosophers is Destined for Disaster
By Kelly O'Connell
Sunday, February 6, 2011
As Egyptians ponder revolution, the globe awaits how this will effect energy prices, Middle East relations, and world stability, especially considering agitation by the Muslim Brotherhood. It is mystifying how Obama supports these protesters, while admitting he hadn’t yet called Mubarak—America’s ally and Egypt’s president. Remember Obama’s deer-in-the-headlights routine when Iranians protested rigged elections. So what is different this time?
As with all things Barack, if we scratch beneath the surface of superficial incompetence we find a genuine commitment to real leftism. It is axiomatic what excites Obama is some form of revolutionary liberalism, hence his “Change” mantra, and all subsequent progressive policies and past associations.
So his backing leftist radicals makes splendid sense considering his instinctual sympathy for Marxist revolutions, Hegel’s fatalism and hem-of-the-garment Islamism. These issues are the topic of this essay.
I. Egyptian Crisis
The 2011 Egyptian unrest has several named causes, including tyranny, grinding poverty, and social
inequality. It should therefore surprise no one these socialist-sounding talking points, undoubtedly true on their own merit, were broadcast by Marxist propagandists.
This point is underscored by reporting from The Graph:
Many Arabic Jan 25 tweets used phrases sounding like Karl Marx… These Egyptian grassroots political activists, most socialist/ Marxist/ unionist, used the momentum of the recent “revolution” in Tunisia to kick-off their January 25th protests.
In the history of communism, many Marxist missionaries were sent internationally to foment revolution. This seems what occurred in Egypt, especially by the Marxist Muslim Brotherhood.
II. History & Beliefs of the Socialist Muslim Brotherhood
The Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan al-Muslimin) was developed in Egypt by Hasan al-Banna in 1928. It is the foundation of the modern Muslim radical movement, according to Ira M. Lapidus in A History of Islamic Societies. Lapidus claims the Muslim Brotherhood platform is:
Restoration of Islamic principles, and a return to the Quran and Islamic piety…the reform of morals, education, economic projects, and the creation of a Muslim state. Islam in their minds was the blueprint for a total modern society and presented itself as an ideological and political alternative to liberalism and communism.
By the 1930s, this religious revival became political. The Brotherhood sent fighters to other countries for uprisings, such as the Suez unrest. They call for a world Islamic state, imposition of Shari’ah law, and the application of socialist principles for “Economic Justice,” writes Lapidus. One detects here a Muslim fascism, seeking return to a glorious past, while resisting liberal democracy.
The Muslim Brotherhood was on the verge of power in Egypt, when Nasser and Sadat did an end-run, overthrowing the king, creating the Egyptian army “Free Officers” regime. This changed liberal parliamentarian rule for a one-party presidential government, embracing Pan-Arabism, similar to the Baath party’s ideology.
Ideology of Muslim Brotherhood & Other Islamic Revivalists
The Muslim Brotherhood represent those wanting to revive the beauty and simplicity of basic Islam. Lapidus describes their ideology:
They believe the Quran and Sunna must be the basis of individual morality, and stress application of the Shari’a in all relevant matters. In social policy they hold the primary role of women should be care of the family. They avoid ideological positions in economic matters, but stress importance of minimizing the differences in wealth between rich and poor. For them, social justice is more important than technological, economic, or administrative issues. In general, these groups believe their society has been corrupted by secular values and only a return to Islamic principles will restore morality, economic health, and political power.
Sayyid Qutb, Egyptian Radical Separatist & Muslim Brotherhood Member
Radical Egyptian scholar Sayyid Qutb is called the Karl Marx of Islamic Revolution. He was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, spending many years behind bars in Egypt for controversial ideas, before execution by Nasser. His 1966 book Milestones on the Road (Ma’alim fi al-tariq) is a classic of Islamic fundamentalism. He is the “Philosopher of Terrorism,” laying down the template followed by al-Qaeda, and other radical Muslim terrorists. Qutb is said to have inspired Osama bin Laden.
One writer describes Milestones:
Part of the originality of “Milestones” was Qutb’s use of the term jahiliyya to depict the abject condition of the Muslim world. Literally meaning ignorance, the term was originally used to describe the benighted condition of Arabia prior to the advent of Islam. But Qutb used it to condemn Muslim governments and societies which, in his eyes, had been corrupted by Western culture and secularism to the point where they had abandoned Islam.
Another scholar describes his works:
Qutb’s major work is Fi Zalal al-Koran (In the Shadow of the Koran), a 30-volume commentary on the Koran started in 1952 and completed in prison. Striking is Qutb’s relentless insistence on the unconditional demands made upon believers. From his reading of the Koran, he deduced Christians are all destined for hell and in other, shorter, later works he polemicised against Christians, Jews and western ways of life.
One can see quite clearly if Qutb is the leading light of the men Barack has backed, the entire world may be in for a helluva ride. Says one scholar about Qutb’s beliefs:
Qutb rejected all kinds of government, secular and theocratic, advocating a kind of anarcho-Islam. His writings have exercised a formative influence on the Taliban, who, under the leadership of the shy, rustic Mullah Omar concentrate on implementing Shari’a in one country under the governance of the Mullahs. And, Qutb’s works have also influenced al-Qaida, which, under the leadership of Bin Laden, aims at a global jihad that will end with all men under direct, unmediated rule of Allah.
III. Jimmy Carter, Ayatollah Khomeini & Iran
Jimmy Carter was a tireless, self-righteous, yet opportunistic moralizer, causing other world leaders to bitterly complain. His ideology exposed a fatal leftist flaw. He believed if an ally had a shortcoming, the appropriate response was shaming, exposing or abandoning them. But socialists who were imperfect deserved protection.
As Dr. Mike Evans writes in Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos: A Carter/Obama Plan That Will Not Work, Carter tossed out the Shah “like a dead mouse.”
Evans writes,
Former French Pres. Valery Giscard d’Estaing said of Carter: “He was a bastard of conscience, a moralist, who treats with total lightness the fact of abandoning a man [the Shah] that we had supported together.”
Carter did this without reflecting upon whether the first Iranian devil might be better than any replacement. The upshot—perhaps Carter saw himself in the Ayatollah, a religious zealot who ceaselessly blasted his enemies as morally compromised. Carter claimed the Ayatollah was a Ghandi-esque character, a “little George Washington.”
Evans claims Carter gave the Ayatollah hundreds of millions of dollars during his four months in Paris.
Khomeini then used these funds for revolution, and seeding al-Qaeda. Carter hailed the Ayatollah as a human rights loving reformer, while booting the imperfect Shah to the curb like a plague corpse.
Dr. Evans describes how...
President Jimmy Carter provided checks of $150 million each to Khomeini who plotted to kill the Shah of Iran and overthrow his nation. Provided $500 million to the Muslim Brotherhood freedom fighters who became the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Wire-transferred $7.9 billion to buy-back the hostages after 444 days of humiliation.
Is history repeating itself with the sanctimonious Obama demanding Mubarak step aside? Does Barack have any idea who will replace the old Egyptian regime? Does he even care? Could we possibly be surprised if a retrograde radical Islamic sect began demanding fundamentalist policy concessions in the name of Allah?
Evans also includes this astounding fact:
Leonid Brezhnev, the former leader of the Soviet Union, warned Jimmy Carter in 1979 NOT to assist in overthrowing the Shah of Iran. He told Carter if he did that Brezehnev would in turn invade Afghanistan
IV. Obama, Marx, Hegel & “Change”
By Obama’s own admissions and actions he is a man of the far left, a socialist, a progressive. King communist Karl Marx himself was deeply influenced by Georg Hegel, especially his Dialectic of History, writes Robert Tucker in The Marxian Revolutionary Idea. Alarmingly, Barack treasures Hegel’s ideas.
Hegel taught history went in cycles, in a kind of vortex, continually growing upwards in sophistication. This meant every regime change or revolution caused civilization to evolve. And this is exactly why socialists and Marxists are so euphoric over the idea of “Change” & “Revolution.” All change is good!
When a real leftist sees an Egypt on verge of revolution, his Marxist instincts encourage him to believe the transition will be salutary. Carter’s staff were also far-leftists, and their beliefs deluded them into blindly backing the Iranian Revolution, creating ongoing unmitigated disaster.
There are profound flaws in Marx’s & Hegel’s political ideas. First, according to Hegel, no person has any Natural Rights against those of the state, therefore justifying all tyranny. Second, individuals only find purpose and salvation in the group, a logical extension of the first idea. Third, according to Hegel and Marx’s Dialectic of History, all states are acceptable for they all lead to higher development.
It follows here Marxism lacks an ethical or moral core. True right or wrong, is merely an opinion, having no basis in absolute fact. Therefore, all moral evolution in the leftist state is an impossible mirage.
Conclusion
Official response by the Obama administration to Egypt is absurd at nearly all levels. First, Barack claims to have warned Mubarak; WH adviser David Axelrod said of Obama... “He’s—on several occasions directly confronted Pres. Mubarak on it. And pushed him on the need for political reform.”
This is confuted by the CIA’s admission:
Stephanie O’Sullivan, a senior CIA official, in testimony to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee on Feb. 3, acknowledged the CIA did not envision the events over the last week in Egypt. She refused to elaborate on the intelligence assessment concerning Egypt.
Second, Obama blanched when asked to confront Iran on human rights issues, but was at the same time
pressuring Egypt for exactly the same kind of reform? Of course! This spin is meant to rehabilitate Barack’s crippled legend as World’s Greatest Leader. Most laughable, Obama’s demand for Egyptian “Consent of the governed” flies in the face of his own refusal to even defend the concept at home. For example, 75% want Obamacare changed.
Third, and most disturbing, Obama seems to have no clear insight into who will assume power in Egypt after this unrest. The fact he might be supporting the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to power, and doesn’t care about their socialism and fanatical Islamic goals would not be a surprise, given his fatalistic, revolution loving world view. Further, considering Barack’s criticism of all things American and Western, and obvious love of Islam, would he even care if the country fell and became another Iran?
Most unnerving of all—we must keep asking ourselves if each successive Obama pratfall is part of a master Muslim/ Marxist plan, or just another strand of the unbroken chain of incompetence from the world’s most overrated leader?
******* 
Egypt: A Sleeping Giant Awakens
By Rannie Amiri
Global Research, February 5, 2011
Poor people gonna rise up
And get their share
Poor people gonna rise up
And take what’s theirs
And finally the tables are starting to turn
Talkin' bout a revolution
– Tracy Chapman’s Talkin’ Bout A Revolution, 1988
The sleeping Egyptian giant has finally awoken.
The Arab world’s most populous nation—85 million strong—has been in political hibernation for 30 long years.
The deep slumber is now over. The reign of Hosni Mubarak will end, sooner or later, as a rejuvenated population sheds apathy’s blanket.
After Israel , Egypt is the second-largest recipient of United States foreign aid. Other than what was embezzled, the $1.5 billion in annual assistance has been spent entirely on the military and bolstering Mubarak’s internal security apparatus. It ultimately ensured the Camp David state remained complaint with the diktats coming out of Tel Aviv and Washington.
Indeed, as a result of peace treaties with its eastern and southern neighbors, Israel has had a free hand in continuing the repression and subjugation of Palestinians.
Take, for example, the crippling, inhumane siege imposed on Gaza . Even the most basic good and supplies were prevented from entering the tiny enclave. (This was the price Palestinians paid for holding democratic elections, which Hamas handily won.) Egypt, to no one’s surprise, enforced all embargo restrictions asked of it.
When Israel launched a vicious military campaign upon Gaza’s destitute population in December 2008, Egypt again became a willing accomplice. Many will contend Mubarak was complicit in those war crimes. By keeping the Rafah border crossing closed, he prevented the evacuation of both malnourished and maimed from a war zone.
Although Egyptians may have quietly seethed at this, it does not compare to the anger and resentment built up over decades of corruption and abuse. The people have grown weary of Emergency Law, implemented and maintained since Anwar Sadat’s 1981 assassination, that prohibits all forms of free speech, expression and assembly. It allows for the indefinite detention of any person without charge. Arrested civilians are then put on trial in front of closed military tribunals. The regime is also notorious for turning a blind eye to routine
police brutality and torture.
In a Jan. 30 appearance on Meet the Press, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton commented on Mubarak’s inevitable removal from power:
“It needs to be an orderly, peaceful transition to real democracy, not faux democracy like the elections we saw in Iran two years ago, where you have one election 30 years ago and then the people just keep staying in power and become less and less responsive to their people.”
Iran? Or Egypt? Although far from perfect, Iran has held far more credible presidential elections than Egypt ever has. Why not hearken to Egypt’s “faux democracy” of just two months ago when Mubarak’s National Democratic Party captured an amazing 420 of 518 parliamentary seats (while the Muslim Brotherhood’s independents went from 88 to one)?
It was a telling self-indictment. The U.S has always tolerated the trappings of democracy in Mubarak’s Egypt, including a rubber-stamp parliament and elections where opposition candidates were either banned or unable to run due to an avalanche of bureaucratic obstacles.
Because he assumed his son Gamal would succeed him, Mubarak also never appointed a vice-president, in violation of Egypt’s constitution. That was until a few days ago when intelligence chief Omar Suleiman was hastily promoted to the job. Gamal has since fled to London .
In Tuesday’s protests, the scope of which was unprecedented in the history of modern Egypt, the world’s eyes were fixed on downtown Cairo’s Tahrir Square. The hundreds of thousands gathered not only called for Mubarak’s ouster, but demanded he be put on trial. His hanging effigy conveyed to viewers that Egyptians will not be satisfied with a token cabinet reshuffle.
“Cairo today is all of Egypt,” said one. “I want my son to have a better life and not suffer as much as I did ... I want to feel like I chose my president.”
Feeling the pressure, Jordan’s monarch King Abdullah II fired his cabinet as demonstrations in Amman continued. The Palestinian Authority under the discredited president Mahmoud Abbas vowed to hold municipal elections in the West Bank. Bahrain is ripe with discontent, to say the least. The same is true for Yemen, where President Ali Abdullah Saleh—who has ruled for 32-years—now says he won’t run for another term. Tunisians have already taken matters into their own hands.
Despite the best efforts of Mubarak, Saudi Arabia, the United States and Israel, the sleeping giant has awoken. And the mass protests we are witnessing in Egypt today ... that is merely a yawn.
*******
Pulling Back the Egyptian Veil
Soros and Iran, want ElBaradei to take power without winning an election
By Daniel Greenfield
Saturday, February 5, 2011
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/32973
The Obama administration is demanding an immediate “transition” in Egypt. By transition they mean that Muslim Brotherhood hand puppet Mohammed ElBaradei should take power immediately without the benefit of winning an election first.
Mubarak has agreed not to run for reelection. ElBaradei said that he won’t run for office, but then said that he might run “if the Egyptian people want me.” (As if the Egyptian people have anything to do with it.) But the foreign backers of the protests, Soros and Iran, want ElBaradei to take power without winning an election.
They know he can’t win an actual election and that the Muslim Brotherhood running directly would upset the West too much. This way ElBaradei gets to play the stalking horse for the Brotherhood. So the calls are not for “open and fair elections”, but for an immediate transition. For Mubarak to leave right now.
Iranians were protesting a stolen election, and in Egypt the protesters want to steal an election
The fundamental difference between the protests in Iran and those in Egypt, is that Iranians were protesting a stolen election, and in Egypt the protesters want to steal an election before it actually takes place.
Here’s the headline and the opening sentence in the Voice of America’s reportage
Huge Cairo Rally Renews Calls for Mubarak Ouster
Tens of thousands of Egyptians gathered in Cairo, Friday, at another rally calling for the immediate ouster of President Hosni Mubarak.
The AP headlines it the same way
Mass anti-Mubarak protest celebrates after battles (AP)
AP - Tens of thousands packed central Cairo Friday, waving flags and singing the national anthem
That’s tens of thousands in a country of eighty million
That’s tens of thousands in a country of eighty million. A whole 0.01% percent of the country has shown up. Which means that Mubarak must go! Right now! No elections needed.
Now the Tea Party has put a lot more people than that into the streets to rally against Obama. Nationalist rallies in Israel have hit the hundreds of thousands, in a country with only a few million of people. But the media has never called them “huge” or treated them as an absolute mandate for change.
Every idiotic article billing this as a democratic transition is a pathetic joke. This is not a democratic transition. This is a manufactured revolution. Food riots co-opted by a student protest movement funded and organized by Soros’ people and then co-opted again by the Islamists.
The media narrative is that El Baradei is the head of a non-violent protest movement and Mubarak is a repressive dictator. But there a couple of problems with that narrative.
ElBaradei sounds a lot more violent than Mubarak. He keeps screaming about blood. Saying that Mubarak is “A Dead Man Walking” is on the grim side too. Uglier than any public statements Mubarak made.
We’re told that the Jan 25 protesters are non-violent and the pro-Mubarak protesters are violent. But there has been violence all along. Looting, prison breaks, rapes and violent clashes. But the narrative has been that all the violence was caused by Mubarak and even the looting of the Egyptian Museum was carried out to be secret agents of the regime. The lawlessness was a cunning plan of the regime. To what extent is this the truth, and to what extent does it typify the irresponsible and conspiratorial mindset of the Muslim world is certainly a good question.
We know what the media wants us to believe. We know the message being put out in selective interviews, particularly with protest leaders, some of whom have gotten training by American and European leftists and backing from Western government officials, making this look uncomfortably like a coup. A coup piggybacking on food protests is an old trick. One of the oldest tricks in the book.
Egypt and food riots
Egypt has been having food riots around this time for a long time. Let’s go back to 1977.
The Egyptian ‘Bread Riots’ of 1977 which rocked most major cities in Egypt from January 18-19 of that year, were a spontaneous uprising by hundreds of thousands of lower class people protesting World Bank and International Monetary Fund-mandated termination of state subsidies on basic foodstuffs. As many as 800 people were wounded, and the protests were only ended with the deployment of the army.
The riots’ origin lay in president Anwar Sadat’s ‘Infitah’ policy, which had, since he took power in the beginning of the decade, sought to liberalize the economy. In 1976, he sought loans from the World Bank in an effort to relieve the country’s debt burden; the bank criticized the state’s policy of subsidizing basic foodstuffs, and Sadat announced in January 1977 that it was ending subsidies on flour, rice, and cooking oil and that it would cancel state employee bonuses and pay increases.
Popular rejection of the announcement was not long in coming: On January 18 and 19, rioting by lower-class people who would be hardest hit by the cancellation of the subsidies erupted across the country, from Aswan in upper Egypt to Alexandria on the shores of the Mediterranean… Some 79 people were killed and many more injured. The rioting ended when the state abruptly canceled the new policies.
Or only two years ago in 2008
MAHALLA EL-KOBRA, Egypt—Egypt rushed Tuesday to grant bonuses to workers after two days of deadly riots over high food prices and low wages wracked this northern industrial city, fueling government fears that economic angst might boil over across the country.
And guess what was going on in Egypt in 2008-2010. Economic liberalization.
For the technocrats it was the fiscal and economic policy that was their domain and they performed miracles. The Egyptian economy under the Nazif government showed unprecedented growth. The currency was devalued, investment was pouring in, and exports were growing. Even the economic crisis did not dramatically effect Egypt. The real disaster in all of this however is that no one actually rationalized or defended those policies to the Egyptian public. The country was moving towards a full capitalist system but no explained why that was needed or why it was ultimately beneficial.
While such restructuring is naturally painful for a population that was dependent on the government for all its needs, the people were fed the same socialist rhetoric nonetheless. It mattered very little that the country was improving economically, people did not see that. It is not that the effects were not trickling down, they were. It is that the people were used to the nanny state for so many years that they could not understand why the government was no longer providing them with those services.
So much for Jan 25. So much for ElBaradei, whose backers knew very well this was coming and got out in front of it.
Even most of the student protesters aren’t there for ElBaradei, but his foreign backers have positioned him as the head of the movement. The media keeps photographing him clutching a megaphone. He’s the appointed leader, not by Egyptians or even by the protesters, but by the foreign interests behind them.
Their greatest fear is that the riots and protests will peter out, everyone will go home and Jan 25 will be over.
“National Association for Change” aka Kefaya
It’s time to ask some serious questions about the “National Association for Change” aka Kefaya and who is really behind it. It seems to have a bigger presence in the United States than it does in Egypt via the Egyptian Association For Change (EAC) which is headquartered in Washington D.C.
We already have connections between Ayers, Code Pink and the Muslim Brotherhood. Kefaya, in its various incarnations, was originally tied to anti-American and anti-Israel protests. Its Declaration to the Nation lambasted the “odious assault” on Iraq, and warned that American designs were a peril to the survival of the Arab peoples.
Then there’s Kefaya’s co-opting by the Islamists
at the end of 2006, a more serious split occurred after an anonymous article was posted on Kefaya’s website apparently supporting an anti-veil stance advocated by Farouk Hosni, the Minister of Culture. Although the article was subsequently removed, seven key figures, all pro-Islamist, announced their intention to quit the movement. One, Magdi Ahmed Hussein, declared that Kefaya had “failed to find the middle ground between the Islamists and liberals…”
The middle ground being surrender to the Islamist agenda.
The movement’s co-ordinator since 2004, George Ishak, stepped down in January 2007 to be replaced by Abdel Wahhab Al-Messiri, a renowned anti-zionist scholar and former member of both the Egyptian Communist Party and Muslim Brotherhood.
Being an Islamist and a Communist is not that much of a contradiction in the Muslim world. Anti-semitism is generally mandatory. Al-Messiri has since died and appears to have been replaced by Ishak again. With his leftist credentials and coptic background, Ishak also makes a better figurehead.
Of course Anti-Semitism is a natural part of Muslim, and particularly Egyptian politics. Opponents accuse Mubarak of working for the Jews. Pro-government media accuse ElBaradei of working for the Jews. The whole thing might seem nauseating to observers, but this is commonplace, and not just in the Muslim world. Remember that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is treated as a factual history in Egypt, and in much of the
Muslim world.
And the accusations being hurled by everyone from George Soros to FP bloggers that Israel is to blame for the situation in Egypt, smacks of a Westernized version of that same kind of thinking
Still the real question is how much of this was organized outside of Egypt. The slow and hesitant response by the Obama Administration, going from zero to condemnations over several days (mirroring his reaction in the Iran protests) suggests that he wasn’t in on it. But that doesn’t mean elements within the American government may not have played a part beyond just training and funding the so-called grass roots opposition.
The army was actually still far away from deploying in Cairo. Because no one had imagined that the situation would totally be out of control, the level of alert of the army was never raised. Officers were not called from their vacations and the whole top command of the Egyptian army was actually thousands of miles away in Washington for strategic prearranged discussions at the Pentagon.
Interesting timing isn’t it. If you wanted to pull off something like this, getting the top commanders out of the country would be key to any plan. And it would give key officials a chance to press them to take a side.
I don’t want to go too far into the realm of speculation, but does anyone remember our good friend Samantha Power?
Samantha Power had a special position created for her by her buddy Barack as Senior Director of Multilateral Affairs on the Staff of the National Security Council.
The Office advises and assists the President and the National Security Adviser on all aspects of U.S. foreign policy relating to democracy and human rights promotion, humanitarian affairs (including refugee and migration issues), international broadcasting, United Nations affairs, international peace-keeping and sanctions policy.
And guess who was attending meetings with Egyptian activists a few months ago. Samantha Power.
Flash over to right now and…
The concerted and growing U.S. pressure on Mubarak to step down came as the Obama White House told regional experts with whom it has been consulting that it considers Tuesday"pivotal” in Cairo, said Marc Lynch, a Middle East expert at George Washington University who was among a group of Egypt experts who met with the National Security Council’s Dan Shapiro and Samantha Power at the White House Monday.
I guess we now know what Samantha Power’s real job is. Power was a director of Soros’ International Crisis Group. Now she’s moved on to the National Security Council. A lot more resources and power to get the job done.
But Soros may have lost his bet after all. The protests appear to be fizzling. Mubarak is passing on power to

the army. The net effect of the protests has been to neuter economic liberalization for Egypt. Not democracy or freedom, but the resumption of the status quo.
Yet who’s to say that wasn’t Soros’ endgame all along. To push out Gamal Mubarak. Soros is a James Bond villain, but he’s also an international businessman who’s expert at profiting from crisis.
For more sources, take a look at Michael Savage’s piece on the subject which charges Obama with extensive complicity. (Via Onward James)
Andrew Bostom has a piece at American Thinker on Egypt, ‘Hurriyya’ Vs. Freedom, and ‘Muslim Moderates’ (see below for article)
INN has a report from an Egyptian newspaper that Hamas is behind some of the violence in Egypt
Michael J Totten may have said it simplest and best.
All this talk about whether democracy in Egypt will be a good thing or a bad thing just goes to show how misunderstood the word democracy is. Democracy refers not so much to elections but to liberalism in the general sense of the word.
If Egyptians elect the Muslim Brotherhood in a free and fair election, and the Muslim Brotherhood then rigs or even cancels every election that follows, Egypt will not be in any way shape or form a democracy. It will be a dictatorship that happened to have an election.
Mature liberal democracies have checks and balances, the separation of powers, equal rights for minorities, restrictions on the power and reach of the victors, and guarantees that those who lose will not be persecuted.
The Arab world doesn’t need a one-time plebiscite on whom the next tyrant is going to be.
Family Security Matters has a piece on Napolitano’s own Muslim Brotherhood affiliate meetings
But there’s plenty of stupid on the other side of the board. Lawrence Auster has been covering some of the meltdown by some prominent neo-conservatives (not a term I like to use, as it’s mainly employed as an insult these days and has limited self-identification). Auster divides it into Democracy Wars, The Neocons Strike Back, and The Return of the Conservatives.
They see a danger in Mubarak’s fall, and they are right: we do not know who will take over now or in a year or two from now. But this is at bottom a crazy reaction. What they are afraid of is the Muslim Brotherhood, right? Mubarak has ruled for THIRTY YEARS and leaves us a Brotherhood that is that powerful? Isn’t that all the proof we need that dictatorship is not the way to fight the Brotherhood? He crushed the moderate and centrist groups and left the Brothers with an open field. He is to blame for the Brothers’ popularity and strength right now. The sooner he goes the better.
That’s Elliot Abrams’ curious logic. So if Mubarak wasn’t strong enough to completely crush the brotherhood, than somehow an alliance that includes the Brotherhood will do it?
This entire line of argument comes down to the assertion that the only way to beat the Muslim Brotherhood is to allow it to participate in the system. Then it will somehow either lose support or become either a safe and
harmless player in the political process.
This is magical thinking. Magical democracy thinking that presumes that when there is democracy, people will not choose to vote for them. Or they will become fuzzy kittens.
The American example is a bad one in this regard. We do have open elections, but we also have a two party system. A third party that was explicitly Nazi or Communist can in theory participate in our system, but in practice would be closed out by the same mechanisms that close out most third parties. And if an explicitly Nazi or Communist party were on the verge of taking power. They would be banned. We would ban them out of sheer necessity.
Any Egyptian political party that forms an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood is a clear and present danger to everyone, from Egyptian Christians to the country’s education women all the way over to America. Trying to make it about Israel is a cynical leftist strategy, not too different from the protesters holding pictures of Mubarak defaced with Stars of David.
Auster views this as proof a split between neo-cons and Israel. The reality is that neo-conservatives have only been interested in Israel as proof of their thesis that democracy leads to a healthy society. Their interest in Israel’s security has been minimal, and their contextual reading of Israeli and Arab governments as based on cultural and intellectual differences, rather than accidents of history, have led us part of the way into this quagmire.
Abrams has a new article up at CFR demanding that Mubarak step down.
Americans must wonder why Egypt’s President does not understand what seems obvious to so many of us: that he should step down now and thereby help bring Egypt’s crisis to an end.
A better question would be why Americans like Elliot Abrams don’t understand that image is not reality and that insisting he step down because of street protests is a cynical ploy.
He (Mubarak) has never viewed Egypt, not for one day during his three decades of power, as a stable country. I can recall his reaction to small incidents like a demonstration of workers here or there, a strike, or a protest over bread prices. He saw these not as minor annoyances but as dangerous moments, and rushed to provide subsidies for prices and send in police reinforcements. The cork could pop out of the bottle at any time, he seemed to think. He genuinely believes that absolute chaos would result if he stepped aside.
And Mubarak’s thesis has been indisputably proven this week. Even without him stepping down, the country has descended into chaos.
The second component is his view that Arabs must be ruled with an iron hand. This was his practice in Egypt and his repeated recommendation to Americans for Iraq; he thought Iraq could only be governed by a tough-minded general, the same formula he obviously liked and lived for Egypt. The choice for Arab lands was a tough general, a clever king, or chaos.
Which is exactly how it is. But Abrams still insists that he knows better than Mubarak.
But let’s now take a look at Iraq after 7 years of American management and democracy training—and Egypt under Mubarak. Egypt without Mubarak looks like it has more in common with Iraq without Saddam.
None of this nonsense about democracy, not in the Arab world. In this he took the view that President Bush abandoned in his Freedom Agenda‚ that the Arab world was not and would never be ready for democracy. If there was ever a proponent of “Arab exceptionalism,” it was Hosni Mubarak. To him these were the sole places on earth where freedom had to be kept at bay.
Actually it’s not the sole place on earth. Mubarak would have probably said the same thing about parts of Africa and Asia, and some countries like Mexico as well. Democracy can’t be applied to every part of the world like candy. It requires readiness.
Abrams restates his version of Mubarak’s views, and treats them as if they were understandably absurd. As if any part of the world is ready for democracy. But then let’s have a simple test for it. We’ll declare that every country who holds open and democratic elections will be given ten nuclear missiles by the United States to do with as they please. Would Abrams think this a safe experiment?
And at 82 nothing will change his mind. Sending a retired diplomat to see him or having the President call him has no impact. Mubarak came to his conclusions about how to rule Egypt based on the experiences of his life, and the only way he’ll go is if he’s pushed. The Egyptian Army must undertake that responsibility, and the sooner the better.
But why exactly should the army do this? What’s in it for the army… besides American aid. And that’s the kicker here, isn’t it. And making the army into the determiners of Egypt’s future would only affirm Mubarak’s views. That power in Egypt depends on strength and armed force.
Let’s sum up. Mubarak must leave before there are “huge” crowds of tens of thousands protesters. And if he won’t leave, we’ll use the army to pressure him to leave. And his replacement will be a coalition between Iran and Sweden’s favorite Egyptian ElBaradei and the Muslim Brotherhood.
This may be the best plan that the foreign affairs people have ever come up with. Almost as good as the plan to push out the Shah and replace him with a democratic government of protesters in alliance with the Ayatollah Khomeini.
How did that one go? Let’s take an ugly walk down the black brick road to Tehran, 1979.
INSKEEP: You mentioned university students who have leftist ideologies. You mentioned people who wanted democracy. They wanted more freedom. They wanted more openness. They wanted things that sound, to our ears, like Western values. And yet this same giant crowd was the crowd that welcomed Ayatollah Khomeini when he returned to Iran to take control.
Mr. NAJI: He played a very clever game. Those days, before he returned to Tehran, all he would talk about was democracy and freedom. He would not talk about a religious revolution. He wouldn’t talk about a religious state, and democracy and freedom worked for us too, on the left, in a sense that we wanted to have a say. And freedom and democracy would provide that.
Of course that’s exactly how it turned out with freedom and democracy for everyone. And executions.
I remember a few months after the Revolution, they were executing about 100, 150, 160 people a day and they would announce and print their names in the afternoon papers. I used to - I remember, I used to go and get the afternoon papers and just go home and sort of cry because you just, you know, just going through these names of, you know, a lot of people you didn’t know, but obviously, you know, the night before 160 people had been executed. And this went on for months on end.
Of course there’s no chance at all of history repeating itself. We know that’s not what history does. Instead history does exactly what we want it to do. When we’re CFR members anyway.
And then a year or two down the line, the extremists are divided into two between the moderate extremists and the other extremists. And then the moderate extremists are eliminated, and so on and so forth. And we’ve got to this point, that today, the extreme of the Islamic establishment is in power today in the shape of President Ahmadinejad and his supporters. And even amongst them now, we would see this fight between the moderates - if you like - extremists, and the extremists behind President Ahmadinejad.
INSKEEP: Moderate extremists is not a phrase that I’ve heard used that often.
(Soundbite of laughter)
Mr. NAJI: No
Moderate extremists. Sounds like the Muslim Brotherhood.
*******
Egypt, 'Hurriyya' Vs. Freedom, and 'Muslim Moderates'
Andrew G. Bostom
February 04, 2011
Ominous polling data from the contemporary Egyptian population reflect their deep, longstanding favorable inclination toward the Sharia, in all its totalitarian, brutally anti-freedom "glory." The electorally successful Algerian Sharia supremacists of two decades ago came up with an apt expression of where such sentiments lead, given a one man, one vote (and likely, one time) opportunity: "Islamic State by the Will of the People!"
Despite ebullient appraisals of events in Egypt -- which optimistic observers insist epitomize American hopes and values at their quintessential best -- there is a profound, deeply troubling flaw in such hagiographic analyses which simply ignore the vast gulf between Western and Islamic conceptions of freedom itself. The current polling data indicating that three-fourths of the Egyptian population are still enamored of the totalitarian Sharia confirms that this yawning gap still exists -- strikingly so -- in our era.
Hurriyya (Arabic for "freedom") and the uniquely Western concept of freedom are completely at odds. Hurriyya 'freedom' is -- as Ibn Arabi (d. 1240) the lionized "Greatest Sufi Master", expressed it -- "being perfect slavery." And this conception is not merely confined to the Sufis' perhaps metaphorical understanding of the relationship between Allah the "master" and his human "slaves."
The late American scholar of Islam, Franz Rosenthal (d. 2003) analyzed the larger context of hurriyya in Muslim society. He notes the historical absence of hurriyya as "...a fundamental political concept that could have served as a rallying cry for great causes."
An individual Muslim, "...was expected to consider subordination of his own freedom to the beliefs, morality and customs of the group as the only proper course of behavior...".
Thus politically, Rosenthal concludes,
...the individual was not expected to exercise any free choice as to how he wished to be governed...In general, ...governmental authority admitted of no participation of the individual as such, who therefore did not possess any real freedom vis-a-vis it.
Bernard Lewis, in his analysis of hurriyya for the venerable Encyclopedia of Islam, discusses this concept in the latter phases of the Ottoman Empire, through the contemporary era. After highlighting a few "cautious" or "conservative" (Lewis' characterization) reformers and their writings, Lewis maintains,
...there is still no idea that the subjects have any right to share in the formation or conduct of government -- to political freedom, or citizenship, in the sense which underlies the development of political thought in the West. While conservative reformers talked of freedom under law, and some Muslim rulers even experimented with councils and assemblies government was in fact becoming more and not less arbitrary....
Lewis also makes the important point that Western colonialism ameliorated this chronic situation:
During the period of British and French domination, individual freedom was never much of an issue. Though often limited and sometimes suspended, it was on the whole more extensive and better protected than either before or after.' [emphasis added]
And Lewis concludes with a stunning observation, when viewed in light of the present travails in Egypt and throughout the Muslim world, optimistic assessments notwithstanding:
In the final revulsion against the West, Western democracy too was rejected as a fraud and a delusion, of no value to Muslims.
I would like to add these three germane observations. Two are from scholars quite sympathetic to Islamic culture whose opinions are based upon very different scholarly backgrounds -- S.D. Goitein (d. 1985), a
specialist in classical Islam, and Muslim-Jewish relations in particular; and P.J. Vatikiotis (d. 1997), a political scientist who focused on the modern era in the Middle East, especially Egypt. Both men also lived for extended periods in the region. The third is from a lecture Bat Ye'or -- who lived her youth in Egypt -- gave in 1998, with Elliot Abrams present.
All three observations serve (or should serve) to remind us of the profound limitations of relying upon what Ibn Warraq has aptly termed "protecting Islam from Enlightenment values," while supporting "dishonest tinkering" with Islamic doctrine (not to mention complete denial of the historical consequences of such doctrine), in lieu of the honest, mea culpa-based, wrenching reforms that are necessary to transform Islamic societies.
Goitein, circa 1964, from p. 185 (Review: [untitled] Author(s): S. D. Goitein Reviewed work(s): Modern Islam: The Search for Cultural Identity by G. E. von Grunebaum Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 84, No. 2, (Apr. - Jun., 1964), pp. 185- 186.)
The military or police dictatorships controlling today almost all Islamic countries now appear not merely as successors or revivals of medieval despotism. They are (credited with) fulfilling a function similar to that of the belief in the God of Islam in the past-namely that of relieving man from the responsibility for his own destiny."
Vatikiotis circa 1981 (from Le Debat, [Paris], no. 14, July-August, 1981), wrote:
What is significant is that after a tolerably less autocratic/authoritarian political experience during their apprenticeship for independent statehood under foreign power tutelage, during the inter-war period, most of these states once completely free or independent of foreign control, very quickly moved towards highly autocratic-authoritarian patterns of rule...One could suggest a hiatus of roughly three years between the departure or removal of European influence and power and overthrow of the rickety plural political systems they left behind in Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and the Sudan by military coups d'etat.
Authoritarianism and autocracy in the Middle East may be unstable in the sense that autocracies follow one another in frequent succession. Yet the ethos of authoritarianism may be lasting, even permanent...One could venture into a more ambitious philosophical etiology by pointing out the absence of a concept of ‘natural law' or ‘law of reason' in the intellectual-cultural heritage of Middle Eastern societies. After all, everything before Islam, before God revealed his message to Muhammad, constitutes jahiliyya, or the dark age of ignorance. Similarly, anything that deviates from the eternal truth or verities of Islamic teaching is equally degenerative, and therefore unacceptable. That is why, by definition, any Islamic movement which seeks to make Islam the basic principle of the polity does not aim at innovation but at the restoration of the ideal that has been abandoned or lost. The missing of an experience similar, or parallel, to the Renaissance, freeing the Muslim individual from external constraints of, say, religious authority in order to engage in a creative course measured and judged by rational and existential human standards, may also be a relevant consideration. The individual in the Middle East has yet to attain his independence from the wider collectivity, or to accept the proposition that he can create a political order.
Finally, I urge the reader to consider very carefully Bat Ye'or's analysis of "Muslim moderates" and their terrible failings -- completely squandered opportunities during the end of the colonial era (as noted above from a different perspective by Vatikiotis) -- from the perspective of a great scholar who grew up among them, as a non-Muslim, indeed a Jew. Written 10 years ago, the attitude she describes of complete denial by Muslims, even "progressives," and "moderates," still applies with the rarest of isolated exceptions. And the consequences of this ongoing denial are equally apparent:
It is this lack of testimony that has brought back the evils and the prejudices of the past -- the jihad mentality, and the laws of dhimmitude that were only abolished by the colonial European powers. And now, more and more, because of this lack of testimony, we see moderate Muslims themselves being persecuted. Because they were indifferent to the humiliation of Jews and Christians, because they remained silent and aloof, they now find themselves - in Algeria, Egypt, and elsewhere - suffering from cruel injustices and barbarism. Testifying together, giving testimony against dhimmitude, would have allowed Muslim intellectuals to rethink their whole relationship with the People of the Bible - and with all non-Muslims, and this without renouncing their faith. Such an attitude would have brought all of us together in the fight against tyrannical oppression, against the process of dehumanization. This is what could have been done and what was not done.
*******
******* 
Better the Devil You Know
Like Jimmy Carter before him, Obama waffles while the Middle East burns
By Fred Dardick
Friday, February 4, 2011
Egypt is a bubbling cauldron ready to explode and what do we get from our President? A cryptic message about “change” and “now” that no one understands. Politicos around the world over are trying to figure out exactly where the Obama Administration stands.
Is Obama calling for Egyptian President Mubarak to step down immediately? Probably. Does he recognize the danger should Islamic extremists conquer Egypt. Probably not. What is his vision for the way forward? Your guess is as good as mine.
Like Jimmy Carter before him, Obama waffles while the Middle East burns. Rather than using the power of the presidency to influence positive change in Egypt – namely facilitate an orderly transition of power from Mubarak to a democratic, pro-Western leadership in a workable timeframe - he remains on the sidelines while the most extremist elements of an Islamic society run rampant.
Obama seems surprised that Mubarak has unleashed thugs on the streets to crack down on dissent, but back
in the real world this sort of thing has been commonplace in Egypt for decades. Dictators don’t remain in power because they’re nice guys.
The simple truth is the United States needs Mubarak to remain in control until the next Presidential election. Dictator he may be, he is still a far better alternative than the complete breakdown of society like what happened in Iraq not so long ago. When Saddam Hussain was overthrown by the American military, the power vacuum was filled with bloodthirsty fundamental Islamists, Iranian saboteurs and the centuries old Shiite-Sunni divide. The consequences were terrible as thousands of Iraqis and American soldiers were killed in the resulting chaos.
Egypt could easily face a similar fate should Mubarak lose power in a disorderly fashion. The Muslim Brotherhood has already pledged to reignite the war with Israel, Islamic fundamentalists from throughout the Middle East will flood into Egypt to bring their war against modern world with them, and the Iranian Mullahs remain ready as ever to support terrorism in the region.
While Mubarak is hardly a standard bearer for human rights, he is no Saddam Hussein. He has been our ally for 30 years and remains firmly opposed to Islamic extremism. While Saddam refused to stand down, Mubarak has already committed to relinquishing power this September.
The best option for the United States would be to back Mubarak until then and help set the stage for an orderly transfer of power. We would be better served by encouraging Mubarak to adjust the Egyptian constitution to include term limits and ensuring equal rights for woman remain in place after his departure rather than pushing him out the door.
Obama may be willing to throw Mubarak under the bus and back whatever faction comes out on the top after a bloody revolution, but chances are those who will triumph under such circumstances will not be on the side of freedom and democracy.
The Muslim Brotherhood and other radial Islamists will burn Egypt to the ground if given half a chance. Even though they are a minority of the population, they will murder and destroy on a scale not seen since the worst in Iraq. Jihadists throughout the region will go to Egypt seeking martyrdom and murder. The stage will be set for an Islamic revolution stretching from the Mediterranean to China.
This is not change that would be good for the United States or the average Egyptian.
Sometimes it’s better to deal with the devil you know. Mubarak may not be above sending thugs with clubs and knives to attack protesters, but at least he won’t explode cars packed with explosives outside markets filled with shoppers or throw acid in the faces of young girls attending school.
Under Islamic rule things really could get a whole lot worse.
*******
The Arab Street Revolt and the Brotherhood: This Time It’s Different
Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope
By Steven Simpson
Thursday, February 3, 2011
When Mohamed Bouazzi of Tunisia immolated himself on December 17, 2010, the incident barely was mentioned in most news media. After all, who cared about a troubled and insulted man with economic hardships in the barely known Maghrebi (North African) country of Tunisia? But Bouazzi’s desperate act has set off a chain reaction in the Arab world that will either lead to a domino effect of democracy for the Arab peoples, or an Islamist resurrection that has not been seen in centuries. And now with the downfall of Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, it appears that the Ikhwan al-Muslimun (the Muslim Brotherhood) may soon find itself in power and alter the Arab/Muslim world - as well as the world at large—to the extent that the Iranian revolution of 1979 will seem like an isolated incident.
Unlike the bloody and bloodless Arab military coups of the past, the Tunisian “coup” was carried out by the common street people who had decided that enough was enough when it came to the corruption of Tunisia’s dictator, Zine Abidene ben Ali. When the military announced (unprecedentedly) that it would not fire on the citizens, ben Ali knew that his days, if not hours, were numbered. His quick exit to Saudi Arabia took the Arab world by complete surprise. The Egyptian protests on the streets of Cairo, Alexandria, Ismailia, and other cities quickly followed, which has shaken to the very core most, if not all of the Arab dictators from Algeria to Yemen.
While the situation in Tunisia and Egypt is still in a state of flux, it is the departure of Hosni Mubarak after nearly thirty years in power that has caused a political earthquake throughout the region and world. It is Egypt that is at the heart of the Arab world, and with the exception of Jordan, the only Arab country to have made peace with Israel. It might not be an overstatement to say that as Egypt goes, so goes the Arab world. While it is probably too early to prognosticate about Egypt’s future, it appears that at the end of the day, Egypt will either be ruled by the military, or an Islamist government—be it de facto or de jure. At this point, it appears that the Islamists—while not yet at the forefront of this “street revolution”—have the most to benefit.
This is bad news for America, the West, and of course, Israel. Indeed, Israel may come out the biggest loser.
The eminent scholar and writer, Dr. Daniel Pipes, Director of the Middle East Forum has written an interesting column, in which he seems to believe that military regimes with a more benign face will come to rule in Tunisia and Egypt. However, there are other factors that are at play here, and which have not been addressed yet.
To begin with, this is the first time in modern Arab history that common, regular people have forced from power corrupt dictatorial regimes without the army coming to the defense of the regimes. While deaths have occurred, there has been no concerted effort on the part of the Tunisian, Egyptian and Yemeni militaries to commit mass murder against its own citizens. This certainly came as a shock to the Arab dictators of these countries. Qaddafi of Libya (who by way of chiding the Tunisians for overthrowing ben Ali was in reality sending a signal to Libyans to stay quiet), Assad of Syria, and Abdullah of Saudi Arabia must now be looking over their shoulders, and sleeping with one eye open. If the armies of other Arab countries will also not fire on their fellow citizens, then what fear do the citizens have in overthrowing these corrupt totalitarian regimes that have oppressed their people for decades? This is a new factor that has never been seen in the Arab world. Without army support, the gates of the presidential palaces of the Arab “leaders” will be left open to the people. If and when that happens, the world is first liable to see extreme violence.
When the people are no longer afraid of the army - let alone the regime - why should they be satisfied with a
“benign” military dictatorship? Egypt has been living under a military dictatorship since 1952 when the“Free Officers” under Gamal Abdel Nasser overthrew King Farouk. When Nasser unexpectedly died on September 8, 1970, he was quickly replaced by Anwar el-Sadat. When Sadat was shockingly assassinated on October 6, 1981 - by Islamist members of his own military - he was in turn replaced by his vice president, Hosni Mubarak, who has since been in power ruling throughout his reign under a state of emergency. Granted, Mubarak’s Egypt was not the totalitarian Gestapo-like state that Libya, Syria, Yemen and Saudi Arabia are. The same went for Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. It is interesting to note that with the exception of the hereditary Saudi monarchy, the dictators of the above mentioned “republics” were all grooming their sons to succeed them. This begs the question as to why they overthrew the monarchs of these countries in the first place. The Arab “republics” are monarchies in everything but name only. Now with Mubarak’s departure, it no longer seems a fait accompli that this hereditary succession will continue.
Finally, this brings us to the very dedicated, disciplined, and well funded Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt. Founded in 1928 by Hassan al Banna, it reached its zenith under the tutelage of Sayyid Qutb. While currently outlawed in Egypt, members of the Brotherhood are able to run as Independents in Egypt’s Parliament. The“Brothers” are currently led by Sa’ad al-Katatni. While there are factions within the Ikhwan, their supreme goal remains the Islamization of Egypt into a country ruled by the Shari’ah. Their motto is enough to make any civilized person shudder:
Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.
The Brotherhood—heavily influenced by Nazi ideology —as well as having excellent relations with Iran has learned from its violent past (including the assassination of al-Banna and the hanging of Qutb) that the key to victory lies through “peaceful” methods. If Egypt continues to spin out of control, Egyptians may very well look to them for guidance and leadership. A recent Pew poll showed that Egyptians want “more Islam” in their lives. This is in stark contrast to political pundits and “experts” who have practically discounted the Brotherhood as obsolete.
Indeed, a “useful idiot” as Mohammed el-Baradei , an anti-American, anti-Israeli apologist for Iran’s nuclear weapons program may be the key to the Ikhwan’s dreams of ruling Egypt. Already, they have endorsed him. Iran’s Khomeini used a similar tactic with his first prime minister, Mehdi Bazargan , a respected liberal academic, and then after consolidating power, pushed him aside. With an Ikhwan controlled government, the peace treaty with Israel will no longer exist, perhaps leading to another all-out Arab-Israeli war with Iran in the forefront. The global implications of this nightmare scenario are only beginning to dawn. To put it mildly, America, Israel, and the West are caught between an Arabic version of Scylla and Charybdis.
*******
Obama’s Bundlers & Friends on front lines of Cairo protests
Huffing and puffing all over The Blaze
By Judi McLeod
Thursday, February 3, 2011
*******
*******
Took less than a month for former Huffington Post CEO Betsy Morgan and Managing Editor Scott Baker to go huffing and puffing all over The Blaze.
The Blaze, now cutting a break for Code Pink in Cairo, should check in with writers Andrea Shea King and Kristinn Taylor who got it right (no pun intended).
Is it HuffPo at the helm that is portraying Code Pink rabble rousers as Obama enemies?
Note to Glenn Beck: Code Pink is not Global Citizen Barry Soetoro’s enemy. They are right up his wazoo. Big time.
Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans joined Team Obama as a bundler, pledging to raise at least $50,000 to elect Barack Obama to the White House.
Nowhere is there any proof that Evans quit Team Obama. In fact, on Oct. 15, 2009 Evans met with Obama only weeks after meeting with the Taliban.
How’s that for staying in close touch?
According to The Blaze, following a tip from their friends at Business Insider, Code Pink’s nine-person “international solidarity delegation” has been “in the streets with the Egyptian people for the last five days” and today the group actually plans to picket outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.”
Their presence in Egypt was Business Insider described as “purely accidental”. “The International CODEPINK delegation has been en route to Gaza via Egypt but with the Rafah border closed they are unable to enter Gaza, and remain in Cairo. The activists will stay in Cairo until they can safely make their way to Gaza, where they intend to continue their delegation for peace. The delegation includes people from the US. Canada, Australia, the UK, Switzerland and India. This is CODEPINK’S ninth trip to Egypt and Gaza in the past two years.”
Like Bugs Bunny, Code Pink must have taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque—again!
“The group is demanding that President Obama, the U.S. State Department and Congress cease monetary and military assistance to “criminal” President Hosni Mubarak,” states Business Insider.
And this: “One of the group’s founders also insisted they’re also ready to step in front of any microphone.”
Back to Andrea Shea King and Kristinn Taylor if only to set the record straight:
On Dec. 29, 2009 Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn joined Code Pink in Egypt. “We hope the Egyptians get so annoyed they just want to get rid of us,” said Evans.
Those are not Obama’s enemies, but his friends and bundlers right there on the front lines of the Egyptian protests.
Unless you’re killed or one of the injured, fomenting for revolution is fun for some.
Meanwhile, it’s difficult enough sorting out the real from the surrealistic without a Huffpo influenced Blaze.
Get a grip, Glenn!
*******
U.S. Chickens Come Home to Roost in Egypt
By Prof Marjorie Cohn
URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23048
Global Research, February 2, 2011
Barack Obama, like his predecessors, has supported Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to the tune of $1.3 billion annually, mostly in military aid. In return, Egypt minds U.S. interests in the Middle East, notably providing a buffer between Israel and the rest of the Arab world. Egypt collaborates with Israel to isolate Gaza with a punishing blockade, to the consternation of Arabs throughout the Middle East. The United States could not have fought its wars in Iraq without Egypt’s logistical support.
Now with a revolution against Mubarak by two million Egyptians, all bets are off about who will replace him and whether the successor government will be friendly to the United States.
Mubarak’s “whole system is corrupt,” said Hesham Korayem, an Egyptian who taught at City University of New York and provides frequent commentary on Egyptian and Saudi television. He told me there is virtually no middle class in Egypt, only the extremely rich (about 20 to 25 percent of the population) and the extremely poor (75 percent). The parliament has no input into what Mubarak does with the money the United States gives him, $300 million of which comes to the dictator in cash each year.
Torture is commonplace in Egypt, according to Korayem. Indeed, Omar Suleiman, Egypt’s intelligence chief whom Mubarak just named Vice-President, was the lynchpin for Egyptian torture when the CIA sent prisoners to Egypt in its extraordinary rendition program. Stephen Grey noted in Ghost Plane, “[I]n secret, men like Omar Suleiman, the country’s most powerful spy and secret politician, did our work, the sort of work that Western countries have no appetite to do ourselves.”
In her chapter in the newly published book, “The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration, and Abuse,” Jane Mayer cites Egypt as the most common destination for suspects rendered by the United States. “The largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid after Israel,” Mayer writes, “Egypt was a key strategic ally, and its secret police force, the Mukhabarat, had a reputation for brutality.” She describes the rendering of Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi to Egypt, where he was tortured and made a false confession that Colin Powell cited as he importuned the Security Council to approve the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Al-Libi later recanted his confession.
The State Department’s 2002 report on Egypt noted that detainees were “stripped and blindfolded; suspended from a ceiling or doorframe with feet just touching the floor; beaten with fists, metal rods, or other objects; doused with hot or cold water; flogged on the back; burned with cigarettes; and subjected to electrical shocks. Some victims . . . [were] forced to strip and threatened with rape.”
In 2005, the United Nations Committee Against Torture found that “Egypt resorted to consistent and widespread use of torture against detainees” and “the risk of such treatment was particularly high in the case of detainees held for political and security reasons.”
About a year ago, an Italian judge convicted 22 CIA operatives and a U.S. Air Force colonel of arranging the kidnapping of a Muslim cleric in Milan in 2003, then flying him to Egypt where he was tortured. Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr told Human Rights Watch he was “hung up like a slaughtered sheep and given electrical shocks” in Egypt. “I was brutally tortured and I could hear the screams of others who were tortured too,” he added.
A former CIA agent observed, “If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear – never to see them again – you send them to Egypt.”
So what will happen next in Egypt?
Suleiman, who is intensely loyal to Mubarak, will not be an acceptable successor to the Egyptian people. Some fear the Muslim Brotherhood, which supports Hamas, will take power once Mubarak is forced out. But “[t]hough it is the largest opposition group, it by no means enjoys overwhelming support, and its leaders are for the most part moderate and responsible,” Scott MacLeod, Time magazine’s Middle East correspondent from 1995 to 2010, wrote in the Los Angeles Times. Korayem concurs. He says the Brotherhood, which has formally renounced terrorism and violence, is more educated and peaceful now. The Brotherhood provides social and economic programs that augment public services in Egypt.
Indeed, the Brotherhood supports Mohamed ElBaradei to negotiate with the Egyptian government. ElBaradei, the former U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency chief and Nobel Peace Prize recipient, recently returned to Egypt to stand with the protesters. He told Fareed Zakaria that the Brotherhood favors a secular state, and “has nothing to do with the Iranian movement, has nothing to do with extremism as we have seen it in Afghanistan and other places.”
The Obama administration has been slow to acknowledge that Mubarak is on his way out. Vice President Joe Biden, still in denial, said on the PBS News Hour, “I would not refer to him as a dictator.” ElBaradei criticized Obama for supporting Mubarak in the face of the popular revolt in Egypt. “You are losing credibility by the day,” he told CBS News. “On one hand you’re talking about democracy, rule of law and human rights, and on the other hand you are lending support to a dictator that continues to oppress his people.”
Korayem sees the United States’ uncritical support for Israel as key to the problems in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East. If the United States acted as an honest broker, even “slightly fair to the Palestinians,” that would go a long way to solving the difficulties, he said. But, according to Gareth Porter, “The main function of the U.S. client state relationship with Egypt was to allow Israel to avoid coming to terms with Palestinian demands.” Chris Hedges adds, “The failure of the United States to halt the slow-motion ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by Israel has consequences. The failure to acknowledge the collective humiliation and anger felt by most Arabs because of the presence of U.S. troops on Muslim soil . . . has consequences.”
We are seeing those consequences in the streets of Egypt and the likelihood of similar developments in Jordan, Yemen, and other Middle Eastern countries. Until the U.S. government stops uncritically supporting tyrants, torturers, and oppressors, we can expect the people to rise up and overthrow them.
*******
*******
Egypt: Setting the Stage for WWIII?
by Henry Makow Ph.D.
February 1, 2011
Muslim Brotherhood: Prepare for War With Israel 
Egypt's Future; War With Israel
Israel Supplies Egypt With Crowd Dispersing Gas
US Neo Cons Fear Islamist Takeover
Obama Effectively Withdraws Support for Mubarak
In order to make sense of the day's headlines, we need to recall the big picture. Long ago, the London-based Masonic Jewish (Illuminati) central banking cartel realized that to enslave humanity, they needed to use guile.
Their unvarnished goal would meet universal opposition; so instead they fostered myriad needless conflicts in order to divide and conquer.
Their main strategy was to use their control of both sides to foment gratuitous but extremely costly wars. The First World War, Second World War, Cold War, Korean and Vietnam Wars etc. were all means of increasing their power and wealth while debilitating humanity in countless ways, including death, destruction, demoralization and debt.
The Illuminati may be setting the stage for a new world war. The template for the popular uprisings in Tunisia,
Egypt (and potentially Jordan and Saudi Arabia) is the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Here the Illuminati replaced a loyal puppet, the Shah Reza Pahlavi with the "fanatical" Islamist Ayatollah Khomeini resulting in the trademarked "Clash of Civilizations." This is documented in Robert Dreyfuss' book "Hostage to Khomeini."
Now they may be replacing loyal puppet Hosni Mubarak with a Muslim Brotherhood/ Islamist regime, ratcheting up the tension, and oil prices.
All our "leaders" are essentially stuffed suits. They're puppets. (The role of the media and academia is to legitimize them.) The masses do not rebel unless they're organized and financed by Masonic bodies like the Muslim Brotherhood who serve the Illuminati bankers. This is what happened in the American, French and Russian Revolutions.
All of this is bad news for the ordinary Jew-on-the-Street in Tel Aviv. It presages another major war in the Middle East, possibly heralding a world war.
It is not bad news for the leaders of Israel or America, who are Freemasons just like the Muslim Brotherhood. These "leaders" want a deadly conflagration: Masonic Islamists vs. Masonic Zionists! They're all satanists sticking it to humanity.
Have you noticed how calmly Israel has accepted a Hezbollah government in Lebanon? All the better for war!
"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World," Masonic Grand Commander Albert Pike wrote in 1871.
"Agentur" means "agent." The same term is used in another Illuminati document "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" which dates from the same period.
The key point here is these wars are contrived. They are "caused by agentur of the Illuminati" on both sides. These agents owe their first loyalty to the Illuminati not to their countries.
Their aim is to destroy their respective countries and profit from the carnage. Pike continues: "The [third] war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Muslim Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other."
The rest of the world will be drawn in. "Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion..."
At this point they will be constrained to accept the Luciferian one-world government.
So this is the hidden agenda which explains our leaders' reactions to the demonstrations in Cairo. The Israelis give support to Mubarak because it is the kiss-of-death. But the Americans discreetly signal for him to go, better to advance the Illuminati's lethal hidden agenda.
*******
Egypt is Another Soros "Color" Revolution
by Henry Makow Ph.D.
January 29, 2011
Globalist go'fer Mohamed El Baradei (left) with Colin Powell
The turmoil in Egypt is another contrived, Illuminati backed "color" revolution designed to install puppets more subservient to their London-based masters. Over the last decade, we have seen such "revolutions" in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia and recent failed attempts in Burma, Iran and Thailand.
"Human rights" and "democracy" is always the pretext for these Illuminati gambits, dating back to the French and Russian Revolutions. They take advantage of genuine grievances to hoodwink the public and gain power.
This time there was no color scheme tip-off but the unanimous support by the Illuminati-controlled mass media was enough. You wouldn't hear about it otherwise. (For example, did you know that real nationalists took over the government of Hungary?)
The confirmation is the man they are touting to replace Hosni Mubarak.
Globalist widget, Mohammed El Baradei is a trustee of the "International Crisis Group" an "independent" non-profit group run by bankers to incite revolutions and profit from them. His fellow trustee is none other than the ubiquitous Rothschild front man, George Soros.
El Baradei, who recently resigned as Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, is being groomed by the Illuminati to replace Mubarak. (He and his agency won the 2005 Nobel Prize.) In April, he gave a speech at Harvard saying he was "looking for a job" and wanted to be "an agent of change and advocate for democracy" in Egypt. This is code for local boss in the NWO banker tyranny. (Barack Obama has taught us about "change.")
In February, El Baradei was part of a new non-party political movement called the "National Association for Change" which included a leader of the banned Masonic Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is a proxy for Britain's MI-6 masquerading as Muslim fundamentalists. In November they were roundly defeated in elections, so this "revolution" seems to be their answer. Mubarak wisely jailed their leaders.
On Thursday, El Baradei returned to Egypt to lead the demonstrations. Friday he and his supporters were subjected to water canons and batons. Today, he announced: "We are seeking a change of regime. President Mubarak should step down. We should head towards a democratic state through a new government and free democratic elections...The whole world should realize that the Egyptians are not going home until their demands are realized...We are talking about taking down the Pharaonic dictatorship."
Egypt has accused the US of helping to engineer this revolt by training "activists."
Is it going too far to say that removing Mubarak would be a victory for Israel in its expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates? Their surrogates are already in Baghdad.
This article is not intended to garner sympathy for the Mubarak regime but merely to point out that this turmoil is about the Illuminati tightening their grip on Egypt. Imagine a Mafia gang that has been raking off a share of profits for decades. One day it decides to increase its take by eliminating the middle man. At the same time, it can create turmoil which always provides new opportunities.
One thing is for sure: Our "leaders" care little about human rights and democracy. The Illuminati agenda ultimately is to degrade, disinherit and and enslave us mentally and spiritually, if not physically. The Egyptian turmoil is another step in this direction.
----
Note: I am indebted to this article: Tunisia & Egypt: Manufactured Crisis?
Related- Illuminati West's Support for Mubarak Wavering
Related- How Leftists and Progressives Carry Water for the Illuminati
Related - Video "Change in Egypt"
Hegelian Dialectic- Muslim Brotherhood is Leading the Opposition
Council on Foreign Relations Smiles on ElBaradei
Mubarak Chooses CIA Man to Succeed Him?
David Livingstone on the Muslim Brotherhood
Chossudovsky- Changing Puppets in Cairo
Protesters Tepid on ElBaradei
----
Was Mubarak Getting too Close to the Russians?
A reader, Dan, writes:
"There is a Globalist summit coming up in about 3 weeks in Cairo. On the itinerary the last speech is called, "What will Egypt look like in 2020?
A longer-term perspective from The Economist Group".
I had a hunch to research current Russian/ Mubarak regime relations and indeed, I found they've been talking - Jan 7th. I think Hillary may be jealous.
Mubarak, Russian FM discuss regional cooperation
"Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held "important talks" yesterday over common regional and international interests, according to Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmed Abul Gheit
Among the most important issues discussed, Abul Gheit told reporters, was the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mubarak and Lavrov stressed the importance of reconciliation between Palestinian factions and the urgent need to lift the Israeli siege on the Gaza Strip. Mubarak welcomed a proposal to hold a ministerial meeting in Moscow for parties involved in the peace process."
The latest video of the Cairo mobs looks orchestrated, or choreographed as the BBC narrator says in the clip.
That might explain a lot. Russia hasn't been a player in Egypt since the Nasser. There's no way the State Dept will allow that. They'll pull the plug on Mubarak first.
*******