The United States gives Egypt about $2 billion a year in foreign aid.

But, according to Ranbutan, it's Israel that's an economic burden.

Can we get a refund?

Damn, it frosts my @$$ that my hard-earned tax dollars keep getting sent to these @$$holes, without me having the slightest say-so, so that they can spit in our faces! Why in the hell can't we cut these b@$+@rds off from the American teat? Why doesn't our government get a friggin' clue? I'd even vote for a Democrat if they would support this. Keep the money here in the US or spend it on US interests. Take the money that we would have sent to Egypt and send it to Israel. But not to $hi+he@ds who want to see us dead.

Goes for the rest of 'em, too.

"Death to America!" = no more dollars from America.

this does not make sense. if the arabs are ostensibly commited to stability in the region, is it not reasonable that citizens are allowed to think for themselves and campaign for peace in the region?

this post suggests Mubarak is accusing Sharon of rejecting peace.

[Link: www.haaretzdaily.com...]

I want to know more about this:

*and the slaughter of dozens of defenseless Egyptian [sic] people*

What is this all about? Is this just another magic carpet fantasy or are there verifiable actual individuals with Egyptian papers?

What exactly were they doing in Israel? How were they dressed? Were they armed? What organizations or terrorists groups were they members of? What were the circumstances of their demises?

Where are their bodies at this moment?

foobar -- It may be a reference to various Egyptian morons who sneak across the border and get involved in terrorism. They get themselves killed, and, naturally, the Arab world considers that a horrible crime.

foobar,

I was thinking that it might be that the Egyptians consider Gazans to be Egyptians? Don't know if this is true though.

ISLAM v CIVILIZATION

The distinction between "Islamists" who practice JIHAD and Muslims who only finance JIHAD, is becoming less distinct. In the Egyption weekly, AL-AHRAM (#603, Sept. 12, 2002), Omayma Abdel-Latif claims that there has been a trend toward "civil Islam" since 911. And argues that "Islamism" is actually increasing adherents, at the expense of secularism and pluralism.

"El-Erian (senior member of Ikwan, "Muslim Brotherhood") does not share the view that the 11 September attacks have exposed the weakness of the Islamist project. Rather, he says, 'It is the bankruptcy and failure of the Western model of modernisation that we have witnessed after 11 September. People have come to realise that turning to their own heritage, religion and culture is what really matters,' El-Erian says. "I believe that the more they (the Egyptian state and the West) fight Islamist movements, the more people will join them,' he said."

"Citing examples from the past three decades, observers of political Islam have noted that Islamist groups have shown every sign of wanting to be part of constitutional political life. Engaging in the electoral process, whether through parliamentary elections, or through election to the professional syndicates, has confirmed the Brotherhood's commitment to legal political channels..."

"Those who continue to argue for the Islamist project believe that there are two areas ripe for Islamisation, the first being the STATE and the second, SOCIETY. While such people admit that they have not succeeded in efforts to recapture the state, this is not true of the 'battle for society.' There are, they say, conspicious signs of 'Islamisation from below,' rather than 'Islamisation from above' imposed by the state, and this has influenced not just sections of the middle class, but also the affluent upper strata of society whose discourse is now littered with ISLAMIC IDIOM."

"While it is true, observers say, that political Islam has not manifested itself as an organized political force in Egypt, it has become a powerful social force raising Islamic cultural consciousness, and influencing the attitudes and actions of many social groups, and not only the poor and the frustrated as was previously the case. According to Ismail, the deployment of Islamic idioms to articulate given practices, and hence Islamising of society, is a sign of Islamist success."

"...(According to Salwa) Ismail (Exeter University, U.K.), 'Perhaps an alternative policy can be achieved through a take-over not by confrontation with the state but by social activism and engagement,' capturing SOCIETY rather than the STATE..."

"For the Islamists, al-Tayar al-Islami (the Islamist trend) is far from being a fringe movement, rather, it is a central and pervasive one. 'If one examines Egyptian history one finds permanent Islamist activism: Islam will remain an inherent part of Egypt's social and political realm,' El-Erian remarks. And on this point even some secular observers cannot do other than agree. Abdel-Meguid, for example, believes that political Islam is 'here to stay for some time,' but, he says, it will develop in forms different from those it has taken over the last five decades."

"In a similar vein, proponents of Islamist politics speak of tajdeed al-Din, or the renewal of religion, terming this 'CIVIL ISLAM.' One of the most consistent themes of this is the claim that modern ideals of EQUALITY, FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY are not uniquely Western values, but that they are compatible with, and even requisite, Muslim ideas. Some of these 'Muslim democrats' are determined to demonstrate that Islamic values are fully consistent with democracy, pluralism and tolerance."

xxx

MOST Western academics would treat the above as a positive trend. In fact, it is: the YETHRIB PLAN regurgitate, where Mohammed infiltrated a Jewish community - Yethrib (cum Medina)- and, when it was possible, implemented his TAKEOVER plan.

When any Muslim talks about legal DEMOCRACY, he means SHURA DEMOCRACY, or Consular dictatorship under the Khalifa (successor to the "prophet") model. It is haram for any Muslim to recognize a secular authority, and any ersatz respect shown to same, is transient, while participation in Western politics, is done on an instrument basis, and done so with the intention of implementing a YETHRIB TAKEOVER PLAN.

No? "Muslim Personal Law" initiatives, which would incorporate piecemeal Sharia into Western civil and criminal codes, are operating in most of the democracies. How close to America? In the Canadian province of Ontario, it is legal for Muslims to settle private law disputes, on the basis of Sharia, within mutually consented, government subsidized forums for "Alternate Dispute Resolution." In "secular" India, constitutional provisions allow male polygamy and other Sharia perversities. Sharia practice is carried on a mass scale in France, and has achieved near de jure status.

No? Whatever the outcome of the Pakistan general election, CIVIL ISLAMISM will win. Sharia TYRANNY will be wrapped in democratic principles, while human rights will be constrained by clerical dictate. Within months, secular JUSTICE will be obsolete in Pakistan. Follow the election campaign, and see for yourself.

No? Most Pakistanis already subscribe to the following: "What distinguishes Islamic democracy (shura) from Western democracy is that the latter is based on the concept of popular sovereignty, while the latter is based on the principle of POPULAR KHILAFA (successor AUTHORITY)." Muslims have no discretionary privilege to act on the basis of free will, if doing so omits to emulate the SUNNA (allegedly "exemplary" life of the "prophet"). THAT IS WHY ALL MUSLIMS ARE A THREAT, AND THAT IS WHY ISLAM IS A FORM OF SAVAGERY THAT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH CIVILIZATION.

I believe that it will take a couple of years, and a couple more 911 hits, before common sense intervenes to re-calibrate the Western mind, and then we will all realize: MUSLIMS ARE OUR MORTAL ENEMIES, AND EACH OF THEIR MINDS IS A FORWARD BASE, WHILE THEIR BODIES ARE MURDER-WEAPONS.

"The United States gives Egypt about $2 billion a year in foreign aid."

They do not think it is "aid", they think it is "tribute" that the weak must pay to the strong.

We would get more respect from these brigands if we were extorting "protection" money from them instead of giving them "aid".

Nasty...at the UN

[Link: www.unhchr.ch...]

[Link: mypage.bluewin.ch...]

On the very last day of the UNCHR’s 1997 session, the representative of Indonesia, Agus Tarmidzi, speaking on behalf of the OIC countries, took the floor to protest a passage in a report by Benin’s Maurice Glélé-Ahanhanzo, the U.N. special rapporteur on racism. Focusing on information under the subheading "Islamist and Arab Anti-Semitism," the Indonesian ambassador referred to a quotation from a book on antisemitism that reads:

The use of Christian and secular European antisemitic motifs in Muslim publications is on the rise, yet at the same time, Muslim extremists are turning increasingly to their own religious sources, first and foremost the Qur’an, as a primary anti-Jewish source.10

Tarmidzi called this a "defamation of our religion Islam and blasphemy against its Holy Book Qur'an." That same evening, the UNCHR's fifty-three member states—including the United States and several Western countries—adopted a decision by consensus, that

Express[ed] its indignation and protest at the content of such an offensive reference to Islam and the Holy Qur'an; affirmed that this offensive reference should have been excluded from the report; requested the Chairman to ask the special rapporteur to take corrective action in response to the present decision.11

That request was promptly carried out and the "offensive reference" was duly excised.12 But this was not enough. On July 22, 1997, at the Geneva session of the U.N.’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), Indonesia, speaking for the OIC, again referred to the "outrageous reference to Islam and to the Qur'an" contained in the report on racism, which had been excised in a corrigendum two weeks earlier. Some of the OIC speakers even demanded that the very subheading, "Islamist and Arab Anti-Semitism," be excised - a demand subsequently reiterated by Iran and Sudan.13

Interestingly, not one of these representatives attempted to refute the "outrageous reference"; heeping scorn on it and making sure it was not repeated sufficed for them. Perhaps their reluctance to deal with the facts of the matter has to do with the irrefutable evidence that Islamists constantly use religious sources for what is spoken and written critically on the subject of Jews in Arabic and Persian. Thus the accusation of "blasphemy" amounts to an attempt to make special rapporteurs excercise self-censorship.

And, indeed, such self-censorship has occurred, as can be seen in the 1999 report of the special rapporteur on racism, where the subheading which caused the furor in 1997, "Islamist and Arab anti-Semitism," is now conspicuously absent.14 Although Glélé-Ahanhanzo again refers to the same Israeli publication as he did in 1997, he omits any reference to its twenty-five pages on antisemitism in Arab countries and Iran.15 In fact, he does not even mention any evidence of antisemitism in the Muslim world.

...etc...

Ploome #9:

The Islamic concept of consensus through Shura (elite reinforcement of Islamic dogma), which operates at the O.I.C., precludes any universal notions regarding procedural fairness and objective determination of fact. That is: their work product is fiction. It is most unfortunate that Western government assist production of this Islamic catechism, which has no other purpose than the advancement of the Islamic JIHAD. O.I.C. politics is war by other means (apologies to Clausewitz).

As Jamaat' founder, Maulana Maududi said, "In Western democracy, the people are sovereign; in Islam, sovereignty is vested in Allah." Ergo: Muslims are prohibited from deriving right from democratic consensus, because that type of consensus challenges the sovereign power of that Arab tribal deity, before which they prostrate. Islamic state power cannot rest on the consent of the governed, because the constitutional purpose of Islamic states is: the suppression of consent. Muslim rule is inherently dictatorial.

There are repeated references in the Hadith to typified human beings as, "slaves of allah." Ergo: the logical conclusion of Islamic politics is the slave-state. Taleban was not a distortion of Islam by a pseudo-Muslim sect; it was an implementation of the authentic Islamic political model. Contrary to popular Western notions, said model has never been rejected by Pashto-Afghanis (the largest ethnic group). In fact, a huge Taleban revival is underway in the border territories of Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why I totally oppose nation-building in Islamania, on any basis other than: De-Islamization. It is as simple as this: free the slaves.

The O.I.C. states hardly conduct inter-state relations with the civilized world, on a basis of sovereign equality. Islam programs subversion of diplomacy, that is conducted on that basis. In spite of Bush's grovelling return to the Islamized' U.N.E.S.C.O., his successor will be forced to understand that the presence of the shura-diplomacy of subterfuge on the East River of one of America's largest cities, will cause more stress and strain than the U.N. can withstand. Islam is a poison pill, that kills both de-militarization and peaceful resolution of disputes. The Muslim states don't abide by the U.N. Charter, because it is only a means to their global-historical ends. As the U.N. is becoming little more than an appendage of the O.I.C., it should be wrapped up until civilization can be established among the slave-states.

wait... you're telling me that in the Middle East, peace groups get slapped down?

Thank god that doesn't happen in the west, eh?

RE post 11

Name one!

Db # 8 is right. The money the US pays Egypt is extortion money. Its is part of the camp David peace deal with Israel in 1979. Pay the money and we will make peace with Israel.

#6 Ariel yes the Gazans are viewed as Egyptians - just like Cairo born Arafat. The egyptians in the 1948 war tried to grab western palestine as they looked upon it as theirs. The Jordanians grabbed eastern palestine as they look at it as theirs and as the successors to the Hashemites of Damascus.

As stated a hundred times before there is no such thing as a Palestinian before the 20th century. Whatever palestinian nationalism has been created (as is easy to see by the copy cat nature of their "events/historical time line since 1948" ) is a reaction to Zionism.