Showing posts with label Egypt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Egypt. Show all posts

Monday, July 8, 2013

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,

Thursday, July 4, 2013

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

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

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.

Monday, July 1, 2013

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:


Saturday, February 12, 2011

Egyptian Pharaoh Dethroned, What Next For Egypt?

Hosni Mubarak: Egyptian 'pharaoh' dethroned amid gunfire and blood

Critics said the president would never leave voluntarily but few political rights and falling prosperity forced an end.

    Husni Mubarak

    Hosni Mubarak's presidency was born amid gunfire and bloodshed and ended in an equally dramatic fashion. As vice-president, Mubarak was sitting next to Anwar Sadat on 6 October 1981 at an army parade in the Cairo district of Nasser City when soldiers with Islamist sympathies turned on their leader, pouring automatic weapons fire into the reviewing stand. Sadat was killed outright. Mubarak narrowly escaped. Eight days later, he was sworn in as Egypt's third president.

    That Mubarak should be ejected from the job he has held for nearly 30 years is, with hindsight, hardly a surprise. It had become clear to Egyptians and the world in recent years that even at the age of 82 he regarded the presidency as his by right, hence his nickname of "pharaoh" – and that he would not quit voluntarily. As the crisis overwhelmed him, he said he had had no intention of standing again in September. Few believed him. Others assumed he planned instead to install his second son, Gamal, in a dynastic succession.

    Mubarak's attitude to his people was by turns paternalistic, aloof and repressive. Though he claimed to love his fellow Egyptians, he did not trust them, maintaining the harsh emergency laws imposed after Sadat's assassination throughout his reign. Leading an unswervingly secular, pro-western regime, he demonised even moderate Islamist parties and made of the Muslim Brotherhood a bogeyman with which to scare the Americans.

    Yet, in rare interviews he implied that he believed he held some sort of divine mandate, that he ruled through and by God's will. After he survived an attempt on his life by Gema'a Islamiya (Muslim Group) terrorists in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, in June 1995, one of up to eight attempted assassinations over 30 years, he returned to Cairo proclaiming that God had saved him through an act of divine providence, as in 1981.

    Imperious, abstemious (he does not smoke or drink), and intensely private, he suggested Egyptians were lucky to have him in charge. Without him, he said repeatedly, there would be only chaos. And this claim to ensure stability was, in truth, his entire electoral manifesto.

    Yet mixed up with his vague sense of God-given power and obligation was a strong strand of regal hubris, bordering on self pity. "I've only had three months' holiday in my 56-year career," he told a television interviewer in 2005. "I've been doing hard labour for 56 years and it's all for Egypt." He never cried, he said, he never despaired, and he never allowed himself to be provoked. Influenced perhaps by his military background, he clearly saw such emotional repression as a virtue.

    Speaking this week, Mubarak returned to his favourite theme of self-sacrifice. As hundreds of thousands of demonstrators demanded he follow Tunisia's Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali into exile, he insisted he would serve Egypt until his last breath. "This dear nation ... is where I lived, I fought for it, and defended its soil, sovereignty and interests. On its soil I will die. History will judge me like it did others." Talking to ABC television last week on Thursday,he repeated his life-long, heart-felt mantra: that, if he left, chaos would descend.

    For all his vanities and inadequacies, Mubarak's early achievements were significant. To the turmoil that followed Sadat's death, he brought a steady hand and, at a moment of great peril, held the nation together. Confronting the ostracism of Egypt by Arab and Muslim countries following Sadat's 1979 peace treaty with Israel (the Arab League decamped from Cairo to Tunis in disgust), he worked assiduously to restore relations, finally succeeding by 1989 with all but the rejectionist leaders of Tehran.

    In 1990-91, he opted to support the American-led Operation Desert Storm to eject Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait, thereby cementing Egypt's new relationship with Washington and obtaining in return a $20bn write-off in debt. And faced by an upsurge in destabilising, jihadi violence in the 1990s, whose targets included Egypt's vital tourist trade, he fought back with calculated ferocity at a time when the US and Britain were still living in blissful ignorance of the gathering Islamist storm.

