Category Archives: ArabSpring

Putin to those who supported “Arab Spring” in Middle East: “Do you realize what you have done?”

A Bridge Too Far


Not only have delusional Western leaders not realized what they’ve done, Obama was  boasting about his Libya success in his UN speech today. Libya is nothing short of a spectacular failure –it’s in utter chaos. Libya has degenerated into bloody jihad war. The Prime Minister fled the country last year. Ironically enough, while Obama was bragging over his Libya success, ten died in Islamic attacks in Benghazi. The Islamic State has conquered parts of Libya and they mean to take it all.

The whole world is laughing at him — laughing with blood.

Obama promised he would radically transform this country. And he has. Putin’s speech is a defining moment — a Russian leader schooling America on human rights and moral clarity.


Putin to those who supported “Arab Spring” in Middle East: “Do you realize what you have done?” (thanks to Jihad Watch)

“Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster — and nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life. I cannot help asking those who have forced that situation: Do you realize what you have done?”

No, they don’t realize what they have done, and they’re poised to do more of it. And those of us who warned at the time that the “Arab Spring” would not lead to “the triumph of democracy and progress,” but to “violence, poverty and social disaster,” were dismissed and derided as racist, bigoted “Islamophobes.” And no matter how often the establishment analysts get things wrong, and disastrously, fatally so, they never get called to account, and keep applying the same failed solutions over and over again.


“Putin: ‘Do you realize what you have done?,’” by Everett Rosenfeld, CNBC, September 28, 2015:

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday admonished those who supported democratic revolutions in the Middle East, telling the United Nations they led to the rise of a globally ambitious Islamic State.


“Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster — and nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life,” Putin said through a translator. “I cannot help asking those who have forced that situation: Do you realize what you have done?” The Russian president added that the power vacuum following these revolutions led to the rise of terrorist groups in the region — including the Islamic State group. He told the General Assembly it would be an “enormous mistake” not to cooperate with the Syrian government to combat the extremist group. “No one but President (Bashar) Assad’s armed forces and Kurdish militia are truly fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria,” he said. In an earlier speech at the U.N. , President Barack Obama said it would be a mistake to think that Syria could be stable under Assad. Acknowledging some of the criticism lobbed at Russia’s proposal, Putin said his country is only proposing to help save the world from terrorism. “I must note that such an honest and frank approach from Russia has been recently used as a pretext to accuse it of its growing ambitions — as if those who say it has no ambitions at all. However, it’s not about Russia’s ambitions, dear colleagues, but about the recognition of the fact that we can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world,” he said. He proposed a “generally broad international coalition against terrorism,” likening the suggestion to the anti-Hitler coalition that brought together disparate interests to battle fascism in Europe. Putin warned that international policy toward the region has led to an Islamic State with plans that “go further” than simply dominating the Middle East. And citing recent data about failures in successfully recruiting “moderate” Syrian opposition, Putin said countries opposed to Assad are simply worsening the situation. “We believe that any attempts to play games with terrorists, let alone to arm them, are not just short-sighted, but hazardous. This may result in the global terrorist threat increasing dramatically and engulfing new regions,” the Russian leader said….

Thuggish Egyptian Police Participate In Attack On Coptic Christians

Thuggish Egyptian Police Participate In Attack On Coptic Christians :

It must be understood that militant Muslims want to do genuine harm to Christians and they will do as much harm as they are permitted to do. If Mohammed Morsi fails to see justice done in this case, more violence can be expected from the religion of peace.


While the Muslims Slaughter Christians Every Day…

…the World Remains Silent!

THE BENGHAZI AFFAIR : Where Will It End…Where will it END !

Boudica BPI Weblog

Like everything that happens/happened during the course of Obama’s presidency there is no end to unanswered questions and inconsistencies AKA lies.

 Muslim Brotherhood Behind Benghazi Attack With Link to Obama

Published on Oct 19, 2012

Bombshell: Clinton Ordered More Security In Benghazi, Obama Denied Request


Published on Oct 26, 2012

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered additional security for the U.S. mission in Benghazi ahead of the terrorist attack but the orders were never carried out, according to “legal counsel” to Clinton who spoke to best-selling author Ed Klein. Those same sources also say former President Bill Clinton has been “urging” his wife to release official State Department documents that prove she called for additional security at the compound in Libya, which would almost certainly result in President Obama losing the election.

Follow us, donate and help…

View original post 3 more words

The Era of Dictators Moves to the Era of Islamists

Syria Again,

Syria Again,

Of Course I could Think of Armageddon and bible prophecy …Of Course I am.

But without those the situation is very likely that if nothing done. Israel be by its own against the whole neighbourhood.. Without A Finger dress from the West.

Jordan as some news come that it might be next actually.. of what I understand…it is done already.. The Infrastructure is there, the money the people and in a day, unrest in the street can be made with the Kill Israel! and Kill the Jews! With Guerrillas Type Jihadist ready to Cross the Jordan River, and can easy add with the Purpose Of Freeing Jericho First and from there further. The Israelis know that Jericho is like a swiss cheese and that enough stuff had been bring there for their D-day.

Syria, Syria Again.

What I want to say and had to all I did say About Syria, is some International Diplomacy Understand AT Last The Syrian Problem, and those Jihadist In Syria ARE CRIMINALS and a word that did strike me.. “Illegitimate” wow   that’s a fair evolution. But now there is an other problem IRAN.. People won’t help Syria because of Iran..

And Iran doesn’t care about Syria it care about Lebanon and its Hezbollah Soldiers..that can as well shoot civilians that the news will say Pro Assad Army.. done this and that.

Not easy task to be Syrian Today..

But like I say many, many month Ago The Road To Damascus..With Syria down..Full Circle Around ISRAEL and their D-Day is ON !! ALL their shouting about freeing Jerusalem.. Capital of the 6th Caliphate…and killing all Israelis with the Pleasure of Martyrdom.. will be on, will be effective…simple as that !

And Finally Iran gets is Role into that Scenario.. it has take time to understand the Game Muslim Brotherhood – Saudi-Arabia – Muslim Brotherhood – Iran

But here it is !

Now it is all in Syria HANDS.. not only kick out the MB-Al Qaida-American Founded Jihadist But say to Iran OUT OF SYRIA !Then Only Then.. Voices Will Start To be Heard…Is It Too Late ? Syria is Still Strong Enough of taking the “WHOLE” control of Syria ?Even If Syria Manage to get out of the TRAP, put in place By The Arab League.

Do The MB – Saudi-Iran- Qaida will still strike Israel.. It might.. anyway..

But everything what might disturb that plan..  I like!

Thanks For Reading..


And Not To Forget THE KURDS :

It might be the Right Time  For The International Community To Give The Kurds Their Voices and Their Freedoms, Their Rights To BE ! And Bring What Could Put A Stop To Certains Things…


Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Syria: Obama-backed rebels burn down church

There he goes again. Obama aiding and abetting the jihadists. Is there any more dangerous threat to freedom-loving peoples than Obama? Prepare yourself for a massive genocide (millions) of Christians by Muslims in Syria. And the media will ignore it, instead mythologizing about imaginary islamophobia.

Just ask the Armenian, Greek and Assyrian Christians.


Democracy on the march! “Armenian church reportedly burned down in Aleppo,” from Armenia Now, October 31 (thanks to Lachlan):

The St. Gevorg church in Aleppo’s Armenian-populated  district of Nor Kyugh was set ablaze on Monday, reported,  quoting a representative of the local Armenian prelacy.Speaking to the online paper, the spokesman, Zhirayr Reisian,  confirmed that the church had become a target of rebels and that it had  almost been reduced to ashes.

Reisian also said that the Mesrobian Armenian school adjacent to the church has been seriously damaged, too.

Earlier on Monday a blast near an Armenian district of Syrian capital Damascus reportedly killed 10 people and wounded around 50. Armenians  were feared to be among both dead and wounded.

Later Reisian told state-run agency Armenpress that a group of 10  Christians, including seven Armenians, was kidnapped near Aleppo.

About four dozen Syrian Armenians have reportedly been killed since  the start of the conflict in Syria in March 2011. Hundreds of an  estimated 80,000 Syrian Armenian, mostly concentrated in Aleppo, have  taken refuge in Armenia since fighting between government and opposition forces reached the city last July.

