Don’t dare comparing the brave Syrian Arab Army & the corrupt despotic Egyptian one

By MKERone (co-founder of CounterPsyOps)

Greater israel: Zionist dream

Egyptian army is not taking side of the people. But simply taking the side of the US that seems to be wanting Morsi out.

You think the army is taking side of the people. And that is what they’re doing, physically.

But, if they’re taking sides with the people to have Morsi out, it is because America and israel want Morsi out.

Egyptian army would never go against US/israel will. Because the US finances Egyptian army. You’ll see that whatever the outcome, Egypt will not change anything in its relation with the US and israel. Just like previous “revo”, stupid “Arab Spring” deception, this one is also US engineered.

Believing this is just Egyptian people protesting and the army protecting the people because of the love it has for people is just insane. Especially in a country living exclusively thanks to US money !!! Believing so would mean that you are indirectly saying that the Egyptian army is like the Syrian Arab Army. Which, as you may know, is absolutely not the case and is a complete absurdity!!! Nothing compares!

If Egyptian army was so righteous and “independent”, why didn’t it listen to Egyptian people when it took to the streets and protested against israel bombing on Lebanon in 2006? And why didn’t it react when Egyptian parliament called for an international arrest warrant against Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah ? Funny how Lebanon was being destroyed but Egypt decided to take action against the resistance instead of calling for an arrest warrant against israeli war criminals…Where was the Egyptian army at that moment?…

Why didn’t the army listen to Egyptian people when they took to the streets in 2008 and asked the army to disobey Mubarak and open the Rafah border when israel was bombing the hell out of Gaza strip?

Why did it accept to beat its own people at the beginning of what you call “revolution” in 2011??? It then switched its position when it noticed that the people wouldn’t leave Tahrir. Egyptian army needs the people to keep ruling. This is the only reason it is now “protecting” the people.

Why didn’t it express its sympathy and support to the main pillar of Resistance: Syria Al-Assad?

On the other hand, you might wonder why the US and israel want Morsi out?

Since it launched its Arab Spring deception in Egypt, the US has been willing to impose Mister El Baradei as the new ruler in Egypt. Though, after a while, Egyptians got to understand that El Baradei was a stooge who not only obeyed they US, but was sitting next to israel war criminal president Shimon Peres at the ICG (amongst other zionists).

Extract from Land Destroyer article "Egyptian Protesters: US Stooge "ElBaradei for President" "

Extract from Land Destroyer article “Egyptian Protesters: US Stooge “ElBaradei for President”

Hence, US and israel had to switch to plan B and let the muslim brotherhood rule the country. The muslim brotherhood that they themselves created. Let some time go by, and find a way to slowly put El Baradei back on track to take Egypt over.

Keep in mind that Egypt is a strategic country for both US and israel and especially for zionist plans. Hence, do not expect anything in favor of the Egyptian people to happen. It will always be to israel’s advantage. Even if the people itself demands for it, it will be the fruit of manipulation and deception, and ultimately, in israel’s favor. Exactly as it happened with the fall of Mubarak, and exactly as it will happen now. Whatever the outcome is.

Obama Signs Global Internet Treaty Worse Than SOPA: ACTA

White House bypasses Senate to ink agreement that could allow Chinese companies to demand ISPs remove web content in US with no legal oversight

Paul Joseph Watson
Source: Infowars.com
Thursday, January 26, 2012

Months before the debate about Internet censorship raged as SOPA and PIPA dominated the concerns of web users, President Obama signed an international treaty that would allow companies in China or any other country in the world to demand ISPs remove web content in the US with no legal oversight whatsoever.


The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement was signed by Obama on October 1 2011, yet is currently the subject of a White House petition demanding Senators be forced to ratify the treaty. The White House has circumvented the necessity to have the treaty confirmed by lawmakers by presenting it an as “executive agreement,” although legal scholars have highlighted the dubious nature of this characterization.

The hacktivist group Anonymous attacked and took offline the Federal Trade Commission’s website yesterday in protest against the treaty, which was also the subject ofdemonstrations across major cities in Poland, a country set to sign the agreement today.

Under the provisions of ACTA, copyright holders will be granted sweeping direct powers to demand ISPs remove material from the Internet on a whim. Whereas ISPs normally are only forced to remove content after a court order, all legal oversight will be abolished, a precedent that will apply globally, rendering the treaty worse in its potential scope for abuse than SOPA or PIPA.

A country known for its enforcement of harsh Internet censorship policies like China could demand under the treaty that an ISP in the United States remove content or terminate a website on its server altogether. As we have seen from the enforcement of similar copyright policies in the US, websites are sometimes targeted for no justifiable reason.

The groups pushing the treaty also want to empower copyright holders with the ability to demand that users who violate intellectual property rights (with no legal process) have their Internet connections terminated, a punishment that could only ever be properly enforced by the creation of an individual Internet ID card for every web user, a system that is already in the works.

“The same industry rightsholder groups that support the creation of ACTA have also called for mandatory network-level filtering by Internet Service Providers and for Internet Service Providers to terminate citizens’ Internet connection on repeat allegation of copyright infringement (the “Three Strikes” /Graduated Response) so there is reason to believe that ACTA will seek to increase intermediary liability and require these things of Internet Service Providers,” reports the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The treaty will also mandate that ISPs disclose personal user information to the copyright holder, while providing authorities across the globe with broader powers to search laptops and Internet-capable devices at border checkpoints.

In presenting ACTA as an “international agreement” rather than a treaty, the Obama administration managed to circumvent the legislative process and avoid having to get Senate approval, a method questioned by Senator Wyden.

“That said, even if Obama has declared ACTA an executive agreement (while those in Europe insist that it’s a binding treaty), there is a very real Constitutional question here: can it actually be an executive agreement?” asks TechDirt. “The law is clear that the only things that can be covered by executive agreements are things that involve items that are solely under the President’s mandate. That is, you can’t sign an executive agreement that impacts the things Congress has control over. But here’s the thing: intellectual property, in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, is an issue given to Congress, not the President. Thus, there’s a pretty strong argument that the president legally cannot sign any intellectual property agreements as an executive agreement and, instead, must submit them to the Senate.”.

26 European Union member states along with the EU itself are set to sign the treaty at a ceremony today in Tokyo. Other countries wishing to sign the agreement have until May 2013 to do so.

Critics are urging those concerned about Obama’s decision to sign the document with no legislative oversight to demand the Senate be forced to ratify the treaty.