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

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.

Is The Church Playing Politics?

Hantu Laut

This is a sensitive subject among Muslims and Christians.

As always it is the Abrahamic religions that caused turmoils and segregation of the human race more than any other religion, be it Islam, Christianity or Judaism, they all shared a harrowing and brutal past. They still could not see eye to eye and bent on destroying each other.

All three religions came from the same root and shared many of the same prophets, but the mistrust, distrust and hostility among the theocrats, the hypocrites and among the pretenders of religious piety had been the mother of many holy wars, religious violence, genocides and pogroms. 

The Nazi's Holocaust and the Russian pogroms of the Jews in Europe stemmed out of ethnic and religious prejudice and bigotry are well documented in the history books, which, unfortunately, had not been made into textbooks in schools to teach the younger generations not to make the same mistakes as their forefathers. 

I am going to express my opinion on the issue and controversy of using the word "Allah" as conscientious as possible, without pride and prejudice. 

Though I am a Muslim I do believe the word Allah is not strictly confined to Muslims, as in the Arab worlds, the Arab Christians also used Allah to refer to their God, but that's where it ends. 

Why would the Christians in Malaysia be adamant in using the word Allah as their God, they are not Arab Christians.

In Sabah, as far as I can remember for yonks the Malay speaking Christian Kadazans and Dusuns have been using "Tuhan" to refer to their God. Even we Muslims, except the pretenders and hypocrites, occasionally, used the word "Tuhan" to refer to "Allah" in our daily conversation. As I speak English at home with my family, I tend use the word "God" more often than Allah. Would that makes me less Muslim and a sinner? It is the intention that matters, the word is just another proper noun.

In Judaism, the Hebrew word for God is "Yahweh" used in the Bible, but hardly spoken as the Jews think it is too sacred to be flogged around. Just as much as the Muslims revered the Koran as a sacred book and view any desecration of the Koran as unforgivable grave mortal sin, likewise, the Jews believe Yahweh should only stay in the Scripture.  

Allah is synonymous name for the "Almighty", why fret so much over which one you should use? Would you be less Christian if you use Tuhan, or less Muslim if you use God?

The word "Allah" came into widespread use in Malaysia when the Christian church started importing Bibles from Indonesia for the Malay speaking Christians. 

Christianity is a minority religion in Indonesia and the faithful are Malay speaking, hence, the Dutch had to introduce Bibles in the Malay language for the Christian converts. The Old and New Testaments were translated into Malay by two Dutchman named Melchior Leiddekker and Peter Vander Vorm. There have been many other earlier partial translations by other authors, but the complete works were done by the two.

As you can well judge it is not the Christians in the streets that are making all the noises, most are quite happy with "God" for the English speaking and "Tuhan" for the Malay speaking. Some Christians, particularly the English speaking ones find it repulsive to use "Allah" as their God, but no one wants to speak out as the Church had gone to the fore to challenge the government on its usage. 

It is the problem with all religions, once you challenge a religious edict, no matter, for good or for bad, you would be ostracised. In Islam you would immediately be branded a murtad, an apostate. Christianity, viewed apostasy in slighly different light today, as compared to 500-600 years ago.

It is the religious and political leaders from both sides of the two faiths that have caused this perturbing issue by turning it into a national dispute and politicians jumping on the bandwagon using it for political mileage and expediency. 

As I see it, both sides are politicising the issue at the expense of the people.It was never a major issue before and I don't quite understand why is the Church adamant on its usage in the Bible. 

In my family we have Christians, Buddish and non-believer relatives through inter-marriages and religions had never been an issue.There is great mutual respect for each other religion and we don't even talk about it when we meet at gatherings.  

Would the Christian God be less divine if it is called "Tuhan"? I don't know. Maybe, my good Catholic priest friend should tell me.

Somebody, told me the other day it is about freedom of religion and freedom of worship, which got me a little confused. 

Malaysia did not ban Christianity or any other religion as you can see from the number of churches and temples in the country and its congregations. If anything to go by it should be Muslims, who should be angry with the government as the government has banned Shiaism, which is considered one of the branches of mainstream Islam and nip in the bud deviant sects that mushroomed from time to time, which have saved this country from act of terrorism by religious extremists.

There should be sense and sensibility on this issue, the argument that if the Arabs used it for both religions, we must follow suit, is really not holding water.

Here, the Church is questioning the Sultan of Selangor decree on the use of Allah in his state. 

Here, the Protestant Church says it will, in spite of the ban, continue the use of Allah in the Malay language Bible as they have been using it for centuries.

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.

Gaddafi's Hallucinogenic Pills,Rotten Cheese And Sour Grapes

Hantu Laut

In a desperate attempt to justify his genocidal action against his own people Gaddafi has found a new bogeyman..........the abominable Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida....and this moron thinks the Western powers are going to be assuaged by his delusional claim of fighting Al Qaida.



In a rambling call to the state TV station he said the rebels are "loyal to bin Laden ... This is al-Qaida that the whole world is fighting against, Qaida militants are "exploiting" teenagers, giving them "hallucinogenic pills in their coffee with milk, like Nescafe,"

This man who has suffered "delusion of grandeur" for a long time has some nasty things swimming in his bloodstream is now taking ecstasy pill, rotten cheese and sour grapes and is a complete schizophrenia.........voices in his head telling him to mercilessly kill his own people, and..

....save Libya.

People's Power:Who's Next ?

Hantu Laut

It started most unexpectedly in Tunisia that dethroned Ben Ali's 24- year rule , spilled over to Egypt that forced out Hosni Mubarak's 30 year totalitarian regime.Spread like wildfire to Yemen, Bahrain and Libya which have not flared up completely but are likely to end up in the same fashion.

The waves of people power that first engulfed Tunisia seemed contagious to spread even more.

Libya, the most unexpected, is on the verge of collapse that will see the longest serving Arab despot exiled or dead.A leader with a penchant for Bedouin tents, heavily armed female bodyguards and blond Ukrainian nurses had mind-caged his people for over 40 years under rule of fear.

US President Ronald Reagan called him a "mad dog" and bombed Libya in 1986 in retaliation of the West Berlin disco bombing by Libyan agents that killed 2 American servicemen and a woman and wounding 200 others.Subsequent event, the tragic bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland that killed 270 people linked to Libyan agents. The US accused Gaddafi of sponsoring terrorism and got the UN Security Council to pass trade and economic sanctions on Libya.Sanction was lifted in 2003.

Libya, is now a war zone of civil unrest that have turned bloody with Gaddafi using the might of his military to crack down fiercely on demonstrators against his 42-year despotic rule.Over 500 civilians have been killed by the army and forces friendly to him.

In pure desperation to hang on to power Gaddafi even deployed fighter jets and helicopters to strafe protesters and civilian population.Two of his pilots refused to obey the order defected to Malta with the jet fighters and the pilots seeking political asylum.Obviously, he wanted to inflict maximum collateral damage to scare the population.

The current trouble in Libya seemed imminent that Gaddafi days are numbered.He has resorted to excessive violence and bloodshed to stay in power.He vowed to fight to the end and die as a martyr.A tyrant or despot is more befitting of him.Killing your own people to preserve yourself does not make one a martyr.

He appears to be losing support of his army.Of the 45,000 strong regular army only about 5000 are still loyal to him.It was reported that he has ordered oil sabotage by blowing up pipelines to the Mediterranean.He may be copying Saddam's scorch earth policy when the Iraqi army exited Kuwait.

The story is the same wherever you go in the Arab world, despotic rule and leaders taking liberty of the nations wealth and couldn't care two hoots about the people and nation.

A new awakening is hitting the Arab world where tyrants, despots and dictators ruled with impunity, disenfranchising the people, looting the country's wealth without any remorse and sense of shame. In the name of the religion they have suppressed the people, stole the nation's wealth and ravaged the country.

Spontaneous uprising to centuries of suppression in the world of despotism and primeval feudalism. Brutal leader who ruled by fear and violence and run the country as their own business empire, enriching themselves and their families.From Morocco spanning the Arab countries of Northern Africa to the Middle East the story is the same.Brutal and greedy leaders who overstayed their welcome.

Bahrain, is ruled by the Sunni Al Khalifa royal family. A shimmering hatred against the ruler by the majority Shia population has now boiled over. Saudi Arabia, ruled by the Al Saud royal family, the most repressive regime, rife for political change, is sitting nervously not knowing when it will be their turn.

We have seen it in the Philippines, we have seen it in Indonesia, we have seen it in the Arab world.

People's power! Who's next?

Also read:
How Qaddafi Lost Libya

Arabs Revolution:Gaddafi hits with deadly force

Libya's official news agency blames Israel for unrest, as security forces attack protesters.

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has unleashed a bloody crackdown against pro-democracy protestors seeking his ouster, killing dozens of people in only four days of protests.

On Sunday, the unrest spread to capital Tripoli from the eastern port city Benghazi.

Libyan Internet activists have denounced the international community's failure to act over the "massacres" in Libya.

The Cairo-based Arab Organisation for Human Rights has decried the use of violence against the protestors in Libya and called for an international investigation. The Vienna-based Friends of Humanity said the Libyan regime's onslaught was tantamount to "war crimes".

There are conflicting reports on the death toll but it is generally believed to be in the hundreds now.

Human Rights Watch reports that 173 people had died prior to Monday. The London-based private newspaper Libya Al-Youm quoted a local doctor as saying that 285 people died in the eastern city of Benghazi alone.

Some 300 people have been killed in Benghazi, the country’s second largest city, witnesses told Al Jazeera by phone.

The crackdown by Gaddafi, who has ruled Libya since 1969, threatens to make the revolt the most costly in terms of human lives and bloodshed in the wave of demonstrations sweeping across the region for greater freedoms.

Gaddafi, trying to stave off the fate of the presidents of Tunisia and Egypt who were removed from power after facing similar protests, has resorted to much harsher military tactics than those used in uprisings in neighbouring Egypt or Tunisia.

His tactics include cutting off food, fuel and medical supplies as well as electricity to revolting cities. The regime also cut off most communications to try to make sure the unrest does not spread to other cities. But the move failed to prevent protests erupting in capital Tripoli on Sunday.

Pan-Arab news outlets report that Gaddafi's troops have used live ammunition and heavy military equipment such as anti-tank missiles in Benghazi. Late on Sunday fierce clashes were being reported in Tripoli.

Libya Al Youm reported on its website on Sunday that the regime was using "heavy weapons" and shooting at random. Read more.