    Most important of all, at least from the western point of view, Mubarak maintained the peace, albeit a cold peace, with Israel and he fortified the US alliance. There was no repeat of the 1973 war with Israel, in which Mubarak, himself a former Soviet-trained fighter pilot, had distinguished himself as air force commander. There was no question of Egypt slipping back into Moscow's embrace, as in the time of Egypt's first president, Gamal Abdel Nasser.

    Mubarak was, by training, a stolid soldier and by instinct, a simple nationalist. Not for him Nasser's pan-Arabist romanticism. Not for him the showy extravagance of Sadat. In charisma, he was wholly lacking. Imagination was not his strong suit. His only political agenda was to maintain calm and maintain power. And that made him a reliable if limited ally.

    Mubarak received billions in American military aid, equipping and rewarding the army and its commanders, on whom his power ultimately rested. In recent years he proved a willing partner in Washington's endless search for an Israel-Palestine settlement. But for many Palestinians, and particularly Hamas, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, his pro-American stance was a galling betrayal. When Israel attacked Gaza in 2008-9, for example, he allowed Israeli bombers to over-fly Egyptian territory.

    In terms of the broader region, Mubarak maintained close ties in later years with fellow Sunni Muslim rulers in the Gulf and, despite attempts at reconciliation, remained strongly at odds with Iran over its nuclear programme and its involvement in Lebanon, Syria and Palestine. As the Arab world's most populous and influential country, Egypt under Mubarak saw itself as a natural leader in the face of Tehran's expanding ambitions. In this it was egged on by the US.

    Now, with Mubarak gone, the US and Israel face a more uncertain strategic reality, and not just in regard to Iran. Whoever leads Egypt in the longer term is unlikely to be as biddable as his fallen predecessor.Read more.

Friday, February 4, 2011

Egypt: Dangerous games

The machinations of the Mubarak regime could yet see much more blood spilt in Cairo.

The Guardian,

Blood is not the ideal lubricant for the orderly transition which all political forces in Egypt claim to want. Nor is deceit. Yet there is a clear danger of more of both as the regime in Cairo wriggles and manoeuvres for advantage. They may understand on one level that things cannot go on as they did before, but on another, some of them at least are acting as if outflanking their opponents is the main objective. There is also evidence, in the shape of a worsening of the conditions under which foreign journalists have to work, that they want to do it without the international press at their elbow.

Much of this manoeuvring centres on the physical possession of Tahrir Square. The passionate advocates of immediate change in Egypt have already been pushed out of part of the square by violent pro-Mubarak demonstrators. Now, in addition, they face the more insidious prospect of being "persuaded" out of this symbolic place by the argument that what they are doing will lead to dire consequences for the livelihood of ordinary Egyptians.

The new prime minister, Ahmed Shafiq, yesterday apologised for the violence in the square on Wednesday and said it would not be repeated. But he did so in a way which not so subtly equated the two sets of demonstrators, while laying on the anti-Mubarak side the responsibility for the deterioration in the country's economy. Vice-president Omar Suleiman did the same in an interview in which he recounted his attempts to conduct a dialogue with political parties and spoke of the length of time needed to make constitutional changes. The game here is an obvious one: paint the country as more or less equally divided and in need of arbitration and reconciliation, make economic normalisation the immediate priority, and draw out the political process.

One does not have to believe that every pro-Mubarak demonstrator is a thug or a plainclothes policeman to understand that equating the two sides in this way distorts reality. And, while arguments about Egypt's economic plight or the need to observe legalities cannot be dismissed, they are no substitute for creating the trust necessary if there are to be real negotiations about the country's future. Read more.

The Economist:The regime sends in the thugs
Maimi Herald:Egypt's Islamists, caught off guard by uprising, still defining role