In this mailing:
- Soeren Kern: UK Taxi Rapes
- Peter Huessy: Deterrence: The Ability to Retaliate
- Raymond Ibrahim: U.S. Ambassador to Egypt: "Muslim Brotherhood's Lackey"
UK
Taxi Rapes
"No Woman is Safe in a
Cab"
by Soeren Kern
July 17, 2013 at 5:00 am
July 17, 2013 at 5:00 am
|
Share:
 |
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
Taxi rapes
are rarely reported; apparently because the politically incorrect crimes are
not deemed to be newsworthy. BBC radio host Sam Mason, a single mother, was
fired after she called a taxi company and requested a "non-Asian"
driver to take her 14-year-old daughter to her grandparents' home; preferably a
female driver. The operator refused, and said, "We would class that as
being racist." Mason responded, "It's not your 14-year-old
girl." A BBC spokesman said, "[Mason's] comments were completely
unacceptable…she will no longer be working for the BBC."
Great Britain is in the throes of a rape
and pedophilia epidemic unlike anything the country has experienced in
living memory.Many of the sex crimes are being perpetrated by Muslim child grooming gangs responsible for drugging, raping and torturing hundreds and possibly thousands of British girls.
But another wave of sex crimes involves predatory Muslim taxi drivers who are raping female passengers. The number of so-called taxi rapes is snowballing to such an extent that a British judge has issued a warning that no woman can expect to be safe while traveling in a cab.
Reliable statistics on taxi rapes nationwide are difficult to obtain, and Freedom of Information requests seeking accurate data on cab-related sexual assaults are routinely denied (here and here).
A London taxicab.
(Source: James Barrett)
|
Moreover, according to a report entitled, "Ending Violence against Women and Girls in the UK," published by the Home Office in March 2013, only around one in ten women who experience serious sexual assault report it to the police. As a result, one can infer that the actual number of taxi rapes across Britain as a whole is far greater than many are willing to admit.
Apart from a few high-profile cases, taxi rapes are rarely reported by national newspapers in Britain, apparently because the politically incorrect crimes are not deemed to be newsworthy.
But a survey of stories buried deep inside local newspapers shows that taxi rapes are occurring in all parts of England, Wales and Scotland on an almost daily basis.
In a recent case in London that was reported by national newspapers, Mohamed Hacene-Chaouch, 46, was sentenced to seven years in prison for raping a 24-year-old female passenger in his unlicensed taxi. Hacene-Chaouch -- an Algerian married father of five -- assaulted the woman after she got lost in Soho, central London.
The woman, who had been celebrating a friend's birthday and had become inebriated, told the jury that the last thing she remembered was being in the back of a car and being taken to an ATM machine. She said she drifted in and out of consciousness but woke up inside the car in front of her east London home to find Hacene-Chaouch raping her. Although Hacene-Chaouch denied the allegations, the crime was filmed by CCTV cameras.
Judge Wendy Joseph at the Old Bailey accused Hacene-Chaouch of being a sexual predator and said: "It must have been clear to you that she was helplessly and hopelessly drunk. She trusted you to take her safely home. She was clearly vulnerable, she was obviously helpless and in your power, and I regard this as a significant feature." Joseph added: "I haven't heard a single word of remorse in any way, shape or form."
Hacene-Chaouch -- who was acquitted of an almost identical attack in London in 2004 -- showed no emotion and stared straight ahead as the judge read the sentence. But as he was told he would be banned from working or seeking work as a taxi driver for 10 years, he gestured to his wife, who was watching the proceedings in the public gallery, and shouted: "Allah is great! I am innocent!"
In nearby Windsor, Anshul Sharma, 23, was charged with raping a 19-year-old woman who mistook his car for a legitimate taxi. She had been searching for a cab in the early hours of the morning when she was approached by Sharma, who claimed he was driving a licensed taxi. After she was in the car, he drove her to a remote location where he raped her.
In Blackburn on July 9, Talib Hussain, 62, was charged with sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl, a passenger in his taxi. In Blackpool on July 8, Turkish-born Fatih Top, 38, was charged with raping an 18-year-old woman who was a passenger in his cab.
In Shrewsbury on July 6, Ahmet Baser, 34, was sentenced to seven-and-a-half years in prison for raping an underage girl in his taxi. The victim and her friend were picked up by Baser's taxi outside a downtown night spot. After dropping off her friend, Baser went on to drive his victim into the remote countryside, where he raped her before taking her home.
In Nottingham on June 12, police said they were looking for an "Asian" taxi driver who sexually assaulted a 19-year-old passenger in his cab.
In Berkshire on May 21, Arshad Arif, 28, appeared at the Reading Crown Court on charges of driving a 17-year-old passenger in his cab to a remote park some 25 miles from her home and raping her twice. Arif was identified after it emerged he had earlier allowed the schoolgirl to use his phone, with her father noting down the number.
In Oldham on May 16, Tamur Yaqub, 32, was sentenced to eight years in prison after being convicted of attempting to rape a 15-year-old girl in the back of his car. The jury heard that Yaqub -- a married father of six -- had dragged the girl into his private-hire taxi after spotting her walking home. Judge Jeffrey Lewis of the Manchester Crown Court said: "You used considerable force against a girl who was no match for you. You subjected her to degradation and you have shown not the slightest remorse."
In Hemel Hempstead on May 7, Mashain Pitchei, 45, was sentenced to four years in prison for raping a 20-year-old female passenger. Pitchei, who pretended to be a taxi driver, was parked in the downtown Marlowes district when he offered a lift to the victim, who had been on a night out with friends. Believing it was a licensed taxi, she got into the vehicle and he drove off. Pitchei then pulled over in a suburb where he raped her.
In Heaton on April 11, Mohammed Akram, 35, pled guilty to sexually assaulting a woman in his taxi. After the woman entered the vehicle, Akram -- a married father of four -- drove to a remote location, where he attacked her.
In Peterborough on February 20, Mohammed Umar Anwar, 31, lost an appeal against the City Council's decision to revoke his taxi license after he admitted to police that he got a 15-year-old female passenger to perform a sex act on him when she had no money to pay the fare.
In Manchester on February 18, Elhadi Sakhri, 42, was sentenced to seven years and ten months for two counts of raping men who were passengers in his taxi. Sakhri -- who was granted asylum in Britain after complaining he faced persecution in Algeria because he was bisexual -- forced once of his victims up against a wall and raped him. He dragged the other victim by his arms down an alleyway where he raped him.
In London on February 6, police said they were looking for an "Asian" man accused of sexually assaulting three women in the Canning Town district.
In Leeds on January 9, Mohammed Shahin, 28, was sentenced to seven years in prison for raping a 20-year-old passenger who fell asleep in his taxi as he drove her home. A jury at the Nottingham Crown Court heard that from the moment the woman got in, Shahin switched off the GPS tracking system that monitored his vehicle's movements, suggesting he had a sinister motive from the outset. When she woke up, she found that Shahin had parked in a remote street in an unknown location. He then climbed into the back of the car and raped her before dropping her off near her home. The judge ordered that Shahin, after serving his sentence, be deported to his home country of Bangladesh.
In Accrington, Mohammed Ishaq, 38, was accused of raping a 35-year-old female passenger after taking her home. Also in Accrington, Mohammed Baig, 45, was accused of sexually assaulting an 18-year-old passenger. After dropping her off at her home, Baig left the victim with the words, "I'll look for you. I'll come and find you."
In Billingham, Khalile Maqsood, 31, was sentenced to eight-and-a-half years in prison for abducting and raping a 20-year-old female passenger at knifepoint. Maqsood -- a married father of four -- offered the victim a lift. But when she got into the taxi he took a series of wrong turns, then stopped in a deserted parking garage and turned off the engine.
Maqsood told jurors that the victim had led him on and had been "really up for it." He added: "I'm only human at the end of the day. She'd come on to me. I made a mistake. I just gave in to temptation. She led me on. She consented to it. That's what she wanted."
The cab driver -- whose wife was pregnant with their fourth child when he committed the offense -- was expressionless as he was led from the dock. Judge Rodney Jameson of the Newcastle Crown Court said Maqsood had shown little understanding of, and no remorse for, what he had done.
In East Sussex, Abul Malik, 29, was jailed for seven years after being found guilty of raping a 19-year-old female passenger when she could not pay for her £6.80 ($10) fare home.
In Edinburgh, Ibrahim Selman fled Scotland after raping a woman and assaulting several others while working as a taxi driver. Selman, who was in the UK as an illegal immigrant, went on the run to the Sudan days after holding a female passenger hostage, repeatedly raping her and leaving her for dead in the street.
In Hull, Masoud Rahimi, 37, was convicted of sexually assaulting a 20-year-old female passenger. The Iranian-born Rahimi denied it was him until the CCTV footage was shown to him, with the girl fleeing from his car as he was filling up the tank with gasoline.
In London, Salam Rahman, 27, and Mohammed Elahi, 26, were jailed for nine years for gang-raping two female passengers, one of whom was a 26-year-old newlywed. In Clapham, south London, Atiq Rehman, 20, tricked a 22-year-old woman into thinking he was a legitimate taxi driver. Rehman, an illegal immigrant from Pakistan who was twice refused asylum in Britain, raped the woman for 45 minutes while asking her how many children she wanted to have.
Also in London, Assadullah Razaq, 31, was sentenced to eight years in jail for raping a 28-year-old female passenger. The defense attorney said that Razaq, an Afghan refugee and a married father of three, admitted to having sex with the woman, but maintained it was not rape. His attorney said Razaq came to Britain after being tortured by the Taliban, and that something had affected his mental state.
At King's Cross in central London, police said they were looking for a Turkish cab driver who raped an 18-year-old passenger after driving her to a remote location. After the attack, he took her to Gloucester Place in Westminster where he pushed her from his vehicle and left her lying in a gutter.
In Manchester, Shahjahan Islam was sentenced to nine years in prison for sexually assaulting a 27-year-old female passenger. The victim had been out with friends when she decided to go home and got into a taxi driven by Islam. She gave Islam her address, he programmed it into his GPS and departed. After several minutes the woman realized they were going the wrong way. Eventually he stopped the car, climbed into the passenger seat and tried to rape her. DNA recovered from the woman led officers to identify Islam as the suspect.
In Newport, South Wales, Asif Iqbal, was sentenced to 12 years in prison for raping two female passengers on late-night rides home. Iqbal's wife was also jailed for six months after admitting to perverting the course of justice by offering money to one of the victims to withdraw her complaint. Police fear many more women may have been attacked by Iqbal, who targeted women outside pubs and nightclubs in the hope they would be drunk.
In Portsmouth, Muhammed Hasan, 35, was accused of locking a 19-year-old woman with learning disabilities into his cab and sexually assaulting her. In St. Helens, Mazish Muzaffar, 43, was charged with assaulting a female passenger in his taxi.
In Sheffield, Zahoor Mahmood, 40, was jailed for eight years for sexually assaulting two female passengers. Instead of taking his first victim to her home, he locked her in his cab for more than two hours, got into the back with her and tried to get her to snort cocaine to get her "in the mood." Three weeks later, Mahmood -- a married father of four -- spotted a 17-year-old girl walking home after a night out. He offered to take her home for free when she said she had no money for the fare, but then locked her in his cab for an hour, tried to get her to snort cocaine and then molested her. Before the attacks, Mahmood, who has been driving taxis in Sheffield for more than 15 years, had twice been stripped of his license after being convicted of drug offenses, but twice won appeals that allowed him to continue working.
In Teesside, Pakistani-born Liaqat Ali, 42, was sentenced to seven years in prison for raping a 16-year-old passenger as she dozed off drunk in his taxi. Ali -- a married father of four -- stopped for the girl in Middlesbrough and drove her to a secluded spot, where he attacked her. Ali admitted to picking the victim up but denied anything had happened. Once results of DNA evidence were obtained, he admitted to having lied.
The list goes on and on. Not surprisingly, more and more women-only taxi cab firms are springing up around the UK to cater to women who prefer to see another female at the wheel. Women-only taxi firms now include London Lady Chauffeurs, Pink Ladies in Warrington and Ladies Only Travel in Bradford.
A women-only taxi service has yet to arrive in Bristol, where BBC Radio host Sam Mason was fired after she called a taxi company and requested a "non-Asian" driver to take her 14-year-old daughter to her grandparents' home. Mason, a single mother, told the operator that "a guy with a turban on would freak her daughter out," and insisted they send an English driver -- preferably a female English driver -- instead.
The operator refused to book a car and said: "We would class that as being racist. We can't just penalize the Asian drivers and just send an English one." Mason responded: "It's not your 14-year-old girl, is it?" To which the operator answered: "Yes, but that's racist to say you don't want an Asian driver."
The BBC was alerted to the conversation after it was recorded and sent to The Sun newspaper.
Mason was subsequently suspended and fired 24 hours later. A BBC spokesman said: "Although Sam Mason's remarks were not made on-air, her comments were completely unacceptable and, for that reason, she has been informed that she will no longer be working for the BBC with immediate effect."
Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.
Related Topics: United
Kingdom | Soeren Kern
Deterrence: The Ability to Retaliate
by Peter Huessy
July 17, 2013 at 4:00 am
July 17, 2013 at 4:00 am
|
Share:
|
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
This could
be the first time the U.S. ever agreed to a nuclear arms reduction treaty that
would actually increase the ratio of Russian nuclear warheads to U.S.
nuclear assets. Deterrence must be measured as a function of our available,
second-strike, secure retaliatory force. The U.S. was never attacked
"because we were too strong."
Both the physicist Lawrence M. Krause, in "Letting
Go Of Our Nukes," in the New York Times of July 6, and Barry
Blechman, in "Slimmer,
Smarter Nuclear Force," in the Washington Post of July 6th,
combine to call for ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty [CTBT], cutting
our deployed strategic nuclear weapons down to at least 1,000 -- and
potentially even lower -- and taking our weapons off "high alert."If implemented, however, these policies would dramatically increase strategic instability, make nuclear conflict more likely, undermine U.S. security, and open up a wide avenue on which our nuclear adversaries could aggressively march.
Krause argues that our weapons at sea are sufficiently invulnerable from a first strike so that no weapons on bombers or ICBMs need be on alert. But if that is true, being on alert -- as insurance against a failure of the stealth character of our submarines -- makes all the sense in the world.
De-alerting, or removing warheads from being able to be fired, is both unnecessary and destabilizing. The President is in no danger of being forced to make any kind of hasty decision in a crisis precisely because so much of our force is secure: on-alert systems tell the potential adversary, "Don't try anything stupid."
The three main bombers
of the US strategic bombing fleet: The B-52, B1-B, and B2. (Source: U.S. Air
Force)
|
If, however, 1,000 weapons are needed to deter and strike Russian targets, as Blechman contends, they also have to be available for retaliation; otherwise we have to go first in a crisis -- precisely the opposite of US policy.
Currently, however, of the 1,550 deployed strategic warheads, those on bombers and most of our ICBM fleet could, in theory, be taken out in a first strike, as well as some of our submarines, especially those in port.
Depending upon their deployment pattern, on a day-to-day basis, the U.S. has between six and eight submarines at sea, deep below the surface. There, they are invulnerable, and thus can retaliate effectively should the U.S. be attacked with nuclear weapons.
Each submarine carries 20 missiles armed with nuclear warheads. To fit within the 2010 New Start Treaty limits, each missile probably carries an average of 4 warheads; thus each submarine carries 80 warheads total. Based on six to eight submarines at sea at any one time, the US would now have a force of 480-640 warheads available for retaliation.
But if the required warheads for deterrence is 1000, as Blechman argues, we may have a credible force but certainly not the number he says that we need for deterrence.
Krause makes the same mistake by arguing as if the total deployed number of warheads is how our deterrent force requirements are measured. If the entire deployed force would be what is required to deter an adversary, then logically, in a crisis, it would have to be used first. Why? A significant portion of the force could be destroyed by an adversary in its first strike against us, especially if such a strike were sudden or in a surprise mode. Deterrence must be measured as a function of our available, second strike, secure retaliatory force.
Currently, our ICBMs are at fixed locations, our bombers generally are not on-alert and our submarines in port can be destroyed, as well. The warheads we need are therefore those that are available for retaliation. We can improve these numbers by putting more of our submarines at sea or our bombers on airborne alert, but this takes warning and can be done only over time. Having our forces on-alert makes that possible -- we can make our forces more survivable, which lessens the temptation of an adversary to shoot first.
Further, as the number of warheads allowed by treaties declines, it becomes harder to keep many missile, bomber and submarine platforms: you only have a limited number of warheads to deploy. For example, if we deploy around 1,000 missile warheads, as the administration has now proposed, how, for purposes of stability, would you maximize the number of platforms still operated by the U.S.?
We could keep 300 Minuteman missiles and silos, out of the 450 we now have. We could also keep all 12 Trident submarines, but could lower the number of warheads they carry. With 20 missiles for each submarine, each missile could carry 3-4 warheads for a total of between 600-700 warheads for the entire fleet. [None of these decisions has yet been made, so our numbers here are a best guess. Bombers could also count, as they do now; under that scenario, a total warhead count would be roughly 1000-1050.]
Many commentators and analysts complain that all the US needs to deter an adversary is 20, 50 or 100 warheads, as Krause argues. But he and many of his fellow analysts never ask three key questions:
- How do you base so few warheads in a survivable mode?
- Have you figured the number of warheads needed based on using them in a retaliatory mode?
- Have you been careful to determine what it takes to deter an adversary -- not on the basis of what deters you -- but on what deters him?
Thus a deployed force of American nuclear forces restricted to 1,000 warheads could be reduced to as few as 360 warheads remaining on our submarines at sea, and available for retaliation.
This is far short of the Blechman's 1,000 he says is needed for deterrence.
That remaining retaliatory force is also not dissimilar to the current arsenal held by China, of roughly 300 strategic warheads. What if China joined a conflict against the US in cooperation with another nuclear superpower? Then, to be ready for a response, our deterrent calculations would certainly require more American warheads. Both Krause and Blechman, however, appear to assume that such an eventuality is not on the horizon.
What impact such a proposed cut to 1,000 warheads would have on strategic stability is, of course, unknown, but this could be the first time the U.S. ever agreed to a nuclear arms reduction treaty that would actually increase the ratio of Russian warheads to U.S. nuclear assets. These and other factors make such proposed cuts worrisome, to say the least.
Krause makes the additional argument that if the U.S. stops sustaining its nuclear arsenal, others will do likewise. However, a recent study by Clark Murdock, the Director of the Program on Nuclear Initiatives (PONI at the Center for Strategic and International Studies) concluded precisely the opposite.
Murdock told a seminar series in April that a group of scholars across the political spectrum had determined that U.S. and Russian nuclear reductions agreements have had, and will have, no discernible impact on the proliferation of nuclear weapons -- or on the modernization of current nuclear programs -- in, for example, countries such as Pakistan, North Korea and China. [One of those concurring scholars was Dr. Blechman.]
Yet Krause, against all historical lessons, says we must demonstrate that our belief in zero nuclear weapons is sincere. He further says that to do this, we should stop our nuclear modernization, thus underlining that we "do not value them" [nuclear weapons]. And, thus like magic, other nations will of course give up their nuclear weapons, as well!
Between World War I and World War II, there were all sorts of treaties calling for reduced armaments. One agreement even proposed to abolish war. Our future adversaries -- Japan, Germany and Italy -- agreed to some of these treaties, but apparently with no intention whatsoever of adhering to their terms. The weight, for example, of naval battleships was restricted under the British-German Naval Agreement, but Herr Hitler decided not to count the weight of the 16-inch guns on them.
From Wikipedia, we learn that in "August 1933, the chief of the Committee of Imperial Defence (CID), Royal Marine General Sir Maurice Hankey, visited Germany, and wrote down his impressions of the 'New Germany' in October 1933. Hankey's report concluded with the words: 'Are we still dealing with the Hitler of Mein Kampf, lulling his opponents to sleep with fair words to gain time to arm his people, and looking always to the day when he can throw off the mask and attack Poland? Or is it a new Hitler, who discovered the burden of responsible office, and wants to extricate himself, like many an earlier tyrant from the commitments of his irresponsible days? That is the riddle that has to be solved.'"
There are more recent historical warnings. From the end of the Cold War until recently, the U.S. went on an intellectual and procurement holiday, at least as far as thinking about nuclear weapons and sustaining our deterrence were concerned. We apparently thought deterrence would take care of itself, and that the end of the Cold War had taken with it the most serious threats to our security.
On both counts, we were wrong.
Given the rise of the threat of nuclear terrorism, we have had to adopt major new counter-proliferation measures, including protective measures such as the Proliferation Security Initiative and missile defenses. Deterrence obviously did not take care of itself.
According to national security policy statements from the administration, our most serious worry today is that a rogue terror-master state, in affiliation with a terror group, will detonate a nuclear weapon on or above American soil. Dozens of new policies have been adopted to deal with such threats, including a global lockdown of nuclear material, a nuclear forensics capability, sanctions and divestment strategies against Iran and North Korea [to various effects], as well as missile defense and a revised nuclear deterrent capability.
This is all necessary because there are worrisome trends. Russia and China are both undergoing massive nuclear modernization, at a pace vastly exceeding that of the United States. At the same time North Korea and Iran loom on the horizon as growing nuclear dangers.
History is littered with the bodies of the innocent whose leaders failed to protect them because it seemed politically unpopular, or ran against the conventional wisdom. Winston Churchill argued that Britain and the allies needed to arm themselves against the rising power of Nazi Germany. Hitler saw the relative weakness of the allied forces as a green light to commit one aggression after another.
In 1950, President Harry Truman pleaded with Congress for an aid package for the Republic of Korea. Unfortunately, his own administration was also downplaying the military threat from Pyongyang. Together both Truman and a Republican-controlled Congress failed to help our ally and in June 1950 the North Korean communists invaded. After we withdrew from Vietnam, we allowed our military to be hollowed out, and nearly two dozen nations fell to tyranny in the near-decade that followed.
Deterrence in the nuclear age must be rethought, argues Krause, especially now that the Cold War has been over for 20 years.
But we already have rethought deterrence.
We no longer have over 400 nuclear bombers, 1,000 land-based missiles and over 60 nuclear armed submarines in our deterrent fleet. We no longer have 12,000 deployed nuclear weapons. We have reduced our strategic warheads by nearly 90%, and while we have kept as many platforms as possible for reasons of stability and balance, those now are fewer than 500 compared to over 1,500 at the height of the Cold War.
Since early in the Reagan administration, precisely to end the Cold War, we have emphasized stability; added layered and global missile defenses; cut our nuclear forces dramatically; and ended the conventional imbalance in Europe. As we cut down, we also modernized or built better. We kept our powder dry by remembering that while the Cold War was over, adversaries remained. As President Ronald Reagan once remarked, there was never an instance where the United States was attacked "because we were too strong."
The Cold War ended -- on our terms. Liberty and freedom won, but only because we were strong. The threats, however, did not disappear.
In just the past four years, Russia has threatened the use of nuclear weapons against U.S. allies, and implicitly against the United States, over a dozen times.
China, North Korea, and Pakistan are enhancing and modernizing their nuclear forces; Peking is building more kinds of ballistic missiles than anyone around the globe.
On top of which, although regulated by the New Start Treaty, Russia is building new submarines and submarine-launched missiles; also new land-based missiles, both mobile and fixed, and a new cruise missile for its bomber fleet.
During this entire period, our nuclear modernization efforts have largely treaded water, and in some key areas been seriously delayed or reduced. So much for providing a "good example."
Iran seeks nuclear weapons and is being assisted by North Korea, China, and others.
It is a fairy tale to believe the mullahs in Iran calibrate their nuclear weapons program according to indices of U.S. restraint.
In short, as a former SAC commander and USAF Chief of Staff General Larry Welch recently explained to a Congressional audience, the relatively cheap cost of providing a nuclear deterrent for the United States and nearly three dozen of its allies "is a great bargain" -- and that, in providing for this protection, we keep at bay the very proliferation that our strongest critics say is their biggest concern.
Our nuclear umbrella and our extended deterrent over our NATO and East Asian allies assure them they do not need to build a nuclear weapons deterrent, because, after all, those Americans, old fashioned as they are, still cling to that 1789 document, the birth of which we just celebrated, that calls upon us "to provide for the common defense."
Related Topics: Peter Huessy
U.S. Ambassador to Egypt: "Muslim Brotherhood's Lackey"
by Raymond Ibrahim
July 17, 2013 at 3:00 am
July 17, 2013 at 3:00 am
|
Share:
|
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
These
reasons and more demonstrate why Ambassador Anne Patterson is disliked in
Egypt, and also the pro-Muslim Brotherhood policies of the current U.S.
administration.
Why do millions of Egyptians, including politicians and activists, consider
Anne Patterson, the U.S. ambassador to Egypt, a "stooge" for the
Muslim Brotherhood -- as she is so commonly referred to by many in Egypt, from
the media down to the street?In America, some are aware of matters, such as that
Patterson in particular resisted opportunities to criticize the Morsi government as it implemented increasingly authoritarian policies. In a memorable May interview with the Egyptian English-language news sit[e] Ahram Online, she repeatedly dodged pointed questions about Morsi's leadership. "The fact is they ran in a legitimate election and won," she said…. Republicans from Texas Senator Ted Cruz to House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce have pounced on statements like these, increasingly seeing Patterson as the key implementer for a policy that at least offers tacit support to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Egyptians protesting
in Cairo, in July 2013.
|
Last week, for example, El Fagr reported that, during their most recent phone conversation, Patterson demanded that Egypt's recently appointed Supreme Commander of the Egyptian Armed Forces, General Abdul Fatah al-Sisi, release all Muslim Brotherhood members currently being held for questioning: "And when Sisi rejected this order, the American ambassador began threatening him that Egypt will turn into another Syria and live through a civil war, to which Sisi responded violently: 'Neither you nor your country can overcome Egypt and its people.'"
Earlier, Patterson was reported as "trying to communicate with General Sisi, demanding dialogue with the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, and concessions to them," to which Sisi reportedly retorted: "Stop meddling in our affairs… the Egyptian people are capable of looking after their own welfare."
These are just the latest samplings from Egypt concerning the ambassador's attempts to reinstate the Brotherhood to power. The day before the fundamentalist Salafi "Nour" party withdrew from negotiations with Egypt's interim government, Al Nahar reported that Patterson had "incited them [the Salafi Nour Party] to tamper with the political scene and the road map and to threaten to withdraw from political participation if Dr. Muhammad Baradei becomes elected as Prime Minister…"
There is also widespread belief that Patterson's "meddling" in Egypt's affairs is not limited to General Sisi and the Egyptian media. Several of Egypt's revolutionary forces, including Tamarod, which played a pivotal role in the June 2013 revolution, are preparing to stage a protest in front of the U.S. embassy in Cairo "calling for the ejection of ambassador Anne Patterson."
Even Muhammad Heikal -- "the Arab world's most respected political commentator" and for over 50 years an Egyptian political insider -- said during a live interview that Patterson had assured the Muslim Brotherhood's Hisham Qandil, who under Morsi was Egypt's Prime Minister, that "there are many forms of pressure, and America holds the keys to the Gulf."
Such blatantly pro-Muslim Brotherhood actions are what have led most Egyptians, including politicians and activists, to see Patterson as the Brotherhood's lackey. In fact, one Egyptian politician, Mustafa Bakari, concluded that "in my opinion, she [Patterson] is a member of the sleeper cells of the Brotherhood, likely recruited by Essam al-Erian or Muhammad al-Baltagi."
Then of course, it is widely known that in the days leading to the June 30 Revolution, Patterson called on Egyptians not to protest -- including by meeting with the Coptic Pope and asking him specifically to urge the nation's Christian minority not to oppose the Brotherhood, even though Christians were naturally the most to suffer under Morsi, especially in the context of accusations of "blasphemy," and are the most to suffer now, in retaliation to the Brotherhood's toppling.
These reasons and more demonstrate why Anne Patterson, the U.S. ambassador to Egypt, is a disliked figure in Egypt. More importantly, they also demonstrate the pro-Muslim Brotherhood policies of the current U.S. administration.
Raymond Ibrahim is author of the new book, Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians (published by Regnery in cooperation with Gatestone Institute, 2013). A Middle East and Islam expert, he is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, associate fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Related Topics: Raymond Ibrahim
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment