Egyptian Presidential Candidate Supports Killing U.S. Soldiers


Hamdeen Sabahi, an anti-American secularist, has announced his candidacy for the Egyptian presidency, pitting him against General El-Sisi, the current Defense Minister. Sabahi may be anti-Islamist, but he’s also said he supports Al-Qaeda when it kills U.S. soldiers. The election is slated to be held sometime between February 17 and April 18.

Today, Sabahi is one of the most popular opposition figures in Egypt. He took part in both the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak and Mohammed Morsi. As the Arab media focuses on El-Sisi’s almost-certain presidential bid, the number one concern is a reverting to Mubarak-type rule. Sabahi is apparently the answer.

Sabahi is a secular, democratic foe of the Islamists and a civilian, whereas El-Sisi’s candidacy risks transforming Egypt into a military-run state with limited democratic features. As concern over Egypt’s democratic future mounts, Sabahi will look increasingly positive to the West.

That is why a statement Sabahi made in 2005 must be repeated over and over. In a televised interview, Sabahi said: “One must salute this organization [Al-Qaeda] when it kills any American soldier—a soldier, not a civilian. The presence of Al-Qaeda in Iraq as part of the resistance is a positive phenomenon that should be supported. I support Al-Qaeda when it kills Americans.”

El-Sisi is currently the frontrunner thanks to his crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood as well as support from the military establishment and Egypt’s Coptic Christians. However, confidence in him and the military is declining over time. The main political issue in Egypt is shifting from preventing Islamist rule towards curbing the power of the military establishment.

The trend indicates an opening for Sabahi (assuming the election is genuine). He has an established fan base from his previous presidential run. Unlike the other candidates, his support grew as he got more attention and scrutiny. In the first round of 2012’s presidential elections, Sabahi came in third place with 21.5%. He lost to Morsi and Ahmed Shafiq, who then competed in a run-off.

Sabahi has a real chance of defeating El-Sisi in a fair vote if it comes down to the two of them. El-Sisi will have strong arguments in his favor, but it’s hard to see a compelling argument against Sabahi. On the other hand, Sabahi can present himself as the one who will stop Egypt from returning to both the Mubarak era and the Muslim Brotherhood era.

Read more at Clarion Project

Esman: Women are “Biggest Losers” in Arab Spring

Sec. of State Kerry Pushing Back on Pro-Brotherhood Policy

John Kerry

We must hope that Kerry’s public contradictions of administration policy reflect of a behind-the-scenes debate.


The disastrous effect of the Obama Administration’s support for theMuslim Brotherhood appears to be seen by Secretary of State John Kerry. In recent months, he has twice contradicted the administration’s policy with public statements against the Brotherhood and in support of the Egyptian military.

On August 1, Kerry enraged the Brotherhood by justifying the Egyptian military’s overthrow of President Morsi.

“The military was asked to intervene by millions and millions of people, all of whom were afraid of a descent into chaos, into violence,” he said, adding that the military was “restoring democracy.”

Then on November 20, Kerry said that the Muslim Brotherhood had “stolen” the Egyptian revolution that first toppled President Mubarak. He said that the Brotherhood won the elections afterwards because it was “the one single most organized entity in the state.”

The Brotherhood characterizes itself as the democratically elected representative of the Egyptian people. Kerry’s powerful statement undermines the Brotherhood’s claim to legitimacy and echoes the criticism of its opponents.

The Obama Administration as a whole, however, stands against the military intervention and cut off some military aid to Egypt in response. The policy is pushing Arab countries allied with the U.S. into the arms of Russia and has alienated the Egyptian population.

Read more at Clarion Project

Bahrain Crown Prince: U.S. Policy Will Lead to Arab -Russia Alliance

Bahrain Crown Prince

Using unusually hostile language, al-Khalifa said “America seems to suffer from schizophrenia when it deals with the Arab world.”


The Crown Prince of Bahrain, Sheikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, blasted U.S. foreign policy in a new interview and warned that its “schizophrenia” will lead the Arab world to ally with Russia.

Using unusually hostile language, al-Khalifa said American policy is “transient and reactive,” and “America seems to suffer from schizophrenia when it deals with the Arab world.” He specifically pointed to the nuclear deal with Iran and the U.S. support for the overthrow of Egyptian President Mubarak.