Jordan’s Next Leader? With Help from the U.S. Department of State + ALL THIS FOR THIS

Gatestone Institute

Jordan’s Next Leader? With Help from the U.S. Department of State

by Mudar Zahran October 26, 2012 at 4:45 am

Know The TRUTH ~ Step By Step ~ Bret Baier’s ~ ‘Death and Deceit in Benghazi’

Know The TRUTH ~ Step By Step ~ Bret Baier’s ~ ‘Death and Deceit in Benghazi’

Libya, Jordan and Obama’s guiding lights

Libya, Jordan and Obama’s guiding lights

October 18, 2012, 11:09 PM

Obama glares at Bibi.jpg
The operational, intelligence and political fiascos that led to and followed the September 11 jihadist assault on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, all derive from the same problem. That problem is the failure of US President Barack Obama’s conceptual framework for understanding the Middle East.
The Islamic revolutionary wave sweeping across the Arab world has rent asunder the foundations of the US alliance system in the Middle East. But due to Obama’s ideological commitment to an anti-American conceptual framework for understanding Middle Eastern politics, his administration cannot see what is happening.
That framework places the blame for all or most of the pathologies of the Muslim world on the US and Israel.
What Obama and his advisers can see is that there are many people who disagree with them. And so they adopted a policy of delegitimizing, discrediting and silencing their opponents. To this end, his administration has purged the US federal government’s lexicon of all terms that are necessary to describe reality.
“Jihad,” “Islamist,” “radical Islam,” “Islamic terrorism” and similar phrases have all been banned. The study of Islamist doctrine by government officials has been outlawed.
The latest casualty of this policy was an instructor at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Virginia.
Until he was sacked this week, the instructor taught a class called “Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism.”
According to Col. Dave Lapan, spokesman for the Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, the instructor was fired for committing a thought crime. He “portrayed Islam almost entirely in a negative way.” Dempsey himself ordered the probe of all Islamic courses across the US military educational system.
The administration’s refusal to accept the plain fact that the Islamic regimes and forces now rising throughout the Muslim world threaten US interests is not its only conceptual failure.
Another failure, also deriving from Obama’s embrace of the anti-American and anti-Israel foreign policy narrative, is also wreaking havoc on the region. And like the conceptual failure that led to the murderous attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, this conceptual failure will also come back to haunt America.
This second false conceptual framework argues that the root of instability in the region is the absence of formal treaties of peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors. It claims that the way to pacify the radical regional forces is to pressure Israel to make concessions in land and legitimacy to its neighbors.
Obama is not unique for his embrace of this conceptual framework for US Middle East policy. He is just the latest in a long line of US presidents to adopt it.
At the same time the concept that peace processes and treaties ensure peace and stability collapsed completely during Obama’s tenure in office. So what makes Obama unique is that he is the first president to cling to this policy framework since it was wholly discredited.
Israel signed four peace treaties with its Arab neighbors. It signed treaties with Egypt, Jordan, the PLO and Lebanon. All of these treaties have failed or been rendered meaningless by subsequent events.
Today Israel’s 31-year-old peace treaty with Egypt is a hollow shell. No, Egypt’s new Muslim Brotherhood regime has not officially abrogated it. But the rise of the genocidally anti-Semitic Muslim Brotherhood to power has rendered it meaningless.
The treaty is no longer credible, because the Muslim Brotherhood, including Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, reject Israel’s right to exist. Their rejection of Israel’s right to exist is not a primarily political position, but a religious one. Morsi and his regime perceive Jews as the enemies of Allah deserving of annihilation.
Morsi himself has a rich record of pronouncements attesting to this fact. For instance, in November 2004 he said, “The Koran has established that the Jews are the ones in the highest degree of enmity towards Muslims.”
He continued, “There is no peace with the descendants of apes and pigs.”
In January 2009, Morsi called Israelis “Draculas who are always hungry for more killing and bloodshed using all kinds of modern war weapons supplied to them by the American administration.” He accused Israelis of “sowing the seeds of hatred between humans.”
With positions like these, Morsi has no need to pronounce dead the peace treaty for which Israel surrendered the Sinai Peninsula, and with it, its ability to deter and block invasions from the south. Its death is self-evident.
The peace was made with a regime. And once the regime ended, the peace was over. The fact that the peace was contingent on the survival of the regime that made it was utterly predictable.
In 1983, Israel signed a peace treaty with Lebanon. The treaty was abrogated as soon as the regime that signed it was overthrown by Islamic radicals and Syria.
Then there was the peace with the PLO. That peace – or peace process – was officially ushered in by the signing of the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn on September 13, 1993.
Today, the Obama administration opposes PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas’s attempts to receive international recognition of a Palestinian state through an upgrade of its position at the UN to non-member state status.
Monday US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice explained that the Obama administration opposes the PLO’s move because it believes it “jeopardize[s] the peace process.”
But this is not a credible reason to oppose it. The reason to oppose it is because the PLO’s move harms Israel.
The peace process is dead. It is dead because it was a fraud. The Palestinians negotiated in bad faith from the beginning. It is dead because the Palestinian Authority lost the Gaza Strip to Hamas in 2007. It is dead because Abbas and his PA have no capacity to make peace with Israel, even if they wanted to – which they don’t. This is so because their people will not accept peaceful coexistence with Israel. The Palestinian national movement is predicated not on the desire to establish a Palestinian state, but on the desire to destroy the Jewish state.
Abbas made this clear – yet again – this week in a statement published on his official Facebook page. There he said outright that his claim that Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territory applies not only to Judea and Samaria, but rather, “the point applies to all the territories that Israel occupied before June 1967.”
With peace partners like this, it is beyond obvious that there is nothing that Israel can do short of national suicide that will satisfy them.
This brings us to Jordan. Jordan is one of those stories that no one wants to discuss, because it destroys all of our cherished myths about the nature of Israel- Arab relations, the relative popularity of jihadist Islam and the US’s options going forward.
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is composed of three population groups. Ethnic Palestinians comprise the vast majority of Jordan’s citizenry. The Hashemites have always viewed the Palestinians as a threat to the regime, and so blocked their integration into governing and military hierarchies. The Palestinians have always been opposed to Israel’s existence.
The second largest group of Jordanians is the Beduin tribes. Until the last decade or so, the Beduin tribes in Jordan, like those in Israel and Sinai, were not particularly religious, nor were they inherently opposed to peaceful coexistence with Israel.
Israeli Beduin served in the IDF in large numbers. The Beduin of Sinai served in Israel’s Civil Administration in Sinai and opposed the peace treaty that returned them to Egyptian control. And the Beduin of Jordan did not oppose the monarchy’s historically covert, but widely recognized, strategic alliance with Israel.
All of this has changed in the past 10 to 15 years as the Beduin of the area underwent a drastic process of Islamic radicalization. Today the Beduin of Sinai stand behind much of the jihadist violence. The Beduin of Israel have increasingly embraced the causes of irredentism, radical Islam and jihad. And the Beduin of Jordan have become even more opposed to peaceful coexistence with Israel than the Palestinians.
This leaves the Hashemites. A small Arabian clan installed in power by the British, the Hashemites have historically viewed Israel as their strategic partners and protectors of their regime.
Since the fall of the Mubarak regime, Jordan’s King Abdullah II has been increasingly stressed by regional events and domestic trends alike. The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has empowered the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan. The rise of pro-Iranian Shi’ite forces in post-US-withdrawal Iraq has made pro-Western Jordan an attractive target for triumphant jihadists across the border. The rise of Islamist forces in the Syrian opposition, not to mention the constant subversive activities carried out by Syrian regime agents, has limited Jordan’s maneuver room still further.
Emboldened by all these forces, the Jordanian Beduin are now in open revolt against the monarchy and its refusal to abrogate the peace treaty with Israel.
This revolt was exposed in all of its ugliness in recent weeks following Abdullah’s appointment of Walid Obeidat to serve as Jordan’s new ambassador to Israel.
Obeidat’s tribe disowned him and his family and branded him a traitor for accepting the appointment. His tribe invited the other tribes to join it in a mass rally demanding the abrogation of the treaty and the destruction of Israel.
In this state of affairs, the strategic value of Israel’s peace treaty has been destroyed. Even if Abdullah wished to look to Israel as a strategic protector, as his father, King Hussein, did in the 1970 Jordanian civil war between the Hashemites and the Palestinians, he can’t. In 1970, the Syrians shared Hussein’s antipathy to Yasser Arafat and the PLO and therefore did not intervene on their behalf. Today, there is no Arab force that would back him in an Israeli-supported fight against Islamic fundamentalists.
Perhaps in recognition of the fragility of the Hashemites’ hold on power, last week it was reported that the US has deployed military forces to the kingdom. According to media reports, the force consists of a few hundred advisers and other teams whose main jobs are to assist Jordan in handling the 200,000 refugees from Syria who have streamed across the border since the onset of the civil war in Syria, and to help to secure Syria’s chemical and biological arsenals. It is more than likely that the force is also in place to evacuate Americans in the event the regime collapses.
In the current situation, the US has very few good strategic options. But it does have one sure bet. Today the US has only one ally in the Middle East that it can trust: Israel. And the only no-risk move it can make is to do everything in its power to strengthen Israel.
But to adopt this policy, the Americans first need to discard their false conceptual frameworks regarding the Middle East. Unfortunately, as the US response to the Benghazi attack and its continued assaults on Israel make clear, there is no chance of that happening, as long as Obama remains in the White House.
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

H/T :

Carter, Obama, and the Arab Spring’ (By Ruthie Blum)
“…irrefutable evidence that misguided foreign policy…”

Jordan: King Abdullah Losing the Support of Tribes?

The FULL CIRCLE will Soon taking place in the front of our very eyes..

Watching The Moon becoming full of blood..

And NO ONE to Stand and SAY : STOP !!!


Those Of The Sufi Circle of Ikhwan must scream their Soul Out for the Blood of The Infidels,

Jerusalem.. Jerusalem.. The Heart Of Our Hearts, The Spear Of the Roman into The Body Of Civilization !!

The Moon it Seems Will Turn Red


 God Help Us ! God Help Us All !

Jordan: King Abdullah Losing the Support of Tribes?

by Khaled Abu Toameh October 16, 2012 at 5:00 am

The Jordanian tribe is now planning a huge rally against Israel, with whom it has a peace treaty. Other tribes have been invited to join the rally, posing a major and unprecedented challenge to the monarchy.

Walid Obeidat, Jordan’s new ambassador to Israel, a member of one of Jordan’s largest and most influential tribes, deserves an award for being one of the most courageous diplomats not only in his country, but in the entire Arab world.

His tribe has now “disowned” him because he agreed to serve as ambassador to Israel, which has a peace treaty with Jordan.

This is a particularly harsh punishment: it means that Obeidat would no longer enjoy the backing of his tribe.

Clans often “disown” one of their members when he or she is involved in an extremely serious crime or an act of treason.

It also means that he and his wife and children would be boycotted by the tribe for the rest of their lives.

Obeidat is courageous not only because he decided openly to challenge his tribe, but also for rejecting a $5 million bribe that was offered to him by the tribe in return for turning down the offer.

The tribe had also offered to nominate him as as its candidate in the upcoming parliamentary election, but Obeidat insisted on rejecting that offer, as well.

A defiant Obeidat is set to assume his new job this week after presenting his credentials to President Shimon Peres.

“By accepting this post, he has crossed all the red lines,” the Obeidat tribe said in a statement published last week. “The tribe was and remains loyal to the liberation of all Palestinian land, from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea.”

The Jordanian tribe is now planning a huge rally against Israel that will coincide with the ambassador’s arrival in Tel Aviv. Other tribes have been invited to join the rally, posing a major and unprecedented challenge to the monarchy.

By coming out against the decision to appoint a new ambassador to Israel, the Obeidat tribe is openly challenging King Abdullah and questioning his policies and decisions.

The Obeidat’s response to the appointment of the new ambassador is a sign of increased tensions between Jordan’s King Abdullah II and the kingdom’s Bedouin tribes.

This is not about hating Israel as much as it is about King Abdullah losing the traditional support and loyalty of his kingdom’s tribes.

Some of these tribes have recently come out in public against the beleaguered monarch, who is already facing strong criticism for failing to implement meaningful reforms and combat rampant corruption.

Yet these tribes have also stopped the Jordanian authorities from taking legal action against members who are suspected of corruption and other crimes.

Some of the tribes, according to sources in Amman, have formed alliances with the king’s Muslim Brotherhood rivals, who are spearheading the current wave of anti-government protests in Jordan.

There is nothing that King Abdullah can do at this stage other than attempt to “compensate” or “appease” his erstwhile supporters, probably by offering them financial aid and government jobs.

If the king fails to do so, his kingdom will be headed toward more instability in the coming weeks and months.


The Jordanian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood was formed in 1942, and is a strong factor in Jordanian politics. While most political parties and movements were banned for a long time in Jordan such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Brotherhood was exempted and allowed to operate by the Jordanian monarchy. The Jordanian Brotherhood has formed its own political party, the Islamic Action Front, which has the largest number of seats of any party in the Jordanian parliament.[66]

The Muslim Brotherhood is playing an active role in the unrest in several Arab countries in January 2011. For example, at a rally held outside the Egyptian Embassy in Amman on Saturday, 29 January 2011 with some 100 participants, Hammam Saeed, head of the Muslim Brotherhood of Jordan and a close ally of the Hamas’s Damascus-based leader, Khaled Meshaal, said: “Egypt’s unrest will spread across the Mideast and Arabs will topple leaders allied with the United States.” However, he did not specifically name Jordanian King Abdullah II.[67] The Muslim brotherhood is rightfully or wrongfully feared by several commentators in the west, however it is not known how many seats in a democratic government the brotherhood will gain in any of the aforementioned countries. (WIKI)

Flag of Jordan.svg

Islam and the Arab Awakening,The Mahdi Exposed ..

Islam and the Arab Awakening

by Tariq Ramadan

Oxford University Press, 245 pp., $27.95

OVER THE PAST decade, Tariq Ramadan has emerged as one of the most influential “anti-imperialist” Islamic intellectuals in the West. At the heart of Ramadan’s critique is the idea that, while Western powers no longer directly govern their former colonies, “ideological imperialism” continues. In this theory, feminism, liberal democracy, and especially secularism are all distinctly Western and often tied to Christianity. Therefore, these concepts are not universally good, and one should not expect other, non-Western societies to aspire to them. Arabs and Muslims, as Ramadan suggests, should instead rely on “their own history” and “their values.”

The Arab Spring, however, has put Ramadan in a sticky spot. These protests were led, at least initially, by young liberals and leftists whose ideas Ramadan considers to be at best inauthentic, and at worst remnants of Western imperialism. Those brave young activists were decidedly secular. Some raised the banner of liberalism and even, dare we say it, feminism. What was a good post-colonial theorist to do? Does one stand with the revolution and undermine the view that these ideas are a form of “ideological imperialism”? Or does one reject the revolutionaries as pawns in a great Western conspiracy? Neither of these options appealed to Ramadan. The first undermines the analytical framework upon which his entire career rests, and the second puts him on the same side as the dictators he despises.

Ramadan’s new book is his attempt to wiggle out of this conundrum. With events still in flux, the book is obviously a rushed analysis designed to strike while the iron—and public interest—is hot, rather than a carefully considered study. In fact, the main text is only 144 pages; the remaining 65 pages of the book consist of 28 previously published and only loosely related articles written as the Arab Spring unfolded. One imagines that Ramadan included these articles not simply as filler, but because they demonstrate something important about his analysis. What they, along with the main text repeatedly reveal, however, is that the anti-imperial lens through which he sees the region consistently leads him astray.

RAMADAN IS THE SCION of an important Islamist family. His grandfather, Hassan al-Banna, founded the Muslim Brotherhood, and is considered by many to be the father of modern Islamism. Ramadan’s parents were exiled from Egypt, and they raised him in Switzerland. Despite his lineage, the European environment in which he came of age led him to a more moderate understanding of Islam. His views on the relationship between Islam and the West, or the ability for Muslims to integrate with non-Muslims, are far less confrontational than those of his grandfather. Some have even championed Ramadan as one of Islam’s brightest reformers—a mantle that Ramadan has readily adopted in books such as Radical Reform.

Yet Ramadan has not completely given up the anti-Western animus of his Islamist forefathers, and he refuses to come to terms with his family’s deeply troubling history. His Western critics have assailed these shortcomings. Some of these critiques, such as Paul Berman’s lengthy essay in this magazine, have been thoughtful and challenging. Others have been laced with Islamophobia and ignorance. (In an incident emblematic of the Bush Administration’s overreactions during the war on terrorism, the United States denied Ramadan an entry visa and thus a faculty appointment at the University of Notre Dame. He has since taken a position at Oxford in the United Kingdom.) Though rushed and in many ways intellectually incomplete, Islam and the Arab Awakening provides another telling window into Ramadan’s ultimately simplistic worldview.

Though Ramadan probably did not intend them this way, the articles that he appends to Islam and the Arab Awakening showcase the evolution of his thought on the Arab Spring. Initially, he was excited and optimistic: “Tunisians, you are right to revolt.” And “All honor and praise to the people of Tunisia!” Yet these were the early days of the revolutions, before he realized that they would not take the anti-Western tone he had imagined. The protesters somehow did not understand that to be authentic to “their own history” and “their values” they needed to reject secularism, equality for women, and friendly relations with Western governments.

When the revolutionaries indeed turned out to be secular, internet-savvy youth who did not hate the United   States, Ramadan changed his tune. He later derides the Arab Spring’s “secularist intellectuals” and “secular elites.” These phrases, coming from his pen, drip with disdain. He also denounces the “internet culture” of the youth activists, calling it a “cult.” He then ties these young so-called Twitter revolutionaries to an American-led imperialist plot to control the Arab World. “In point of fact,” he warns, “Google, Twitter and Yahoo were directly involved in training and disseminating information on the Web promoting pro-democracy activism.” Why is this worrisome? Because “Google’s position throughout the uprisings has been virtually identical to that of the US government or of NATO.” This forces him to ask, “Are the most prominent activists truly apolitical young people?” And “What has been the extent of financial support from the governments and private transnational corporations that control large swaths of internet activity?” He has no answers to these questions; like any decent peddler of conspiracy, he is just asking. Remarkably, as Ramadan traveled throughout the Middle East in the wake of the uprisings, he was somehow surprised when youth activists and revolutionaries who had risked their lives standing up to dictators, “strongly rejected” his theory that they were pawns of Western imperial designs.

Ramadan’s problematic views are also evident in the book’s sloppy analysis and inconsistencies. “Arguments that the [Muslim Brotherhood] has been repeating for fifty years” offer “nothing new,” he asserts when he wants to prove the Brotherhood has been intellectually stagnant. Yet six pages later, he insists that the Brotherhood “has undergone substantial development over questions like democracy, women, political pluralism and the role of civil society.” So which is it? Has the Brotherhood evolved, or hasn’t it?

Similar problems become evident as he struggles with the West’s role in the region. On one hand, he wishes to argue that a deep-seated Islamophobia is at the root of Western policy toward the Muslim world. Yet, he has trouble reconciling this with U.S. support for the conservative Islamic regime in Saudi   Arabia or support for revolutions that eventually brought Islamists to power. His beliefs awkwardly confront the facts, leading to more inconsistencies. At one point he insists that Western governments prefer “to support despots … than deal with Islamists of whatever stripe.” But on the very next page, we learn that Western governments have “no problem with political Islam” and that “Western governments’ best friends are those who best serve their interests,” no matter whether they are “dictators or Islamists.” In this example and many others, Ramadan has considerable trouble coherently explaining Western actions.

Ramadan’s insistence that Western, and especially American, foreign policy, is nothing more than a nefarious game of greed, power, and interests is the heart of his problematic analysis. Unfortunately, some of Ramadan’s cynicism contains more truth than many in the United   States would like to acknowledge. The hubris and the naïveté that led to the invasion of Iraq are impossible to deny. At times, the United States has made costly mistakes and even worse, carried out indefensible policies. When the United States tortured prisoners, it was not a rogue element, or some untrained private carrying out a random act; water-boarding was a policy that came from the highest echelons of the American government. 

Yet Ramadan focuses almost exclusively on these American shortcomings, reducing the entirety of American foreign policy to a string of human rights violations and the pursuit of power. Surely even the most sophomoric analysis of American policy must recognize that it vacillates between two often contradictory drives: American interests (e.g., security and power), and American values (e.g., democracy and human rights). One simply cannot explain American actions by relying solely on one motivation or the other. Yet, this is precisely what Ramadan attempts to do.


One might expect that Western actions during the Arab Spring would give him pause. After all, the United States supported the ouster of its ally Mubarak, and helped to overthrow a cooperative Qaddafi regime, while not intervening militarily against its longtime adversary in Syria. Ramadan ignores these contradictions and, without giving any serious thought as to how to explain them, simply asserts, “The uneven response to the Arab uprisings by the U.S. and European governments indicate that nothing has changed.” Why does the “uneven response” indicate that “nothing has changed”? If nothing had changed, shouldn’t the United States have continued to support pro-Western dictators such as Mubarak? Ramadan himself had argued that American strategy was to prop up despots in exchange for stability and power. So what happened? He refuses to grapple with this issue. Instead, he simply asserts nothing has changed, offers no explanation, and moves on. This is not serious analysis.

The Illusion of Islamic Democracy

The Illusion of Islamic Democracy

The first fundamental truth about the “Arab Spring” is that there never was one. The salient fact of the Middle East, the only one, is Islam. The Islam that shapes the Middle East inculcates in Muslims the self-perception that they are members of a civilization implacably hostile to the West. The United States is a competitor to be overcome, not the herald of a culture to be embraced.

Learn the truth about The Arab Spring in Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, the explosive new E-Book from New York Times best-selling author and #1 best-selling author Andrew C. McCarthy.

Visit or for details.

McCarthy describes Spring Fever as “an alternative way to understand what is happening in the Middle East, an antidote to the delirious ‘Arab Spring’ narrative.” It shows that Islam is a culture and civilization distinct from and hostile to the West, and that far from being a fringe ideology, radical Islamic supremacism is the dominant interpretation of Islam in the Middle East and the driving force behind the anti-democratic events that have occurred there in the last two years, particularly the recent attacks on U.S. embassies and the murder of U.S. personnel.

Andrew McCarthy is recognized as one of the nation’s preeminent authorities on national security, law-enforcement, and the domestic threat posed by radical Islam.  He is a former attorney for the Justice Department’s Southern District of New York, best known for leading the successful prosecution against Omar Abdel Rahman, the “Blind Sheikh,” who masterminded the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Andrew’s first New York Times bestseller was Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books, 2008), a critically acclaimed account of the Blind Sheikh investigation.   His   next book, The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America (Encounter Books, 2010) centered on the Muslim Brotherhood’s  “civilization jihad” against the West, its entrenched and expanding network of groups and individuals of influence; and its collusion with the hard Left in an ongoing assault against America’s liberty culture.

Spring Fever is being published as an original e-book to capture the urgency of breaking news in the Middle East and to capture too the domination, happening on the ground and in real time, of the  “Arab Spring” movement by the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups.

The Alawites and the Future of Syria


The Alawites and the Future of Syria

by Harold Rhode October 12, 2012 at 6:00 am

Assad and the Alawites cannot give in. They are fighting for their very existence. The only way to end this civil war is to let them have control over their destiny — either as an autonomous region in Syria or as an independent entity.

The Alawites are a small, historically oppressed people, whose political future will determine whether Syria remains united in some form or disintegrates into even smaller ethnic and religious entities.

As they will play such an important role, America, Israel, and other forces interested in the future of Syria might do well to get to know them, their concerns, and how others can best come to terms with them.

