Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya crisis: Benghazi

[American Patriot]

The long banned Muslim Brotherhood said Tuesday it will form a political party once democracy is established in Egypt but promised not to field a candidate for president, trying to allay fears among Egyptians and abroad that it seeks power. Still, the fundamentalist movement is poised to be a significant player in the new order.

Good start. Let's see how long THAT lasts.

[vector7]

Why Does Obama Support Regime Change in Egypt But Not in Iran?

By Aaron Goldstein on 2.15.11 @ 6:08AM

Last week, I attended the premiere of the film Iranium, a documentary about Iran's Islamic regime and its apocalyptic intentions towards the United States, Israel, and the rest of the world, not to mention its own people.

Yet with the protests in Tahrir Square, Egypt was very much on the minds of those assembled. How could it not be? After all, the beginning of the film showed scenes from the demonstrations that gripped Tehran in early 1979.

A critical mass of Iranian society, both secular and Islamic, joined forces to demand that Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, better known as the Shah, leave office. The protesters, of course, got their wish and ended up with a regime far worse than they could have possibly imagined.

In 2011, there is very little to leave to the imagination. Despite the largely secular aspirations of the protesters in Cairo, the Muslim Brotherhood remains the best organized opposition force (and best armed) in the country. While some might take comfort in Hosni Mubarak's departure and take additional comfort in the Egyptian military temporarily taking the reins of power, the political situation in Egypt is far from resolved. With such fragility and uncertainty abound one cannot discount the possibility of an Iran like Islamic takeover albeit a Sunni version.

As I was watching Iranium I thought to myself, "Why does President Obama support the aspirations of the Egyptian people in 2011 but not those of the Iranian people in 2009?" Following the film, two Iranian dissidents, both members of the Confederation of Iranian Students, addressed the audience. One of them was Siavash Sartipi, who currently resides in Germany. During the Q & A, I asked Sartipi if he was perplexed by President Obama's inconsistency. Sartipi replied that not only was he perplexed but wondered why Obama was prepared to "meddle" in Egypt but not in Iran.

Indeed, in the space of fifteen days, President Obama issue three separate statements on the protests in Egypt. Consider what Obama had to say during his second statement on Egypt, which was prompted by Mubarak's announcement on February 1 that he would leave office in September:

Now, it is not the role of any other country to determine Egypt's leaders. Only the Egyptian people can do that. What is clear -- and what I indicated tonight to President Mubarak -- is my belief that an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now.

Furthermore, the process must include a broad spectrum of Egyptian voices and opposition parties. It should lead to elections that are free and fair. And it should result in a government that's not only grounded in democratic principles, but is also responsive to the aspirations of the Egyptian people.

Now it's true that President Obama never used the term "regime change."

Yet by calling for free and fair elections in Egypt, for all intents this is exactly what he was proposing. Well, there was an "election" held in Iran in 2009 that was neither free nor fair. But did President Obama demand of the Mullahs and of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that there be an orderly transition?

He made no such demand of the Iranian regime. Instead, President Obama stood in the Rose Garden and told the people of Iran he didn't want "to be seen as meddling in Iran's elections." Those words have made a lasting impression on the Iranian people. Indeed, Obama's words were shown in Iranium.

Sartipi further noted what had made a lasting impression on the Iranian people was Obama's message earlier in 2009 during the traditional Persian holiday of Nowruz in which he called upon "the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations." Unlike President Obama, President Bush never harbored any such illusions during his Nowruz message of 2008 and expressed his desire for the Iranian people "to live in a free society." Bush went on to call Iran's reformers "brave people" who "have no better friend than George W. Bush." Not only has President Obama never described himself as a friend of Iran's reformers but his futile efforts to engage the Iranian regime have served only to legitimize it. So is it any wonder that members of Iran's pro-democracy Green Movement would ask, "Obama! Are you with us or are you against us?"

Iranians undoubtedly have that question on their minds as they have once again taken to the streets. Despite the Iranian regime's public support for the demonstrations in Egypt, they have made it clear they brook no dissent within their own borders. While National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have made statements critical of Iran with regard to its handling of internal dissent, as of this writing President Obama has not done so.

Should protests in Iran should grow as they did in Egypt and if the Iranian regime meets these protests with an escalation of violence, then President Obama cannot sit on the sidelines and let members of his Cabinet do the talking. If President Obama does talk then he must demand Iran hold free and fair elections which result in a government guided by democratic principles which responds to the aspirations of the Iranian people. In other words, he must be prepared to demand of Ahmadinejad what he has demanded of Mubarak.

But if President Obama is unwilling to make such demands then he must tell us why the aspirations of Iranians are not as important as the aspirations of Egyptians. President Obama must tell us why he supports regime change in Egypt but not in Iran.

[vector7]

Glenn puts the pieces together and begins to show just how long the State Department has been planning this unrest

Glenn Beck-02/14/11-A




Glenn Beck-02/14/11-B




Glenn Beck-02/14/11-C

[vector7]

Egypt: Muslim Brotherhood plans political party

By LEE KEATH and HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press
Associated Press February 15, 2011 12:45 PM
Tuesday, February 15, 2011


Tara Todras-Whitehill / AP

An Egyptian woman walks with her baby in front of a burnt out vehicle that was being taken away near Tahrir Square in downtown Cairo, Egypt , Saturday, Feb. 12, 2011. Cries of "Egypt is free" rang out and fireworks lit up the sky as hundreds of thousands danced, wept and prayed in joyful pandemonium after 18 days of peaceful pro-democracy protests forced President Hosni Mubarak to surrender power to the military, ending three decades of authoritarian rule.

(02-15) 12:45 PST CAIRO, Egypt (AP) --

The long banned Muslim Brotherhood said Tuesday it will form a political party once democracy is established in Egypt but promised not to field a candidate for president, trying to allay fears at home and abroad that it seeks power. Still, the fundamentalist movement is poised to be a significant player in the new order.

Egypt's new military rulers gave a strong sign they recognize that the Brotherhood, which calls for creation of an Islamic state in the Arab world's most populous nation, can no longer be barred from politics after the mass uprising that forced out President Hosni Mubarak with 18 days of protests.
The Armed Forces Supreme Council included a former Brotherhood lawmaker on an eight-member panel tasked with amending the constitution enough to allow democratic elections later this year.

The panel is comprised of legal experts of various ideologies, including secular liberal scholars and three judges from the current Supreme Constitutional Court, one of them a Christian, Maher Sami Youssef. The changes aim to open the field for political parties to form, loosen restrictions on who can run for president and write in guarantees to prevent the rampant election rigging that ensured Mubarak's ruling party a lock on power.

The panel's head is Tareq el-Bishri, considered one of Egypt's top legal minds. A former judge, he was once a secular leftist but became a prominent thinker in the "moderate Islamic" political trend. He is respected on both sides as a bridge between the movements. Sobhi Saleh, the Brotherhood representative, was jailed for three days during the protests.

The military is pushing ahead with a quick transition. Generals on the council said the military wants to hand power to a government and elected president within six months, the firmest timetable yet outlined. The constitutional panel has 10 days to propose its changes to be put to a referendum.

In Washington, President Barack Obama praised Egypt's military council for working toward elections and a return of civilian control.

"Egypt's going to require help in building democratic institutions, for strengthening an economy that's taken a hit. So far, at least, we're seeing the right signals coming out of Egypt," Obama said.

The potential that the Brotherhood will emerge from Egypt's upheaval with greater influence has worried many Egyptians. It also raised alarms in neighboring Israel and among some in the United States, fearing a spread of Islamic militancy in the region. During his 29 years in power, Mubarak stoked such concerns at home and abroad, depicting his authoritarian grip as the only thing standing between Egypt and a Brotherhood takeover.

But many in Egypt contend the Brotherhood's strength is exaggerated. Police crackdowns on the group raised sympathy for it in some quarters. Government restrictions kept liberal opposition parties weak, meaning the Brotherhood was the only organized vehicle for action against the regime. Public apathy at elections made the more motivated pro-Brotherhood voters loom larger.

"If the freedom to create political parties is seriously allowed, the Muslim Brotherhood will be part of the scene, but just not all the scene as they were in the past regime," said Ammar Ali Hassan, an Egyptian expert on Islamic movements.

Last week, Obama played down the Brotherhood's power, calling it only "one faction in Egypt" that does not enjoy majority support.
The wave of protests that ousted Mubarak may have hurt the Brotherhood's popularity, as well.

The group initially balked at joining the demonstrations when they began Jan. 25, until its younger cadres forced its leadership to join, fearing they would be left behind. Hundreds of thousands from across the spectrum of Egyptian society joined the protests. Brotherhood youth were a major source of manpower and organizational experience, but they never became the majority.

Those crowds are now energized to participate in Egyptian politics, said Diaa Rashwan, a political analyst with Al-Ahram Center for Strategic and Political Studies.

"Egypt before Jan. 25 is completely different from an post-Jan. 25 Egypt," he said. "The Muslim Brotherhood is in a state of shock because they have discovered that the developments happening around them in society aren't what they had imagined."

"In the upcoming elections, we are expecting huge numbers of people to show up to vote, a new generation. No one knows where it's going to go, and I don't expect it to go to the Muslim Brotherhood," he said.

Still, the Brotherhood, founded in the 1920s, would enter as a strong contender in a multiparty democracy, if that's the ultimate result of Egypt's turmoil. The Brotherhood has long been the most organized opposition movement.

Though banned since 1954, the Brotherhood ran candidates for parliament as independents. In 2005, it made a strong showing, winning 20 percent of parliament. But it was pushed out completely in the November and December elections, largely because of widespread vote-rigging.

The group is eager to have a legitimate role after decades of suppression under Mubarak, whose regime arrested thousands of its members in regular crackdowns.

The Brotherhood said Tuesday it would form a party once promised freer laws are in place.

"The Muslim Brotherhood group believes in the freedom of the formation of political parties. They are eager to have a political party," spokesman Mohammed Mursi said in a statement on the Brotherhood's website.

Essam el-Erian, a senior leader in the Brotherhood, said the movement would not run any candidate for upcoming presidential elections, acknowledging that such a move would be too controversial.

"We are also not targeting to have a majority in the upcoming parliament. This is a time for solidarity, unity, we need a national consensus," he told Associated Press Television News.

He said the Brotherhood's top leadership, the Shoura Council, had decided on the creation of a party. "Now it is time to organize ourselves and for others to have the opportunity to organize themselves in political parties," he said.

The Brotherhood advocates implementing Islamic Shariah law in Egypt, though it is far less radical than Afghanistan's former Taliban rulers and less restrictive and puritanical than the Wahhabi school of Islam that reigns in U.S. ally Saudi Arabia. Some in Egypt fear it would take steps like imposing the Islamic headscarf on women — already almost universal among Egyptian Muslims — or banning alcohol.

The Brotherhood renounced violence in the 1970s, but supports its Palestinian offshoot Hamas in its "resistance" against Israel. The group is staunchly anti-Israel, but Brotherhood leaders say they don't seek the breaking of Egypt's 1979 peace deal with Israel.

Al-Qaida, which includes Egyptian Ayman el-Zawahri among its leadership, despises the Brotherhood, accusing it of compromising by renouncing violence and running in elections.

Since his fall, Mubarak has been hidden away at one of his palaces in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, some 250 miles from Cairo, reportedly in worsening health. Two Cairo newspapers said Mubarak was refusing to take medication, depressed and repeatedly passing out. There was no immediate confirmation of the reports. Mubarak had surgery in Germany last year to remove his gallbladder.

Mubarak's stranglehold on Egyptian politics went beyond suppressing the Brotherhood.

Any opposition parties had to be approved by a commission run by his ruling National Democratic Party. The constitution stiffly restricts who can run for president, preventing a real challenger. It also lifted judicial supervision of elections, making vote-rigging easier. As a result, the existing political parties are hollow shells, with little public following.

The constitutional panel is limited to changing or annulling the six articles that consecrate those rules, "along with changes to any connected articles that the committee deems necessary," according to the military's order to its members. The constitution has been suspended by the military council.

Protest organizers and many other pro-democracy activists want far wider changes, demanding the constitution be thrown out completely and rewritten to loosen the heavily presidential system that put vast powers in the hands of Mubarak. Many advocate a more parliamentary system.

Under the military's plans, any deeper changes would have to be made by a new, elected parliament.

"After the transition to a democratic life and freedoms, parties and political forces can get together and work on a complete constitution," said Saleh, the Brotherhood member on the panel.

Meanwhile, the military urged an end to the labor strikes spreading wildly across the country since last week and hitting many government offices and industries. The strikes, though they eased Tuesday because of an Islamic holiday, have further damaged Egypt's economy.

In a move likely to deepen the economic crisis, state TV said the Central Bank of Egypt ordered banks to remain closed Wednesday and Thursday, the last two days of the business week. The stock market has been closed for three weeks and there is no word on when it will reopen. It lost about 17 percent of its value in two sessions after protests began.

The Supreme Council warned that continuing strikes and protests would be "disastrous," the state news agency MENA reported.

[vector7]

Carter Vouches for The Muslim Brotherhood

Carter Vouches for The Muslim Brotherhood: Totally In Cahoots with Terrorist Like Hamas But Nothing to 'Be Afraid Of' In Egypt

[vector7]

Egypt's New Hitler: "The Revolution has Just Begun" Google Guru Banned



Google out. Muslim Brotherhood in.

The self-important Google schmuck and "60 Minutes" darling, Wael Ghonim, to whom many point as the social networking guru behind the overthrow of the Egyptian government, was barred from the stage by Qaradawi. Leftist asshats paving the way for the global caliphate.

Two million Egyptians attended the “Victory March” where the long-exiled spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, addressed those gathered for noon prayers in Tahrir Square. Qaradawi, a virulent Jew-hater and advocate of suicide bombings, has often called for the death of all Jews:, “...oh Allah, take this oppressive, tyrannical band of people…take this oppressive, Jewish Zionist band of people…do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one.”

Google executive Wael Ghonim, who emerged as a leading voice in Egypt's uprising, was barred from the stage in Tahrir Square on Friday by security guards, an AFP photographer said. Ghonim tried to take the stage in Tahrir, the epicentre of anti-regime protests that toppled President Hosni Mubarak, b ut men who appeared to be guarding influential Muslim cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi barred him from doing so.

Ghonim, who was angered by the episode, then left the square with his face hidden by an Egyptian flag.

Qaradawi gave a Friday sermon in the square, where hundreds of thousands of people gathered a week after Mubarak's fall, in which he called for Arab leaders to listen to their people.

Ghonim, Google's head of marketing for the Middle East and North Africa, administered a Facebook page that helped spark the uprising that toppled Mubarak's regime.

The 30-year-old also appeared in an emotional television interview shortly after he was released from police custody after 12 days in custody which is credited with re-energising the movement just as it seemed to be losing steam.

In an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes" that aired on Sunday, Ghonim said the protests which led to Mubarak's ouster would not have happened without online social networks.

"If there was no social networks it would have never been sparked," he said.

"Because the whole thing before the revolution was the most critical thing. Without Facebook, without Twitter, without Google, without YouTube, this would have never happened."

Your job is done, tool. See ya.


Read More Here: Atlas Shrugs

[vector7]

Two MILLION 'peaceful, non sectarian, Muslims' in search of 'a victory of human dignity'(Obama) chanting...'To Jerusalem we are heading, Maryters in the Millions!"

[vector7]

GLOBAL JIHAD

Soros fingerprints on Morocco riots

Activist also tied to revolts against other U.S. allies across Mideast, North Africa

---

Posted: February 21, 2011
8:39 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

One of the main groups organizing protests against the pro-Western king of Morocco is funded by philanthropist George Soros and the U.S. State Department.
Soros' Open Society Institute also has funded opposition groups across the Middle East and North Africa, including organizations involved in the current chaos.
The Human Rights Education Associates opened its offices in Morocco in 2004 with funds provided by both the State Department and the Open Society Institute.
It was a key supporter of Sunday's protests in Morocco demanding that King Mohammed VI's powers be limited while pushing for constitutional reforms that would allow opposition parties to join the government.

The banned Islamist Justice and Charity is believed to be the country's biggest opposition force. It joined together this past Sunday with a coalition of leftist parties that held mass protests in cities across Morocco that turned violent.

Five burned bodies reportedly were found in a bank set ablaze in a north Moroccan town where some of the violence was reported.

Morocco Interior Minister Taib Cherkaoui said yesterday 128 people, including 115 members of the security forces, were wounded in violence in several other Moroccan towns following this weekend's unrest.

The protests were organized under the umbrella of the "February 20 Movement for Change," which boasts 19,000 Facebook fans. It officially is calling for the 47-year-old king to dismiss the government and dissolve parliament.

The protests were unusual for a country in which King Mohammed is widely considered popular, although Islamic groups seek his removal from office.

Mohammed, who took the throne in 1999, is an ally in the U.S.-led fight against terrorism. He even repeatedly has stated he is willing to normalize relations with Israel once a peace agreement is signed with the Palestinians.

Mohammed is also Western oriented. He has dramatically improved Morocco's human rights record and has been a champion of women's rights and a more open economy.

The Soros-funded Human Rights Education Associates has been engaged in teacher training and national training for family judges in Morocco.

It marks the latest connection of the philanthropist activist to protests sweeping the Middle East and North Africa.

Soros' Open Society Institute's Middle East and North Africa Initiative has provided numerous grants to a wide range of projects that promote so-called democratic issues across the region, including in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood stands to gain from any future election.

The Open Society also funded the main opposition voice in Tunisia, Radio Kalima, which championed the riots there that led to the ouster of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.

WND reported last week an international "crisis management" group led by Soros long has petitioned for the Algerian government to cease "excessive" military activities against al-Qaida-linked groups and to allow organizations seeking to create an Islamic state to participate in the Algerian government.

Like Morocco, Algeria last week was the site of violent anti-regime protests.

The organization, the International Crisis Group, also is tied strongly to the Egyptian opposition movement whose protests led to the ouster of Mubarak.

Following protests that led to the resignations of Mubarak and Ben Ali – both key U.S. allies – Algeria similarly has been engulfed in anti-regime riots.

Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika has ruled the country with a tough hand. And he has been an ally of the U.S. in fighting al-Qaida.

Islamist parties serve as Bouteflika's main opposition.

The International Crisis Group, or ICG, which includes Soros among its eight
executive committee members, long has petitioned for the reformation of the Algerian government and for the inclusion of Islamist political parties, two groups that seek to turn Algeria into an Islamic state.

In a July 2004 ICG report obtained by WND, the ICG calls on the Algerian government to curb military action against al-Qaida-affiliated organizations, particularly the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, GSPC, which, like the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, aims to establish an Islamic state within Algeria, and an armed Islamic terrorist group known as Houmat Daawa Salafia, or HDS.

Soros' ICG names the two Islamic groups in its recommendations to the Algerian government.

"Give top priority to ending the remaining armed movements, mainly the GSPC and HDS, through a political, security, legal and diplomatic strategy," states the ICG report.

"Avoid excessive reliance on military means and do not allow these movements' purported links to al-Qaida to rule out a negotiated end to their campaigns," continued the ICG's recommendation to the Algerian government.

The ICG has issued at least six other reports recommending Algeria transition to a democracy that will allow the participation of the Islamic groups seeking to create a Muslim caliphate.

After Algeria's president, Bouteflika, won more than 80 percent of the vote against Islamic opposition groups in 2004, Robert Malley, an ICG associate, recommended, "Rather than exclude all his opponents from the policy making process, he could empower them."

The ICG's Malley is a former adviser to Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. He resigned after it was exposed he had communicated with Hamas. WND reported Malley long had petitioned for dialogue with Hamas.
WND also reported the ICG also has petitioned for the Egyptian government to normalize ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and includes on its board Egyptian opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei, as well as other personalities who champion dialogue with Hamas, a violent offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The ICG also released a report urging the Egyptian regime to allow the Brotherhood to establish an Islamist political party.

In a June 2008 report entitled, "Egypt's Muslim Brothers Confrontation or Integration," Soros' ICG urges the Egyptian regime to allow the group to participate in political life.

The report dismisses Egypt's longstanding government crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood as "dangerously short-sighted."

The ICG report called on Mubarak's regime to "pave the way for the regularization of the Muslim Brothers' participation in political life," including by allowing for the "establishment of a political party with religious reference."

The ICG specifically stressed allowing the Brotherhood to serve as an Islamist party several times in its 2008 report.

The ICG and its personalities also long have petitioned for the Muslim Brotherhood to be allowed to join the Egyptian government.

ElBaradei suspended his board membership in the ICG two weeks ago, after he returned to Egypt to lead the anti-Mubarak protests.

U.S. board members include Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was national security adviser to Jimmy Carter; Samuel Berger, who was Bill Clinton's national security adviser; and retired U.S. ambassador Thomas Pickering, who made headlines in 2009 after meeting with Hamas leaders and calling for the U.S. to open ties to the Islamist group.

Another ICG member is Malley.

The ICG defines itself as an "independent, non-profit, multinational organization, with 100 staff members on five continents, working through field-based analysis and high-level advocacy to prevent and resolve deadly conflict."

[vector7]

Obama enabling Neo-Ottoman Caliphate

Posted: March 04, 2011
1:00 am Eastern

By Joel Richardson
© 2011

On Jan. 29, the day the riots began in Egypt, I hastily jotted down some initial predictions for what I expected to see happen next in the Middle East. The article was published by WND on Jan. 31. Now, a month later, its time to review and size up the accuracy of my predictions and to add some very important additional thoughts and observations.

It's important that I qualify my comments by once again reiterating that I am no prophet. The predictions I make are based only on two things: my understanding of the political actors in the Middle East and a solid understanding of what the Bible says will happen in the days before the return of Jesus. While many are scrambling to understand what will happen next in the Middle East and the world, Bible believers know where to turn for answers.
First, I began with the easy call that Mubarak would be unable to cling to power:

President Mubarak's self-imposed reign was bound to come to an end soon enough. Now just happens to be the time. Mubarak will not be able to retain power.

Of course, this was a no-brainer. Mubarak is in his 80s and has cancer. I'm only 40 and fit as a fiddle, yet some days I can barely rally the stamina to keep my unruly 14-pound bishon-poo in proper submission.
The next obvious prediction was the inevitable takeover of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood:

After the dust settles and the Egyptian government is reformed, the Muslim Brotherhood (al-Ikhwan) will certainly ease their way into significant positions of power, not at all unlike Hezbollah in Lebanon. This could take as long as a few years, as it did with Hezbollah, but in all likelihood it will be a rather quick rise. In a dramatic and portentous shift, the U.S. and even Israel will be forced to recognize and deal with the strengthened Ikhwan Party in Egypt.

Of course, there are still plenty of little Pollyanna-meets-Rachel-Maddows who believe they have witnessed a wonderful pro-freedom revolution in Egypt. Sadly, reality will smack them in the face soon enough. In all likelihood it will finally happen some time after the news leaks out that thousands of Egyptian Christians have been systematically extracted from their homes, raped or murdered and then some crowd of Shariah-compliant "freedom fighters" will hang a homosexual or two in Tahrir Square. That might wake them up.

My next predictions were quite a bit more specific. And this is where it becomes very important that we all pay attention:

As the present era of Arab dictators comes to an end, the model that will be looked to is Turkey. And Turkey will be all too willing to lend its support in the establishment of these new Islamic democracies. The Obama administration will also fully support Turkey in her regional endeavors to this end.

Interested in how current events relate to biblical prophecy? Watch Joel Richardson's powerful, 4-Session, 2-DVD set "Understanding the Times"

Three days later, the headline in Time magazine read, "A Model of Middle East Democracy, Turkey Calls For Change in Egypt." Two days later, Today's Zaman, one of Turkey's largest newspapers reported that "President Obama and Prime Minister Erdoğan agreed that the U.S. and Turkey would continue to consult closely as events unfold in Egypt and on our broader shared agenda." What exactly is Obama's "shared agenda" with Turkey in the region? Could it be Turkey's recent commitment to train the Syrian military? And don't miss the irony in the Time article. On one hand, Time praises Turkey as a shining "model" while also acknowledging that the primary reason they're so popular among Muslim nations is because of Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan's vitriolic rhetoric toward Israel.
I continued my predictions by pointing to the eventual use of Turkish military force:

In the midst of the shift, I expect Turkey (again, with the full support of the U.S.) to be the most actively engaged and visible actor in the region. If things destabilize enough, we could even see Turkish military action, but this is doubtful. Instead, we'll likely see Turkey use the moment to gain a significant paternal influence over some of the other governments in the region as they undergo regime changes. … The United States, drained of finances and lacking resolve, will sit by idly as Turkey does as it pleases in the region, particularly when it is done in the name of establishing democracy, regional and even global peace, stability and security.

And now The World Tribune has reported that Turkey has floated the idea of invading Libya to establish peace and stability in that nation. According to the report, the one stipulation however, as set forth by Prime Minister Erdogan, is that the European Union must immediately welcome Turkey into its warm embrace. And then comes the zinger: "The sources said the United States, particularly President Barack Obama, supported the Turkish proposal." Bingo. President Obama is virtually rolling out the red carpet for the emerging Neo-Ottoman Caliphate. Thankfully, the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet has followed up with a report that both Erdogan and Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu have categorically ruled out such a Turkish-led invasion of Libya – but not before Obama had the opportunity to reflexively support such an idea.

But here is the essential point. American foreign policy in the Middle East is sadly a series of idiotic blunders. The U.S. has often helped to create some of its most vile and persistent enemies. In order to create a buffer against the Soviets, it was the United States that provided massive support, funding and training to the Taliban. And who will deny that the resultant bite on our collective rear has left a hideous mark? What about Saddam Hussein? Likewise, the U.S. supported his leadership role in Iraq as a buffer against Iranian hegemony in the region. And again, we eventually paid for it deeply.

One would think that we had learned our lesson. One would think we'd develop enough foresight to avoid supporting today our enemy of tomorrow. But two years in, Americans have learned never to underestimate the potential of this president in any given situation to make the worst possible choice.

Today President Obama is relating to Turkey through a paradigm of six years ago, as if Turkey is still a moderate Muslim democracy. But it is not. Prime Minister Erdogan and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are BFFs. Turkey has pledged to train the Syrian military. Need I remind you that Iran and Syria are two of the world's most significant state sponsors of terrorism. Meanwhile, by showing himself to be one of the region's most powerful antagonists of Israel, Erdogan has (no joke here) gained far more Facebook friends than any other Middle Eastern leader. I wonder if Obama is one of them?

For now, the U.S. will continue to throw its support behind Turkey. Tomorrow we will ask ourselves what in the world we were thinking. But this time around, the bite will leave far more than just a mark. The nation of Turkey, with its powerful military, vibrant economy and nearly unparalleled strategic geography is a far cry from the Taliban or Saddam Hussein.

Many analysts today are expressing well-justified fears that the House of Saud will fall into the hands of Islamist revolutionaries resulting in a massive stab to the Achilles' heal of the Western economy. Although this scenario will eventually take place, it is yet several years away. While the collapse of the Saudi regime and the $10-per-gallon gasoline that would result is a surely fearful prospect, for now, the much more immediate danger is Yeni Osmanli: the New Ottomans and the catastrophic impact this will have on the region, on the United States and the entire globe.

[American Patriot]

I don't get it. What the hell would Obama get out of a Caliphate?

[vector7]

Nothing...if he was Christian.

[vector7]

Drudge: Obama Asks Saudi Arabia To Supply Arms To Libyan Rebels

America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels

Obama asks Saudis to airlift weapons into Libyan Rebels

By Robert Fisk, Middle East Correspondent

Monday, 7 March 2011


GETTY

Saudi Arabia has not yet responded to a request from the US to supply weapons to rebels in Libya

Desperate to avoid US military involvement in Libya in the event of a prolonged struggle between the Gaddafi regime and its opponents, the Americans have asked Saudi Arabia if it can supply weapons to the rebels in Benghazi. The Saudi Kingdom, already facing a "day of rage" from its 10 per cent Shia Muslim community on Friday, with a ban on all demonstrations, has so far failed to respond to Washington's highly classified request, although King Abdullah personally loathes the Libyan leader, who tried to assassinate him just over a year ago.

Washington's request is in line with other US military co-operation with the Saudis. The royal family in Jeddah, which was deeply involved in the Contra scandal during the Reagan administration, gave immediate support to American efforts to arm guerrillas fighting the Soviet army in Afghanistan in 1980 and later – to America's chagrin – also funded and armed the Taliban.

But the Saudis remain the only US Arab ally strategically placed and capable of furnishing weapons to the guerrillas of Libya. Their assistance would allow Washington to disclaim any military involvement in the supply chain – even though the arms would be American and paid for by the Saudis.

Related articles

• Libyan warplanes strike rebels at oil port
• Libya capture a 'misunderstanding'
• Egypt's women plan mass march against military rulers
• Regime hits back as rebels push on to Gaddafi's heartland
• British special forces team released after botched mission
• Growing unease over path ahead in the capital of 'Free Libya'
• Mary Dejevsky: We need names behind 'debacle in the desert'
• Search the news archive for more stories

The Saudis have been told that opponents of Gaddafi need anti-tank rockets and mortars as a first priority to hold off attacks by Gaddafi's armour, and ground-to-air missiles to shoot down his fighter-bombers.

Supplies could reach Benghazi within 48 hours but they would need to be delivered to air bases in Libya or to Benghazi airport. If the guerrillas can then go on to the offensive and assault Gaddafi's strongholds in western Libya, the political pressure on America and Nato – not least from Republican members of Congress – to establish a no-fly zone would be reduced.

US military planners have already made it clear that a zone of this kind would necessitate US air attacks on Libya's functioning, if seriously depleted, anti-aircraft missile bases, thus bringing Washington directly into the war on the side of Gaddafi's opponents.

For several days now, US Awacs surveillance aircraft have been flying around Libya, making constant contact with Malta air traffic control and requesting details of Libyan flight patterns, including journeys made in the past 48 hours by Gaddafi's private jet which flew to Jordan and back to Libya just before the weekend.

Officially, Nato will only describe the presence of American Awacs planes as part of its post-9/11 Operation Active Endeavour, which has broad reach to undertake aerial counter-terrorism measures in the Middle East region.

The data from the Awacs is streamed to all Nato countries under the mission's existing mandate. Now that Gaddafi has been reinstated as a super-terrorist in the West's lexicon, however, the Nato mission can easily be used to search for targets of opportunity in Libya if active military operations are undertaken.

Al Jazeera English television channel last night broadcast recordings made by American aircraft to Maltese air traffic control, requesting information about Libyan flights, especially that of Gaddafi's jet.

An American Awacs aircraft, tail number LX-N90442 could be heard contacting the Malta control tower on Saturday for information about a Libyan Dassault-Falcon 900 jet 5A-DCN on its way from Amman to Mitiga, Gaddafi's own VIP airport.

Nato Awacs 07 is heard to say: "Do you have information on an aircraft with the Squawk 2017 position about 85 miles east of our [sic]?"

Malta air traffic control replies: "Seven, that sounds to be Falcon 900- at flight level 340, with a destination Mitiga, according to flight plan."

But Saudi Arabia is already facing dangers from a co-ordinated day of protest by its own Shia Muslim citizens who, emboldened by the Shia uprising in the neighbouring island of Bahrain, have called for street protests against the ruling family of al-Saud on Friday.

After pouring troops and security police into the province of Qatif last week, the Saudis announced a nationwide ban on all public demonstrations.

Shia organisers claim that up to 20,000 protesters plan to demonstrate with women in the front rows to prevent the Saudi army from opening fire.

If the Saudi government accedes to America's request to send guns and missiles to Libyan rebels, however, it would be almost impossible for President Barack Obama to condemn the kingdom for any violence against the Shias of the north-east provinces.

Thus has the Arab awakening, the demand for democracy in North Africa, the Shia revolt and the rising against Gaddafi become entangled in the space of just a few hours with US military priorities in the region.

Like Robert Fisk on The Independent on Facebook for updates

[American Patriot]

America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels

Oh... ok. not so SECRET NOW IS IT!?

LMAO

[American Patriot]

Why doesn't the damned President send his own weapons to the protesters?

[vector7]

Obama: Military action against Libya possible

[American Patriot]

Yeah, saw that.

Why don't he go himself and fix this?

/snicker

[vector7]

Saudi Arabia drafts in up to 10,000 troops ahead of protests

Drudge: Obama Asks Saudi Arabia To Supply Arms To Libyan Rebels

Saudi Arabia has not yet responded to a request from the US to supply weapons to rebels in Libya.

But Saudi Arabia is already facing dangers from a co-ordinated day of protest by its own Shia Muslim citizens who, emboldened by the Shia uprising in the neighbouring island of Bahrain, have called for street protests against the ruling family of al-Saud on Friday.

After pouring troops and security police into the province of Qatif last week, the Saudis announced a nationwide ban on all public demonstrations.

Shia organisers claim that up to 20,000 protesters plan to demonstrate with women in the front rows to prevent the Saudi army from opening fire.

If the Saudi government accedes to America's request to send guns and missiles to Libyan rebels, however, it would be almost impossible for President Barack Obama to condemn the kingdom for any violence against the Shias of the north-east provinces.

Thus has the Arab awakening, the demand for democracy in North Africa, the Shia revolt and the rising against Gaddafi become entangled in the space of just a few hours with US military priorities in the region.

[vector7]

Nearly 4000 Muslims Attack Christian Homes in Egypt, Torch Church

Posted GMT 3-5-2011 4:20:16

(AINA) -- A mob of nearly four thousand Muslims has attacked Coptic homes this evening in the village of Soul, Atfif in Helwan Governorate, 30 kilometers from Cairo, and torched the Church of St. Mina and St. George.

There are conflicting reports about the whereabouts of the Church pastor Father Yosha and three deacons who were at church; some say they died in the fire and some say they are being held captive by the Muslims inside the church.

Witnesses report the mob prevented the fire brigade from entering the village. The army, which has been stationed for the last two days in the village of Bromil, 7 kilometers from Soul, initially refused to go into Soul, according to the officer in charge. When the army finally sent three tanks to the village, Muslim elders sent them away, saying that everything was "in order now."

A curfew has been imposed on the 12,000 Christians in the village.

This incident was triggered by a relationship between 40-year-old Copt Ashraf Iskander and a Muslim woman. Yesterday a "reconciliation" meeting was arranged between the relevant Coptic and Muslim families and together with the Muslim elders it was decided that Ashraf Iskander would have to leave the village because Muslims torched his house.

The father of the Muslim woman was killed by his cousin because he did not kill his daughter to preserve the family's honor, which led the woman's brother to avenge the death of his father by killing the cousin. The village Muslims blamed the Christians.

The Muslim mob attacked the church, exploding 5-6 gas cylinders inside the church, pulled down the cross and the domes and burnt everything inside.

Activist Ramy Kamel of Katibatibia Coptic advocacy called US-based Coptic Hope Sat TV and sent an SOS on behalf of the Copts in Soul village, as they are presently being attacked by the mob. He also said that no one is able to contact the priest and the deacons inside the burning church and there is no answer from their mobile phones.

Coptic activist Wagih Yacoub reported the mob has broken into Coptic homes and has called on Copts to leave the village. "Terrorized Copts have fled and some hid in homes of Muslim neighbors," he added.

Witnesses said the mob chanted "Allahu Akbar" and vowed to conduct their morning prayers on the church plot after razing it.

By Mary Abdelmassih

[American Patriot]

And thus is begins...

Everyone has been saying shit about this or that "Crusade"... but this is honestly the next Crusade starting. And it is started by the muslims.

If the Christians don't wipe this from the face of the Earth this time.... then woe be onto them.

[American Patriot]

Perhaps being a Caliph?

Doesn't make ANY sense though. Think about it.

Western civilization doesn't grasp what a Caliphate actually is... and Obama is already the President of the United States, THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD.

Wtf would anyone, in their RIGHT mind want with a title like "king" or "successor"?

If one is already the most powerful man in the world, why would he want a "step down" in power?

A Caliphate is... well, is supposed to BE a "constitutional republic" just like the United States is. However - the difference being they use Islam as the "Law"....

I suppose if Obama were actually a MUSLIM, it might make sense....

huh....