i'll update soon. seriously.

as soon as i stop bouncing around the country that is.

Slander Campaigns?

Remember a while back when I questioned the slander campaigns against Amr Moussa and Elbaradei ?

Well, here is an article (Unfortunately for the English only speakers that's in Arabic) about the same thing, I suggest if you can read it, please do.

http://shorouknews.com/Columns/column.aspx?id=415402 

My take on the Libya situation.

VS

I randomly went to the white house today with some friends to do the whole sight seeing thing, it was honestly my first time to actually go there. We were surprised to find a protest of Americans called "Code Pink" that are "anti-war in Libya".

We were even more surprised when we found what seemed like a scripted pro-Qaddafi protest group of around 10-15, crashing the Code Pink anti-war protest , What shocked me more were some of the chants by the pro-Qaddafi Supporters "We are all Qaddafi", "No to Libya being another Iraq", "Mr.Obama stop the bloodshed".

Now to anyone with half a brain, I'm pretty damn sure Qaddafi is the one behind the bloodshed since he started killing the protesters on February 21st 2011, While "Operation: Odyssey Dawn" (Codename for the operation against Qaddafi) only started on march 19th 2011. So why aren't they demanding from Qaddafi to stop the bloodshed instead? Or do they just care about Qaddafi's Libya and not give two shits about those fighting for their rights? Yes I'm aware some of those are probably Libyan Students afraid of losing their scholarships , But with others losing their lives, are scholarships really that important? Especially that others aren't afraid to lose their scholarships that are their sole form of income?

Frankly, it just leads me to believe, that those pro-Qaddafi protesters were too illogical to even protest logically. 10-15 idiots vs a Free Libya. Ironically, they disrupted a peaceful american led CodePink protest against the war, a protest that could've actually helped their cause. Code Pink were having a press conference: one of them was talking about how she's going to stand trial "for helping to free the Libyan embassy from Qaddafi goons" Thanks to the pro-Qaddafi protest having a megaphone, the Code pink press conference lasted for all of about 3 minutes, after that, code pink just packed up and left. It remains to be seen why they just left, they could've left because they didn't want to be seen as pro-Qaddafi, but frankly, I don't know for sure.

Pro-Qaddafi Protest at the White House (the ones holding the signs, not the tourists)

Code Pink packing up and to leave after the Pro-Qaddafi protest arrived

Now as an Egyptian, I'd sure as hell prefer the anti-Qaddafi team as neighbors, than the pro-Qaddafi camp. Regardless of the real reasons the collation has for attacking Qaddafi. Especially after Qaddafi tried to Bomb a building in Tahrir Square (Mogama3 El Tahrir) in 1976. Which led to a short lived Egyptian-Libyan War.

Now from a mideast revolution standpoint, I do understand the fears of an invasion of libya "poisoning" the Arab revolutions, Since I'm sure at one point or another, The other dictators will use the the foreign invasion of Libya to intimidate and deter the revolutions in the rest of the Middle East (and indeed world wide). The Dictators will probably say something along the lines of "See? If you don't accept us leading you, eventually they'll invade us"

But, the result of leaving Qaddafi untouched, The outcome of him POSSIBLY winning, is MUCH MUCH worse for the rest of the Mideast Revolutions, I mentioned a while back on Twitter that each "Domino" (Brutal Middle Eastern Dictators) is getting a lot more aggressive towards the protesters, the last Domino to face the aspect of "falling" will probably attempt to perform a wide scale "cleansing" massacre to remove all opposition. Don't be surprised, it's already happened before, Even if i don't support the MB, this was a bit too much.

Each dictator facing an uprising is learning a new trick from the dictator to fall before him. Now ask yourself this, what would happen if Qaddafi succeeds & remains unpunished?

The result would be that Qaddafi gives a clear message to the other dictators: Be as brutal as possible, and you'll win. Which is a disaster. That result, would poison the Middle east revolutions (and revolutions worldwide) so much worse than foreign military intervention on behalf of pro-freedom revolutionaries would (Especially when they asked for it), I discussed all of this with @captainlarab a few days ago, and i think this article kind of states my mindset http://n.pr/f1ODJP .

Long story short, Getting rid of Qaddafi even with Foreign Intervention is more important and greater than having Qaddafi surviving the uprising & staying in power, See the message he's already given Syria.

Remember, Each country revolting in the mid east, isn't just fighting for itself, but for every country worldwide that yearns to be free from a brutal dictator.

And as twitter user FranyaFranya mentioned in response to my discussions on this matter on twitter, here

"The sick irony is, how many times this rationale was misapplied to other countries... and now it's real, but nobody wants to believe"

The fact remains, Politics are not ethics or morals. I'm not under any illusion that the French-German-American led attack on Qaddafi are anything but Realpolitiks, but the fact remains, I'll take the Realpolitik action when it coincides with ethics and morality rather than attack it based on idealistic principle. You want to attack & Criticize those countries for something? Attack them for not helping the freedom seekers in Bahrain, Attack them for not pressuring the Yemeni President to stop using violence, Attack them for not pressuring the Syrian Regime to stop using violence against protesters, Attack them for not Stopping the House of Saud from using force to stop protests after arresting people that tried to peacefully ask for change without a protest in it's own country, or for using it's military to put a stop to the protests in Bahrain.

But for the love of logic, don't attack them for helping the Libyan pro-freedom fighters (Please don't call them "Rebels"), especially when the action has widespread support in the free Libya and the Arab world, If not wide spread support by the Arab League, but then again, most of the Arab league members are a bunch of countries who still have brutal dictators in power, the current most powerful being Saudi Arabia, so do we really care about the Arab League? Isn't it about time to start listening to the people instead of their brutal dictators?

Or have we learned nothing yet?

Referendum Fraud?

After various reports of fraud yesterday during the referendum process in Egypt, I still think that something fishy is still going on today.

Now I'm going to make this a short post, but I just want to point something out.

So according to the Ahram online, initial results showed that 2/3's of the Eligible voters in Alexandria voted for No at 65% and said there was one district remaining accounting for 1/3 of Eligible voters.

for simplicity we will assume that 66% (instead of 65%) of 2/3'rd of the voters in Alexandria voted No.

Now using normal math we deduce that :

2/3 of 100% = 66%
2/3 of 66% voted No = 44% of the Total said No, 22% of the total said Yes.


Now if we assume that the ENTIRE remaining 34% said Yes.

That would mean that out of the total 100% of voters in Alexandria :
56% for Yes and 44% for No give or take 1-3% on account of calculations.

Now even with population/voter differences, does this explain the official numbers of  497,607  (32.8%) for No, and 1,015,945 (77.2%) for Yes? Maybe. Maybe not.

So Yeah, Either Ahram newspapers is lying, or something fishy is going on. Judge for yourself.

And in case "someone" attempts to pull those sites down, here are screenshots

Ahram Online Screengrab

Referendum website Screengrab (numbers match official numbers)

Update: ‎18,000,00 votes Divided by 40,000 (reported to be 54,000) polling stations = 450 votes per polling station (probably less). Logical numbers?

Now Decide for yourself.

Constitutional Referendum Fraud In Egypt? An Initial view.

Egyptians break voting records as they take their first hopeful step towards democracy, while fighting back against Fraud.

Egyptians today voted for the constitutional amendments that have been widely rejected by all figures, political parties and organizations, except the army , the NDP and the Islamic movements (Such as the Muslim Brotherhood) as I mentioned in my previous post.

There have been heartening reports such as a record number of voters, high female turnout in some locations , an entire middle class neighborhood reported to have widely voted no , Downtown voters countering Islamist mobilization campaigns, and even Egyptians finally standing in line in a civilized manner, up to the point that the Governor of Cairo AbdelAzim Wazeer was kicked out of a polling station for refusing to wait his turn in contrast to Prime Minister Essam Sherif who insisted on waiting his turn like all other Egyptians. It really is a new and better Egypt.

Yet there have already been reports from all over about the various attempts at fraud that occurred today in Egypt's referendum, as well as various acts of thuggery, even though some analysts claim these acts shouldn't have a noticeable effect on the results.

Referendum laws were loosely enforced or not at all. Islamic movements including the Muslim Brotherhood were able to continue using their religious propaganda to campaign outside and inside polling stations , The NDP was still buying votes, and the MB were giving out food to buy votes. The Muslim brotherhood & Salafists going so far as tearing down posters that call for a No vote and replacing them with their posters calling for a Yes vote in the coastal city of Marsa Matrouh. The religious propaganda was so strong that people in upper Egypt fear the referendum could lead to sectarian violence after earlier reports by an NGO (Egyptian Organisation for Human Rights) that the polling station was becoming a place of psychological warfare between Islamists and Copts.

Why was the army decree to ban campaigning and media coverage on referendum day and the two days preceding it not enforced? The scenario I discussed in my previous post still stands out in my mind.

Initially there was an outcry that the unstamped ballots were invalid and an attempt to steal votes, until later on in the day the situation was clarified: the Ballots are valid as long as a Judge signs them regardless of if they're stamped or not.

On twitter today there were several reports that "Foreign" looking Egyptians were reported to have been verbally abused and verbally attacked before the security forces put a stop to it. (Which surprises me because Egyptians look anything from completely Caucasian , to east Asian, to African) , Twitter user WilyaWil reported from the Fatma Anan School polling location in the Fifth Settlement that:

 "There is a group of foreign-looking Egyptians that are causing a commotion here. Some people doubting there nationality #dostor2011 #Egypt link to tweet


They were asked about their original nationality although they had their national ID in their hand #Egypt #dostor2011 Link to tweet


they voted at the end but some Egyptians here were not happy #Egypt #dostor2011 Link to Tweet "

Probably A remnant of the Xenophobia campaign by Mubarak's regime on Egyptian State Tv that ran during the revolution

Presidential candidate and former head of the IAEA Mohamed ElBaradei was attacked by thugs while going to vote, the absence of security forces being quite suspicious, He tweeted about it saying "Went 2 vote w family attacked by organized thugs. Car smashed w rocks. Holding referendum in absence of law & order is an irresponsible act"

Several people got frustrated and left a three hour long queue at the only polling station in mid to high class neighborhood of Zamalek 

Voting in Upper Egypt was so disrupted due to lack of judicial supervision that the Army had to send Judges over by military aircraft, not a good move towards a region of Egypt that generally felt ignored by the Mubarak Regime.

Human rights lawyer Ragia Omran (Who was accredited to monitor the polling) and her Sister Dana were arrested by the military today while monitoring a voting station, even though the authorities said that civilian monitoring is allowed and encouraged. They're reportedly being interrogated now, along with American photographer/journalist Dana Smillie .

Reports of observers not being allowed to actually see the ballots being counted, as reported by respected blogger and journalist TravellerW (Mohammed El Dahshan)

Reports of lots of some people being ignorant of what they were voting for, or even manipulated into thinking it was to decrease prices. Some people even downright refusing to vote because they weren't being paid to vote.

Reports of violence in some places such as Bani Souief.

Reports of the Election ink used to make sure people don't vote multiple times being fake and easily washed and so many other reports that have emerged that you can read here (Arabic) and here (English) and here (English) (although the links have slightly different information) among other places.

Lastly, a Video has emerged claiming to be proof of Fraud in today's referendum, and instantly cries went out that the video was from an older referendum and thus fake.

But, and I'll leave you to judge for yourself, I want you to compare this picture of the ballots used today (March 19th 2011)  taken by twitter user Tarek Shalaby :

Picture of Ballot for March 19th Referendum in Egypt

With this uploaded video that claims to be proof of fraud in the 2011 referendum :

Video claiming to be proof of Fraud in the 2011 referendum in Egypt

From the government website for the 2005 elections:

Ballot for 2005 Presidential elections in Egypt

With this 2007 fraud video:

Video of fraud in 2007 referendum 

and this 2010 fraud video:

Video of fraud in 2010 parliamentary elections in Egypt

Now I want you to compare the ballots in all of the above with the first picture posted first and Judge for yourself, Did the first video show fraud or not? The ballot in the picture is the same as the one in the first video, but not in the others. Is it fraud? I don't know, but I'm sure eventually more footage will show up.

And while I cannot verify the information, the non-profit website called Thawrastats.org initially posted pre-referendum poll and said that expected results would be very close with Egyptians being divided 53.5% Yes and 46.5% No . You can read their report in English and in Arabic ( The Arabic one has more details, including polling methodology, and information that the Delta was leaning towards Yes with 73% and 3 other locations in Egypt leaning towards No with 53-56% , you can see their breakdown map here )  They later explained why they're polls should not be considered "fact" in their post "What can go Wrong"

Now I wouldn't have even considered their polls if not for the fact that several other organizations projected similar numbers, including the government's own Information and Decision support center website that carried it's own poll  that was for some reason taken down a few days ago, although the last recorded results for the poll stand at 57 percent against the amendments, 37 For the amendments, and 5 percent undecided.

However, all current projections portray the "Yes" vote as being the overwhelming majority. With all of the above, and considering my last post, I have to wonder.

Will people be outraged? Will they call for a re-vote? Will anyone really care? Frankly I don't know.

Is it all bleak? Not really, we're somewhat wiser now to these attempts, things have changed, and we can consider this as a testing ground for future voting. We can be more vigilant next time. The fact that majority of people actually stood in long lines , behaved, and hell, the fact that they broke voter records is a victory enough as is. Regardless of the results, Egypt HAS changed.

And just because I don't want to leave you completely depressed, Here's a video of voters forcing an Imam to pull down religious propaganda for the "Yes" vote:

Sign claims people/groups that the only people saying No are the USA, Naguib Sawiris (Christian Businessman), Elbaradei, and Amr Moussa. Sign is indirectly inciting sectarian tension.

But with the Damage already done, I just hope it isn't too late.

Update : TravellerW reports: "Confirmed: Ragia and Dana Omran are on the way home. Alhamdulillah. Very relieved. Welcome home @rago_legal!! "

Square One: A Conspiracy Theory

"It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful to success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarm-ness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it. Thus it arises that on every opportunity for attacking the reformer, his opponents do so with the zeal of partisans, the others only defend him halfheartedly, so that between them he runs great danger." ~Niccolo's Machiavelli "The Prince"

I must admit, this article is speculation, in fact, as much as I hate them, this can be called a conspiracy theory, but a lot of it is based on actual events and facts. In other words, the facts are there, but the conclusion is my own. In fact, I apologize in advance and ask you to bear with me if the information seems too fragmented, because my own thoughts on the matter are not really 100% organized, and frankly considering it's a conspiracy theory, I’m not even 100% convinced of it myself, but it's a possibility, and I’d be betraying myself if I didn't put it out there.

After research on what happened to Ukraine post revolution and witnessing recent events in Egypt, I have become increasing suspicious that events are being skewed towards a particular direction that will have disastrous results for Egypt, the initial step being an attempt to revalidate an already invalid constitution with some weak modifications. 

The problems with the constitution are many fold, Mainly in that even with the current amendments, it gives too much power to the next president, whoever he maybe, and does not really include any guarantees that anything will happen.

Some of the Articles in question that should've been amended but weren't include (taken from the Egyptian Government Website):

Article 137: The President of the Republic shall assume executive power and shall exercise it in the manner stipulated in the Constitution.

Article 142: The President of the Republic shall have the right to convoke the Cabinet and to attend its meetings. He shall also preside over the meetings he attends and is entitled to demand reports from the Ministers.

Article 143: The President of the Republic shall appoint the civil and military officials, and the diplomatic representatives and dismiss them in the manner prescribed by the law. He shall also accredit the diplomatic representatives of foreign states.

Article 144: The President of the Republic shall issue the necessary regulations for the implementation of the laws in the manner that would not modify, delay, or exempt them from execution. He shall have the right to vest others with authority to issue them. The law may determine whoever issues the decision requisite for its implementation.

Article 145: The President of the Republic shall issue control regulations.

Article 150: The President of the Republic shall be Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. He shall have the authority to declare war after the approval of the People’s Assembly.

Article 173: A Supreme Council, presided over by the President of the Republic shall supervise the affairs of the judiciary organizations. The law shall prescribe its formation, it competences and its rules of action. It shall be consulted with regard to the draft laws organizing the affairs of the judiciary organizations.

Article 182: A Council named “The National Defense Council " shall be established and presided over by the President of the Republic. It shall undertake the examination of matters pertaining to the methods ensuring the safety and security of the country. The law shall establish its other competences.

Article 184: Police authority shall be a civil disciplinary body. Its Supreme Chief shall be the President of the Republic. Police Authority shall perform its duty in the service of the people maintain peace and security for the citizens, preserve order, public security and morality, and undertake the implementation of the duties imposed upon it by laws and regulations, in the manner prescribed by the law.

Now as you can see, these articles all give too much power to one man, and yet no one even considered amending them, even in the slightest.

I am loathe to believe that the few amendments made during the past period were anything but a bad joke, considering that most of those "amendments" had already been drafted for years, and would've taken all of five minutes to put in.

Note: Amendment to Article 75: The president must be an Egyptian of at least 40 years of age, have never had another nationality, with two Egyptian parents with no other nationality and have never had another nationality, and must not be married to a non-Egyptian. The amendment reinforces the existing nationality criteria.

This is the one amendment that raised the most questions: Who asked for this amendment? Who demanded it? Why was manpower wasted on it? Why does it reek of discrimination and Nazism ("Purity" Clause)? In fact, the amendment to article 75 directly violates article 40 and article 46 of the constitution, and probably a few other clauses as well. So why was it put in? Specifically why is the amendment more or less EXACTLY similar to the main rule for being a military officer in the Egyptian Army?

Also, why was no time or effort spent on balancing the rights of the presidential powers? Why was there no method of checks and balances included between judicial, executive and legislative powers?

Now I’m going to jump for to a different point, and that is slander campaigns.

It's no secret that Mohamed ElBaradei and Amr Moussa are our best choices for a new Egypt, as they're the only two widely supported secular/liberal leaning candidates, Regardless of what you personally think of them.

Now the question I asked a while back, why are those two in particular being bombarded with ruthless slander campaigns? I'm not defending Moussa here (in fact I’m not really a fan nor do I have any plans to vote for him), but the interview being spread all over about him supporting Mubarak was taken completely out of context, on good personal authority I know that In fact Moussa is one of the main reasons we haven't had Gamal Mubarak as president for the past while, and partially due to the concept pointed out by that interview, it's not an opinion or viewpoint, it's a fact. With Baradei, It's no surprise that the slander about him being the reason the USA invaded Iraq is a complete lie, and in fact he was one of the main reasons the USA wasn't able to get the backing it desired when it came to invading Iraq. Not to mention, some of the documents claimed to have been recovered from the State security buildings by revolutionaries specifically slandered Moussa and Baradei, even though their authenticity has not yet been verified, however if they are somewhat legit (in that they really are SS documents, not in that the information in them is legitimate) why were these documents left behind to be easily found?

Now again I ask, who is behind those slander campaigns and why? Think outside the box, don't think of the typical reasons, but considering the campaigns against both started quite some time before either said they'd officially run. Think for a second outside the box, who is behind those slander campaigns and more importantly why?

Note there have been no strong slander campaigns against Hamdeen Sabahi or Ayman Nour, even though both have officially declared they would run. Why have there been no strong slander campaigns against any of the possible MB (Muslim Brotherhood) candidates?

Going back to amendment 75 on this same line of thinking, has no one wondered why Zueweil (who btw, has expressed interest in running for president on an educational and scientific reform agenda, and before you say "But he said he wouldn't run" of course he wouldn't state it bluntly. Moussa and Baradei denied it at first as well) appeared suddenly, and then suddenly disappeared? Was the amendment to article 75 created specifically to keep him out of the presidential seat? What about the Male bias in the amendment? Is it meant to exclude any possible female candidates?

Why have some of the major NDP (National Democratic Party, The main corrupt party under Mubarak's Regime) players like ElSherif, Sourour or Azmy not been charged with anything? Why are they not being investigated even with strong indications pointing to them being the men behind the recent turmoil in Egypt? Is one of them going to be the NDP backed candidate? Safwat ElSherif already announced that he's starting the "Freedom" political party. Hossam Badrawi (previously a prominent member of the NDP) is starting the "January 25th Party". The Irony is not subtle.

Furthermore, while I have no personal issues against this man, but has no one else recently noticed the subtle media campaign to "polish" Lieutenant-General Sami Hafez Anan? Including murmurs that he was the man that put a stop to the orders given by Mubarak to the Army to shoot protesters? One of the links that attribute to the following is an article (Arabic) that claims that Sami Anan stopped an attempt by the republican guard commander to stage a coup and shoot the protesters, which doesn't make sense because according to my research, the republican Guard is under the control of the Minister of Defense, which was previous Field Marshal Tantawi, and currently under control of Major General Samy Dyab , Both of who Anan is friendly with and currently works with, so how is this possible? Also considering  the "polishing" is it possible Anan could possibly be backed by the NDP?

Now shifting momentarily to something else, the only groups that want the current amendments to pass are the following: The NDP, The Muslim Brotherhood and the Army. Each group states its own reasons, but the reality is the real reasons might not be so straightforward. Each is also using its own scare tactics (Lies that the "1971 constitution will be restored if people vote no" by the NDP, The army hinting that it will enforce marshal law if the amendments don't pass, and the Islamic movements claiming a wide variety of grade A bullcrap.), in fact the army are pushing so hard that they assigned 47 dead judges and 52 overseas judges to oversee the referendum electoral boxes in some places.

The fact remains, that the constitution of 1971 is currently invalid, and any vote of yes will re-validate a draconian disastrous constitution once more. It is no secret that the only two groups that would benefit politically from the amendments passing are the MB and the NDP. 

But the fact also remains that The NDP are buying votes for "Yes" (why is this not illegal yet? or why is the punishment not enforced if it is?) , the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic groups claim voting "Yes" is "Wageb shar3y" (Religious Duty) , Imams in Mosques are calling on people to vote "Yes" to avoid the establishment of a "secular state", with the Muslim Brother hood even claiming that the People advocating for a "No" vote are foreign agents on their website, before quickly retracting their "story" when people noticed and pointed it out. Again mixing religious zealotry and retarded rumors with politics. 

As stated by a trustworthy good friend of mine: 

"regarding how disgusting it is to realize that people are back again to using the religious voice to herd people again like sheep. 

It’s actually disgusting get to know that imam's in mosques are calling for that when they were the same ones (at least the majority) who kept quite during all the riots. I found it really sickening to hear a Friday speech about something that has absolutely nothing to do with the revolution at a time people were asking for their rights. don’t get me wrong I haven’t lost respect for my religion but I did lose a lot of respect to some imam's who feared the regime more than fearing God at time where they should be setting an example for others in being courageous and speaking the truth when all fears for his own. "

And there is more proof of this, as shown in the following two images:

Printed flyer claiming that it's a religious duty to vote Yes to avoid the establishment of a non religious state

Advertisement Printed in ElAhram Newspaper again claiming that voting yes is a religious duty.

Why would the army that claims it's looking out for the wishes of the revolution, push for something that only has support from the biggest Non-democratic movements in Egypt (NDP and Islamic movements)? And if as most people claim, we'll get a new constitution "anyway" why would these groups be campaigning so hard for a "Yes" vote unless they get some benefit from it?

Another thing that seems unrelated but is relevant is the release of Zomor (One of the men responsible for the Assassination of former President Anwar Elsadat). Now I do not "normally" understand this: The man is guilty of high treason (assisting in the assassination of a president), anyone guilty of treason either gets death, or life in prison. Why was he only given 25 years? Why when we still have approximately 20,000 political prisoners does the army take the time to release this man? Why was he put on TV? Why was he portrayed as a hero? Why are people under the impression that Zomor can run for president, when it's well known that a president cannot have a criminal record? Who gave them that idea? There is a disastrous result of his TV interview, that some people now honestly believe the Emergency law "wasn't that bad", some even becoming convinced that the "strong handed tactics used by the regime" were justified if they kept filth like Zomor out of the streets. Was Zomor released to scare people?

While I am not entirely afraid of them, but rather I'm cautiously suspicious of them, Another aspect that seems to concern me, is that the source of the "information" being spread around about the MB aiming for 30-35% of the parliament seats is based on LAST years elections under the Mubarak regime, meaning they can probably pull more if the amendments pass NOW with no corruption, not to mention they're forming a party with a misleading name. It is not at ALL unreasonable to assume that other religious parties will obtain at least 16-21% of the seats if the MB only get the original 30-35% they aimed for last year and not more. That would create a religious coalition that has 51% or more of the seats in parliament. This is mainly possible, ONLY if the referendum passes now, before the liberal opposition have enough time to mobilize. 

And in case no one realized it yet, an MB/Salafi/Islamic majority government would bring Egypt under the Saudi sphere of influence.

Also, Why are the MB being portrayed as Heroes by some people now? They didn't initiate the revolution, they didn't officially take part for day, Hell even the MB claim that they fought off the thugs during the battle of the camels has been disputed by the Football Hooligans known as the "Ultras" That claim they're the ones that fought off the thugs that day.

Also There are three truths people seem to not want to think about or admit, but are absolutely critical:

1- The Egyptian army IS the "Nezam" (System/Regime). The "Nezam" Had a political Arm and a military Arm. All the Military did so far was sacrifice the political arm to save the rest of the system. 

2- The Military had a lot to gain by the old regime, especially considering military factories and businesses constituted at least 20% of all production in Egypt. The wealth of Military leaders has come into question before.

3- People in Egypt are unlikely to revolt again for a long time. They have suffered as a result of the revolution , the economy has been affected, people they know have been hurt or killed...etc The likelihood of them revolting again within the next 50 years, is VERY small and almost negligible. The claim of "the people will just revolt again" is not entirely true, because if they don't revolt again within the next two months, they will not for a very long time.

Now I know this article so far hasn't been the most coherent article ever, and quite confusing, and I apologize,  but I’m approaching my point: All the above factors lead my paranoid mind to think that we have one of two scenarios being aimed at and we're being manipulated into:

1- (What I think is more likely) That we will be left with only two/three viable presidential candidates after the slander campaigns against Moussa and Baradei are complete and successful: An NDP backed Candidate (possibly a military figure such as Lieutenant-General Sami Hafez Anan), an Islamist Candidate, and Lieutenant-General Sami Hafez Anan (or another Military Figure, if not already the NDP supported figure)

2- The Muslim movements take over, Army stages a coup, takes control with world backing and financial support.

Based on scenario number 1, if the Islamist candidate wins (regardless of leanings be they moderate or not), we'll be led to the above scenario 2, and with the Army in control, we'll be back at stage one, it'll be like the revolution never happened.

If the NDP candidate or Army Candidate ( Lieutenant-General Sami Anan or anyone else) wins, there is nothing to stop them from reverting to one man rule with minor "reforms" (see the Ukraine example), and we'll be back at square one, and it'll be like the revolution never happened except for some minor reforms being pushed through.

In any case, the plan seems to include scaring people into submitting their rights (with actions like the release of Zomor), so that in any of the above cases, the people will be so afraid of the alternative, that they'll support the Army or the "System" 100% , regardless of which scenario is followed.

So my point really is at the end, is this the big plan to restore the status quo? Is this the plan to go back to Square one? Conspiracy as it is, and as much as I personally do not believe it fully (even though I wrote it and it's my idea), it's still food for thought. What if we're being kept busy with minor details and problems, while this is what they're really aiming for? I really hope I'm wrong, and I'll assume that I most likely am wrong, But regardless, remember that this is all SPECULATION.

Hope this makes sense, since I’ve been writing in rambling fashion. 

Enough Misinformation Part 4: Article two and it's debate.

Remember, the most potent poison is the attractive kind.

The following is part of a note I initially wrote on Facebook on Feb 20th 2011 called "Enough Misinformation, Use your Minds and Think!", that I wrote because I was tired of people spreading bullshit. I've decided to split it up and post it here, the following intro was the intro for the note.
----------------------------------------------------
Ok, im really getting sick and tired of people spreading around rumors, without actually doing any research, so here, let's go.

(Note: Before you think of telling me "You're full of shit" I actually did research. Unlike 99% of the people out there. So even if i might be wrong, I at least bothered to do some research, and if you can prove that i'm wrong, I will gladly add your proof and admit my mistake)

(Feel free to copy, share do whatever you like with this note, Just credit me please)
----------------------------------------------------

The Article 2 Debate and why it's silly.

So lots of people believe that article 2 should be kept in as is, as they fear removing it or modifying it, would mean a loss of islamic identity. In fact some of these people demand it should be added even if we get an entirely new constituion. Now let me explain why that is quite silly.

First some history.

Ever since a few hundred years after the Islamic "Fath" (liberation) of Egypt, Egypt has been an Islamic country.

Note that the Islamic movements at the time, had no problem with the 1954 constitution that included no mention of anything similar to article 2 of the current constitution.

Article 2 was amended in 1980 by former president Anwar el Saddat. Meaning from 1971 to 1980, we didn't even HAVE this statement as is in the constitution. In the 1980 Amendments, Sadat also increased presidential powers radically.

The amendment was :
From "Sharia is A principal source of Egyptian law" to "Sharia is THE principal source of Egyptian law."

Meaning it changed sharia to be the De Facto AND De Jure source of law.

Now why is that relevant? When Sadat first took power, he had an alliance of sorts with the islamic movements in Egypt, Later on,  however, due to the peace agreement with Israel among other issues, that alliance was shattered. Also due to the 1971 constitution, there was no real allowed opposition, except the Islamic movements (That were backed by Saudi Arabia, because after the peace agreement, Saudi Arabia denounced Sadat). So Sadat decided to play a "dirty" Game. He amended the constitution in 1980 to increase his power manifold, and at the same time added Article 2 to the constitution for two reasons:

1- In return for less opposition from the Islamic movements.
2- To portray himself as an "Islamic" leader to pacify the Islamic movements and counter Saudi influence.

Do you realize what that means? It means the only reason article 2 was added in the first place, was because it was a sneaky political move. It had nothing to do with islamic identity. It was ALL politics.

It also means, that the inclusion of that Article indirectly is the reason we've been under a tyranny for 30 years. The people sold away their liberties for the unrequired affirmation that we're an islamic country.

It also means that you're trying to say, that hundreds of years of being an Islamic country, mean nothing whatsoever, and only the last 31 years are relevant.

It also disregards that Turkey is an Islamic country that does not have the same kind of Article in it's constitution.

So are you really trying to tie your religious identity, to a sneaky political move?

Now let's forget the history, considering you might not be convinced yet, and let's talk about the facts NOW.

Don't Forget for a moment, that the "Sharia" is not applied to all aspects of the law anyway, and mainly serves in civil matters (Marriage, Inheritence... etc). The only aspects of our law that have sharia implementation/basis are personal status and Family laws.

(link to the constitution again)
http://www.egypt.gov.eg/english/laws/constitution/chp_one/part_one.aspx

Quote:

Art.2*:   Islam is the Religion of the State. Arabic is its official language, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).

The main problem with this amendment? The wording. let's break it down to problematic and unproblematic.

Un-problematic :
"Islam is the Religion of the State. Arabic is its official language"

There is NOTHING really wrong with this part, In fact other than preserving culture(identity) and language, that part does nothing. In fact, this being left in as is, would be quite fine (and would probably appease most of the idiots on both sides of the argument)

Problematic:
"and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia)"

Now this is the problem. The wording of this part in and of itself is a disaster. Forget for a moment all the arguments for secularism and liberalism (which btw, are NOT in opposition to Islam, Quite the opposite, Islam encourages Secularism, Or do you not know Soowret el Kaferoon? )

The reason it's a problem?
Islam is quite a dynamic religion. In fact almost all the major religious figures agree that the religion in many aspects adapts with time. Not only that, but the religious scholars every period review their interpretation of Islam and reinterpret it based on the current circumstances that may not have existed previously.

Not to mention, Sunni Islam is not the only form of Islam, There is Sufi, Shii'a, Salafi, Wahabbi Sunni, Hambaly, and many more different types.

Sharia in and of itself has many different forms, with religious scholars disagreeing on it all the time.

So which one of these multiple choices do you choose? Which form of Islam and Which form of Sharia do you use?

Let's for the sake of argument assume we use Sharia as provided by the Sunni Azhar.
(Which Historical fact btw, was founded as an institution to spread Shii'a ideology, NOT Sunni Ideology.

See : http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/46851/al-Azhar-University
Namely this part : "al-Azhar University, Arabic Jāmiʿat al-Azhar, chief centre of Islamic and Arabic learning in the world, centred on the mosque of that name in the medieval quarter of Cairo, Egypt. It was founded by the Shīʿite (specifically, the Ismāʿīlī sect) Fāṭimids in 970 ce and was formally organized by 988. " )

It is NO secret whatsoever, that (like the regime) the Azhar (And by extension the Mufti as well) has been rife with corruption for decades, and for the past few decades has served little purpose but to provide artificial religious legitimacy to the Regime. It's leaders (and the Mufti) are assigned based on presidential choice and "wasta" rather than qualification. Most of it's figures have no understanding of basic theological studies like philosophy.

Don't believe me when i say that Mubarak assigned the leaders?

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/658/eg8.htm

"PRESIDENT Hosni Mubarak appointed Ali Gomaa as the Mufti to replace former Mufti Sheikh Mohamed Ahmed El-Tayeb, who held the post for less than two years. El-Tayeb has been appointed Al-Azhar University president, taking over from Ahmed Omar Hashem."

To Fix the problems in the Azhar fully, would require radical modifications, AND time (i'm talking around 5-10 years at best)

So tell me this,

Do you really want a Mubark assigned figure, to tell you what your faith is like and how to live?? Someone that was only assigned to the position because he traded away his integrity?
Remember, the head of the Azhar is the same person that said "rebelling against Mubarak is Haram (Religiously prohibitied)" along with the weak statements discouraging protests by Pope Shenouda and the Mufti.

So Do you still think keeping Article 2 in as is, is a good idea? Better question, do you still feel keeping it as is really matters? Do you feel your faith and identity is weak enough, that you need a political paragraph to confirm it?

And if you still don't believe me, Watch a Sheikh (Muslim Scholar) proving my point here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXt_V386Tnw