Syria’s non-Sunnis have historically lived in apprehension of what the Sunnis might do to them. Although Arab Sunnis are the largest religio-ethnic group in Syria, non-Sunni Arabs make up upwards of 40% of the population. Historically, until the end of Ottoman rule after World War I, the Sunnis assumed they were the region’s natural rulers, and by and large controlled the destinies of the large numbers of non-Sunnis who lived among them. The non-Sunnis seem to have “known their place” in Syrian society – second class citizens. The Sunnis determined the rules.

In the 19th century, Western concepts of nationalism and equality for all people began to appear in the Middle East. The idea that everyone – irrespective of ethnicity or religion – is equal before the law has seemed anathema to the Sunnis: such an idea would contradict the basic Islamic principle that non-Muslims – known as dhimmis, or second-class, barely-tolerated citizens – could live in an Islamic society only if they accepted their place as unequal and unworthy of political and social equality. However, even though all Sunnis might consider themselves equal, in reality, clans, tribes, or ethnic identities, not to mention gender, usually prevail.

After World War I, when the French ruled Syria, they tried to introduce the concept of equality of all people before the law – a principle that never took root. During French rule, the people today known as Alawites – and who today rule Syria – begged the French to allow them to set up their own state in their ancient homeland along the Mediterranean coast between today’s Lebanon and Turkey. One of those who most passionately supported this option was the grandfather of the ruler of Syria today: Suleyman al-Assad.

This is because Syrian Sunnis have historically referred to individual Alawites as “abid” [slave], and treated the Alawites as such. The Alawites were servants in Sunni households. Alawite tradition is filled with horror stories of Sunni abuse, both working in Sunni households and in other areas of as well.

The Alawites, an offshoot of Shiite Islam, were terribly discriminated against under Sunni rule. The Sunnis attitude towards the Alawites – and towards the other non-Muslims – was “noblesse oblige,” or an attitude of condescension, if not outright hostility.

According to Alawite religious beliefs, the Muslim prophet Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law – Ali – was a deity. That a human could be a deity is anathema in Islam. Moreover, even though Christians are officially regarded as dhimmis, or second-class citizens, by the Muslims, many also refer to Christians as pagans: Christians deify Jesus who, in Muslim eyes, was a merely a prophet, born to a human mother and father.

Under the French and in the early years of Syrian independence after 1946, wealthy and respectable Sunnis did not want to have their sons serve in the military. Their Alawite servants, however, recognizing the military as a way to advance, persuaded their Sunni masters to sign recommendations to allow the children of their Alawite servants enter the military. Gradually, the Alawites rose in the ranks. Eventually in 1966, they overthrew the existing order to took over the country, and have dominated it since.

Many of these military officers, like their Christian counterparts, embraced Arab nationalism, perhaps hoping through nationalism to gain the equality that had eluded them in religion under the Sunni-dominated, society. These officers did their best to put their non-Sunni identities aside, and hoped – at times even demanded – that their Sunni fellow-Arabs do the same.

As the Alawites rose in the military, they also rose to senior positions in the Ba’ath Party, the basic tenant of which is militant Arab nationalism. But even as militant anti-Israeli Arab nationalists, these Alawites still feared that the majority-Sunnis would lie in wait, and pounce on the Alawites if the Alawites showed any weakness. The Alawites never allowed themselves forget that the Sunnis hated them; and that even though they controlled Syria, they had better come to an agreement with the leading Sunni families to provide them with stability and enable them to make money – in return for the Sunnis allowing the Alawites to control the country militarily and also make money.

During the so-called peace talks between Syria and Israel, the Alawites, according to their own admission, appointed Sunnis – and not Alawites – to negotiate with the Israelis – so that Alawites would not to be held responsible if any concessions were made to the Israelis. The Alawites were most likely concerned that if they had given in even ever so slightly to any Israeli requests, the Sunnis would have used that as an excuse to claim that the Alawites were not “true” Arabs.

Many Alawites have believed that the Arab-nationalist route of being accepted by the majority-Sunnis was doomed. According to discussions with people who have escaped Syria, as well as many still there, they feared, in their heart of hearts, that, just has the President Syrian President Assad’s grandfather had warned, whatever they did, the Sunnis would never accept them. For these Alawites, the only solution would be a separate Alawite state, or entity, where they could control their destiny and not be under the dreaded Sunni yoke.

Many Alawites, who, quietly, had long opposed Assad’s rule, are again, like Assad’s grandfather in the 1930’s, trying to put forward the idea of creating an independent Alawite state. Every day they can see around them that Middle Eastern culture places a high value on revenge, so that the Sunnis would never forgive them for having been ousted from power 46 years ago. The Alawites would be wise to fear that whatever happens in Syria, the Sunnis will massacre them for having governed Syria and for having killed so many Sunnis during the current war.

The concept of compromise simply does not exist in the Middle East – one either wins or loses. Compromise, because it invariably entails a partial loss, is evidently seen as bringing shame on oneself – to be avoided at all costs. Syria’s Alawite regime therefore probably sees no alternative other than to keep fighting the Sunni-dominated opposition – which itself is succumbing to Turkish, Saudi, and Qatari-inspired Islamic fundamentalist leadership – and to try to ethnically cleanse the Alawite areas of all Sunnis in the hope of retreating to that area with the help of outside allies – be they Iranians, Russians, or other non-Sunni Arabs in the area – and barricading themselves in against the Sunnis.

Consequently, it is hard to imagine any settlement in which Syria remains a centralized and unified state. One could imagine local autonomous regions, where the Alawites could finally control their own destiny. Maybe other groups – such as the non-Arab Kurdish Sunnis in the north – might also have their own entities to throw off the yoke of Arab rule. Whatever the eventual outcome, the Kurds know that their Sunni Arab neighbors, even though they all share the same faith, will never let bygones be bygones. Just as the Muslims in general are relentless in pursuing Israel, they would never accept any solution where they do not eventually take over the entire area.

Therefore, if there is ever to be some sort of peace-like arrangement – albeit temporary – in what is Syria today, there is no way that Syria can remain a centralized state, with new rulers, whoever they might be, who would continue to oppress other Syrians . Of all the ethnic and religious groups in Syria, the Alawites have the most to lose, which they undoubtedly know and which is why they must have control over their own destiny. They would have no alternative other than to remain well-armed; if not, the Sunnis would again take them over and subject them to the slave-like status they had in the past.

Assad, therefore, cannot give in. He and the Alawites – whether they support or oppose Assad – are fighting for their very existence. They only way to end this civil war is to let them have control over their destiny – either as an autonomous region in Syria, or as an independent entity. Whatever happens, they will insist that they remain well-armed. They – like other minorities in the Middle East – will continue to live in eternal fear of the Arab Sunnis. As the concept of overlooking past grievances is alien to the culture of that region, true peace between the Alawites and the Arab Sunnis – or, for that matter, Arab Sunnis and non-Arab Sunnis – is sadly out of the question.

I like to add here, a little history inside that great article that may today get of importance:

It is A Copy / Paste from Wiki but With The Muslim Brotherhood success all around you can easily understand what’s going on.. and Unfortunately WHERE the USA has put his feet and all the Advisors of The White House Did Get To !!! ..and so The United Nations… Wil.

The Muslim Brotherhood is A LONG TERM MEMORY Organisation !


The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria was founded in the late 1930s or mid 1940s. In the first years of independence it was part of the legal opposition, and in the 1961 parliamentary elections it won ten seats. After the 1963 coup brought the secularist, pan-Arabist Ba’ath Party to power, it was banned.[5] The Brotherhood played a major role in the mainly Sunni-based resistance movement that opposed the Baath Party, (since 1971 dominated by the Alawite Assad family, adding a religious element to its conflict with the Brotherhood). This conflict developed into an armed struggle in the late 1970s that climaxed in the Hama uprising of 1982, when thousands were killed by the military.[7]

Membership of the Syrian Brotherhood became a capital offence in Syria in the 1980 (under Emergency Law 49)[8] and the Brotherhood was crushed, though it retained a network of support in the country of unknown strength, and had external headquarters in London and Cyprus. In recent years it has renounced violence and adopted a reformist platform, calling for the establishment of a pluralistic, democratic political system. For many years the leader of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood was Ali Sadreddine Al-Bayanouni, who lives as a political refugee in London.


Towards the end of the 1930s, the ideas of Hassan al-Banna reached Syria as young Syrians, who had graduated from university in Cairo and participated in the Muslim Brotherhood there, returned home and founded associations called “Muhammad’s Youth” (Shabab Muhammad), which were to become the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria was founded in the 1930s (according to or in 1945, a year before independence from France, (according to journalist Robin Wright and the Brotherhood itself). The Brotherhood states its founder was Dr. Mustafa al-Siba’i.[4] By 1954, the Syrian association led by Mustafa al-Siba’i offered assistance to its Egyptian sister organisation, which Gamal ‘Abd al-Nasser was then subjecting to severe repression.[9]

However, it was not until the 1960s that the Syrian Brotherhood came to play a major role in politics, as part of a broad-based resistance movement, which developed into armed struggle, against an authoritarian system. After the Ba’athist military coup of 8 March 1963, the new administration drastically restricted political freedoms, and concentrated power in the hands of the military and awarded prominent positions to the country’s Alawite minority. Sunni Syrian Islamists – from the majority faith – did not have representation in the government. From the start, Islamic political groups, of which the Brotherhood was the most prominent, represented the strongest opposition to the government. The outlawing of Brotherhood in 1964 resulted in its radicalisation. In 1964 and 1965, strikes and mass demonstrations spread throughout Syria’s major cities, especially in Hama, and were crushed by the military. In 1971, General Hafez al-Assad, an Alawite, seized power; in 1973 violent demonstrations broke out again in response to a proposed constitution that did not require the president to be a Muslim. Syria’s intervention in the Lebanese civil war in 1976 on the side of the Maronites sparked renewed agitation in Syria, and assassinations began to target members of the Syrian government and prominent Alawites; the Muslim Brotherhood later claimed responsibility for most of these.[10][11]

1976-82 Islamic insurgency

Main article: Islamic uprising in Syria
Further information: Terrorism in Syria#1976-82 Islamic insurgency

On 16 June 1979, the Muslim Brotherhood carried out an attack on cadets at the Aleppo Artillery School, officially killing 83. Allegedly, the government of Iraq provided logistical and military support to the Brotherhood.[citation needed] Around this time, professor Yusef al-Yusef was assassinated in Aleppo, an event often cited by secular activist Wafa Sultan as the reason she came to oppose Islam in general. The Syrian government responded by sentencing to death about 15 prisoners, already accused of being Iraqi agents, for belonging to the Islamic resistance movement. Terrorist attacks then became a daily occurrence, particularly in Aleppo and other northern cities. The government tended to ascribe these attacks to the Brotherhood, but as the armed resistance gained widespread popular support and more loosely defined armed groups appeared, especially in poor neighborhoods, it became difficult to determine the extent of the Brotherhood’s involvement.[12]

In November 1979, a Brotherhood leaflet stated:

We reject all forms of despotism, out of respect for the very principles of Islam, and we don’t demand the fall of Pharaoh so that another one can take his place. Religion is not imposed by force….[13]

In the days leading to 8 March 1980 (the seventeenth anniversary of the Ba’thist coup), nearly all Syrian cities were paralysed by strikes and protests, which developed into pitched battles with security forces. Many organisations, both religious and secular, were involved, including the Muslim Brotherhood. The regime responded with overwhelming military force, sending in tens of thousands of troops, supported by tanks and helicopters. In and around Aleppo, hundreds of demonstrators were killed, and eight thousand were arrested. By April, the uprising had been crushed.[14]

A newspaper article by the president’s brother, Rifaat al-Assad, stated that the government was prepared to “sacrifice a million martyrs” (over a tenth of Syria’s population at that time) in order to stamp out “the nation’s enemies”. On 7 July 1980, the government passed a law making membership in the Brotherhood punishable by death. Typically, however, the administration practiced indiscriminate, collective punishment: in August, the army executed 80 residents of a block of flats in response to an attack on soldiers stationed in Aleppo. In April 1981, the army executed about 400 of Hama’s inhabitants, chosen among male loyalists over the age of 14. This was as a retribution after a failed terrorist attack on an Alawite village near Hama.[15]

During a 50-day moratorium on the application of the 7 July law, over a thousand Muslim Brothers turned themselves in, hoping to escape the death penalty; information published about them in the official press may give some insight into the composition of the Brotherhood’s membership at that time. Most of those who gave themselves up were students under twenty-five years of age, from Damascus and other large cities; others were schoolteachers, professors or engineers.[16]

In August, September and November 1981, the Brotherhood carried out three car-bomb attacks against government and military targets in Damascus, killing hundreds of people, according to the official press. On 2 February 1982, the Brotherhood led a major insurrection in Hama, rapidly taking control of the city; the military responded by bombing Hama (whose population was about 250,000) throughout the rest of the month, killing between 10,000 and 30,000 people. The tragedy of Hama marked the defeat of the Brotherhood, and the militant Islamic movement in general, as a political force in Syria.[17][18]

Post-Hama era

Having suppressed all opposition, Hafez al-Assad released some imprisoned members of the Brotherhood in the mid-1990s. After his death in 2000, Assad was succeeded by his son, Bashar al-Assad, who initially signalled greater openness to political debate. In May 2001, encouraged by a new political climate, the Muslim Brotherhood published a statement in London rejecting political violence, and calling for a modern, democratic state. Many political prisoners, including Muslim Brothers, were pardoned and released. However, this reform was short-lived; in the same year, the few political freedoms that had been granted were abruptly revoked.[19]

Although its leadership is in exile, the Brotherhood continues to enjoy considerable sympathy among Syrians. Riyad al-Turk, a secular opposition leader, considers it “the most credible” Syrian opposition group. The Brotherhood has continued to advocate a democratic political system; it has abandoned its calls for violent resistance and for the application of shari’a law, as well as for Sunni uprisings against Alawites. Al-Turk and others in the secular opposition are inclined to take this evolution seriously, as a sign of the Brotherhood’s greater political maturity, and believe that the Brotherhood would now be willing to participate in a democratic system of government.[20]

In a January 2006 interview, the Brotherhood’s leader, Ali Sadreddine Bayanouni, “said the Muslim Brotherhood wants a peaceful change of government in Damascus and the establishment of a ‘civil, democratic state’, not an Islamic republic.”[21] According to Bayanouni, the Syrian government admits having detained 30,000 people, giving a fair representation of the Brotherhood’s strength.[22]

According to leaked American cables, Syrian President Bashar al Assad allegedly called Hamas an “uninvited guest” and said “If you want me to be effective and active, I have to have a relationship with all parties. Hamas is Muslim Brotherhood, but we have to deal with the reality of their presence.”, comparing Hamas to the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood which was crushed by his father Hafez al Assad. He then allegedly claimed Hamas would disappear if peace was brought to the Middle East.[23][24]

2011-present Syrian civil war

The dictatorial regime of Bashar Al-Assad and others have accused the Muslim Brotherhood of being key players in the 2011 uprising that is currently going on in Syria.[25][26][27] Other sources have described the group as having “risen from the ashes”,[2] “resurrected itself”[3] to be a dominant force in the uprising.

The movement holds the largest “number of seats in the Syrian National Council, the main opposition umbrella and “control[s]” the relief committee, which distributes aid and money to Syrians participating in the revolt. The Brotherhood has distributing weapons inside the country, using donations from individual members and from Persian Gulf states including Qatar and Saudi Arabia.[3]

At the same time Brotherhood leaders have been reaching out to reassure leaders in neighboring Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon — as well as the west — that they “have no intention of dominating a future Syrian political system”[3] and have “played down” their “growing influence” in the Syrian opposition.[2] The MB has assured outsiders that it is “going to great lengths to ensure” that its donated weapons “don’t fall into the hands of extremists”.[3]

According to Hassan Hassan writing in the Guardian newspaper in mid-2012, while the Brotherhood has come to dominate the Syrian National Council, they may be more popular among exiles, than in Syria. “Activists from various parts of Syria have told me that, prior to the uprising last year, the country had almost zero Brotherhood presence.” “At least 70%” of Syria’s population – non-Sunnis (Muslim and Christian), Kurds, and tribal groups “have been outside” the brotherhood’s influence “in the past”, and Hassan believes will remain so in the future. [28]

Stakelbeck on Terror: The Truth About the Arab Spring

Morsi et Ahmadinejad


Espace détente, poésie, judaïsme et lutte contre la désinformation

C’est une nouvelle politique étrangère que le président égyptien est en train de mettre en place. Il veut enfin réaliser le rêve des Frères Musulmans et établir un puissant front islamique au Moyen-Orient. Plus question de rester à la tête du groupe des pays arabes pragmatiques face à l’Iran ; l’Égypte discute avec l’Iran et l’Arabie Saoudite de la formation d’une entité islamique dirige par les Frères. Le problème est que la région est en pleine effervescence ce qui rend un tel projet largement utopique à l’heure actuelle.
 Ordre public

En Somalie et en Irak, au Yémen et en Libye, au Soudan et en Syrie, les gouvernements centraux, confrontés à des guerres civiles ou à des révoltes tribales ne sont plus en mesure d’assurer l’ordre public. Même en Égypte, la Confrérie a besoin de temps pour consolider son emprise. Tant il est vrai que, si le«printemps…

View original post 1,279 more words

Children in Syria are subjected to “appalling” torture, imprisonment and abduction..

Children in Syria are subjected to “appalling” torture, imprisonment and abduction, and these atrocities should be better documented, a report by British charity Save the Children says.

Posted: September 25, 2012

Drawing on the testimony of Syrian refugee children, the charity calls on the United Nations to increase its presence on the ground.

It says almost every child it spoke to has seen a family member killed.

The report comes at the start of the UN General Assembly’s annual meeting.

Earlier, UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi said the situation in Syria was “extremely bad and getting worse”.

Speaking after he had briefed the Security Council following his first visit to Syria since taking up the post, Mr Brahimi admitted he did not have a full plan on how to bring peace.

Although Syria is not formally on the agenda at the UN General Assembly’s annual conference, it is expected to dominate discussions.

‘Systematic abuse’

Save the Children has documented numerous cases of abuse against children during Syria’s 18 month conflict, which was sparked by unrest over the arrest and torture of children in the town of Deraa.

The children had written a well-known slogan of the popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt on a wall.

Lakhdar Brahimi: “The situation is extremely bad and getting worse”

One 15-year-old told the charity he had cigarettes put out on him when he was imprisoned in what used to be his school.

Another described being given electric shocks and sharing a cell with decomposing bodies, while a third teenager, Wael, said he had seen a six-year-old die after being tortured and starved.

The 16 year-old told the report’s authors: “I watched him die. He only survived for three days and then he simply died.”

“He was terrified all the time. They treated his body as though he was a dog.”

Save the Children’s report described the acts as “consistent, recurring and appalling”.

Cat Carter, a spokeswoman for the charity, said: “The stuff I’ve heard from children is absolutely appalling. I’ve heard of children as young as 10 being tortured. I’ve heard of children, as young as eight, helping to remove dead bodies from rubble, with their own hands.”

The UK-based charity called on the UN to increase its presence on the ground to document violations so that perpetrators can be brought to account.

‘No immediate prospect’

Speaking at the UN headquarters in New York on Monday, Mr Brahimi said: “There is no disagreement anywhere that the situation in Syria is extremely bad and getting worse, that it is a threat to the region and a threat to peace and security in the world.”

He said there was “no prospect for today or tomorrow to move forward”, but added “I think that we will find an opening in the not too distant future”.

Free Syrian Army soldier during fighting in the old city of Aleppo  Sept. 24, 2012.
Fighting is continuing in Syria’s second city, Aleppo

The BBC’s Barbara Plett at the UN says Mr Brahimi’s mission to forge a political solution seems almost impossible, with the two parties intent on fighting rather than talking, and the Security Council deeply divided.

The UN says more than 20,000 people have been killed since anti-government protests began in Syria in March 2011. Activists put the death toll as high as 30,000.

Violence continued across the country on Monday, with activists saying the government had bombed parts of the second city, Aleppo.

The Local Co-ordination Committees, an opposition activist network, reported that at least 40 people had died in fighting, including 13 in Aleppo.

The group said the victims included three children from one family killed in air strikes in the central district of Maadi.

In addition to the fighting in Aleppo, anti-government activist group the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that a five year-old girl and a man were killed during the bombardment of the southern town of Dael, in Deraa province.

Clashes between government forces and rebels were also reported in the north-eastern and north-western districts of the capital, Damascus.

More than 260,000 Syrians have fled to neighbouring countries, the UN says. There are also thought to be more than 1.2 million internally displaced people, and 2.5 million in need of humanitarian assistance.

Egyptian jihadist’s path to Syria

Posted: September 25, 2012

As the Syrian conflict grinds on, the mounting death toll has reduced many of the victims to faceless statistics, among them fighters from abroad drawn by a sense of religious duty. Here, BBC Arabic’s Khaled Ezeelarab tells the story of one such jihadist, and the path which took him from Cairo to the front lines against Bashar al-Assad.

Abubakr Moussa’s family is not quite what one would expect of a jihadist. The men are clean shaven, Abubakr’s father smokes and his sister wears the kind of headscarf worn by most Egyptian women.

A graduate from an English school in one of Cairo’s upper-middle-class suburbs, Abubakr did not become particularly religious until he entered university. It was then that he started growing his beard and spending a lot of time at the mosque.

When he graduated he refused to marry the young woman from a rich family chosen by his parents – instead he married a Russian widow from Chechnya whose brother he came to know at the mosque.

The woman already had two children and soon Abubakr was supporting all three, in addition to his new baby girl, Mariam.

‘Fighting for oppressed’

As much as he enjoyed the company of his new family he was nevertheless quite restless, says his 83-year-old father, Ibrahim.

Abubakr holding prayers near Israeli border
Abubakr marched to the Israeli border in a bid to “liberate Palestine”

“He felt he had an obligation to fight for oppressed Muslims anywhere,” he says.

And so it was that Abubakr flew to Russia hoping to make his way to Chechnya and join Islamist rebels there.

He failed and was sent back by Russian authorities. Shortly afterwards he was arrested by Egyptian police and detained for six months, and by the time he was released his wife had left him.

Abubakr remarried, this time to an Egyptian woman from a conservative religious family, and the couple settled at his parents’ house in the provincial town of Fayoum.

Perhaps not unexpectedly, given his history with the Egyptian authorities, he enthusiastically joined the uprising against Hosni Mubarak last year.

But as the Arab Spring spread to other countries, Abubakr yearned to join the fight of other Muslims against their rulers.

He took part in a convoy to provide Libyan revolutionaries with humanitarian assistance. It is not clear if he joined in the actual fighting, and his parents say they do not know.

He also took part in a march towards the Israeli border with Egypt, in what was known at the time as the Third Intifada – a failed attempt by some Arab activists to cross into Israel and start the “liberation of Palestine”.

Syria calling

Then came Syria. Abubakr’s family insists he was not part of an organised campaign to send Islamist fighters to a holy war against Bashar al-Assad.

Abubakr holding gun in military fatigues in Syria
Abubakr fought across Syria for the FSA

“He acted on his own, it was a personal initiative,” says his father.

Perhaps it was, but one of the last postings Abubakr put on his Facebook page before travelling to Syria, was an advertisement for a “relief convoy” organised by an ultra-orthodox Islamic group with contacts in Egypt and Lebanon.

Whether this relief convoy was a front for a fighters’ convoy is not clear, but in any case Abubakr made his way in March to Lebanon and from there to Syria where he joined the rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA).

A comrade who met Abubakr in those first days of his Syrian venture told me that the Egyptian fighter quickly became known for his deep religious knowledge.

“He always led us in prayer,” he said. “He soon became famous among all the neighbouring battalions [of the FSA] and they would ask him to join them.”

Abubakr seems to have joined battles almost everywhere in Syria; he fought in Homs, al-Qasir, Damascus and Idlib.

It was from this last town that he wrote on Facebook on 31 August, telling his friends: “I am happy to inform you, brothers, that 17 thugs have been killed and 40 others injured in a unique operation carried out by your Mujahideen brothers.”

It was his last posting. The following day he was killed, aged 35, in an attack by Syrian government forces.

His family is in grief but say they are not regretful.

“He has been seeking martyrdom for many years,” says his father, “now God has made him achieve his goal.”

AND NOW ..THE FUTURE BAD GUY is….. wait..wait….King Abdullah II of Jordan !

AND NOW ..THE FUTURE BAD GUY is….. wait..wait….King Abdullah II of Jordan !


Jordan on the brink: Muslim Brothers mobilize for King Abdullah’s overthrow

DEBKAfileExclusive Report September 25, 2012, 8:50 AM (GMT+02:00)

Tags: Jordan’s King Abdullah II

Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood has given King Abdullah II notice that he has until October to bow to their demand to transform the Hashemite Kingdom into a constitutional monarchy or face Arab Spring street pressure for his abdication. debkafile’s Middle East sources report that Israeli and Saudi intelligence watchers are becoming increasingly concerned about the approaching climax of the conflict in Amman between Islamists and the throne .

For Israel, an upheaval in Jordan bodes the tightening of the Islamist noose around its borders – Egypt and Libya to the south and Syria to the north, with unpredictable consequences with regard to Jordan’s Palestinian population. Saudi Arabia, already threatened by Iranian aggression, fears the oil kingdom may be next in line if its northern neighbor is crushed under the marching feet of the “Arab Spring.” The oil kingdom’s royal rulers are reported to have belatedly woken up to the peril and are in a panic. They realize that their preoccupation with helping Syrian rebels overthrow Bashar Assad misdirected their attention from the enemies lurking at their own door. Thousands of articles in the Arab press in the past year have predicted that after the Muslim Brotherhood seizes power in Damascus, Amman would be next in its sights followed by Riyadh. The latest DEBKA-Net-Weekly of Sept. 21 analyzed the plight closing in on the Jordanian monarch and outlined three of his options:

1.  He could bow to the main Muslim Brotherhood’s demand by submitting to the kingdom’s transition to a constitutional monarchy and the transfer of executive power to an MB-led government by means of the electoral reforms for which the Brothers have been pushing for years. In Jordan as in Egypt, the Brothers hope for a two-third majority in a free election. 2.  He could stand up to the Brotherhood’s demands and order his security, intelligence and military forces to crack down on the opposition. This course carries the risk of plunging Jordan into the carnage of civil war among the diverse segments of the population. The biggest dangers come from the Bedouin tribes, whose traditional allegiance to the Hashemite throne has weakened in recent years, and the Palestinians who form 60 percent of the population.

3. He could seek to negotiate a compromise through various brokers. Our sources report that several attempts at mediation have been ventured of late, but got nowhere because the Muslim Brotherhood sent its most radical leaders to the table and they left very little margin for compromise. According to sources at the royal court, Abdullah will very soon meet with MB leaders for a personal appeal for calm after years of heated debate. Most observers believe that he has left it too late and by now the Muslim Brotherhood has got the bit between its teeth. Indeed, according to an internal memorandum leaked to the Al-Hayat newspaper, the MB has already set a date for mass demonstrations against the King to start on Oct. 10 and ordered its members to go to work at once to mobilize at least 50,000 demonstrators for daily protests against the king and the royal family until he bows to their will.

The memorandum states: “Every member must be dedicated to communicate with his relatives, close friends, acquaintances, fellow employees and various Islamic groups and patriots…” It calls for the formation of “hotbeds to… focus on the participation of groups affiliated with universities, schools and women’s organizations.” Protesters are also advised on tactics for overcoming a security crackdown. Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood has therefore moved forward from opposition propaganda, debating and political pressure to activism against the throne. Both Jordanian camps are anxiously watching to see which way the wind blows in the White House.

President Barack Obama has a balancing act to resolve:  On the one hand, the Jordanian king has long been a staunch American ally and friend, its mainstay in many regional crises. On the other, Obama regards the Muslim Brotherhood as the linchpin of his external policy of outreach to the Muslim world.

H/T :



This News has been post here in August, but I receive it today via The East Anglian Division..

And Where are we?

As The United Nations acknowledge the Rip Off made by some countries determined to put away the current government by any way possible.. and if it were by the international Community HOW convenient this could be.. !

Haven’t they by then, understand all the Reasonably doubts that exist in the Syrian Case..that are far from a Libya or An Egypt ..and that there exist another kind of Government to pull down.. And as it is in some way similar to Pull Down Morocco, Jordan.. countries that are not to keen yet to give their power to Muslims Brotherhood or a likes …

But In the Meantime.. ALL Those Journalist Works .Media.. SHOUTING against the Bad Syrian Government .. (With is due victims not to be denied).. But How Far and How Many More since the attack on Syria.. by Foreign Military Groups In There To Kill…simple as that, No one can honestly say to free.. because it is not what they do.. they kill Christians, they kill anything that “might” be unpleased with The Situation of a Plain Jihad In Syria..and Warriors of Allah..bringing it to that level.. Agree or get Killed.. and sometimes get kill anyway because they need your house or something.

And IT IS THAT that The United Nations GIVING SUPPORT ????

There is, There Are Things Very Wrong !!

And I don’t know…”now” HOW the United Nations going to manage to SKIP this and manage to Please The FUTURE UNITED ARABS NATIONS, better known as The Sixth Caliphate !


Tuesday, August 07, 2012

Child syria

Jihadist “rebels” in Syria Hang Child after Killing Family Members

Obama is supporting these monstrous jihadists. Where is the Western media on this? They are backing these monsters as well.These jihadists are killing journalists. But the media gets its talking points from jihadists groups here in the US. Hamas groups and Muslim Brotherhood groups (like CAIR) are pressuring Obama to step support for these murderers. Assad’s Syria was bad, but this? Pure hell. The Muslim Brotherhood has formed their army in Syria. Millions of Christians and Alawites will be slaughtered in a bloodbath.

Obama has completely abandoned the religious minorities that are being  crushed in the “islamic spring.” As the violence continues to escalate against Christian women and children in Egypt, part of Obama’s anti-freedom foreign policy is to suppress the horror  of what is happening under his watch. He has gone so far as to remove the Religious Freedom Section from the State Department’s Human Rights reports …

Child syria

Terrorists in Syria Hang Shiite Child after Killing Family Members ABNA, Ausgust 7, 2012 (hat tip David)

(Ahlul Bayt News Agency)Terrorists in Syria hanged a small Shiite child after killing all his  family members in Damascus, human rights activists in Iraq unveiled on  Monday.     According to a report by Iraq’s Qanon news website,  Iraqi human rights activists said that armed rebel groups attacked the  house of a Shiite Iraqi family in the Seyede Zainab neighborhood in the  capital city of Damascus, killed all members of the family and hanged  the last one, a little child.
The footages and pictures of the  rebels’ brutality which surfaced online in the last few days are  revealing the terrorist nature and the war crimes of the opposition  fighters in Syria.
The massacre is said to have badly damaged the  western-backed rebels and opposition forces’ ability to claim the moral  high ground in their fight against Damascus and showed their  accusations that Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces are conducting  war crimes are nothing but lies.
Meantime, Saudi Wahhabi cleric  Mohammad al-Arifi has called on Syrian armed groups to prevent leakage  of the pictures and footages of their attacks against Syrian army and  civilians.
In his Tweeter page, Arifi asked rebel groups to  continue their attacks and intimidation against Syrian people but do not  allow a release of the pictures and footages of their operations.
In  a similar crime last week, terrorists in Syria brutally executed 15  civilians in the Northwestern city of Aleppo on charges of supporting  the Bashar al-Assad government.
The terrorist members of the  so-called Free Syrian Army on Tuesday attacked Al Berri family in Bab  al-Neirab neighborhood in Aleppo who are famous for their pro-government  stances, and kidnapped 15 family members and executed them in front of a  local school.
Syria has been experiencing unrest since March  2011 with organized attacks by well-armed gangs against Syrian police  forces and border guards being reported across the country.
Hundreds  of people, including members of the security forces, have been killed,  when some protest rallies turned into armed clashes.
The  government blames outlaws, saboteurs, and armed terrorist groups for the  deaths, stressing that the unrest is being orchestrated from abroad.

Reminded By :

%d bloggers like this: