Was Washington Behind Egypt's Coup ?

The overthrow of President Mohamed Morsi by the Egyptian Armed forces was not carried out against US interests, it was instigated to ensure “continuity” on behalf of Washington.

“[US Defense Secretary] Hagel and [US Chief of Staff General] Dempsey were walking a fine line … expressing concern while attempting to avoid the impression that the U.S. was manipulating events behind the scenes.” (Military.com, July 3, 2013)

The protest movement is directed against the US and its proxy Muslim Brotherhood regime.

The Muslim Brotherhood had been spearheaded into the government with the support of Washington as a“replacement” rather than an “alternative” to Hosni Mubarak, who had faithfully obeyed the orders of the Washington Consensus from the outset of his presidency.

While the Armed Forces have cracked down on the Muslim Brotherhood,  the Coup d’Etat is ultimately intended to manipulate the protest movement and prevent the accession of a “real people’s government”.  The overthrow of President Mohamed Morsi by the Egyptian Armed forces was not carried out against US interests, it was instigated to ensure “continuity” on behalf of Washington.

“Demonstrators carried hand-made posters denouncing Obama and his pro-Muslim Brotherhood Cairo Ambassador, Anne Patterson.” (F. William Engdahl, Global Research, July 4, 2013).  

The Muslim Brotherhood and the CIA

Western intelligence agencies have a longstanding history of collaboration with the Brotherhood.  Britain’s support of the Brotherhood instrumented  through the British Secret Service dates back to the 1940s. Starting in the 1950s, according to former intelligence official William Baer, “The CIA [funneled] support to the Muslim Brotherhood because of “the Brotherhood’s commendable capability to overthrow Nasser.”1954-1970: CIA and the Muslim Brotherhood Ally to Oppose Egyptian President Nasser,

Read more.

The End Of Morsi And Muslim Brotherhood:Live From Tahrir Square ?

Live from Tahrir Square.

Hantu Laut

After 20 years of Mubarak autocratic rule the Egyptians finally snapped and rose up to remove him through people's power popularly known as the "Arab Spring."

Mubarak was ousted in 2011 after 18 days of demonstrations by millions of Egyptians. Power was transferred to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. Egyptians all over the country were jubilant with the fall of Mubarak and look forward to a change for the better, a democratically elected president and civilian government. 

Over a year later election was called and a new president was elected. 

Muhammad Morsi was the first freely elected president of Egypt and just before his first anniversary in office huge demonstrations, bigger than the one that brought down Mubarak, flared across Egypt calling him to step down. The army gave him an ultimatum to step down, Morsi refused. 

Morsi was finally removed by the army on 3rd July 2013. The situation still looked uncertain as the Muslim Brotherhood threatened to fight to the last to keep Morsi in office.

We always want change for the better, but sometimes change don't come the way we want it. 

Is the CIA behind the scene?

Story here and here

Morsi Defies Military's Ultimatum

His fate hanging in the balance, embattled President Mohammed Morsi vowed not to resign Tuesday, hours before a deadline to yield to the demands of millions of protesters or see the military suspend the constitution, disband parliament and install a new leadership.

The Islamist leader demanded that the powerful armed forces withdraw their ultimatum, saying he rejected all "dictates" – from home or abroad. Outside on the streets, the sense that both sides are ready to fight to the end sharpened, with clashes between his supporters and opponents that left at least 23 dead, most of them in a single incident of fighting outside Cairo University.

In an emotional speech aired live to the nation, Morsi, who a year ago was inaugurated as Egypt's first freely elected president, pledged to protect his "constitutional legitimacy" with his life. He accused loyalists of his ousted autocratic predecessor Hosni Mubarak of exploiting the wave of protests to topple his regime and thwart democracy.

"There is no substitute for legitimacy," said Morsi, who at times angrily raised his voice, thrust his fist in the air and pounded the podium. He warned that electoral and constitutional legitimacy "is the only guarantee against violence."

Morsi's defiant statement showed that he and his Muslim Brotherhood are prepared to run the risk of challenging the army. It also entrenches the lines of confrontation between his Islamist supporters and Egyptians angry over what they see as his efforts to impose control by his Muslim Brotherhood and his failures to deal with the country's multiple problems.

Read more.

Anwar Beware Egypt:No More Rallies Please

Hantu Laut

The Arab countries are not yet ready for an open, modern and democratic society. They need "iron fist in a velvet glove" regime to maintain political stability.

The Arab Spring applauded by the West as the way to go for greater freedom and democracy have brought more harm and miseries than good to the Arab world. Regime change through violence and bloodshed is catalyst for more regime change through violence and bloodshed. 

Those "who live by the sword, die by the sword"and Egypt is glowing for another regime change that may lead to full scale civil war if the government can't smother the violent uprising.

Scores of Egyptian have been killed in violence demonstrations and a bigger and bloodier days are expected as the country fell into chaos with clashes between pro and anti-government factions. 

The core of discontent is President Muhammad Morsi, Egypt's first freely elected president. With just 30 months in office the people have grown tired of his incompetence. The country's economy is in shambles, in chronic state of stagnation and Mr Morsi is more interested in pursuing his Islamic agenda.

Before the general elections Anwar Ibrahim had mentioned a number of times of a Malaysian Spring for regime change. His refusal to accept the result of the elections is cause for concern. His gatherings of Blackout 505 rallies purportedly against electoral frauds were covers of more sinister plot.

Malaysians are still level-headed and peace loving, but Anwar should not push his luck and persist with his rally that could end up a putsch. 


Protesters torched Muslim Brotherhood headquarters.

Read more in the Telegraph and in the Economist:

The Promise Of The Arab Spring

By Sheri Berman

Foreign Affairs

Two years after the outbreak of what has come to be known as the Arab Spring, the bloom is off the rose. Fledgling democracies in North Africa are struggling to move forward or even maintain control, government crackdowns in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere have kept liberalization at bay, and Syria is slipping ever deeper into a vicious civil war that threatens to ignite the Middle East. Instead of widespread elation about democracy finally coming to the region, one now hears pessimism about the many obstacles in the way, fear about what will happen next, and even open nostalgia for the old authoritarian order. Last June, when the Egyptian military dismissed parliament and tried to turn back the clock by gutting the civilian presidency, The Wall Street Journal's chief foreign policy columnist cracked, "Let's hope it works." (It didn't.) And Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi's attempted power grab in November made such nostalgia commonplace.

The skepticism is as predictable as it is misguided. Every surge of democratization over the last century -- after World War I, after World War II, during the so called third wave in recent decades -- has been followed by an undertow, accompanied by widespread questioning of the viability and even desirability of democratic governance in the areas in question. As soon as political progress stalls, a conservative reaction sets in as critics lament the turbulence of the new era and look back wistfully to the supposed stability and security of its authoritarian predecessor. One would have hoped that by now people would know better -- that they would understand that this is what political development actually looks like, what it has always looked like, in the West just as much as in the Middle East, and that the only way ahead is to plunge forward rather than turn back.

The first error critics make is treating new democracies as blank slates, ignoring how much of their dynamics and fate are inherited rather than chosen. Turmoil, violence, and corruption are taken as evidence of the inherent dysfunctionality of democracy itself, or of the immaturity or irrationality of a particular population, rather than as a sign of the previous dictatorship's pathologies. Because authoritarian regimes lack popular legitimacy, they often manipulate and deepen communal cleavages in order to divide potential opponents and generate support among favored groups. So when democratization occurs, the pent-up distrust and animosity often explode. And because authoritarian regimes rule by command rather than consensus, they suppress dissent and block the creation of political and social institutions that allow for the regular, peaceful articulation and organization of popular demands. So citizens in new democracies often express their grievances in a volatile and disorganized way, through a dizzying array of parties, extremist rhetoric and behavior, and street protests and even battles. Read more.

Chop Suey!

Hantu Laut

A good orator does not necessary make a good leader.Hitler was one such person. He was imprisoned after a failed coup d'etat (Beer Hall Putsch). During his time in prison he wrote his memoir, Mein Kempf (My Struggle).

He gained popular support after his release from prison and became the Chancellor in 1933 and transformed Germany as the Third Reich.He was a charmer, a charismatic orator that eventually became the most notorious beast, a monstrous and murderous dictator of the modern era. He murdered 11 million people including 6 million Jews.Many more millions died fighting the war.

Hitler did not suffer from any mental disorder, he was just a clever conniving, ruthless and needless to say, a person who was just born bad.

Sometimes, a leader we least expected to be bad can become a monster when given too much power. Of recent time, Pol Pot of Cambodia killed almost 2 million of his own people within a spate of less than four years.It took the Cambodians many years to recover the aftermath of the genocidal regime.

Take Africa and the Middle East, almost two-thirds of the region had been or still under the rules of despotic leaders. These countries are ripe for revolutions and the Middle East countries have seen conflagration of uprisings involving Tunisia,Egypt,Libya,Yemen,Bahrain and ongoing uprising in Syria, which has become as bloody as the Libyan revolution.

Clearly, the Western powers are not prepared to intervene where there is no oil and Western interests at stake.Assad is at liberty to do what he likes, including killing the innocents to instill fear in the population.He may end up same as Qaddafi or able to put down the rebellion with high human cost.Over a hundred people are killed everyday.

Saudi Arabia is the next hotspot, volatile for change.At the moment the kingdom has managed to contain the discontentment by bribing the people with cash handouts, it may not be this year, it may not be next year, but it will come. As Brutus says "not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more". History has shown brutal regime cannot stand for long.

The Asean region have had its share of dictators and bad leaders, it has seen two dictators brought down by people's power, Marcos of Philippines and Suharto of Indonesia.When it come to human right abuses they are mild compared to Arab leaders who are prepared to perpetrate iniquity to stay in power.Criticising the leaders is a crime and political prisoners are regularly tortured in those godforsaken countries.

No matter what the opposition and the Western press tell you about Malaysia, our government is not as brutal as those countries, physical torture of political prisoners are not common occurrences here as in Africa and the Middle East.Malaysia do not have political prisoners languishing in prison for long period of time.Most of those detained under ISA were considered security risk to the nation or involved in terrorist activities.Sometimes, the ISA is a necessary evil.

Almost all the tyrants and despots of the so-called democratic world were put there by the people and allowed to have absolute power to run the country as they deemed fit until the people found out that their mouths are muffled and their freedom restricted and those opposing the regime either gone missing or in prison.

The Arab Spring gained momentum due to social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and blogs.These sites can provide instant information and can be updated anytime.The alternative media is now the media of choice providing the people the thirst for political gobbledygook.

In Malaysia the anti-government blogs get more visits than pro-government blogs.Even in Singapore, considered squeaky clean and excellent government the Internet has played a role in helping to swing opinion against the government.The PAP popular vote declined by 6.46% from its 2006 elections to 60.14%, the lowest since independence, losing 6 seats to the opposition Worker's Party.

If excellent government can suffer unforeseen and unexpected decline in its popularity what awaits the less than excellent ones.

The results of the March 2008 General Elections were indicative of the powers of the Internet and its influence on the masses, particularly, the youth.Malaysian homes are well wired especially in urban and semi-urban areas. The alternative media have become the media of choice for most Malaysians. The Malaysian government ignoring the alternative media at its own perils.

Anwar Ibrahim was all excited talking about a Malaysian version of the Arab Spring if Pakatan don't make it to Putrajaya. His insatiability for power and to be prime minister had taken over his good sense.Majority of Malaysians are more level-headed than he assumed.They will not go on to the streets to topple a duly elected government.

Pakatan leaders, instead of telling Malaysians what they can and will do for the people if they form the next Federal government, spent more time on witch-hunting, self-aggrandizing and distributing lie-goodies to the people

Be careful of wolf in sheep clothing and whom you elect to lead this country.

Chop Suey, shap sui or za sui, does it matter, they are all the same!

New Videos:The Qaddafis' Last Minute

Hantu Laut

Mob justice.Deplorable,disgusting and sickening.They are no different from the tyrant they killed.

Savages!

Warning: some of the video included in this post is extremely graphic.

How to Catch Qaddafi

BY BENJAMIN RUNKLE

History has a strange way of repeating itself, often more quickly than anticipated. Within hours of invading Panama in 1989, U.S. forces had decimated the Panamanian Defense Forces and were greeted as liberators by the long-suffering Panamanian people. Yet the failure to immediately capture Gen. Manuel Noriega, the thuggish, pock-marked Panamanian strongman, dominated perceptions of Operation Just Cause. At the first post-invasion news conference in Washington, reporters asked: "Could we really consider Just Cause successful as long as we did not have Noriega in custody?"

More than a decade later, coalition forces overwhelmed the Iraqi Army and seized Baghdad after a lightning three-week campaign in spring 2003. But the ostensible target of the invasion, dictator Saddam Hussein, disappeared. Despite the initial euphoria of liberation, ordinary Iraqis were plagued by a sense of growing unease and disbelief as graffiti praising Saddam began to emerge in Iraq's so-called Sunni Triangle, bearing messages such as "Saddam is still our leader" and "Saddam the hero will be back." While Noriega was apprehended within two weeks and the feared guerrilla campaign never developed, Saddam evaded coalition forces for eight months, during which time the Sunni insurgency that killed tens of thousands of Iraqis and nearly devastated Iraq coalesced.

Today, Libya's fate may similarly hinge on the apprehension of a deposed dictator. For even as forces loyal to the Western-backed National Transitional Council (NTC) storm Tripoli and attempt to consolidate control, the shadow of missing strongman Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi looms large over the country's future. The head of the NTC's provisional government, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, said Wednesday, Aug. 24,"The matter won't come to an end except when he's captured dead or alive" and "we fear mayhem and destruction from him because these are his values, upbringing, and practices." Or as a homemaker in Tripoli told the Wall Street Journal, "A part of me will always fear that he might come back, and until I see him in jail or hanging, that fear will remain."

In other words, capturing Qaddafi is critical to avoiding prolonged civil strife and achieving a strategically acceptable outcome in Libya. Recognizing this fact, the NTC announced a bounty of 2 million Libyan dinars -- approximately $1.35 million -- to anyone who captures the ousted leader and offered amnesty for past crimes to any member of the strongman's inner circle who either captures or kills him.

Given that deploying SEAL Team 6 is not an option, as Barack Obama's administration and Congress are united in their commitment to avoid the deployment of U.S. forces to Libya, what is the most likely way to capture Qaddafi? In my book Wanted Dead or Alive: Manhunts from Geronimo to bin Laden, I recount the history of 11 previous strategic manhunts, examining which factors lead to success or failure in apprehending the targeted individual. I focus on six variables: the level of technology employed (both relative and absolute), troop strength, terrain, human intelligence, indigenous forces, and bilateral assistance.

I found four surprising conclusions. First, although U.S. forces almost always enjoy an edge in technology over their quarry, this advantage is never decisive. Second, troop strength is less important than the presence of reliable indigenous forces. Third, although terrain can influence individual campaigns, there is no single terrain type that predicts success or failure. Finally, more important than physical terrain is human terrain, or the ability to obtain intelligence tips from local populations or support from neighboring states to assist in the strategic manhunt.

Applied to Libya, these lessons suggest several courses of action necessary to apprehending Qaddafi.Read more.