The Crown Prince detests Russian assistance to the Syrian regime, but said it proves that that Russia is more dependable.

“The Russians have proved that they are reliable friends,” he remarked.

The Bahraini Foreign Minister likewise expressed his view that the U.S. is not valuing Bahrain’s opinion.

“You do not need to reassure us. You need to listen to us, because we know Iran well,” he said.

Bahrain is governed by a pro-Western monarchy and is the base of the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet. It is an important strategic ally and an enemy of both Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2011, Saudi forces helped the Sunni Bahraini leadership crush an uprising by its Shiite-majority population.

Egypt has already turned to Russia after the U.S. cut off some its military aid following the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptians and Russians are on the cusp of signing a massive $2 billion arms deal that includes Mig-29 fighter jets, anti-tank missiles and air defense systems. Some reports suggest the number could be as high as $4 billion.

Read more at Clarion Project


Egypt’s Trial: True Justice will Reveal Morsi’s Alliances


On Monday, November 4th, an Egyptian Triple Seven elite military force helicopter transported former Egyptian president, Mohammed Morsi, out of secret hiding where he has been held in custody by authorities since July 3rd this year.  Morsi was flown to a courtroom inside Toro Police School to begin his trial for high treason and other suspected crimes. On the eve of his political career and presidential candidacy, Morsi sat in prison awaiting trial for spying against Egypt. Now he is accused of continuing these efforts during his presidency.

According to Egyptian news agencies, Morsi recently notified his family that he alone will defend himself before the judge and jury. Meanwhile, Muslim Brotherhood organizations across the world scramble to bring to Egypt lawyers from the West and East who will try to prove that Morsi is blameless and his trial unfair. This will not be easy. Egyptian attorneys are unified against foreign attorneys appearing in the courtroom on Morsi’s behalf.  In any case, proving Morsi’s innocence will be a herculean task.

In a country where no regulation or law exists to govern taping of conversations or, more aptly, where the Attorney General appointed by the President permitted secret recordings by Egyptian intelligence of the President’s meetings and phone conversations, judges dismissed by Morsi and now reinstated will be presented with tape recordings of Morsi’s discussions with Aymen Al Zawahiri of Al Qaeda.

These will show Morsi requesting the terrorist’s support. Morsi’s negotiation with the Al Qaeda leader delays application of the Iran and Taliban models for Egypt until a more receptive time and, in return for Al Zawahiri’s favor, the President agrees to immediately enforce Sharia law and release five thousand jailed terrorist-jihadists, including Aymen’s brother, Mohammed. All jihadists jailed under Mubarak were freed by Morsi within the first month of his installation to prove to Aymen Al Zawahiri that he could be trusted, according to leaked information paraphrasing the contents of the tapes.

Read more: Family Security Matters 

Egyptian military’s pact with Islamists


Sometime next week, Egypt’s military-run government will publish the “first draft” of a new constitution to replace the one worked out by the government of the ousted President Mohamed Morsi.

The coup that returned the military to power after a year-long interval was presented as an attempt to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from imposing an Islamist dictatorship with a constitutional facade. Highlighted were two articles in the Morsi constitution that identified the Islamic sharia as the source of legislation in Egypt and gave Al-Azhar, the official seminary, a virtual veto on certain issues.

The crowds that for weeks filled Tahrir Square called on the army to intervene to save the nation from a burgeoning sharia-based ­dictatorship. Well, when the new draft constitution — written by a 50-man committee appointed by the military — is published, the Tahrir Square crowds are likely to be disappointed. The two controversial articles will still be there, albeit under different numbers and with slight changes in terminology.

“Egyptians want to retain their Islamic identity,” says Kamal Halbawi, a former Brotherhood member who co-chaired the army-appointed drafting committee with Amr Moussa, a former foreign minister during the earlier military governments.

Thus Islamists, including the Salafist Nour ( Light) Party sponsored by Saudi Arabia will have no reason to be unhappy with the proposed draft.

The difference this time is that the new constitution also gives the military what the text drafted by Morsi denied it. The armed forces will get recognition for their “special status” and given a virtual veto on key aspects of security, foreign and even economic policies.

