Crisis in Egypt: Morsi and General Al-Sisi vow death

donsutherland1 said:

Just a few quick thoughts...

First, I believe the ongoing events in Egypt are a function of domestic rivalries (largest driver) and foreign response, including what has been a consistently reactive U.S. policy approach (small driver, but probably one that has made a marginal difference in the calculations of the parties).

Second, in my view, the U.S. should be very careful to understand that Egypt is a strategic state. As such, it should avoid hasty or emotion-driven policy responses. Such responses could actually backfire leading to greater rigidity among the parties (a transitional government fearing it must act more quickly and decisively and the Muslim Brotherhood's expecting U.S. policy to shift in its direction).

Third, the immediate policy focus should be on getting Egypt's government to work toward the goal of a stable permanent government. Parties willing to participate should be able to join in the process. Those unwilling to participate should not be compelled to participate, but the door should be open for their inclusion down the road once they are ready. The principles for a permanent government that should be enshrined in a future constitution should be inclusive, but with appropriate safeguards to protect the rights of all of Egypt's people.

Fourth, the U.S. should be working more, not less, with Egypt's military in developing appropriate rules of engagement for dealing with protests and violence so that civilian lives would be protected and bloody outcomes related to clearing protests could be avoided.

Fifth, the seemingly favored tactic of seeking a coaliton government should be avoided. The differences among the parties to the conflict are too large to allow for a stable and effective coalition government.

Click to expand...

Heya DS.....that all can take place. Once the MB is kaput and their Sunni Clerics are silenced.

donsutherland1 said:

Just a few quick thoughts...

First, I believe the ongoing events in Egypt are a function of domestic rivalries (largest driver) and foreign response, including what has been a consistently reactive U.S. policy approach (small driver, but probably one that has made a marginal difference in the calculations of the parties).

Second, in my view, the U.S. should be very careful to understand that Egypt is a strategic state. As such, it should avoid hasty or emotion-driven policy responses. Such responses could actually backfire leading to greater rigidity among the parties (a transitional government fearing it must act more quickly and decisively and the Muslim Brotherhood's expecting U.S. policy to shift in its direction).

Third, the immediate policy focus should be on getting Egypt's government to work toward the goal of a stable permanent government. Parties willing to participate should be able to join in the process. Those unwilling to participate should not be compelled to participate, but the door should be open for their inclusion down the road once they are ready. The principles for a permanent government that should be enshrined in a future constitution should be inclusive, but with appropriate safeguards to protect the rights of all of Egypt's people.

Fourth, the U.S. should be working more, not less, with Egypt's military in developing appropriate rules of engagement for dealing with protests and violence so that civilian lives would be protected and bloody outcomes related to clearing protests could be avoided.

Fifth, the seemingly favored tactic of seeking a coaliton government should be avoided. The differences among the parties to the conflict are too large to allow for a stable and effective coalition government.

Click to expand...

It seems none of the participants involved have much interest in what the US has to say.

Egypt ignores Washington after U.S. policy missteps - Washington Post

The reputation of the US has been greatly diminished and it will take a strong leader to restore America's credibility in the world, if that is what the American people genuinely want.

The US supported these overthrows of Arab leaders for faux democracy starting with Saddam, which has turned out to be a destructive process for their infrastructures and stability. The people thought all their problems and poverty would disappear, instead of getting worse. We may not have liked the leaders of these countries but at least they kept the mobs at bay, now all they have is discombobulation and a larger footprint for extremist organizations to set up bases and recruit.

More bad news for the Muslim Brotherhood. Bad news for Team Obama and the Neo Cons too. The Saudis are siding with the Egyptian Military. To follow, will be Kuwait and the UAE. Now does it seem like Obama's remarks were sticking up for the Egyptian military? The rest of the Sunni and other Arabs. They think a Stable Egypt is better than an Egypt ran by the MB.

Saudi prince fires celebrity TV preacher for Brotherhood links.....




Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal has fired a renowned Kuwaiti preacher and motivational speaker from the top job at the religious television channel he owns for what he described as "extremist inclinations" and links to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Saudi Arabia has come out strongly in support of an army crackdown on the Brotherhood in Egypt following the military overthrow of Islamist President Mohamed Mursi last month. The Brotherhood's rise had unsettled Gulf Arab states which feared it would embolden Islamists at home.

The prince said Tareq al-Suwaidan, who has more than 1.9 million Twitter followers and is known across the Arab world for his lectures on self-improvement from an Islamic perspective, had identified himself as "one of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood" during a lecture in Yemen.

"There is no place for those who carry any deviant thoughts at Al Resalah Channel," Alwaleed wrote in a letter to Suwaidan, according to a news release from the prince's office.

Prince Alwaleed's uncle, King Abdullah, on Friday called on Arabs to stand together against "attempts to destabilize" Egypt, in a message of support for the military leadership.....snip~

Saudi prince fires celebrity TV preacher for Brotherhood links
Reuters – 5 hrs ago <<<<< more here.

MMC said:

More bad news for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Bad news for Team Obama and the Neo Cons too. The Saudis are siding with the Egyptian Military. To follow, will be Kuwait and the UAE. Now does it seem like Obama's remarks were sticking up for the Egyptian military? The rest of the Sunni and other Arabs. They think a Stable Egypt is better than an Egypt ran by the MB.

Saudi prince fires celebrity TV preacher for Brotherhood links.....

Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal has fired a renowned Kuwaiti preacher and motivational speaker from the top job at the religious television channel he owns for what he described as "extremist inclinations" and links to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Saudi Arabia has come out strongly in support of an army crackdown on the Brotherhood in Egypt following the military overthrow of Islamist President Mohamed Mursi last month. The Brotherhood's rise had unsettled Gulf Arab states which feared it would embolden Islamists at home.

The prince said Tareq al-Suwaidan, who has more than 1.9 million Twitter followers and is known across the Arab world for his lectures on self-improvement from an Islamic perspective, had identified himself as "one of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood" during a lecture in Yemen.

"There is no place for those who carry any deviant thoughts at Al Resalah Channel," Alwaleed wrote in a letter to Suwaidan, according to a news release from the prince's office.

Prince Alwaleed's uncle, King Abdullah, on Friday called on Arabs to stand together against "attempts to destabilize" Egypt, in a message of support for the military leadership.....snip~

Saudi prince fires celebrity TV preacher for Brotherhood links
Reuters – 5 hrs ago <<<<< more here.

Click to expand...

That is good news, MMC. First you get rid of the really, really bad guys and then, when the dust has settled, you deal with the run of the mill bad guys. Bad guys who have their sinecures threatened, as in SA, will have to rise up against the crazy religious fanatics or their own power will be threatened. This they appear to be doing. In 30 years or less this may be recognized as a critical turning point.

Grant said:

It seems none of the participants involved have much interest in what the US has to say.

Egypt ignores Washington after U.S. policy missteps - Washington Post

The reputation of the US has been greatly diminished and it will take a strong leader to restore America's credibility in the world, if that is what the American people genuinely want.

Click to expand...

When it comes to foreign policy, I agree that the leadership element is important. However, the U.S. has had a chronic lack of a foreign policy strategy that coherently ties its interests and range of policy responses together for multiple administrations. Consequently, U.S. foreign policy has become overwhelmingly reactive in nature. The proactive and creative aspects one saw during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s are almost completely absent. The transformation of foreign policy into essentially ad hoc reactions has made it increasingly difficult for allies and foes alike to calculate U.S. reliability. The former can be pushed into hasty reactions to deal with issues. The latter can be tempted to run greater risks.

As noted previously, the U.S. had tangible and significant opportunities to build a better relationship with Russia, create a managed framework to assure the protection of U.S. interests and allies with regard to China, lay a framework that encouraged stability in strategically important areas in the Mideast, conclude a mutually acceptable missile defense framework with Russia, among others. Unfortunately, very little progress has been made in those areas. Worse, a better outcome was not just possible, it should have been attained.

Needless to say, all the blame does not rest with the current Administration. Senators Graham's and McCain's "hotdogging" it in Egypt complicated things and likely made a contribution to the transitional government's attempt to settle things on its terms. Their insulting the transitional prime minister on grounds that he wasn't elected, trying to dictate terms of a settlement with no attempt at understanding the plight of the transitional government and the enormous challenges it faces, and naive assumption that a coalition government could make Egypt's security problems disappear all worsened things. That the two senators chose their own ad hoc foreign policy formulation is just another sympton of the nation's foreign policy's increasingly lacking a strategic design or purpose.

In the long-run, that approach is not sustainable without putting American interests at risk.

MMC said:

More bad news for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Bad news for Team Obama and the Neo Cons too. The Saudis are siding with the Egyptian Military. To follow, will be Kuwait and the UAE. Now does it seem like Obama's remarks were sticking up for the Egyptian military? The rest of the Sunni and other Arabs. They think a Stable Egypt is better than an Egypt ran by the MB.

Click to expand...

This is no surprise. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council responded in answering the pleas of Bahrain's government for assistance. In doing so, they did the U.S. a favor, as the U.S. had seemingly lost site of Bahrain's significance as a strategic naval base. Now, they are formulating policy that is consistent with their interests. With their proximity to Egypt, they have much more at risk than the U.S. does. They cannot afford to make naive assumptions without considering the risks to their own states. They understand the actors involved far more intimately than the U.S. does and they appreciate the need for rebuilding stability.

Grant said:

That is good news, MMC. First you get rid of the really, really bad guys and then, when the dust has settled, you deal with the run of the mill bad guys. Bad guys who have their sinecures threatened, as in SA, will have to rise up against the crazy religious fanatics or their own power will be threatened. This they appear to be doing. In 30 years or less this may be recognized as a critical turning point.

Click to expand...

Heya Grant. :2wave: Yep.....and the Libyans, Syrians, as well as the Egyptians. All want them out and gone from their countries. This is affecting their operations everywhere. Which will also affect AQ and their likes. Less money, less connections, less chaos.

The MB have no qualms massacring people. Specially Copts and Berbers. Now they are getting a dose of their own medicine.

donsutherland1 said:

When it comes to foreign policy, I agree that the leadership element is important. However, the U.S. has had a chronic lack of a foreign policy strategy that coherently ties its interests and range of policy responses together for multiple administrations. Consequently, U.S. foreign policy has become overwhelmingly reactive in nature. The proactive and creative aspects one saw during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s are almost completely absent. The transformation of foreign policy into essentially ad hoc reactions has made it increasingly difficult for allies and foes alike to calculate U.S. reliability. The former can be pushed into hasty reactions to deal with issues. The latter can be tempted to run greater risks.

Click to expand...

Yes, most President and their administrations took the lead from George Kennan's post-war analysis of Communism and that continued more or less until Ronald Reagan. Any critics tended to be on the fringes.There was a change in mood though from the Kennedy speech claiming that "America will pay any price, bear any burden... to assure the success and survival of liberty" to, 11 years later, George McGovern saying "Come Home America". Of course McGovern lost but the philosophy he represented became quite powerful in American politics. This, as you say, has led to a lack of American cohesion and a genuine political philosophy in US politics that leads from one administration to the next.

As noted previously, the U.S. had tangible and significant opportunities to build a better relationship with Russia, create a managed framework to assure the protection of U.S. interests and allies with regard to China, lay a framework that encouraged stability in strategically important areas in the Mideast, conclude a mutually acceptable missile defense framework with Russia, among others. Unfortunately, very little progress has been made in those areas. Worse, a better outcome was not just possible, it should have been attained.

Click to expand...

Yes, it brings to mind Obama's message just prior to the last election that he will have "more flexibility" to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election. Flexibility achieved: Obama pulls missile defense system from eastern Europe « Hot Air

Needless to say, all the blame does not rest with the current Administration. Senators Graham's and McCain's "hotdogging" it in Egypt complicated things and likely made a contribution to the transitional government's attempt to settle things on its terms. Their insulting the transitional prime minister on grounds that he wasn't elected, trying to dictate terms of a settlement with no attempt at understanding the plight of the transitional government and the enormous challenges it faces, and naive assumption that a coalition government could make Egypt's security problems disappear all worsened things. That the two senators chose their own ad hoc foreign policy formulation is just another sympton of the nation's foreign policy's increasingly lacking a strategic design or purpose.

Click to expand...

That's as good a summation as I've heard.

In the long-run, that approach is not sustainable without putting American interests at risk.

Click to expand...

Agreed. And while America is often criticized for being 'the policeman of the world' it is also seen that there is no realistic alternative. All I can add is that the policeman needs more responsible constables with him.

MMC said:

Heya Grant. :2wave: Yep.....and the Libyans, Syrians, as well as the Egyptians. All want them out and gone from their countries. This is affecting their operations everywhere. Which will also affect AQ and their likes. Less money, less connections, less chaos.

The MB have no qualms massacring people. Specially Copts and Berbers. Now they are getting a dose of their own medicine.

Click to expand...

I hope it is sustained and grows world wide!

An olive branch in Egypt...

From the BBC:

The head of Egypt's armed forces has said that his message to the supporters of ousted President Mohammed Morsi is that "there is room for everyone".

Gen Abdul Fattah al-Sisi urged them to help "rebuild the democratic path" and "integrate in the political process".

Click to expand...

BBC News - Egypt army chief al-Sisi: Room for all in Egypt

My guess is that the Muslim Brotherhood will insist on its unrealistic and unreasonable demand that Morsi be reinstalled as President. At the same time, continuing to show a lack of foreign policy finesse, the U.S. will not publicly credit Egypt's military with a positive and constructive offer. At the same time, some such as Senator McCain will continue to beat the proverbial drums for a severance of U.S. aid to Egypt (ignoring the strategic U.S. relationship and further isolating moderate elements in Egypt).

I hope I'm wrong. Unfortunately, as it appears that the Muslim Brotherhood is on a rigid and uncompromising path, I don't expect much flexibility there in the near-term. At the same time, with Washington lacking a big picture understanding of the dynamics in Egypt and Egypt's importance to the nation's larger interests, I don't believe either the White House or Congress will provide credit to the military for its proposal, even as it is a big shift toward trying to alleviate U.S. concerns while respecting the difficulties that exist in Egypt.

donsutherland1 said:

An olive branch in Egypt...

From the BBC:



BBC News - Egypt army chief al-Sisi: Room for all in Egypt

My guess is that the Muslim Brotherhood will insist on its unrealistic and unreasonable demand that Morsi be reinstalled as President. At the same time, continuing to show a lack of foreign policy finesse, the U.S. will not publicly credit Egypt's military with a positive and constructive offer. At the same time, some such as Senator McCain will continue to beat the proverbial drums for a severance of U.S. aid to Egypt (ignoring the strategic U.S. relationship and further isolating moderate elements in Egypt).

I hope I'm wrong. Unfortunately, as it appears that the Muslim Brotherhood is on a rigid and uncompromising path, I don't expect much flexibility there in the near-term. At the same time, with Washington lacking a big picture understanding of the dynamics in Egypt and Egypt's importance to the nation's larger interests, I don't believe either the White House or Congress will provide credit to the military for its proposal, even as it is a big shift toward trying to alleviate U.S. concerns while respecting the difficulties that exist in Egypt.

Click to expand...

Well our politicians.....Team Obama and the Neo Cons. Democrats and Republicans will just have to face the facts that they choose the wrong people to stand with. Which means we are on the wrong side of History. The MB refuses to compromise and has not only drawn a line in the sand. But has given the entire planet a justified reason to hunt them all down. Just like the Nazis. Whom they got their beginnings with are all entwined with.

There is no good reason to allow one to get away or escape.

donsutherland1 said:

Just a few quick thoughts...

First, I believe the ongoing events in Egypt are a function of domestic rivalries (largest driver) and foreign response, including what has been a consistently reactive U.S. policy approach (small driver, but probably one that has made a marginal difference in the calculations of the parties).

Second, in my view, the U.S. should be very careful to understand that Egypt is a strategic state. As such, it should avoid hasty or emotion-driven policy responses. Such responses could actually backfire leading to greater rigidity among the parties (a transitional government fearing it must act more quickly and decisively and the Muslim Brotherhood's expecting U.S. policy to shift in its direction).

Third, the immediate policy focus should be on getting Egypt's government to work toward the goal of a stable permanent government. Parties willing to participate should be able to join in the process. Those unwilling to participate should not be compelled to participate, but the door should be open for their inclusion down the road once they are ready. The principles for a permanent government that should be enshrined in a future constitution should be inclusive, but with appropriate safeguards to protect the rights of all of Egypt's people.

Fourth, the U.S. should be working more, not less, with Egypt's military in developing appropriate rules of engagement for dealing with protests and violence so that civilian lives would be protected and bloody outcomes related to clearing protests could be avoided.

Fifth, the seemingly favored tactic of seeking a coaliton government should be avoided. The differences among the parties to the conflict are too large to allow for a stable and effective coalition government.

Click to expand...

Your third and fifth seem somewhat mutually exclusive. The MB and those that wish to have a Muslim only gov't (and laws) are the majority and had elected Morsi. The idea of a constitution that trumps what the MB want will never fly with them.

Grant said:

I hope it is sustained and grows world wide!

Click to expand...

Heya Grant. :2wave: Looks like it is.

Egyptian capital becomes battle zone amid crisis.....


Egyptian army soldiers take their positions on top and next to their armored vehicles while guarding an entrance to Tahrir square, in Cairo, Egypt, Friday, Aug. 16, 2013. Egypt …more is bracing for more violence after the Muslim Brotherhood called for nationwide marches after Friday prayers and a "day of rage" to denounce this week's unprecedented bloodshed in the security forces' assault on the supporters of the country's ousted Islamist president that left more than 600 dead

A little more than two years ago, the scene in Cairo was starkly different. While there was some looting and a curfew that was less strictly enforced, Egypt was largely united in its bid to overthrow autocratic President Hosni Mubarak after 30 years. There was hope the revolution's rallying cry of "bread, freedom and social justice" would yield results. Young activists painted sidewalks, planted flowers and cleaned up the streets.

Later, when Morsi was narrowly elected last year, the country's first freely elected president stood in Tahrir Square, the site of anti-government protests, and opened his suit jacket to show he didn't need a bulletproof vest or the tight security of his deposed predecessor.

But Morsi, a longtime Brotherhood leader, failed to include other factions in his decision-making and cast his critics as conspirators and Mubarak-era loyalists. Political divisions deepened and the economy tumbled.

Ragab, a government employee who took part in those protests, said he supports the crackdown on the Brotherhood.

"If you have roaches in the kitchen that are eating away at your food. What do you do? You spray them," he said. "These are not Islamists. They are terrorists.".....snip~

Egyptian capital becomes battle zone amid crisis

Whoops there it is.....The MB are Terrorists. No need for any sympathy now. The Fox in the Hen house has been busted out.

MMC said:

Well our politicians.....Team Obama and the Neo Cons. Democrats and Republicans will just have to face the facts that they choose the wrong people to stand with. Which means we are on the wrong side of History. The MB refuses to compromise and has not only drawn a line in the sand. But has given the entire planet a justified reason to hunt them all down. Just like the Nazis. Whom they got their beginnings with are all entwined with.

There is no good reason to allow one to get away or escape.

Click to expand...

Is this confusion or are they serious?

The PJ Tatler » State Dept. Spokeswoman Psaki Denounces ‘Enemies of Islam’

Grant said:

Is this confusion or are they serious?

The PJ Tatler » State Dept. Spokeswoman Psaki Denounces ‘Enemies of Islam’

Click to expand...

From your own link.

Any government employees that observe that Islamic terrorists themselves wrap themselves in the mantle of doctrinal Islam will quickly find themselves without a job. And when members of Congress have confronted senior administration officials as to whether elements of radical Islam have declared war on the US., those officials have angrily protested that Congress merely asking such questions puts them in a league with al Qaeda.....snip~

Seems we tend to listen.....IMO to much to what those in the ME have to say. Time to start doing the Right thing. Which is when they go to speak. Interrupt them and then, tell them to STFU!

ttwtt78640 said:

Your third and fifth seem somewhat mutually exclusive. The MB and those that wish to have a Muslim only gov't (and laws) are the majority and had elected Morsi. The idea of a constitution that trumps what the MB want will never fly with them.

Click to expand...

No. I'm saying that the pursuit of a coalition government that includes the Muslim Brotherhood should be avoided. If the Muslim Brotherhood is willing, that's one thing. If not, the U.S. should not bind its policy toward an unrealistic goal. The more practical goal of a broader government of willing participants should be the aim. A stable government should be the overriding short-term goal. The longer-term goal could be some form of representative government with the details to be determined by Egyptians, not dictates from abroad.

donsutherland1 said:

No. I'm saying that the pursuit of a coalition government that includes the Muslim Brotherhood should be avoided. If the Muslim Brotherhood is willing, that's one thing. If not, the U.S. should not bind its policy toward an unrealistic goal. The more practical goal of a broader government of willing participants should be the aim. A stable government should be the overriding short-term goal. The longer-term goal could be some form of representative government with the details to be determined by Egyptians, not dictates from abroad.

Click to expand...

So the Egytian military, funded by the US, defines who it is willing to participate with and installs them as the "civilian" gov't of Egypt? Seems like that is exactly what we had before Morsi and "democracy" in Egypt.

ttwtt78640 said:

So the Egytian military, funded by the US, defines who it is willing to participate with and installs them as the "civilian" gov't of Egypt? Seems like that is exactly what we had before Morsi and "democracy" in Egypt.

Click to expand...

All political factions should be invited to participate in a transitional political process aimed at creating a stable government and later more broadly representative government. Those that are willing to do so should be able to participate. Those that are not should not preclude such a political process. That the Muslim Brotherhood maintains unreasonable and unrealistic aims of returning Morsi to power and would very likely reject such an arrangement is its problem. Neither it nor any other political faction should have an effective veto over an urgently needed political process.

donsutherland1 said:

All political factions should be invited to participate in a transitional political process aimed at creating a stable government and later more broadly representative government. Those that are willing to do so should be able to participate. Those that are not should not preclude such a political process. That the Muslim Brotherhood maintains unreasonable and unrealistic aims of returning Morsi to power and would very likely reject such an arrangement is its problem. Neither it nor any other political faction should have an effective veto over an urgently needed political process.

Click to expand...

It still seems to me that whatever the Egyptian military wants is, by definition, the "acceptable" political process and any objections to that will be met with military (now called "security") forces.

donsutherland1 said:

All political factions should be invited to participate in a transitional political process aimed at creating a stable government and later more broadly representative government. Those that are willing to do so should be able to participate. Those that are not should not preclude such a political process. That the Muslim Brotherhood maintains unreasonable and unrealistic aims of returning Morsi to power and would very likely reject such an arrangement is its problem. Neither it nor any other political faction should have an effective veto over an urgently needed political process.

Click to expand...

Heya DS.....you got that Right. The MB has proven why.....they cannot be included in any process. They are nothing more than Terrorists that need to be hunted down and sent on to meet their maker. Forthwith!

ttwtt78640 said:

It still seems to me that whatever the Egyptian military wants is, by definition, the "acceptable" political process and any objections to that will be met with military (now called "security") forces.

Click to expand...

It's difficult to ever side with a military takeover but this is one of the exceptions.

Grant said:

It's difficult to ever side with a military takeover but this is one of the exceptions.

Click to expand...

Mornin Grant. :2wave: More bad news for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Syrian government backs decision to oust Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.....

Syria’s embattled government applauded Egypt’s security forces for their crackdown against the Muslim Brotherhood, saying Damascus wanted to restore diplomatic ties cut by Egypt’s former Islamist regime.

Speaking about the situation in Egypt, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad condemned the Muslim Brotherhood and ousted former President Mohamed Morsi, saying “the Brotherhood never believed in democracy. Everybody knows this

We believe that the tens of millions who came out on June 30 to denounce the Muslim Brotherhood reflect the real intentions and the real aspirations of the Egyptian people,” Mekdad said in an interview with Stars and Stripes.

He praised the Egyptian military for moving against the Muslim Brotherhood, saying it was forced to act “against these fanatics ... who under the presidency of Morsi tried to control all aspects of life in Egypt.”

The burning of churches across Egypt that followed the bloodshed of recent days reflected what is happening in Syria, Mekdad said, where armed jihadists are increasingly targeting the country’s Christian minority, which makes up about 10 percent of Syria’s 23 million people.

“Our main concern is to restore relations that existed between Egypt and Syria,” he said. “Once Egypt and Syria are in the leading seat, stability and prosperity will return to the (Middle East).”.....snip~

Syrian government backs decision to oust Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood - Middle East - Stripes

BBC News - Egyptian police killed in Sinai ambush at Rafah

24 police killed

Higgins86 said:

BBC News - Egyptian police killed in Sinai ambush at Rafah

24 police killed

Click to expand...

Heya Higgins. :2wave: Yeah it was the MB and those connected to Morsi's clan.....despite articles saying Militants.

We have it up here too.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/africa/170098-egypt-islamists-hit-christian-churches-3.html