The article below reveals that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) has implemented the Emergency Law. The fact that the Obama administration has said nothing about this and according to another article which I also posted below, in June of 2010 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs criticized Mubarak for extending the Emergency Law in order to incite anger among Egyptians against Mubarak reveals that they took part in orchestrating the overthrow of Mubarak with their secular left liberal cohorts in Europe and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
The secular left liberal Democratic Party has adopted the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organization into their own anti-Christian/Semitic agenda in the USA, in Israel and in the world. The collaboration with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt via the Muslim Brotherhood in the USA is part of their shared anti-Semitic/Christian agenda against Israel.
The fact that in 2009 Obama met with the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe and they published in the Almasry news paper that when the Muslim Brotherhood came to power in the Egypt they would honor the Camp David Peace Accords and the fact that after the SCAF or military government, the leadership positions of which are held by independently operating Muslim Brotherhood members that infiltrated Mubarak's army since they were outlawed in Egypt in 1954, took control of Egypt in February of 2011, the first campaign that they embarked on was to demand that Egypt cancel the Camp David Peace Accords, reveals that Obama himself participated in orchestrating the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood in order to install the Muslim Brotherhood run SCAF in Egypt.
Below these articles are excerpts from a speech by John Loftus, a former Nazi War Criminal prosecutor, which were derived from his research of classified CIA files regarding the Muslim Brotherhood. John Loftus discovered that these files have been shredded since he read them during the Carter and Reagan years to cover up the facts about the Muslim Brotherhood.
In Egypt, Criticism of SCAF Intensifies
October 11, 2011
Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No.748
By: N. Shamni*
In the months since the Egypt's January 2011 revolution, the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) has been progressively losing the support it enjoyed in the early days of the revolution, when the majority of the Egyptian people rallied around it believing it would advance and defend their cause. Over time, the SCAF has faced increasing criticism for failing to implement the goals of the revolution, and has been accused of being an extension of the previous regime. On July 8, 2011, mass demonstrations called for a "Second Revolution" against the SCAF, marking a significant turning point in relations between this body and the Egyptian people. The SCAF also sparked public outrage when, on August 7, 2011, it appointed members of the military and the old regime to replace some of Egypt's regional governors.
Recent criticism has focused chiefly on the claim that the military establishment has continued in the way of the old regime by reviving the Emergency Law, trying civilians in military courts, and delaying handing over the rule to civilian authority. Apparently, the Egyptian people has begun to realize that the military establishment, in power since 1952, will not readily give up its political power and economic strength, and that another uprising, this time against this establishment, may be necessary. Several political parties are preparing for a million-strong demonstration set for October 7, 2011, that will call on the SCAF to either meet their demands or step down in favor of a civilian interim presidential committee that will run the country's affairs.
The Military Is Part of the Old Regime – And Was Never Part of the Revolution
From the outset of the revolution, the armed forces were accused by some of representing Egypt's old regime rather than the revolution. Egyptian author 'Alaa Al-Aswany recently wrote in the independent Egyptian daily Al-Masri Al-Yawm that the SCAF had taken no real steps to defend the revolution: "We must remember that the Egyptian revolution did not [take] the rule into its hands and is therefore not responsible for what is happening. The only one responsible is the SCAF, which is standing in for both the president of the republic and the parliament during the interim period. The Egyptians rose up against Hosni Mubarak and toppled him, and when the army [joined the protesters] on the streets, the rebels celebrated their victory and returned home, believing that the SCAF would represent the revolution and realize all of its goals. This was a serious misreading [of reality].
"The military is part of the old regime and was never part of the revolution. We were wrong not to realize that the great national role of the Egyptian military is one thing and the political role of the SCAF is another. The SCAF was not revolutionary and did not oppose [the methods of] the Mubarak regime, not for a single day. It was simply a part of [this regime]. The revolution considered the ouster of Hosni Mubarak to be a giant step, but this was only the beginning of the uprooting of the Mubarak regime. The SCAF, on the other hand, considered Mubarak's resignation to be an unavoidable step in saving the old regime. We appreciate the SCAF's decision to refrain from helping the dictator against the will of the people. However, the SCAF has taken no real steps to defend the revolution [either]. The SCAF generals, up to the day before the revolution, considered the old regime to be the essence of the Egyptian state, and that is why they cannot take part in destroying the regime they were aligned with and part of."
The SCAF Is Incapable of Uprooting the Old Regime
"Notwithstanding its elegant diplomatic statements, it is clear that the SCAF does not agree with the revolution and its stance on change. Mubarak and the symbols of corruption are standing trial due to overwhelming public pressure that the SCAF was unable to withstand. But [the latter] then refused to meet the demands for change, and members of the SCAF gradually began even to detest the legitimate demands of the revolution... and to oppress the Egyptians through the military police and military trials. The crimes of the military police [include] defiling the honor of female protestors under the pretext that [the officers] wished [to verify] their virginity, torturing protestors and allowing their blood to be shed, and trying 12,000 Egyptian [civilians] in military courts. All these travesties prove that the SCAF's stance on the revolution will never be what its first statements [following the revolution] claimed it to be. Some of the SCAF's generals even accused a group of noble citizens of collaborating [with hostile foreign elements], while producing no proof [to back up] their false accusations.
"The SCAF's devotion to the previous regime is the true reason for the problems we are suffering: Instead of drafting a new constitution, the SCAF made do with amending some clauses in the old constitution and then holding a referendum on the amendments. Shortly thereafter, it turned against the results of this referendum and declared a temporary constitution with 63 clauses, thereby re-imposing the old form of political rule on the Egyptian people without consulting them...
"Now there is a crisis in Egypt between two sides: the great revolution seeking to destroy the old regime and build a new country, and the SCAF, which opposes change with all its might. What is to be done? The solution lies in uniting the ranks of the revolution and demanding that the SCAF abolish the Emergency Law and put an end to trying civilians in military courts, as well as all emergency trials. The Treason Law must be implemented with an aim to prevent the remnants of the old regime from corrupting the next parliament. The SCAF must then quickly hold elections to hand over the rule to a civilian government. If the SCAF refuses to carry out these legitimate demands, the Egyptian revolution will need to prepare for a second round, one which it is [already] ready to enter – and Allah willing, it will win this [round] just as it won before..."
SCAF Criticized for Reactivating Emergency Law, Trying Civilians in Military Courts
The harshest criticism against the SCAF was over its reactivation of the Emergency Law following the September 9, 2011 attacks on the Israeli Embassy in Cairo and on Interior Ministry buildings in Giza. The lifting of Egypt's Emergency Laws was one of the revolution's primary demands, and for this reason the SCAF had not einstated them before. The decision to do so drew fire from various movements, parties and presidential candidates, who saw this as a return to the Mubarak era.
Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, former IAEA secretary-general and current presidential candidate, asked on his Twitter page: "Who gave the SCAF the authority to activate the Emergency Law or the authority [to hold] military trials?" Another candidate, Islamist preacher Hazem Abu Isma'il, claimed that the SCAF was actually behind the attack on the Israeli Embassy and had orchestrated it in order to perpetuate its rule over Egypt for years to come. He said that Egypt's next battle would be between the people and the SCAF, which had planned the embassy attack so that it concluded in Israel's favor. It should be noted that protests against the Emergency Law included a mass demonstration in Al-Tahrir Square on September 16, 2011, while a demonstration called "Third Egyptian Revolution of Rage" was held September 30.
"The Third Egyptian Revolution of Rage, September 30 – An Indefinite Sit-Down Strike until the Military Regime Is Toppled"
Nasser 'Iraq, a columnist for the Egyptian daily Al-Yawm Al-Sabi', wrote: "Once again, those in power have proven that they cannot direct the country toward building a society of freedom, justice, democracy, and beauty. Their decision to activate the Emergency Law, which is the most infamous law in Egypt's history, unfortunately proves their inability to face the problems standing in the path of the wonderful Egyptian revolution...
"Whoever resorts to using the Emergency Law inadvertently proves that he has utterly failed to manage the country using regular laws, which [should] suffice the authorities in maintaining order and trying lawbreakers. [The SCAF's] continued failure forces us to repeat our great call against the current authorities, [the same call] the protestors in Al-Tahrir Square cast in the face of Mubarak – Get out!"
'Imad 'Arian, a columnist for the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram, wrote: "The recent activation of [a state of] emergency and the [Emergency] Law is saddening because it is completely contrary to all the previous commitments [the SCAF undertook] to lift the [state of] emergency before the upcoming elections, as a guarantee of their fairness and an expression of political freedom. [The state of emergency declared by the SCAF] grants the Interior Ministry and the security apparatuses a new role of managing state affairs, [though they have] no right [to do so], and this is a new disgrace to be added to the greatest worries [facing Egypt]. The [SCAF's] language and its activation of [a state of] emergency are identical to the language and excuses the NDP used for 30 years to sanctify disreputable laws.
"Egypt's laws include clauses for dealing with hooliganism, drug trafficking, and all forms of negligence, loss of control, and deviance, without resorting to declaring [a state of] emergency. All we need now is to activate the security forces and police apparatuses, because it is no secret that Egypt is suffering from a neglect of [domestic] security... We must remember that, in the past, instating stricter punishments [like those specified by the Emergency Law] did not yield positive results..."
SCAF Criticized for Extending Interim Period, Postponing Elections
Since the SCAF came into power, a major issue in Egypt has been the timing of parliamentary and presidential elections. Initially, the Muslim Brotherhood headed the camp that advocated holding the elections as soon as possible, while other parties supported postponing the elections so that they would have more time to prepare. Recently, many figures, from both camps, have expressed increasing concerns that the SCAF may continue to extend the interim period, as it has already done, and various forces in Egypt, including presidential candidates, have rallied around the demand to hold the elections as scheduled, starting November 2011.
Presidential candidate Hazem Abu Isma'il harshly criticized the SCAF for extending the interim period, which was scheduled to terminate at the end of September 2011. At a September 26 convention, he said: "I will let my hand be cut off before I agree to a document allowing the SCAF to remain [in power] until the end of April. In accordance with its own commitment, the SCAF has just 24 hours [to meet our demands], and we have but one demand: the announcement of a clear timetable for the transfer of power and for holding elections to the People's Council, the Shura Council, and the presidency. I do not know what will happen if this does not occur within 24 hours... We have suffered for seven months... and we will not allow [the SCAF] to remain [in power] for another seven months."
Columnist Nasser 'Iraq wrote: "Seven whole months have gone by since the revolution successfully overthrew the head of the [previous] regime and his corrupt retinue. Nonetheless, those who have been eating from the tree of power and who have since been running the country in their distorted way and with their hesitant decisions, have rejected the correct ideas proposed by many political forces in order to make it through the interim period safely and swiftly. Seven months have gone by, and we still do not know when we will have an elected parliament or president. We do not even know if our political regime will be presidential or parliamentary, or something in between.
"We must not forget that the SCAF, which took power on the evening of February 11 , announced that it would remain in power for only six months. That is to say, it should have handed over the rule in August, which is not what happened... And unfortunately, even today no one knows when the members of the military [plan to] reassume their [military] role and their hallowed duty of protecting the borders of the homeland against the enemies. And how numerous the [enemies] are!..."
The day after the large demonstration of September 30, the SCAF met with representatives of the various parties in a bid to resolve the crisis. It was decided that the SCAF would consider lifting the Emergency Law and would amend the Elections Law, and that the presidential elections would be held only in late 2012 after the drafting of a new constitution. Representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood party who attended the meeting accepted the new timetable; in fact, senior Muslim Brotherhood official Sobhi Saleh said that the circumstances in Egypt made it suitable for the SCAF to stay in power until 2013. However, several days later, the Muslim Brotherhood party announced that it was opposed to the SCAF remaining in power until after the drafting of a new constitution, cautioning that the SCAF was likely to lose its standing if it insisted on clinging to a political role. An October 5 Muslim Brotherhood announcement stated that postponing the presidential elections contradicted prior SCAF statements in which the latter denied that it was to remain in power until 2013. The Muslim Brotherhood called for presidential elections to be held immediately after the parliamentary elections, entreating the SCAF to fulfill its previous promises and warning that if it did not, Egypt would deteriorate into an undesirable situation.
Many others, however, opposed the new extension of the interim period, including presidential candidate and former Arab League secretary-general 'Amr Moussa. He said that if the interim period did not end by mid-2012, the consequences would be dire, including declining security and increased political tension. Presidential candidate Muhammad Salim Al-'Awa announced that he was suspending his elections campaign because there was no point in campaigning for an election so far in the future.
Controversy Over Drafting Guidelines for New Constitution
Another public debate centered on the SCAF's support for the government's decision to set out guidelines for Egypt's new constitution. The country's Islamists, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, oppose this formulation of "supra-constitutional" guidelines, as they call them, saying that the drafting of such guidelines is the exclusive right of the future elected parliament. Muslim Brotherhood official Sobhi Saleh said that, just as it fought foreign occupation, his movement would fight against any attempt by the SCAF to force such principles on the Egyptian people, and that the SCAF had no right to do so, as an interim regime.
Qutub Al-'Arabi, a writer on the Muslim Brotherhood's official website, claimed that the decision to formulate guidelines reflected the SCAF's preferential treatment of Egypt's liberal streams: "There is no justification whatsoever for issuing a document of guiding, or supra-constitutional, principles. There is likewise no reason to formulate guidelines for appointing the members of the committee [tasked with] drafting the constitution, or for placing any constraints whatsoever on the election of parliamentary representatives... The SCAF has a chance to justify anew the [political] credit it was granted by the people, now that [the people's faith] in it has eroded, due to its unclear positions on the issues of the constitution and [Egypt's] identity, and following the trial of civilians in military courts. The SCAF has a chance to [win back the people's faith] if it issues a clear announcement reaffirming its respect for the people's choice, and if it denies outright any intention to issue a document of constitutional guidelines or even a document [of criteria] for electing/appointing the members of the constitution [drafting] committee.
"My advice to the SCAF and its top commanders is to treat the various groups and forces among the Egyptian people evenhandedly. It is unreasonable for the SCAF to only listen to the voices of the liberal forces by holding dialogues and meetings with some [of their] intellectuals and writers, as if this were the only force with writers and intellectuals among it, and as if the other streams – and especially the Islamic stream – have no such figures... Throughout 60 years of oppression, the Islamic elite has been prevented from appearing in the official media outlets – and even now, this elite is besieged by the country's media and liberal forces. The unjust treatment of this group [only] intensifies when the SCAF excludes it from its numerous meetings with writers and intellectuals..."
A solution to the crisis over the constitutional guidelines seems imminent following the SCAF's meeting with representatives of the parties. At this meeting it was decided to include the constitutional guidelines, as well as criteria for appointing the members of the constitution drafting committee, in a "Charter of Honor." It was specified further that the principles set out in this document would not have the status of "supra-constitutional" principles.
U.S. Response to Extension of Egypt's Emergency Law Evokes Angry Reactions in Egyptian Press
Special Dispatch No.3028
June 11, 2010
On May 12, 2010, the Egyptian Parliament approved a presidential decree to extend for another two years the Emergency Law, which has been in place in the country for almost 30 years, while limiting its application to crimes of terrorism and drug trafficking. According to the decree, other amendments are to be made, including the removal of clauses limiting freedom of expression and infringing on human rights, such as those enabling government supervision of the press and other publications, as well as seizure of property and land. The decree also stipulates the release, starting in June 2010, of prisoners incarcerated under the Emergency Law, other than those arrested for terrorism or drug trafficking.
The decision to extend the Emergency Law sparked criticism and disappointment from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, which in turn evoked angry reactions in Egypt. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmad Abu Al-Gheit said that the U.S. had "failed to see the positive side of this important step taken." He added that the U.S. response was motivated by political considerations, and that it reflected consideration for elements within the U.S., such as the press, research institutes, and various activists, more than consideration for U.S.-Egypt relations. He added that the response reflected a poor grasp of the reality in Egyptian society. He noted that, nonetheless, "the American-Egyptian partnership will continue, and we are committed to it just as the U.S. is committed to it."
The Egyptian government press also expressed anger about the U.S. criticism. The arguments made were that the U.S. took all measures necessary to safeguard its own security and to fight terrorism, even at the expense of human rights, but did not allow Egypt to do the same; that the U.S. should have studied the decree carefully and taken note of the limitations it placed on the Emergency Law, instead of giving a knee-jerk reaction that reflected the interests of various pressure groups within the U.S; and that the U.S. had no right to interfere with Egypt's domestic affairs or to act as guardian of human rights.
Following are excerpts from articles regarding the U.S. response:
Al-Ahram: The U.S. Employs a Double Standard
An editorial in the Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram stated: "Surprisingly, the Americans allow themselves what they forbid others, and when asked to explain this paradox is, they reply, 'We do protect human rights.' [Here is] a prime example of this paradox. Several days ago, the Egyptian Parliament approved [a decision] to extend the Emergency Law for two years and limit [its application] to fighting terrorism and the danger of drug trafficking... And what did the U.S. do? [It] made a scene and started shouting, 'Help! Egypt does not respect human rights!'...
"And how does the U.S. act on its own turf? Two congressmen have proposed a bill (called the Lieberman Law) that allows the American government to revoke the citizenship of any American convicted of joining a foreign terrorist organization hostile to the U.S... Naturally, a heated debate arose among American human rights supporters regarding the humaneness and effectiveness of this law. If only it would have ended there. But [then] U.S. President [Barack] Obama allowed the CIA to kill – to kill, for God's sake – the extremist cleric Anwar Al-'Awlaki, an American citizen, who is currently hiding out in Yemen, and even allowed American forces to carry out missile strikes using drones in order to kill [him] – yes, missile strikes to kill the terrorists! In short, the U.S., with all its power, thought it had the right to use any means to protect its people from terror, including even killing [people] and revoking their citizenship. So why do they forbid other countries from taking the measures they deem necessary for the defense of their people and interests? Is this not a double standard?"
Al-Gumhouriyya Editor: The U.S. Violates Human Rights
Muhammad 'Ali Ibrahim, editor of the Egyptian government daily Al-Gumhouriyya and a member of the Egyptian Shura Council, wrote in his daily column: "The U.S. and the others who make a habit of counseling [others] from afar, and try to assume the role of an international custodian protecting human rights, should take their own advice, since [the U.S.] has decided to pursue its terrorist citizens throughout the world using long-range missiles, and to kill them without trial.
"Egypt is not the only country in the world that has needed to employ emergency measures in order to deal with the threat of terrorism. Even the U.S. itself, which only experienced two significant incidents [of terrorism] – Oklahoma in 1995 and September 11, 2001 – began taking extreme measures which undoubtedly harm collective and individual rights and freedoms. And now it has decided to kill its citizens suspected [of terrorism] all over the world, without trial, violating the sovereignty of [other] countries and turning its back on international law...
"On May 13, 2010, the U.S. government approved a measure that overstepped all boundaries of law and politics in the pursuit of an American accused of terrorist activity, by ordering to strike his hideout with missiles. The man for whom this step was taken was Anwar Al-'Awlaki. The matter aroused widespread opposition, but the American government showed no interest in it and insisted upon implementing its decision... The U.S. authorities' attack on Anwar Al-'Awlaki [will not be] the first or the last. Rather, it is a prelude to the execution of every American suspected of any sort of involvement with terrorists...
"We have no need for counsel, suggestions, or custodianship from anyone outside Egypt who does not have sufficient knowledge and does not have the right to give advice or to express disappointment or hope in regard to this matter."
Egyptian Columnist: The U.S. Has Devastated Other Peoples to Protect Its Own Security
In his column in Al-Gumhouriyya, former editor Muhammad Abu Al-Hadid wrote: "The American government was disappointed? All right, well, the Egyptian people have been disappointed dozens of times by how the American government [treated] them and their problems. For example, [decisions] by the American Congress on matters that involve interference in [Egypt's] domestic affairs or harm to its national security, such as decisions which all along have been disposed toward Israel. The U.S. has questions about promises the Egyptian government made to its people? All right, well, the Egyptian people have only one question: Who authorized the U.S. to mediate between them and their government, or to oversee on their behalf how much their government fulfilled has its promises to them?
"The basic and unflagging promise that the Egyptian leadership and government has made to its people, and which it will continue to uphold, is its obligation to ensure the safety of the homeland and its citizens from any threat, internal or external. How can this be done with as little sacrifice as possible of collective freedoms or personal freedoms and rights? Only the Egyptian government, through the institutions of its legislative, executive, and judicial [branches], can decide [where] to set the boundaries, in accordance with its assessment of circumstances and its understanding of dangers and threats.
"The American press secretary did not even stop to examine how the presidential decree to extend the state of emergency is different this time from previous instances [in which the Emergency Law was extended]; how the government's moral or political obligation to apply the emergency [law] only in cases of terrorism or drug-[related offenses] has come to be anchored in law; or how, beginning next month, anyone arrested [under Emergency Law], for any crime other than terrorism or drugs, will be released. The American press secretary did not see this as a step, however limited, in the right direction, or as a positive development that ought to be followed up. All he saw and expressed was disappointment.
"The U.S. is the only country in the world building the second longest barrier in history, after the [Great] Wall of China, on its southern border with Mexico, in order to stop the smuggling of drugs [into its territory] from Latin America... If [the U.S.] fights the danger of terrorism with minimal limitations of its citizens' freedoms and rights, it is because it is the strongest country in the world, and because it has made the [rest of] the world's citizens [lose] their own freedoms so that the Americans can enjoy theirs. Under the banner of the war on global terror, the U.S. has waged wars and devastated other peoples, so that the American people could live safe from any possible terrorist threat..."
Roz Al-Yousef : The U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Is Confused
Karem Gaber, chairman of the board of directors at the Egyptian daily Roz Al-Yousef, wrote: "The U.S. devastated Afghanistan; dismantled Iraq; sent its armies, planes, and navy to hunts terrorists in the mountains of Afghanistan, the neighborhoods of Pakistan, and the streets of Iraq; killed tens of thousands of innocent people; destroyed cities and villages; and [reminded the world] of the worst periods of imperialism. Does it have the right to do this while other countries, including Egypt, have no right to take the necessary steps to defend themselves against terrorism?...
"It is wrong to think, as some do, that the anti-terror law [currently being debated in Egypt] will end the problem... The two [i.e., the Emergency Law and the anti-terror law] are not very different. The problem is that the anti-terror law will become part of the permanent and indissoluble legal structure, as opposed to the Emergency Law, which is an exceptional [provision], and can be revoked with the end of the circumstances that necessitate it....
"The current American ambassador [to Cairo], Margaret Skobey, is confused and making nebulous declarations that are meaningless and empty. Her statements revolve around a single sentence, which is: 'Washington is not trying to force the American model of democracy on Egypt'... Ambassador Skobey does not know exactly what she wants, if she is with us or against us, if she is neutral or disposed [to one side or another]... Egypt is headed in the right direction. Washington should ask its ambassador what the status of human rights in Egypt used to be, and how it has changed. And it behooves the ambassador to provide an authentic analysis of the state of Egypt's dynamic democracy, one which is unparalleled in many of the world's countries."
Editor of Government Evening Paper: Despite His Promise, Obama Has Not Closed the Guantanamo Prison
In his daily column, Khalid Imam, editor of the government evening paper Al-Masaa, wrote: "Egypt in not the only country that needed to take extreme measures in order to confront the danger of terrorism... After the events of 9/11, the U.S. took the most frightening steps, without giving a moment's thought to human rights and public and personal freedoms, and without supervision or legal sanction. The [first] strong blow to human rights was when the 'Patriot Act' was passed, having been approved by U.S. President George Bush on October 26, 2001...
"The second blow came in mid-November 2001, when Bush, as commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces according the Constitution, and without reference to the Senate, Congress, or the Supreme Court, passed a resolution which allowed him to court-martial foreigners accused of terrorism on U.S. soil or overseas, and [the trials] do not even have to be public... Since then, the American government has been extending the Patriot Act year after year, most recently last February. Why then did Hillary Clinton overlook the Patriot Act and Bush's resolution?
"When Barack Obama took office, he made a historical decision to shut down the notorious Guantanamo Prison in Cuba, but the prison is nonetheless still in operation. It has not been and will not be shut down. So why has Hillary Clinton forgotten it? Why did she not tell Obama that he made a decision which he failed to implement, instead of saying that the Egyptian government promised in 2005 to end the state of emergency and expressing her disappointment about [its failure to follow through]?..."
Below are excerpts from the a speech that John Loftus, a former Nazi War Criminal prosecutor during the Carter and Reagan years regarding the Muslim Brotherhood that the secular left liberal Democratic Party has adopted into their own anti-Christian/Semitic agenda in the USA, Israel and in the world.
The Muslim Brotherhood
Al-Qa'ida is the product of an Arab fascist group that was set up in the 1920s, funded by Adolf Hitler, used by British, French and American Intelligence after WWII, and later was supported by the Saudis and reactivated by the CIA
From a speech by John Loftus (former US Justice Department prosecutor) to mark Holocaust Remembrance Day, (Yom Ha'Shoah), April 18, 2004
A brief history of the Muslim Brotherhood
Here's how the story began. In the 1920s there was a young Egyptian named [Hassan] Al-Banna. And Al-Banna formed this nationalist group called the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Banna was a devout admirer of Adolf Hitler and wrote to him frequently. So persistent was he in his admiration of the new Nazi Party that in the 1930s Al-Banna and the Muslim Brotherhood became a secret arm of Nazi Intelligence.
The Arab Nazis had much in common with the new Nazi doctrines: they hated Jews; they hated democracy; and they hated the Western culture. It became the official policy of the Third Reich to secretly develop the Muslim Brotherhood as the "fifth parliament", an army inside Egypt.
When war broke out, the Muslim Brotherhood promised in writing that they would rise up and help General Rommel and make sure that no English or American soldier was left alive in Cairo or Alexandria.
The Muslim Brotherhood began to expand in scope and influence during World War II. They even had a Palestinian section headed by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, one of the great bigots of all time. Here, too, was a man...the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was the Muslim Brotherhood representative for Palestine. These were undoubtedly Arab Nazis. The Grand Mufti, for example, went to Germany during the war and helped recruit an international SS division of Arab Nazis. They based it in Croatia and called it the Handzar Muslim Division, but it was to become the core of Hitler's new army of Arab fascists that would conquer the Arabian Peninsula and, from there, on to Africa—grand dreams.
At the end of World War II, the Muslim Brotherhood was wanted for war crimes. Their German Intelligence handlers were captured in Cairo. The whole net was rolled up by the British Secret Service.
Then a horrible thing happened. Instead of prosecuting the Nazis—the Muslim Brotherhood—the British Government hired them. They brought all the fugitive Nazi war criminals of Arab and Muslim descent into Egypt, and for three years trained them on a special mission.
The British Secret Service wanted to use the fascists of the Muslim Brotherhood to strike down the infant state of Israel in 1948. Only a few people in the Mossad know this, but many of the members of the Arab armies and terrorist groups that tried to strangle the infant State of Israel were the Arab Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Britain was not alone. The French Intelligence Service cooperated by releasing the Grand Mufti and smuggling him to Egypt, so all of the Arab Nazis came together. So, from 1945 to 1948, the British Secret Service protected every Arab Nazi it could, but failed to quash the State of Israel.
What the British did, then, was they sold the Arab Nazis to the predecessor of what became the CIA. It may sound stupid, it may sound evil, but it did happen. The idea was that we were going to use the Arab Nazis in the Middle East as a counterweight to the Arab communists. Just as the Soviet Union was funding Arab communists, we would fund the Arab Nazis to fight against them. And lots of secret classes took place. We kept the Muslim Brotherhood on our payroll.
But the Egyptians became nervous. Nasser ordered all of the Muslim Brotherhood out of Egypt or be imprisoned and executed. So, during the 1950s, the CIA evacuated the Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood to Saudi Arabia. Now, when they arrived in Saudi Arabia, some of the leading lights of the Muslim Brotherhood, like [Dr Abdullah] Azzam, became the teachers in the madrassas, the religious schools. And there they combined the doctrines of Nazism with this weird Islamic cult, Wahhabism.
Everyone thinks that Islam is this fanatical religion, but it is not. They think that Islam—the Saudi version of Islam—is typical, but it's not. The Wahhabi cult has been condemned as a heresy more than 60 times by the Muslim nations. But when the Saudis got wealthy, they bought a lot of silence. This is a very harsh cult. Wahhabism was only practised by the Taliban and in Saudi Arabia—that's how extreme it is. It really has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a very peaceful and tolerant religion. It always had good relationships with the Jews for the first thousand years of its existence.
For the Saudis, there was a ruler in charge of Saudi Arabia, and they were [providing] the new home of the Muslim Brotherhood. Fascism and extremism were mingled in these schools [the madrassas]. And there was a young student who paid attention: Azzam's student was named Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden was taught by the Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood who had emigrated to Saudi Arabia.
The CIA and Al-Qa'ida
In 1979, the CIA decided to take the Arab Nazis out of cold storage. The Russians had invaded Afghanistan, so we told the Saudis that we would fund them if they would bring all of the Arab Nazis together and ship them off to Afghanistan to fight the Russians. We had to rename them. We couldn't call them the Muslim Brotherhood because that was too sensitive a name. Its Nazi past was too known. So we called them Maktab al-Khadamat al-Mujahidin, the MAK.
And the CIA lied to Congress and said they didn't know who was on the payroll in Afghanistan, except the Saudis. But it was not true. A small section of the CIA knew perfectly well that we had once again hired the Arab Nazis and that we were using them to fight our secret wars.
Azzam and his assistant, Osama bin Laden, rose to some prominence from 1979 to 1989, and they won the war. They drove the Russians out of Afghanistan. Our CIA said, "We won—let's go home!", and we left this army of Arab fascists in the field of Afghanistan.
The Saudis didn't want [them] to come back. The Saudis started paying bribes to Osama bin Laden and his followers to stay out of Saudi Arabia. Now the MAK was split in half. Azzam was mysteriously assassinated, apparently by Osama bin Laden himself. The radical group—the most radical of the merge of the Arab fascists and religious extremists—Osama called Al-Qa'ida. But to this day, there are branches of the Muslim Brotherhood all through Al-Qa'ida.
Osama bin Laden's second-in-command, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, came from the Egyptian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood—the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the result of a Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
There are many flavours and branches, but they are all Muslim Brotherhoods. There is one in Israel. The organisation you know as Hamas is actually a secret chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood. When Israel assassinated Sheik [Ahmed] Yassin on March 22, 2004], the Muslim Brotherhood published his obituary in a Cairo newspaper in Arabic and revealed that he was actually the secret leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza.
So the Muslim Brotherhood became this poison that spread throughout the Middle East, and on 9/11 it began to spread around the world
Bro. James D Albright