The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, the junta formed after Hosni Mubarak’s ouster, will be recognized as a constitutionally sanctioned state organ with “special responsibilities and prerogatives,” including the appointment of the defense minister and the supervision of the military budget, which will be spared public submission to the parliament.

Put brutally, the proposed draft constitution is a pact between a section of the military led by Gen. Abdul-Fattah al-Sisi and a section of the Islamic movement spearheaded by Salafists.

The faction led by Sisi represents a segment of the officers’ corps reluctant to abandon a system under which the army acted as a state within the state and seized control of perhaps 20 percent of the national economy. As always during the past 100 years, the military is using a pseudo-nationalistic discourse full of xenophobic shibboleths.

The Salafist faction hopes to seize the opportunity of its collaboration with the military to build its position within the Islamist constituency. With the Muslim Brotherhood banned and most of its leaders under arrest, the Salafists hope to seduce some of their followers, especially with the help of a deluge of Saudi money.

However, even when they add their respective bases of support, the Sisi faction of the military and the Salafist faction do not represent more than a third of the Egyptian electorate.

Read more at NYP




Islamist or Nationalist: Who is Egypt’s Mysterious New Pharaoh?

download (56)by Raymond Stock:

Egypt’s new de facto pharaoh, General Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi, is a man of mystery. Is he an Islamist, or a nationalist? Is he a person of high principle, or a lowly opportunist? And in a land which has known five thousand years of mainly centralized, one-man rule, with limited experience of democracy, when have we seen his type before, and where will he lead the troubled, ancient nation now?

These questions are crucial to knowing how the U.S. should react to al-Sisi’s removal of Egypt’s first “freely elected” president, Mohamed Morsi on July 3 in answer to overwhelmingly massive street protests demanding that he do so, and to the ongoing bloody crackdown on Morsi’s group, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), that began on August 14. Citing the ongoing, actually two-way violence in Egypt, President Barack Obama’s administration has now suspended much of our annual $1.6 billion aid to the country, save for money needed to maintain security operations along the Israeli border in Sinai and to directly support the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty.

Earlier, the administration had stopped the scheduled delivery of four out of twenty F-16s to Egypt, cancelled the bi-annual “Bright Star” joint training exercises that had been set for September, and launched a review of the bi-lateral relationship. There has now been a delay in paying the final $585 million tranche of this year’s aid package, pending that review, according to an October 9 report by the global strategic analysis firm, Stratfor.

However, the administration has been careful not to classify Morsi’s removal a “coup,” which under U.S. law would require an immediate cut-off of all of our aid to Egypt. That assistance is vital to the U.S.’ favored access to the Suez Canal, maintenance of the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty and crucial bi-lateral security cooperation against international terrorism. Nonetheless, the latest move puts the entire alliance at great risk, and plays into popular demands that Egypt switch to a more independent stance, or even adopt Russia as chief military supplier instead of the U.S., an idea made more enticing by Washington’s apparent weakness in surrendering its interests in Syria to Moscow, and its seeming haste to make concessions to Cairo’s post-MB regional antagonist in Tehran over the latter’s nuclear program.

Yet along with a number of key Congressional leaders and most of the mainstream media, Obama has been far more critical of al-Sisi and his use of force against a group that our government wrongly supported while in power under the illusion that it was “moderate,” than they have been of the violence and mayhem of the MB.

Meanwhile, the MB’s “peaceful demonstrators” have been busy burning scores of Christian churches and schools along with hundreds of Christian businesses while attacking other citizens, museums and public buildings, the police and the army, and waging an open war against the state in Sinai and around the country. As the total number of deaths in the past nearly two months of confrontations climbs toward the thousands, the MB clearly hopes to use its own “martyrs” (as both sides call their fallen) to generate sympathy for their unaltered goal of restoring Morsi to power. So far, however, it’s not working. Despite a surge in turnout at demonstrations it organized to coincide with the State’s grand celebrations of the 40th anniversary of the 1973 war on October 6, fewer and fewer people have been joining its protests, which have been tiny compared to the unprecedentedly-huge demonstrations against the Islamists.


But what besides the obvious hard realities pushed al-Sisi to act when he did? What does he believe, and what does he want? A quiet man known for saying little and keeping his own counsel, in his year of study at the U.S. Army War College in 2006, al-Sisi produced a research paper or brief thesis on his views of Islam and the state. That document was first exposed by Robert Springborg, an expert on Egypt’s military, in a July 28 article in Foreign Affairs.

Springborg predicted that al-Sisi, who has sworn to swiftly restore democracy after a nine-month transition, intends to keep real power for himself. Furthermore, Springborg warned of his “Islamist agenda,” saying that he would not likely restore the “secular authoritarianism” practiced by Mubarak, but would install “a hybrid regime that would combine Islamism with militarism.” Intriguingly, though it holds no state secrets, the document was classified, and was only released under a Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch on August 8.

In it, al-Sisi declares, “There is hope for democracy in the Middle East over the long term; however, it may not be a model that follows a Western Template” (sic). By that, al-Sisi makes plain, he means that Middle Eastern democracy must be based not on secularism, but on Islam.

However, in an August 16 profile of the previously obscure general published by The Daily Beast by Mike Giglio and Christopher Dickey, those who know al-Sisi (few of whom will talk much about him) say that he grew up in a family that was both religiously conservative—not radical—but extremely nationalistic. And indeed it is that sense of nationalism which seems to have had the upper hand in motivating the actions he’s taken thus far.

The chaos, economic calamity, and political upheaval that have rocked Egyptian society since a much more limited popular uprising against longtime president Hosni Mubarak resulted in Mubarak’s ouster by the military on February 11, 2011 (at Obama’s thinly-veiled urging the night before)—and which led in part to al-Sisi’s move against Morsi—have all been seen before.

Read more at Middle East Forum

Understanding Egypt’s Second Revolution

anti-morsi.si_-437x350By :

The Egyptian military’s recent removal from office of Egyptian President Mohammad Morsi “was not a coup,” judged the former United States Air Force lieutenant colonel and Middle East expert Rick Francona, but rather the “people rising up.”  Francona spoke at Washington, DC’s National Press Club during an October 1, 2013, panel featuring national security experts who had just completed a three-day visit on behalf of the Westminster Institute.  The panel expressed dismay that the United States was not properly responding to developments in country described by Westminster Institute executive director Katherine Gorka as “pivotal” to American interests in the region.

Retired United States Army Major General Paul E. Vallely referenced a popular Egyptian understanding of Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood (MB) government’s fall as a “second revolution” following the “first revolution” ousting Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak.  Katherine’s husband, counterinsurgency expert Sebastian Gorka, noted that a petition presented to Morsi calling for early elections had gathered 22 million signatures.  Subsequently an estimated 33 million had taken to the streets to call for Morsi’s removal in early July 2013 in a country of 85 million.

Vallely’s army colleague, the former colonel and military commentator Ken Allard, discussed a popular Egyptian perception of MB as “terrorists” given their treatment of women and minorities.  Francona in particular cited anti-Christian violence by MB supporters that destroyed 1,000 Christian homes after Morsi fell.  Allard likewise discussed the delegation’s meeting with the Coptic Church’s Pope Tawadros II, a man “who watched his churches burn.” Many Egyptians additionally felt that the MB in power merely “governed for themselves,” Sebastian Gorka related.

As a result, the Egyptian military commander General Abdul Fattah al-Sisi spoke of a “civil war” absent Morsi’s removal in a meeting with Gorka and the other panelists.  This was particularly true given that there was “no impeachment vehicle” in the old Egyptian constitution, as Vallely noted, a provision now contemplated for a new constitution.  The “Egyptians are more united in” supporting the military’s actions “than we might think,” Francona judged.  Everyone with whom the delegation spoke similarly surprised Sebastian Gorka because they “sounded like they were coordinating their message” but were not.

Read more at Front Page

The Ethnic Cleansing of Christians in Egypt

Christian Coptic Priest Father Samuel reacts as he stands inside the burned and heavily damaged St. Mousa church in Minya, Egypt / AP

Christian Coptic Priest Father Samuel reacts as he stands inside the burned and heavily damaged St. Mousa church in Minya, Egypt / AP

by Michael Armanious:

By not acting in the face of atrocity, the U.S. has unintentionally given the signal that it is retreating from the region. The implication of this retreat is that violence against Christians and other minorities can proceed with impunity.

Iskander Toss, who had lived all his life in the town of Delga in Upper Egypt, last week was kidnapped, severely beaten, and dragged on the dirt roads of the village until his spirit left him.

His crime? As in the Kenya mall massacre last week, he was a Christian.

A few days later, the Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] jihadists opened his grave, pulled his body out, and dragged it through the village until the majority of the Coptic families fled in terror.

What is unique about Toss’s death is that people know is his name. Throughout the land of the Nile, murders like his are taking place on a regular basis.

Delga, located 150 miles south of Cairo, is one of the oldest and the largest towns in Egypt. Out of over 100,000 inhabitants, 25,000 are Christians. Delga had a number of churches [4-5], some going back to the 4th century. Almost all of them have been destroyed.

For the past 75 days, since Morsi was forced out of office, members of the Ikhwan and its affiliates have cordoned off the village. They forced some Christians to pay “Jizya,” the extra poll tax that Christians and other non-Muslims are required to pay (like a shakedown fee for “protection.”) Members of the Ikhwan make life intolerable for Christian community in the village.

On September 16, 2013, the Egyptian armed forces moved in to free Delga from the Ikhwan and its supporters. The armed forces waited that long because of what happened earlier in Kerdasa, another village south of Cairo and the home of many Christian families.

In Kerdasa, members of the Ikhwan, starting in a police station, took 11 policemen and soldiers hostage. They tortured and shot them dead on camera, and set the station and the village’s churches on fire. Christians fled the village of Kerdasa.

The government’s strategy was to wait to give the world chance to see what the Ikhwan is capable of.

Ehab Ramzy, a Coptic attorney in Egypt, provided the context. He stated in a televised interview that his office building was set on fire along with 50 churches and 1,000 Christian businesses. They were destroyed in Upper Egypt, Ramzy explained, on the day that Morsi was forced out. This was the Ikhwan strategy, he said: to punish the church for not supporting Morsi.

Since the ouster of Mohamed Morsi, the problem has only intensified: anti-Christian violence now manifests itself in Egypt with increasing regularity.

Since ouster of Hosni Mubarak in February 2011, what happened to the Christians in Delga and Kerdasa, has been happening throughout Egypt.

Read more at Gatestone Institute



Arab Spring End: Tunisia’s Ruling Islamists Fall

reu-tunisia-crisis_protests-450x265FPM, By Daniel Greenfield:

Despite being the wellspring of the Arab Spring, Tunisia hasn’t gotten much attention. But the counterrevolution that took down the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt really began in Tunisia.

Back in October of last year, I predicted that Egypt and Tunisia were both headed for Counterrevolutions against Islamist rule. The revolution in Egypt happened and the protests and unrest in Tunisia has been growing.

Now events are approaching the endgame.

Tunisia’s ruling Islamists rejected on Monday a plan for them to step down pending elections, deepening a confrontation with secular opponents that threatens the most promising democratic transition to have emerged from the Arab Spring.

The Islamist government that replaced Tunisia’s longtime ruler Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali had on Thursday cautiously agreed to talks on stepping down, after reading opposition protests as a sign it is time to compromise instead of digging in.

On Monday it appeared to take a step back.

“We cannot accept the threat of pressure from the streets,” said Ennahda vice president Adb el Hamid Jelassi. “There should be more guarantees.”

Stubbornness was the undoing of its affiliate in Egypt – the Muslim Brotherhood which won office through the ballot box after the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak but alienated the masses and the army by refusing to share power.

“We have said that this government would not step down concretely before the completion of the constitution,” Rafik Abd Essalem, a senior Ennahda official, told reporters.

Of course they intend to lock in the constitution first. That’s their endgame. But the Morsi constitution is already being rewritten. No reason that the Ennahda one can’t be.

UPDATE: Ennahda down.

Tunisia’s governing Islamist party has agreed to step down following negotiations with opposition parties that begin next week.

A spokesman for the main labor union said months of talks with the Islamist-led government had finally reached an agreement Saturday. Bouali Mbarki of the UGTT union said the deal calls for three weeks of negotiations to appoint an interim, non-partisan government.

Commission Seeks Answers on Benghazi


The Obama administration has been supporting jihadists and the Muslim Brotherhood abroad, thereby furthering the goals of Islamists in the Middle East, argued several speakers at Accuracy in Media’s Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) conference last week. Why is this important to the exploration of what happened in Benghazi on September 11, 2012? First of all, it provides context for the terrible conditions that Ambassador Stevens faced when he traveled there that September, and the make-up of those who attacked our facilities there. It could also partially explain the administration’s eagerness to falsely blame the attack on a YouTube video that Muslims found offensive, rather than acknowledge poor security conditions and a growing al-Qaeda movement in the region. After all, the President believes that core al Qaeda is on the run.

“Here’s the sentence, here’s the headline, that the Obama administration does not want broadcast anywhere or printed anywhere: ‘Obama Administration Arms Al Qaeda,'” Chris Farrell, Director of Research and Investigation at Judicial Watch, said at the conference. “That’s it, right there.”

Judicial Watch is the only organization litigating in Federal Court on Benghazi to date. It recently issued a new report, the second of two, on the Benghazi attacks and the administration’s subsequent stonewalling.

“Look, this attack in Benghazi did not happen in a vacuum. It wasn’t a fluke. It didn’t just occur,” argued author and investigative journalist Ken Timmerman. “It was a policy shift that took place as soon as Obama took power to overturn our longstanding national security alliances in the Middle East and to support the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“I think the path, I think the green light, if you will, even, was given by President Obama in his 2009 speech in Cairo, Egypt, when he green-lighted the Islamic uprising that would follow over the next two years,” said Clare Lopez, a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy. Lopez is a former CIA operations officer and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. “What happened in Libya was a follow-on to that green light, as well as what happened in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood rose up and seized power for a time.”

During the aforementioned Cairo speech, noted Timmerman, “sitting behind the President of the United States as he’s giving the speech, so they’re pictured in all of the news footage of it, are top members of the Muslim Brotherhood-at that point still an outlawed group although tolerated by the Mubarak regime.” Hosni Mubarak, the president of Egypt at that time, was not invited. This sends a clear message from our President.

As for Muammar Qaddafi, he was a brutal dictator, but “He had al-Qaeda jihadis in his jails,” said Lopez. “And yet, in March of 2011, the United States, together with NATO allies Italy, France, and others, decided to intervene in Libya. Why? To assist al Qaeda militias to overthrow a sovereign government that was no threat to the United States.” Those skeptical of the al Qaeda connections to Libya Shield, Ansar al Sharia, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), and other Libyan “liberation” freedom fighters should read John Rosenthal’s The Jihadist Plot, which details al Qaeda’s intricate plan to overthrow the apostate Qaddafi.

Source: Family Security Matters 


Egyptian Court Bans the Muslim Brotherhood

MB supporters in EgyptBY RYAN MAURO:

The Muslim Brotherhood has been banned by an Egyptian court and all of its assets frozen. An arrest warrant was also issued for SheikhYousef al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader who is based in Qatar. Fears of a backlash from the Brotherhood are well-grounded, but it won’t be a popular backlash.

Aware of how the Muslim Brotherhood often operates through fronts with different names, the court ruling left no wiggle room. It stated that the ban also applies to “any institution breathing out of it or … receiving financial support from it.”

The Brotherhood will make a lot of angry noise and its ideological colleagues in America, like the Islamic Circle of North America and the Muslim American Society, will again come to its side. But don’t let the media-savvy Brotherhood trick you into thinking there is popular outrage about its treatment.

After the violent crackdown on the Brotherhood’s “peaceful” sit-ins began, the Egyptian military was criticized by the U.S., but a statement buried in a New York Times article told the truth: “[M]any Islamists waited confidently for a surge of sympathetic support from the broader public. But it failed to materialize.”

The banning of a political party like the Brotherhood may repulse Westerners, but most Egyptians no longer view the Brotherhood as a legitimate political party. And, remember, this is the same Egyptian population that voted it into power.

The Egyptian Center for Public Opinion Research found that 69% of Egyptians completely oppose a political role for the Brotherhood. Another 13% want to ban the Brotherhood as a political party, but not as a religious organization. An astonishingly small portion, only 6%, said they support future Brotherhood political involvement.

Read more at The Clarion Project

Also see:


Breaking News: Egyptian Court Bans Brotherhood

download (46)by IPT News:

As world watches Syria, Egypt launches major campaign against jihadists in Sinai

More than 20,000 Egyptians soldiers are pouring into the lawless Sinai Peninsula to "cleanse" the vast region of militant jihadists. (AP Photo, File)

More than 20,000 Egyptians soldiers are pouring into the lawless Sinai Peninsula to “cleanse” the vast region of militant jihadists. (AP Photo, File)

By Paul Alster:

While the eyes of the world are on Syria, Egypt’s military is routing jihadists from the vast and lawless Sinai Peninsula — and, according to some regional observers, showing the U.S. how to conduct a war on terrorists.

Under orders from Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the military leader governing Egypt since the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi was ousted, the Egyptian military is stepping up the fight against the growing coalition of Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda and other radical Muslims gathering in the massive desert peninsula. Although the jihadist activity in the Sinai could be as big a threat to regional stability as the civil war in Syria, Sisi’s effort to confront terrorism at his doorstep comes without endorsement from the Obama administration, which has denounced the military takeover in Egypt.

“I am more than sure that the Muslim Brotherhood and its leadership in Egypt were actually encouraged by the Americans — and not just in Egypt,” Mordechai Kedar, a highly respected analyst of Islamic groups, and a former Israeli military intelligence officer, told “The State Department sympathized with the Muslim Brotherhood because they wanted Islamists to love America. They will do anything in order to look nice in the eyes of these Islamists.”

In recent weeks, ferocious battles have been fought by the Egyptian military against Islamists in the vast desert region that separates Egypt and Israel. The territory is meant to be controlled by Egypt under the terms of the 1979 peace agreement between the two countries, but things in Sinai were already deteriorating during the final years of former President Hosni Mubarak’s rule. Then, during Morsi’s brief, 12-month tenure, things became significantly worse

Read more at Fox News

War Began

NWS_20130825_IME_018_28707069_I1By Justin O. Smith:

“…war began, that is, an event took place opposed to human reason and to human nature. Millions of men perpetrated against one another such innumerable crimes, frauds, treacheries… incendiarisms, and murders, as in whole centuries are not recorded in the annals of all the law courts of the world, but which those who committed them did not at the time regard as being crimes.” -Leo Tolstoy ‘War and Peace’

Today Americans find themselves once more on the brink of a massive military conflagration, and Obama has led them there. His weak, indecisive and timid foreign policy throughout the entire Middle East and his “red line” comments concerning both Iran and Syria regarding any use of weapons of mass destruction do not bode well for Israel’s future, and Obama has backed our nation into a dangerous and precarious position. And, although Secretary of State John Kerry tried his best to link the recent sarin gas attacks on innocent Syrians to the Syrian government and Bashar al-Assad, no definitive proof has yet been offered.

Is it not possible that, through the course of this war, Al Qaeda and the islamofascists managed to capture some of Assad’s chemical weapons stockpile and committed this crime against humanity in order to acquire more arms and garner the full support of the U.S. for Syria’s “rebels”?

Regardless of who is responsible, one must ask, “What vital U.S. interest is at stake here?”

This conflict in Syria represents a great deal more than a simple “civil war”, and Assad was telling the truth to the entire world, when he stated that his government and Syria were under an Al Qaeda led attack, coordinated with other islamofascist groups such as Shaabab el-Nusra. And now, islamofascists from across the globe are flocking to Syria in an attempt to organize a new base of operations there.

The Middle East has long fought an inner struggle, not only between Shia and Sunni sects, regarding the process of modernizing and taking a place in the civilized world, and, in pursuit of establishing a free society eventually, strong men, albeit dictators, and liberal Muslim “reformers” such as Jamal Abd al-Nasser and Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Hafez Assad and now his son Bashar Assad of Syria have attempted to suppress islamofascism and the return of the Islamic theocratic caliphate (much like the Ottoman Empire) espoused by the Muslim Brotherhood and its offspring, Al Qaeda and Hamas. In 1954 Nasser outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood, and in 1982 Hafez Assad brutally suppressed a Muslim Brotherhood uprising at Hama. And, in light of how quickly Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood began squashing the Egyptian constitution, declared a dictatorship and repressed 22 million secular Egyptians and persecuted Egypt’s Christians, after Obama ensured Hosni Mubarak’s removal, it appears that previous leaders knew their enemy well.

Mustafa Mashur, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt from 1996 to 2002, often stated: “Jihad for Allah is not limited to the specific region of the Islamic countries since the Muslim homeland is one and not divided, and the banner of jihad has already been raised in some of its parts, and shall continue to be raised, with the help of Allah, until every inch of the land of Islam will be liberated and the State of Islam established.”

And, in relation to Mashur’s statement, the Shia Muslims of Hezbollah in Iran and the Sunni Muslims of Al Qaeda, Hamas and many other islamofascist groups are in agreement, even though they are currently battling each other in Syria. This has occurred, in large part, because Iran still needs Russian support (Russia also needs Syrian ports), Syria is a client state of both Iran and Russia, and Iran and Saudi Arabia both see their nations as the leaders of the Islamic world; in the meantime, Erdogan of Turkey is backing Al Qaeda, Shaabab el-Nusra and the other islamofascists in Syria.

By now, most Americans recognize that Assad and the Syrian government have never been a friend to the U.S., as Syria has long been aligned with North Korea, Iran and Russia, but just a little over two years ago, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referred to Assad as “a reformer”, since he had loosened some of the more repressive measures at the time; make no mistake, Assad has been brutal in his tactics against any opposition to his Baathist government, especially so against the Muslim Brotherhood, but, until his regimes’ recent destabilization, he has been a stalwart protector of Syrian Christians from the likes of Al Qaeda, which is now killing Christians at will!

On August 31, 2013, Obama stated that he “had concluded these (sarin) attacks” had been carried out by Assad’s regime, as ended with “if this proves to be true.” This is the most uncertain and ambiguous statement ever to have been made by a U.S. president.

Initially, Obama seemed set to act on his own authority and order a “limited surgical strike” of cruise missiles on approximately 50 Syrian targets, but now, many of Obama’s supporters are suggesting that a need to present a “unified front” explains his recent vascillation and decision to seek Congressional approval for this strike. Like many others, I see this as a move to save face. His “red line” comment was ill-advised, and now he is compounding idiocy with a more idiotic attack on Assad’s regime, which will only advance Al Qaeda and the islamofascist agenda in Syria; just as U.S. interests were better served in Egypt under Hosni Mubarak, so too are they better served with Assad in contol of Syria for the time being.

On September 1, 2013, Senator Rand Paul stated, “I think it’s a mistake to get involved in the Syrian civil war… How can you ask a man to be the first to die for a mistake?”

Currently our enemies are calling Obama’s indecisiveness “a declining America’s retreat.” With Iran becoming more powerful everyday and still the number one exporter of terrorism in the world and Saudi Arabia exporting the Islamic Wahhabiist ideology, islamofascism is once more on the rise and threatening Europe and America too. War between the United States and the islamofascists and their allies is inevitable; if the U.S. is to attack anyone, the target should be Iran, as we also continue to decimate Al Qaeda, ever since their actions in 1979, 1983, 2001, and 2003 to the present have shown the lengths they will go to hurt America. But, this doesn’t mean we necessarily abandon the idea of, at the very least, a temporary peace and hasten to war in the next few weeks, especially with several Russian warships in the area and an inept and foolish Muslim sympathizer, Barack Hussein Obama, guiding us into certain disaster and possibly WWIII: U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East must reflect a counter to threats from Iran, its proxies and the Muslim Brotherhood and aligned islamofascist groups, as we simultaneously separate ourselves from a region that maintains such a warped worldview and vision of a new order, despite our oil needs which can realistically be met through our own naturally occurring mineral wealth.

I’m not necessarily against taking Assad to task eventually for all his past bad acts, such as the nuclear reactor discovered by Israel in 2007, but I cannot in good conscience support a U.S. president who is not trusted by his allies. This is not the time nor the president of strength needed for the future conflagration America is certain to see.