Wahabism - violent & twisted fake Islam

Dispelling pernicious myths about Islam, Muslim activists explain and discuss nonviolent spiritual resistance, the Jihad, against New World Order Totalitarianism. NATO/Mossad pseudo-Muslim 'front organisations. Exposing and eradicating the Global Web of Deceit or DAJJAL.

Moderators: Moderators, Islamic moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 18428
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

Wahabism - violent & twisted fake Islam

Post by TonyGosling »

Rape operations, tactics, and plans of Wahhabi Muslim Brotherhood From Cairo to Cologne
From the Culture of sexual harassment in Arab countries
26 January 2016

New Year’s Eve 2015 and the events in Cologne, Germany showed that the refugee debate is not over. Weeks after women in Cologne were sexually harassed, robbed and even one woman raped (according to allegations), the debate is at no end. Many facts are still unknown and most likely will remain so. However some people claim to have found the reason for these attacks in the Islamic or Arab culture. But is Arab culture really one of the roots of the problem? The Arab spring, as well as the events in Cologne opened a new debate about this issue. The following series of articles will feature different themes in trying to find reasons for what happened in Cologne, reflecting on past, similar, and even worse events in Egypt, on sexual harassment and the status of women in Arab countries, and conclusions from Cologne.

Part 1 – Rape on Tahrir Square in Egypt
Part 2 – Women and sexual harassment in Arab societies
Part 3 – The forgotten freedom of Arab women
Part 4 – Cologne and the conclusions
Part 1 – Rape on Tahrir Square in Egypt

In 2011 during the Egyptian revolution millions of people gathered at Cairo’s central Tahrir Square to protest against the former regime. On February 11, 2011 the South African CBS journalist Lara Logan was reporting from Tahrir square on the celebrations that followed Hosni Mubarak's resignation. She was able to report for one hour without any problems, until the battery of the camera light went empty. What followed were acts of brutality carried out by men on Tahrir Square. The crowd started making inappropriate sexual comments about her. Then she was pulled into a circle of dozen of men, her clothes were torn off her body and the men started raping her over and over with their hands, as she described in an interview later. For 25 minutes she was completely lost in that sex mob, which activists describe as the “circle of hell”, fearing to die, and being pulled in different directions. Eventually she was rescued by Egyptian women who managed to defend her against the mob, and later was escorted by Egyptian soldiers out of the crowd.

Sadly this was not the only attack on Tahrir Square. It was not even the only attack against a foreign woman on Tahrir Square. The British journalist Natasha Smith survived a similar attack in 2012. And the same happened to a 22-years-old unnamed Dutch journalist in 2013. Dozens of these rape mob attacks happened on Tahrir to Egyptian women, who were the main target. In July 2013 during the days of the second revolution against the reactionary Muslim Brotherhood President Mursi, the number of these attacks skyrocketed. On one day, 80 cases of such mobs were reported and in one week, more than 169 cases. Dozens of testimonies about these rapes can be found all across the Internet. Some women even required surgeries after they were raped with sharp objects.

The mobs were well organized

These attacks usually followed a certain procedure and were well organized. Egyptian activist Hussein El-Shafie, a volunteer for Operation Anti-Sexual Harassment/Assault (OpAntiSH), describes the procedure in the Egyptian Ahram newspaper as follows: A group of men usually form two lines and begins snaking through the square, while chanting and singing. Once they find a victim - one or two women standing alone - the group forms a u-shape around the women and then a complete circle, trapping them inside.

Hatem Tallima, an activist and member of Revolutionary Socialists, stated in the same article that the group then forms three concentric rings around the victim: “The men in the circle immediately surrounding the woman begin to strip the girl. The second circle includes men who claim that they are helping the girl. The third circle tries to distract the people in the square from what is happening. One takes her shoes off, another pulls her trousers off, then someone else takes her phone and watch”.

Why did nobody intervene?

The overall chaotic situation during a revolution and the total absence of police forces in that situation made it even more complicated to fight these mobs. The attackers are aware of this and they also know that they will be seldom judged. In an Interview with the Daily News Egypt newspaper Farah Shash, a psychologist at Al-Nadim Centre for Human Rights, suggests that people are less likely to intervene in an emergency if there are other bystanders. This mass psychological phenomenon is known as “Diffusion of responsibility”.

Organized resistance
However, the female and male revolutionaries at Tahrir Square organized resistance against these attacks. They founded different groups like Operation Anti-Sexual Harassment/Assault (OpAntiSH), which tried to fight these occurrences by informing people and intervening if they happen, even by putting their own lives into risk. They were also able to film one of these attacks and upload it for informational purposes to YouTube.

Rape and harassment as political weapon

During the Egyptian revolutions in 2011 and 2013 these rape mobs were most likely used as a political weapon. In the beginning they did not exist. “We have seen during the 18 days before Mubarak was brought down, women were there [at Tahrir Square], there was not a single harassment report, nothing happened. It was very inclusive—men, women, Muslims, Christians, everyone. It was like heaven”, said Dalia Ziada, executive director of the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies. Once again on an Egyptian TV show she stated that the attacks in 2013 were “a methodical act of terrorism” carried out by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) “to distract the world” from President Sisi’s victory in the elections. And many other people also suggested that the mobs were connected to the Muslim Brotherhood or the former Mubarak regime.

Magda Adly, the director of the Nadeem Centre for Human Rights, suggests that under Mubarak, the government paid thugs to beat male protestors and sexually assault women. “This is still happening now”, she told The Times in 2012. “I believe thugs are being paid money to do this ... the Muslim Brotherhood have the same political approaches as Mubarak”.

Another activist and member of the Egyptian Socialist National Alliance Party, Marwah Farouk, spoke in 2012 to ON TV and said that two of her female colleagues were kidnapped, sexually assaulted and beaten by MB members. "All of that happened while the police were watching. ... A police officer even told an MB member: 'Whatever you wish to do, sir;'”. “All that is happening is systematic”, she added.

In another interview with ON TV the prominent Egyptian professor and political scientist Gamal Zahran said these sex mobs on Tahrir Square were “political harassment” by the Muslim Brotherhood.

In an interview with the British Channel 4, activist Affaf Al-Sayed said that: “Muslim Brotherhood members were sexually assaulting women in order to make sure women activists would keep away from Tahrir Square”, and that women “were targeted by sexual assaults by both the MB and elements of the former [Mubarak] regime”.

The rape mobs were paid

A report on Channel 4 was especially interesting because it was one of the only interviews with members of these mobs and perpetrators of sexual assaults. Both men, who were interviewed, are living in poor neighborhoods where criminal gangs are committing crimes. They confessed that they were paid for their acts.

Unemployment and poverty are a big problem in Egypt. More than 23% of Egyptians are unemployed and more than 50% live in poverty. None of the perpetrators know who was the real body behind the payment, but one mentioned that he was already paid during the time of Hosni Mubarak’s regime to harass women during elections and whenever they speak out. He continued to say that “people of high rank” are behind this, as they “don’t want the revolution to succeed”.


The sex mobs on Tahrir were very well organized by smaller gangs and were used as a political tool to exclude women from the protests. Most likely first the Mubarak regime and later the Morsi -Muslim Brotherhood regime used these attacks against women to silence them. Victims were not chosen by “how openly they dress” or anything else. They were picked randomly to create an atmosphere of fear, so that women should stay at home and not participate in the protests. However, it is likely that the general attitude of the current Egyptian society concerning women favored this behavior.
User avatar
Posts: 18428
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

Post by TonyGosling »

Manchester terror attack forces the issue:
What about Prince Charles?s sponsorship of the murderous Wahhabite ideology?
Who will end MI5/MI6 assistance to killer jihadists?

The following release was distributed via email in the UK on Friday, 2 June, the day before yet another shocking terrorist attack on London Bridge, which further underscores the grave importance of the content of this release.

The 31 May 2017 issue of the Australian Alert Service presents a six-page feature, ?The Manchester terror attack: a new Peterloo massacre?<http://cecaust.com.au/aas/AASVol19No22_New-Peterloo.pdf>? Summarising the evidence available to date on the horrific 22 May 2017 Ariana Grande concert terror bombing, we ask readers to return urgently to the demands posed in the 6 April 2017 CEC media release ?Westminster terror attack: Prince Charles and Saudis must answer!<http://cecaust.com.au/aas/WestminsterPR.pdf>?:

* Force the reopening of the UK Serious Fraud Office investigation of al-Yamamah, the Anglo-Saudi oil-for-arms deal;
* A Parliamentary commission in the UK should investigate the al-Yamamah connection to the 9/11 attacks in the USA in 2001;
* Prince Charles must be called to testify before the new House of Commons hearings, in view of his long-standing close connections with Saudi figures involved in promoting terrorism.

Veteran Middle East specialist Patrick Cockburn, writing in the 25 May Independent, pointed out a reality which many suspect, but few dare to voice. He wrote that Western governments are ?culpable for terrorist attacks on their own citizens?, by refusing to name the murderous Islamic sect of Wahhabism?the state religion of Saudi Arabia?as the driver for such events. ?What has been termed Salafi jihadism developed out of Wahhabism and has carried out its prejudices to what it sees as a logical and violent conclusion?; it is a sect that views anyone not sharing its beliefs as ?sub-humans who should be massacred or enslaved?. Manchester killer Salman Abedi and his family followed the Salafi doctrine of jihad.

On the 25 May BBC Question Time programme hosted by David Dimbleby, a courageous young woman echoed Cockburn: ?I am a British Muslim, and I am very proud of my heritage. But ? there is an elephant in the room here: ? Yes, we do have an issue within our mosques, within our religious institutions: we have children being taught the Wahhabi interpretation of the Quran; we have Saudi-trained clerics coming in and speaking to children as young as seven.... Stop, I would say?for now, temporarily, close down all Saudi-financed mosques.?

In the past 24 hours (??Sensitive? UK terror funding inquiry may never be published?, The Guardian 31 May 2017) it has emerged that Liberal Democratic foreign affairs spokesman Tom Brake has written to Prime Minister Theresa May, demanding that an MI5 inquiry into Saudi funding for terrorism in the UK be made public, instead of being buried. ?It is no secret that Saudi Arabia in particular provides funding to hundreds of mosques in the UK, espousing a very hard-line Wahhabite interpretation of Islam. It is often in these institutions that British extremism takes place?, Brake wrote. Worldwide, such funding is ?estimated by intelligence agencies, scholars and others at upwards of US$100 billion?, observed Australia?s former ambassador to Israel Peter Rodgers on 31 May.

In the 1 June TV debate among leading candidates, absent Theresa May, Greens leader Caroline Lucas demanded of May?s stand-in, Home Secretary Amber Rudd, ?Why is Britain the second largest arms dealer in the world? ?, with the greatest portion of those sales going to the Saudis.

Charles, Prince of terrorism

As many privately suspect, the two issues are inextricably linked. But no one dares mention that the connection between them runs through Prince Charles, personally. The CEC has done so repeatedly:

* The Manchester terror attack: a new Peterloo massacre?<http://cecaust.com.au/aas/AASVol19No22_New-Peterloo.pdf> AAS, 31 May 2017.
* Westminster terror attack: Prince Charles and Saudis must answer!<http://cecaust.com.au/aas/WestminsterPR.pdf>, Media Release, 6 April 2017.
* To Stop a Near-term Terror Attack, Read the ?28 Pages?!<http://cecaust.com.au/28pages/20160813- ... -pages.pdf>, pamphlet, August 2016.
* To stop a major terrorist attack in Britain: Re-open the Serious Fraud Office?s al-Yamamah investigation!<http://cecaust.com.au/releases/2016_05_ ... O_AUS.html>, Media Release, 5 May 2016.
* Prince Charles and Saudi-backed terrorism: Demand answers!<http://cecaust.com.au/releases/2015_11_ ... tacks.html>, Media Release, 15 November 2015.

These publications document that Charles personally negotiated with Saudi Arabia the later phases of the largest arms deal in history, al-Yamamah, from which a slush fund was generated that launched al-Qaeda out of the Afghanistan mujahedeen and led to virtually all modern international terrorism, including the 9/11 attacks; and that, with huge funding from then-Saudi King Fahd, Charles personally constructed the network of Wahhabite/Salafist mosques throughout the UK which has fostered the present terrorist infrastructure.

Therefore any competent investigation of the Manchester attack must also examine the following:

Fact: The board of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (OCIS), known as ?Charles?s OCIS? after its very active Royal Patron, the Prince of Wales, has for the past two decades been composed almost entirely of the highest-level funders of the spread of Wahhabite ideology and orchestrators of terrorism from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, who have poured over $70 million into the Centre. Lawsuits filed by 9/11 victim families in US courts have charged four members of the OCIS board with orchestrating that event, including Prince Bandar bin Sultan (co-initiator of the al-Yamamah deal with Margaret Thatcher in 1985) and his brother-in-law, former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki. These Saudi princes were two out of the only eight foreign royal guests at the wedding of Charles to Camilla Parker-Bowles.

Fact: According to British law enforcement officers, Charles has personally intervened to stop investigations of terrorist activity in the UK, even while serving as the Patron of all three of the major intelligence agencies, MI5, MI6, and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ).

The Libyan connection: terror abroad, and at home

There is massive publicly available evidence on the role of MI5 and MI6 in the growth of Wahhabite/Salafist terror networks within Britain itself since the early 1990s, which growth came on the heels of the mosque-building program launched by Prince Charles and King Fahd in the late 1980s. Under the so-called ?covenant of security?, MI5 and MI6 let their Wahhabite assets know that they were free to launch whatever mayhem they wanted to abroad, but no attacks within Britain itself.

MI5 and MI6 sponsored and protected a staggering growth of Wahhabite/Salafist networks in Britain, often over the fierce opposition of both local police and Islamic community leaders, and in the face of bitter official protests from dozens of other countries subject to attacks emanating from ?Londonistan?. The widely-documented ?covenant? continued, despite warnings from even a handful of leading military and security figures within Britain that the ?radical Islam?-pivoted Anglo-American practice of ?regime change?, implemented in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, and attempted in Syria, would ultimately unleash terrorism within the USA and the UK themselves.

Manchester bomber Salman Abedi is a perfect example. The current AAS article assembles the evidence that has rapidly come into public view:

* Salman Albedi?s father worked in the Salafist al-Qaeda affiliate, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), backed by MI6 to overthrow Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi as early as 1995.
* When NATO led a bombing campaign in early 2011, intended to overthrow Qaddafi under cover of a ?no-fly zone? for protecting civilians, MI5 and MI6 opened the floodgates for exiles in Manchester?s Libyan community, including radicals from the LIFG (officially listed as terrorist by the UK government) to return to fight Qaddafi.
* Voting ?No? on the 21 March 2011 House of Commons endorsement of the ?no-fly? zone, which passed by 555 to 13, Jeremy Corbyn and now-Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell warned that the action would unleash civil war and terrorism. Theresa May, as Home Secretary, lifted the MI5-supervised ?control orders? over dozens of LIFG members living in Manchester so that they could go to Libya to fight against Qaddafi.
* Abedi?s family ?were at the heart of the refugee community?, which ?touches networks of radicals that reach back to Libya but also Afghanistan?and is known to have links to al-Qaeda?, and were well known to MI5 and MI6. (Financial Times, 25 May).
* ?Security services missed five opportunities to stop the Manchester bomber?, as community and even family members repeatedly called the government to report Abedi?s proclamations that ?being a suicide bomber is ok? (The Telegraph, 25 May).
* The American Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) alerted MI5 in January 2017 that Abedi belonged to a North African terror gang based in Manchester ?that was plotting an attack in the UK?. A security source reported, ?Following this US tip-off, Abedi and other members of the gang were scrutinised by MI5. It was thought at the time that Abedi was planning to assassinate a political figure. But nothing came of this investigation and, tragically, he slipped down the pecking order of targets? (Mail on Sunday, 28 May).

The strategic issues behind the 8 June election

Our 31 May AAS article calls on readers to dare to ask, ?Cui bono???who benefits from such a terrorist attack?

At the time of the Manchester bombing, Jeremy Corbyn was closing in fast on PM Theresa May?s once commanding lead. May sent out a panicky tweet, saying that if the Conservatives lost only six seats, Corbyn would win. Given that momentum, were the MI5/MI6-sponsored Wahhabite/Salafist terrorists deployed from within Britain?s Establishment to attack yet another political adversary, but this time at home?

No one not at the pinnacle of the British Establishment can answer that question with certainty, but it is worth remembering the claim by Labour PM Harold Wilson, before his sudden resignation in 1976, that the Crown in the person of Lord Mountbatten and the intelligence services were out to overthrow him. The issue was the same reality as in the present election: Wilson had confronted the Bank of England with plans to launch a manufacturing-led renaissance ?with finance the handmaiden and not the controller of our economic development?.

How afraid is the Anglo-American elite of Jeremy Corbyn? Campaigning on the pledge to govern ?For the many, not the few?, Corbyn has relentlessly attacked ?the elite?, the ?tax dodgers?, and ?the City?, and pledged to enact a ?firm ring-fence? to break up The City?s Too-Big-to-Fail banks, instead of bailing them out. His promises to renationalise vital infrastructure and rebuild the National Health Service, ruined by budget cuts and privatisation, have struck a deep chord with Britons. On foreign policy, Corbyn has invoked US President Eisenhower?s 1960 denunciation of a ?military-industrial complex?, pledged to end Britain?s arms sales to tyrannical powers such as Saudi Arabia, end Britain?s endless regime change wars abroad, and work with Russia in the United Nations instead of escalating toward nuclear confrontation. This platform threatens to effect the most radical shift in Britain?s policies since the Attlee Labour government of 1945-51, which nationalised the Bank of England, founded the NHS, and resisted the plans of Winston Churchill and other leaders of Britain?s ?Deep State? of the day to launch the Cold War or even a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union.

In the United States, the other half of the Anglo-American alliance, there is a new President who, despite his many flaws, campaigned for collaboration with China and Russia instead of the Bush-Cheney and Obama policy of confrontation, and pledged to break up Wall Street?s Too-Big-To-Fail banks, to which those of London are inextricably tied. Were Donald Trump to stick to his promises, as an elected Jeremy Corbyn would certainly stick to positions similar to those he has advocated for his entire political career, the Anglo-American Establishment would find itself facing not only the looming new global financial crash, but a political challenge to its power within both flagship countries, unprecedented in over a century. Even major US and British media boast that the campaign to impeach Trump was initiated by Britain?s GCHQ and MI6.

Whatever the truth behind the Manchester bombing, the eruption of ?terrorism? facilitates a drive for police-states, by means of which ?the few? might control ?the many?. In a country which already has some of the most draconian anti-civil liberties laws in the world, the May government has now promised to ratchet them up still further by establishing a Commission for Countering Extremism.

What you can do

In a nation with no written constitution, where the Crown has the final say on all matters, and where the supposed oversight by the House of Commons? Intelligence and Oversight Committee over MI5 and MI6 is a joke because all of its members must join the Crown?s Privy Council through which they are sworn to secrecy, only an aroused public?such as has taken to the streets by the thousands in venue after venue to support Jeremy Corbyn?can achieve justice for the dead and maimed of the Manchester Arena and make sure it does not happen again.

Therefore, don?t be paralysed by fear, but in all forums open to you, openly name those responsible for the Manchester and previous attacks, beginning with Prince Charles. Circulate this release and its linked material to everyone you know, and demand answers from your representatives in power, at any and all levels.

Click here for a free copy of the Australian Alert Service, which features the ongoing series: ?MI5/MI6 Run Terrorism?.<http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?id=free_AAS_latest.html>
Post Reply