Egypt used chemical weapons in the 1960s; no one did anything then either:

August 25, 2013
Arabs, allied with Russia, kill hundreds of other Arabs with chemical weapons. A cover-up of chemical weapons use and angry denials, allowing Western nations stand by and do nothing for political reasons.

In 1967.

FromChemical and Biological Warfare: A Reference Handbook,by Albert J. Mauroni (2007):

The Yemeni Civil War (1962-1970) pitted the Yemeni royalists of the deposed imam against the Yemen republican forces in North Yemen, with Saudi Arabia and Jordan supporting the royalists and Egypt supporting the republican forces. This war was fought for five years until the two forces reached a stalemate in 1967. Although there had been occasional mentions of Egyptian military employment of mustard agent—filled bombs between 1963 and 1966, in 1967 these attacks became more frequent. International journalists began reporting that Ilyushin heavy bombers were dropping mustard-filled and phosgene-filled bombs on cities and rebel bases.

In January 1967, a gas attack near Sada killed more than 125 people. In May, two villages suffered 75 casualties from phosgene-filled bombs. Between 1967 and 1968, it is estimated that more than 1,000 Yemeni were killed as a result of exposure to CW agents. An International Red Cross mission sent doctors to assist the wounded, and the doctors testified to what they saw. Al-though they were careful to clarify that they did not see any evidence of actual attacks taking place, the signs and symptoms of the victims included burning eyes and trachea, pulmonary edema, internal thorax pain, extreme fatigue, and anorexia. Their findings were that in all probability these victims had inhaled toxic gases (Cookson and Nottingham 1969).The doctors were reluctant to identify the specific chemical warfare agents used, in part because they wanted to retain their neutrality and access to war victims. Although it appeared conclusive that mustard and phosgene had been used, a few cases suggested the use of nerve agent—filled bombs as well. The problem was how to prove the use of chemical warfare agents and who was responsible for using them. Because there were no arms control experts assigned to monitor or investigate these attacks, there was very little evidence other than eyewitness accounts from civilians and what could have been propaganda from the royalists. Although bodies and samples were sent to Saudi Arabia for more study, again, it was difficult to accuse any specific nation. Egypt claimed it had not used chemical weapons in Yemen, and, according to some sources, this may be true if Soviet air crews were manning the Egyptian-marked bombers that attacked those cities.

When Saudi Arabia and the royalists tried to get the United Nations to investigate, the UN’s secretary general, U Thant, declined. On March 1, 1967, he stated that he was “powerless” to investigate the issue, and that the facts were in sharp dispute. Although he almost certainly knew exactly what was going on in Yemen, he had made a political decision to stay out of the affair. The U.S. government, occupied with answering criticisms about the use of Agent Orange and riot control agents in Vietnam,chose not to get involved. The U.S. military decided that the chemical warfare attacks were an aberration and not reflective of any requirement to worry about future chemical warfare attacks (and in 1972, chose to disestablish the Chemical Corps). The United Kingdom was attempting to reestablish relations with Egypt at that time, so it chose not to say anything publicly against Egypt or Soviet affairs in the Middle East (Seagrave 1981, 124-125). The incident became a political nonevent, fodder for the arms control community but not much else.
This incident teaches several interesting lessons. The first is the failure of the world’s nations to react against the use of chemical weapons against civilians and military forces that were not similarly armed. This was not a clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, since Egypt was not then (and still is not) a signatory of the Geneva Protocol, unless it could be proven that Soviet crews were in those bombers. The reason that some military analysts believe there were Soviet crews in the bombers was twofold: First, they do not believe that the Soviet Union would have allowed Egypt to own or employ chemical weapons in 1967, Egypt having just started its interest in an offensive CW program. Second, the bombers dropped their munitions upwind of their targets for maximum effect, and in some cases, MiG fighter planes came back to drop high explosives or napalm on and near the targets to reduce or eliminate the evidence. These same tactics were seen years later when the Soviet air force attacked Afghani villages with chemical weapons. Because the attacks occurred in such remote locations and because post-mortem examinations took place days or weeks later, it was very difficult to directly attribute the cause of death to the bombing attacks.
This was the first instance of Arabs attacking Arabs with chemical weapons.

The second was the Iran-Iraq War, where some 45,000 are believed to have been killed by chemical weapons.

Civil war in Egypt

July 28, 2013
(Ahmed Nashar, a Brotherhood spokesman witnessed what happened near the Nasr City mosque where demonstrators built a wall to protect themselves. “When I arrived, bullets were whizzing past my ears,” he told the BBC. “Today was just brutal – people were fired at, with live firearms.”)

Egypt near starvation. OBAMA sends weapons

July 13, 2013

Egypt is down to a less-than-two-month supply of wheat, but that doesn’t disturb the Hussein Obama administration. They’re sending F-16’s to Egypt instead. The US officials say Washington will deliver four F-16 fighter jets in the next few weeks. They are part of an already agreed bigger order of 20 planes – eight of which were sent to Egypt in January. The final eight are expected to be shipped later this year. White House spokesman Jay Carney on Wednesday reiterated that it would not be “in the best interests of the United States to make immediate changes to our assistance programmes”. He added that the administration would take its time to consider the implications of removing Mr Morsi from power. US military aid to Egypt is estimated to be $1.3bn (£860m) each year.


Article 3 of the 2012 constitution, which discusses the rights of Christians and Jews, has been eliminated.

July 11, 2013

A Coptic bishop has warned about just what we doubtless suspected would be the case: the political structure of the Egyptian constitution still goes by Islam, and:
Article 3 of the 2012 constitution, which discusses the rights of Christians and Jews, has been eliminated.


The problem at the heart of Egypt’s Revolutions

July 9, 2013
 Nonie Darwish

This is the central problem in most Muslim countries: the difficult choice between a man-made, civilian, military, “infidel” government, and a totalitarian Islamic theocracy.

This latest revolution in Egypt, the second in the last two years, is a symptom of a deep-rooted problem at the heart of Islam itself: Egypt is on the verge of a civil war to bring a resolution to the never-ending tension between what Islam demands versus what the people really want.
This is the central problem in most Muslim countries: the difficult choice between a civilian, military “infidel” government, and a totalitarian Islamic theocracy. The problem is compounded when most Egyptians consider themselves both Muslim and lovers of democracy, but refuse to see that Islam and freedom cannot co-exist. How can Islam anywhere produce a democracy when freedom of speech and religion are outlawed, where there is no free and independent judiciary, and equal rights for women, minorities and non-Muslims are legally suppressed?
Islam also cannot let go of government control: since its inception, Islam has lacked the confidence in its own survival without government enforcement. As Muslim Brotherhood leader Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi stated this winter on Egyptian television, “without the ‘Death for Apostasy’ laws, apostasy laws, Islam would have failed with the death of Mohamed, as people would never stay in this religion otherwise.” It is no coincidence therefore that Islamic law dictates that all Muslims must be ruled by Sharia, and declares that all secular governments, made by man, not by Allah, are heresy and an abomination.
While mosques are busy teaching Muslims how to carry out jihad, hate Jews and mistreat Christians, their imams allocate no time to preach the values of peace and trust as a foundation for an orderly society or civilization. As a result of such an Islamic education, Muslims who know they want freedom are unable to build the value system on which to achieve it.
Egypt’s dilemma is nothing new, but the good news today is that finally there is an awakening in Egypt regarding the tyranny that Sharia law brings, especially if it is made the basis of a constitution. Despite this awakening, however, not one rebel in Tahrir Square was able openly to carry a sign saying, “Sharia must become null and void.” The majority of Egyptians still believe that to say that would be an act of apostasy, punishable by death.
All current surveys still show that the overwhelming majority of Egyptians still support Sharia law, or at least say they do. This is where the problem lies: the laws of a society are the mirror of its morality. Egyptians cannot make believe that they can have both Sharia and freedom, or that their laws do not have to match their style of government and what they can feel comfortable with. According to Sharia, a Muslim head of state must rule by Islamic law, and must preserve Islam in its original form, or he must be removed from office. Islamic law leaves no choice for any Muslim leader but to accept, at least officially, that Sharia is the law of the land, or else be ousted from office. Sharia also commands Muslims to remove any leader who is not a Muslim. Because of that command, Muslim leaders must play a game of appearing Islamic and anti-West while trying to get along with the rest of the world. It is a game with life and death consequences for them.
That stricture is the reason many Egyptians today agree to keep Sharia in the constitution, even if only symbolically. But how can Egyptians be so nave to believe they can ignore the laws of their constitution? As long as Sharia is on the books, even if it is ignored, the country can never have true stability and freedom. Even with revolutions, Egyptians can only achieve cosmetic changes with no substance; changes such as, the name of the country, its flag, national anthem, or even putting on or taking off women’s hijabs.
Although Egyptians were always exuberant about the removal of a regime or a dictator, they never were about a change in the religious, cultural and moral foundations of the country. Whether it is the Egyptian revolution of 1919, 1952 or 2011, the change achieved has always been superficial, or for the worse. Somehow whenever the Muslim mind comes to the underlying religious ideology that is the foundation upon which its systems are erected, it freezes.
The result is a majority of confused citizens whose trust is shattered; moral standards in conflict, and laws and the concept of reality distorted. But how long can this warped existence last undetected? So far it has succeeded for 1,400 years without collapsing, but can this latest revolution be the crack in the stranglehold of Sharia?
Egyptian secularists have achieved a great step against the Muslim Brotherhood, but will they be able to sustain it? The Muslim Brotherhood has powerful roots in the Egyptian psyche, and the Brotherhood has vowed a bloodbath against any secular government.
For any secular government to remain in power, it needs to turn tyrannical and put in jail members of the Muslim Brotherhood. This has already begun; arrest warrants against leaders and 300 members of the Brotherhood were issued within hours of the removal of Morsi.
Egypt is now back to square one; a military dictatorship is, for the moment at least, the only solution that can preserve and sustain a certain level of secularism in the face of the constant Islamic assault that human rights, freedom of religion and democracy. The assault has also been on the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, on August 5, 1990, was repudiated and superseded by the Organization of Islamic Conference [OIC] in favor of the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which, in article 24, in its entirety, concludes that “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.” Article 19(d) also posits that, “There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’ah.”
One can only hope that this military dictatorship will not be like others, which promise elections and freedom, but remain as autocracies for decades.

Nonie Darwish is the author of “The Devil We Don’t Know”.

http://writingtw.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-problem-at-heart-of-egypts.html?m=1


#Egypt: Troops Open Fire on #Morsi Supporters

July 5, 2013
(Isaiah 19:2: And I will spur Egypt against Egypt; and they shall fight every one against his brother, 
and everyone against his neighbour; city against city, and kingdom against kingdom)
At the Los Angeles Times, “Egypt unrest: Troops open fire on ex-President Morsi’s supporters.” And from the photo caption there, “The body of a supporter of ousted Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi lies on the ground after he was shot dead during clashes in Cairo.”

And at the New York Times, “Video Shows Shooting of Protester in Egypt.”

Photo here.

That dude is f-ked up.

More, “Egypt Protests Turn Increasingly Violent.”

Earlier, “Egypt Launches Post-Coup Crackdown.”


Jon Stewart in Egypt causes controversy for the dumbest reason possible (Like Usual)

June 23, 2013

Jon Stewart, during his working summer vacation, visited his friend and fellow TV satirist Bassem Youssef in Egypt h/t EOZ
So what could be the problem?
Egyptian paper Al Mesryoon complained about this appearance, because of a comment he makes early on about not working. He says “As you know my people like to wander the desert, that’s what I’m doing now…it’s been two weeks, I’ve got 38 years and 50 weeks left.”
Al Mesryoon, hilariously, says that Stewart was making fun of …the Koran!
You see, the Koran says that the Jews wandered 40 years in the desert because of their sins. How dare Jon Stewart mock the Koran! And to add insult to injury (a topic covered in the interview,) Stewart makes fun of Cairo traffic!

Dhimmi Stewart just doesn’t get how cursed everyone thinks he is in Egypt because of his arrogance… might be a good idea to not watch someone who is so completely oblivious that he has has feminists writing his jokes. That’s Benghazi for humor… or maybe Tahrir Square.


<