Shit hits the fan in Egypt

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2469
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:18 am

PostSat Feb 05, 2011 4:55 pm » by Proto


noetic wrote:thats what liars do...them pipes are huge and durable,they're made to handle blasts and they can take a fire on the outside so there is no way a molotov did this,and the metal is too thick for small arms fire.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110205/ap_ ... plosion_11

Image

EL-ARISH, Egypt – An explosion went off in a gas terminal in Egypt's northern Sinai Peninsula on Saturday, setting off a massive fire that was contained by shutting off the flow of gas to neighboring Jordan and Egypt, officials and witnesses said.

An Egyptian gas company official said the fire was caused by a gas leak. Earlier, a regional official said he suspected sabotage.

The blast and fire at the gas terminal in the Sinai town of El-Arish did not cause casualties. The explosion sent a pillar of flames leaping into the sky, but was a safe distance from the nearest homes, said regional governor Abdel Wahab Mabrouk.

The blast came as a popular uprising engulfed Egypt, where anti-government protesters have been demanding the ouster of longtime President Hosni Mubarak for the past two weeks. The Sinai Peninsula, home to Bedouin tribesmen, has been the scene of clashes between residents and security forces. It borders both Israel and the Gaza Strip, ruled by the Islamic militant Hamas.

The terminal is part of a pipeline system that transports gas from Egypt's Port Said on the Mediterranean Sea to Israel, Syria and Jordan.

The head of the Egypt's natural gas company, Magdy Toufik, said in a statement that the fire broke out in the terminal "as a result of a small amount of gas leaking."

Mabrouk told Egyptian media he suspected sabotage, but did not explain further. Mabrouk said the fire was brought under control by mid-morning, after valves controlling the flow of gas were closed.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 6298
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:06 pm
Location: coast

PostSat Feb 05, 2011 5:44 pm » by Mediasorcerer


mossad sabotage,false flag.
with the power of soul,anything is possible
with the power of you,anything that you wanna do

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1850
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:29 pm

PostSat Feb 05, 2011 7:48 pm » by zinzana


no logic there as usual ....why would mossad shoot itself in the foot? duh right?
more likely it was hizbollah/hammas/muzzie brotherhood comandos

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1850
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:29 pm

PostSun Feb 06, 2011 5:29 am » by zinzana


“Freedom” vs. “Freedom”

For the Muslims, “freedom” is freedom from unbelief.

Sheik Yer’mami has always maintained that the Islamic concept of ‘freedom’ entails that the soldiers of Allah can freely force their horrid belief system on non Muslims…..

Americans must learn two concepts to better understand the political earthquake the United States is now pushing as President Obama gives his nod to “the Arab street,” predominantly organized, it seems, by the Muslim Brotherhood, to force out an ally, Hosni Mubarak.

Many on the right have seen in the anti-Mubarak movement vindication of George W. Bush’s Big Idea — that ballot-box democracy would transform the umma into Jeffersonian, or, at least, pro-Western and anti-jihad republics. That this hasn’t happened anywhere (and in spades) doesn’t dampen their enthusiasm. In fact, citing Bush to bolster pro-”opposition” commentary is in vogue. Writing in the Washington Post, Elliott Abrams quotes Bush, circa 2003, as saying: “Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? … Are they alone never to know freedom …?” Jay Nordlinger at National Review quotes Bush, circa 2008, as saying: “The truth is that freedom is a universal right — the Almighty’s gift to every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth.”

Such is “universalist” gospel. Universalists believe all peoples prefer freedom to its absence, which is probably true. But they also believe all peoples define “freedom” in the same way. Is that true?

The answer — and first concept — is no. The entry on freedom, or hurriyya, in the “Encyclopedia of Islam” describes a state of divine enthrallment that bears no resemblance to any Western understanding of freedom as predicated on the workings of the individual conscience. According to the encyclopedia, Islamic freedom is “the recognition of the essential relationship between God the master and His human slaves who are completely dependent on Him.” Ibn Arabi, a Sufi scholar of note, is cited for having defined freedom as “being perfect slavery” to Allah. To put it another way, Islamic-style “freedom” is freedom from unbelief.

Suddenly, something seems very lost in Bush-speak translation. It has been from the start, which helps explain what’s gone wrong in U.S. wars in the umma. Bringing Western-style “freedom” to the Islamic world may have resembled an idealistic extension of the civil rights crusade in the eyes of President Bush and his followers, but it was actually one big cultural misunderstanding.

At this point, I can imagine being quizzed on whether the Islamic definition of freedom applies outside of a strictly Islamic religious milieu. But judging by the most solid indicators we have — polling data on Egyptian attitudes from Pew (2010) and University of Maryland/WorldOpinion.Org (2007) — I would have to say that Egypt is a strictly Islamic religious milieu. These findings reveal a population steeped in the teachings and attitudes of Shariah (Islamic law).

For example, Pew tells us 84 percent of Egyptians favor the death penalty for leaving Islam; 95 percent say it’s good for Islam to play a big role in politics. The Maryland/WorldOpinon poll shows that 74 percent of Egyptians favor “strict Shariah,” and that 67 percent favor a “caliphate” uniting all of Islam. In free elections, such potential pluralities might well rate as “democratic” in terms of majority rule. But would the West consider them to be “democratic” in terms of individual rights?

Writing in the Washington Examiner, Byron York considered some of these same Egyptian data and found an apparent contradiction between the huge popularity of the death penalty for leaving Islam (“apostasy”) on the one hand, and “freedom of religion” (90 percent) on the other. This would be a contradiction in the Western context. But we are not looking at a Western context. Which brings me to Concept Two.

Islam does not recognize as valid any religion but Islam. That means that what we in the West hear as “freedom of religion” becomes, in the Islamic context, freedom of Islam. Indeed, as Stephen Coughlin, the brilliant analyst of Shariah, has pointed out to me, citing both the Koran and quoting the classic Sunni law book “Reliance of the Traveler”, Judaism and Christianity “were abrogated by the universal message of Islam.” That means overruled. Further, it is “unbelief (kufr)” — grounds for the capital crime of apostasy — “to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions, such as “Christianity” or “Judaism,” are acceptable to Allah Most High….”

Suddenly, a post-Mubarak Egypt run by the Muslim Brothers is not so difficult to imagine.

Conspirator
Posts: 1687
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 5:53 pm

PostSun Feb 06, 2011 6:06 am » by Noetic


Detentions, and Aide’s Role, Anger Egyptians


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/world ... ss&emc=rss
patent pending lol

Initiate
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 2:35 pm
Location: Australia

PostSun Feb 06, 2011 6:32 am » by Frankenstein


zinzana wrote:
“Freedom” vs. “Freedom”

For the Muslims, “freedom” is freedom from unbelief.

Sheik Yer’mami has always maintained that the Islamic concept of ‘freedom’ entails that the soldiers of Allah can freely force their horrid belief system on non Muslims…..

Americans must learn two concepts to better understand the political earthquake the United States is now pushing as President Obama gives his nod to “the Arab street,” predominantly organized, it seems, by the Muslim Brotherhood, to force out an ally, Hosni Mubarak.

Many on the right have seen in the anti-Mubarak movement vindication of George W. Bush’s Big Idea — that ballot-box democracy would transform the umma into Jeffersonian, or, at least, pro-Western and anti-jihad republics. That this hasn’t happened anywhere (and in spades) doesn’t dampen their enthusiasm. In fact, citing Bush to bolster pro-”opposition” commentary is in vogue. Writing in the Washington Post, Elliott Abrams quotes Bush, circa 2003, as saying: “Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? … Are they alone never to know freedom …?” Jay Nordlinger at National Review quotes Bush, circa 2008, as saying: “The truth is that freedom is a universal right — the Almighty’s gift to every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth.”

Such is “universalist” gospel. Universalists believe all peoples prefer freedom to its absence, which is probably true. But they also believe all peoples define “freedom” in the same way. Is that true?

The answer — and first concept — is no. The entry on freedom, or hurriyya, in the “Encyclopedia of Islam” describes a state of divine enthrallment that bears no resemblance to any Western understanding of freedom as predicated on the workings of the individual conscience. According to the encyclopedia, Islamic freedom is “the recognition of the essential relationship between God the master and His human slaves who are completely dependent on Him.” Ibn Arabi, a Sufi scholar of note, is cited for having defined freedom as “being perfect slavery” to Allah. To put it another way, Islamic-style “freedom” is freedom from unbelief.

Suddenly, something seems very lost in Bush-speak translation. It has been from the start, which helps explain what’s gone wrong in U.S. wars in the umma. Bringing Western-style “freedom” to the Islamic world may have resembled an idealistic extension of the civil rights crusade in the eyes of President Bush and his followers, but it was actually one big cultural misunderstanding.

At this point, I can imagine being quizzed on whether the Islamic definition of freedom applies outside of a strictly Islamic religious milieu. But judging by the most solid indicators we have — polling data on Egyptian attitudes from Pew (2010) and University of Maryland/WorldOpinion.Org (2007) — I would have to say that Egypt is a strictly Islamic religious milieu. These findings reveal a population steeped in the teachings and attitudes of Shariah (Islamic law).

For example, Pew tells us 84 percent of Egyptians favor the death penalty for leaving Islam; 95 percent say it’s good for Islam to play a big role in politics. The Maryland/WorldOpinon poll shows that 74 percent of Egyptians favor “strict Shariah,” and that 67 percent favor a “caliphate” uniting all of Islam. In free elections, such potential pluralities might well rate as “democratic” in terms of majority rule. But would the West consider them to be “democratic” in terms of individual rights?

Writing in the Washington Examiner, Byron York considered some of these same Egyptian data and found an apparent contradiction between the huge popularity of the death penalty for leaving Islam (“apostasy”) on the one hand, and “freedom of religion” (90 percent) on the other. This would be a contradiction in the Western context. But we are not looking at a Western context. Which brings me to Concept Two.

Islam does not recognize as valid any religion but Islam. That means that what we in the West hear as “freedom of religion” becomes, in the Islamic context, freedom of Islam. Indeed, as Stephen Coughlin, the brilliant analyst of Shariah, has pointed out to me, citing both the Koran and quoting the classic Sunni law book “Reliance of the Traveler”, Judaism and Christianity “were abrogated by the universal message of Islam.” That means overruled. Further, it is “unbelief (kufr)” — grounds for the capital crime of apostasy — “to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions, such as “Christianity” or “Judaism,” are acceptable to Allah Most High….”

Suddenly, a post-Mubarak Egypt run by the Muslim Brothers is not so difficult to imagine.


Link please?

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1850
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:29 pm

PostSun Feb 06, 2011 7:03 am » by zinzana


familysecuritymatters.org
you got to scroll down a bit to get to the article

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 6298
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:06 pm
Location: coast

PostSun Feb 06, 2011 9:10 am » by Mediasorcerer


mossad.
with the power of soul,anything is possible
with the power of you,anything that you wanna do

Initiate
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 2:35 pm
Location: Australia

PostSun Feb 06, 2011 9:53 am » by Frankenstein


mediasorcerer wrote:mossad.
<sarcasm>A second cousin of mine has a friend who once knew someone with a hangnail in Pakistan, that was Mossad / Israels fault like everything else in this world.</sarcasm>

Seriously people, if Mossad / Israel could do half of the things that they are blamed for, they are as powerful as god. If they were really as good as everyone claims, Israel would own the entire middle east by now.

Personally, I would rather see Egypt evolve to its own course. If that means it becomes the head of a giant Caliphate, so be it.

Conspirator
Posts: 1687
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 5:53 pm

PostSun Feb 06, 2011 1:22 pm » by Noetic


Hosni Mubarak resigns as head of ruling party


Upload to Disclose.tv



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muslim Brotherhood joins Egypt crisis talks

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/02/06/egypt.protests/?hpt=T1
patent pending lol


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook