Well,  this one was coming. On Today this morning. John Humphyrs coldly asked US official Michele Dunne just how much GUILT did the US have on its hands for what is happening in Egypt. Yes, the USA is to blame. Tomorrow, can we look forward to the BBC blaming Sarah Palin, or Israel…? I’ll post the link once they publish it.

Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to US TO BLAME FOR EGYPT

  1. DJ says:

    I predict an almost perfect 1:1 correlation between the Beeboids blaming America for proping up an oppressive regime in Cairo, and the folks who spent years asking if Iraq wasn’t better off under Saddam.


    • George R says:

      Perhaps INBBC  is trying to deflect political attention from the way it has, and is, propping up the Islamic jihad Hamas regime in Gaza.


  2. Maturecheese says:

    Campbells radio show’s callers have already started blaming Israel along with the US, I suspect Palin will be in the frame soon 🙂


  3. Abandon Ship! says:

    I sighed deeply when I heard Humphreys pronounce the expected….

    However the BBC have to tread carefully, as the events going on in Egypt are pretty much what the hated neocons wanted. No doubt they will find a way round this though.


  4. Natsman says:

    No, it’s that old devil global warming again that’s to blame – I said it would be…


  5. Dino64 says:

    So how is Mullah Humphrys and the BBC Islamic Wing blaming “The Great Satan” news? 
    The story was written well in advance, rather like the Queen Mother’s obit.    
    Anyhow it won’t be guilt the BBC will be talking about, it will be blood on American and Israeli hands, if someone hasn’t already.  


  6. Doktor Evil says:

    Wasn’t Egypt part of the British Empire…….like Afghanistan and Iraq?


  7. Johnny Norfolk says:

    Nothing on the BBC about the real cause of course. No invesigation into Iran. It will be done in the name of the people and within a year we will have another millitant Islamic state. The BBC should be looking at the long term threat to our country as wll as the current situation. Does anyone think Eygpt will end up with a democratic free country, if you do dream on.


    • graham duck says:

      I’m not dreaming, but there’s a nightmare closer on the horizon: Turkey being accepted into the EU. Cameron at al seem to think it will make relations with Islam better. Ho hum…these clowns will one day sign off a dreadfully treasonable act accepting Turkey’s accession into the EU. (oh then they’ll be surprised when they go bust like the other ones recently and take squillions of euros in a bail out, you couldnt make it up you really couldnt)


      • Grant says:

        Don’t worry, Cameron is completely out of touch. The French don’t want it, the Germans don’t want it and the Turks don’t want it. It will never happen.


  8. Ian E says:

    If Aunty BBC thinks we should call the US Uncle Satan, would that be a match made in Hell?


  9. Martin says:

    Notice that the BBC are going on about the Gypo’s hating the yanks, no mention of the black Jesus (or should that be Prophet – peace be upon him) not being able to make the Muslims love America more.


  10. Grant says:

    The fault of the US but not Obama, of course.


  11. George R says:

    An alternative Egypt to that of Islam Not BBC (INBBC);

    -where some ‘insurgents’ display their dedication to stealth jihad of the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as hatred of Israel:

    ‘Jihadwatch’ –

    Egypt: Member of “Army of Islam,” escaped from prison, says his armed resistance against Israel will continue


    Spencer: The Middle East’s Intifada


    Why they hate Mubarak: “He is supporting Israel. Israel is our enemy…If people are free in Egypt…they gonna destroy Israel”


  12. Bof says:

    Interesting article in Washington Post : In the streets of Cairo, proof Bush was right. Bush adviser says Obama should have listened to the former president.
    Can’t wait for Albeeb to be broadcasting this. They must be choking on their champagne.


  13. David Preiser (USA) says:

    And if the US doesn’t “prop up” these dictators, deny “aid” or even enforce sanctions, the same crowd cries about “collective punishment” and how wrong that is. Oh, and we’re not allowed to do “regime change” either, so nobody was getting rid of Mubarak just like that.

    Listening to those whose opinions are based on emotion without reason is a lose-lose proposition.


  14. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Dopey Beeboid just now asking Blair, “Shouldn’t the international community have been better prepared for this?”

    What a stupid question.  Prepared to do what, exactly?  Roll in the tanks?  Send flowers?  In fact, the reaction of most countries has been what one would expect. The only part of the international community who has no idea what to do is the blithering Obamessiah.  But they can’t say that, of course.


  15. hippiepooter says:

    Here’s the link:

    Humphrys distinguishes himself round about just past 7 mins.

    I found the interviewee an exemplary bipartisan member of the US diplomatic corps, inspite of her accepting in part Humphrys’ agitprop blood libel about ‘American guilt’.

    She said it wasn’t so much the military aid to effectively prop up Mubarak that in part left the US with blood on its hands but a lack of ‘persistant and consistant’ pressure for reform.

    I had a very good idea of what she meant by this through what I’d read yesterday, and she went on to confirm my perception by stating that in 2002-05 Bush was pursuing reform as part of his ¡freedom agenda’, but thereafter it petered out due to difficulties and Mubarak’s foot-dragging, and then Obama had no interest when he took Office.

    So then, the lesson to be learnt is that thanks to the sabotage of Bush’s freedom agenda by the unprecedented black propaganda campaign waged by leftists like Humphrys and Obama to prevent a conservative administration acheiving something creditworthy regardless of the succour they gave to terrorists and tyrants, the question of ‘who has blood on their hands?’ really is one Humphrys needs to direct back at himself and his tyrant enabling colleagues in his studio.

    Humphrys is evidently a man with no sense of self irony.  He postulated at the end of the interview that if a real democracy did begin in Egypt it would be the first in the Arab world and could act as an example.

    No Mr Humphrys, the first real democracy that has begun in the Arab world is Iraq, despite the worst efforts of people like yourself.


  16. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Here’s what the BBC had to say about the political situation in Egypt only five years ago:

    There is little doubt that Mr Mubarak probably does enjoy huge support in the Egyptian street.

    So what changed, BBC?  We aren’t told.  Instead, the Beeboids act as if the Egyptians were always against being ruled by Mubarak.  Then there’s this:

    But the results of the 2005 election were skewed by the banning of what is assumed to be the main opposition party, the Muslim Brotherhood, and almost insurmountable obstacles for independent candidates.

    Successes by Muslim Brotherhood-supporting independent candidates in the parliamentary elections two months later were followed by a crackdown on opposition activists.

    In what was see by analysts as sign of alarm bells ringing in the NDP leadership, municipal elections were also postponed.

    So the Muslim Brotherhood might just win a “free and fair” election, and there are no other viable choices in sight, other than Iran’s proxy, El-Baradei.  Again, not a word from a single Beeboid about the real potential of the MB. Instead, the BBC is informing you, across the spectrum of broadcasting, that they’re not radical, not so bad, it’s only scare-mongering from Mubarak to keep himself in power.

    The best they’ve done is ask the occasional government figure (Hague or someone from the US, typically) if they’re worried about the MB taking over.  The problem is that, having blatantly misrepresented the MB, this question is way out of its proper context and ends up sounding like fear-mongering.

    When Frank Gardner and several other people on the BBC say that the Muslim Brotherhood is “not that radical”, then Hague says that nobody wants “extremists” to take over in Egypt, it makes Hague and everyone else sound like they’re being Islamophobes and continuing to support the dictator with their talk of orderly proceedings.  It’s time to say that the BBC is lying about the Muslim Brotherhood.


  17. DP111 says:

    I was wondering when Israel will get the blame



    • Dr A says:

      But didn’t Jeremy Bowen and JOhn Humphries say that the Islamists were “not extreme”? Oh, I guess wishing to murder 6 million Jews in Israel does not count as extreme in Al Beebland.

      And we are FORCED to pay for these xxxxs.


      • ltwf1964 says:

        Mossad must be watching Bowen like a hawk

        he’s a cheerleader for anti semitism


        • Grant says:

          Why the Israelis allow that scumbag Bowen to even set foot in their country is completely beyond my comprehension.


          • John Horne Tooke says:

            Indeed – but it just proves that Isreal is a democratic free country. I expect Bowen would just love to be banned – just think of the propaganda value this would give to the vile anti-democrtaic BBC Hamas supporters.


      • NotaSheep says:

        Killing 6 million Jews, now why does that ring a bell?


  18. DP111 says:

    Egyptian protesters prayed Saturday in front of a military vehicles in Tahrir Square in downtown Cairo on Saturday.

    This picture in the link

    says it all. 

    So all that talk of democratic reformers bringing about freedom etc has turned out as predicted by us, to be BS of the first water. Oh yes democracy but democracy to bring sharia as wished for by 70 to 80% of Egyptians. If one takes out 10% of Copts, this figure increases 80-90% for Sharia.

    This is a consequence of Obama making America a weak nation, unwilling to defend its own interests. Its Carter and Iran all over again.

    We skeptics are usually right.



    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      The increasing shift of Egyptians towards fundamentalist Islam started long before The Obamessiah even entered national politics. It’s been going on for years.  He’s so incompetent, though, that He missed a great chance to get the Egyptian public on side with the US.  All we heard from Him and Hillary have been platitudes with no expression of real support for the protesters, and that won’t help matters later on if and when an elected government takes over.

      All the Egyptians are going to remember is that the US didn’t back them.  They’re already anti-US as it is due to the dealings with Mubarak for all those years, not to mention the evil Zionist entity.  He missed a great chance to make up for it, in fact missed a great chance to prove He wasn’t just full of sh!t when he gave that lovely speech in Cairo right after He took office.

      Iran : Carter as Egypt : The Obamessiah


      • George R says:

        Yes; and Islam Not BBC (INBBC) takes its political prompts about the Muslim Brotherhood as benign, and not to be feared, from Obama and the White House.
        “Alfred E. Neuman in the driver’s seat”


      • hippiepooter says:

        Its precisely because Obama and Rodham played politics and did all they could to undermine Bush’s freedom agenda that there exists a huge danger of an Islamist takeover with these street demonstrations.  The whole Muslim world looks upon Obama as an idiot or a closet co-conspirator for the tack he’s taken in office and would look upon any support gives the crowd as tacit endorsement of an Islamist takeover ‘because he respects Islam so much’/because he’s such an anti-American fink himself.

        I guess we’ll find out in the coming days whether Obama is idiot or knave, or a mixture of the two.

        How I miss George W Bush MkI as President.


      • Charlie says:

        Reminds me of this cartoon.


  19. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Holy BBC Speed Dial, Batman!  The BBC News Channel right now is talking to Oxfod Prof. Tariq Ramadan, who was introduced as having family connections to the Muslim Brotherhood.

    He is now saying that there is no danger of a radical Islamist movment taking over like what happened in Iran.  The revolution in Egypt right now, according to Ramadan, is not led by the MB.  Which is true, but is a smokescreen.  He’s not actually answering the question.  He explains that the MB is not so bad by comparing it favorably to the current situation in Turkey!  So no problem there, then.  Sopel completely allows him to go on and on, substituting praise for freedom and democracy for answering the question about what would happen.

    I recognize Prof. Ramadan because the BBC featured him as an Islamic law expert on the recent installment of “You Can’t Take It With You”.

    In fact, I recommend this highly to anyone who wants to see the BBC bending over backwards to appear fair and balanced about Islam.  The premise is about a Mohammedan couple who need to organize a Shariah-compliant will.  They’re presented as a typical Thoroughly Modern Muslim family.  Naturally, the wife wears the hijab.

    Gerry Robinson criticizes certain fundamental aspects of Shariah as being unfair to women. When confronted by this new knowledge, the shocked Mohammedan couple state that this can’t be true because Islam stands for justice and fairness.  They repeat those words constantly. So even when the BBC proves us all wrong and gently criticizes Islam as not being as cool as Western ways, we’re given the impression that this isn’t actually the case.  The wife even reminds us that Islam is better because it brought even basic women’s right to the Arabs 1400 years ago, whereas British law didn’t do the same until more recently.

    After much agonizing and discussion with a Shariah lawyer and a local Imam named ‘Basil’, they end up heeding the husband’s mother who says they need to instill the old ways into the family again.  So the cognitive dissonance gets worse for the poor couple.  The BBC gets balance points for gently reminding them of the unfairness.

    Then we meet Prof. Ramadan, who says there are loopholes.  They should have the full Shariah-comliant will, with all the unfairness intact, but write in a loophole that the son has to agree to take on his duties as the male to support his sisters and mother in the even the father passes away. Instead of jointly owning the house, which is against Shariah, they put the house into a trust and the son will simply allow the mother to live there.

    “It’s a lifeline!” exclaims the wife.  All they need to do now is obey granny’s advice, which they agreed to do earlier.  So they get the loophole which allows them to pretend that they’re not being unfair, even while following through on the unfairness.

    The BBC presents this as the successful integration of Islam into modern British society, when it’s actually the other way round.  In contrast, the white family having to deal with leaving the farm to the children when the daughter isn’t interested in working on it is presented as much more unfair on the daughter.


    • Grant says:

      David P,
      I deliberately didn’t watch that programme. Did they cover what happens when there is a conflict between between UK secular law and sharia law following a death and a case comes before a British court ?
      Funnily enough, in the secular muslim countries I am familiar with , wills drafted under secular law and statutory inheritance laws take precedence over sharia law.


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        No, Grant, this was all about the family dilemma of estate and inheritance law.  The Thoroughly Modern Muslims had a “farness” need – to adhere to the strictest form of Shariah while still being “fair” – and the white family had also had a “fairness” need – to figure out how to divide up the family farm amongst the boys who wanted to work on it, while still being “fair” to the daughter who didn’t want anything to do with it.

        Shariah was the “unfairness” part on one hand, and the idea that the brothers would possibly get more than the sister if they ever sold the family farm on the other.  Both were considered to be equal dilemmas, and the white family came across as being more unfair to the daughter than did the Mohammedans.

        The idea was that Mohammedans honestly believe that Islam is all about fairness and justice, regardless of a few niggling details, The Thoroughly Mondern Muslims merely needed a loophole to maintain the facade.  They were still going to be completely “unfair” and leave the majority to the boy, as Shariah dictates, but with a fig leaf so we can pretend they’re modern and not really being “unfair”. No such sympathy was given to the white family.

        British Law doesn’t appear to conflict at all with Shariah here, as there isn’t any rule that one can’t be unfair as one likes in a will, if everyone signs off on it.  Of course the notion of equal rights in British society conflicts with Islam as practiced by Thoroughly Modern Muslims.  But we were told that the Thoroughly Modern Muslims didn’t accept that and found a way around it.


    • hippiepooter says:

      Taking you up on Tariq ‘Ramadan yer throats Islam’ and his referral to Turkey as the way Egypt would go under Islamism, surely the obvious point to be raised here by an interviewer is that the Islamist Government treads very carefully because the army is avowedly secularist and might overthrow it.  The same dynamic just doesn’t work in Egypt.

      Also Turkey is an established democracy since 1923 (albeit a bumpy ride with 4 military coups since 1960).  The peaceful transition to power of Islamists through election doesn’t now disguise the fact that Erdogen is practising ‘stealth Islamism’ till the military no longer pose a threat to him fully implementing his objectives.  Just look at how far once very close relationships with Israel have deteriorated.  Turkey now looks to Iran and that’s exactly where Egypt will look.

      Not stuff the BBC would try to get a character like Ramadan to address.


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        Except Turkey didn’t used to be Islamist.  Now it is.  This is not a good example to follow.


  20. George R says:

    To counter the publicly subsidised pro-Muslim Brotherhood political stance of INBBC, Guardian, CNN, Islamic Al Jazeera, etc., here’s two minute video of unsubsidised Bill O’Reilly of FOX NEWS (available 24/7 in UK on Sky satellite channel 509):

    Video: O’Reilly: More Danger In The Muslim World


  21. Moise Pippic says:

    Jeremy Bowen the BBC Middle East editor.says that the Muslim Brotherhood are moderates, and unlike the jihadis they are not at war with the West (Radio 4 News 6.0pm tonight)…..from the horses mouth.


  22. dave s says:

    The whole coverage of the events in Egypt is unreal. The liberal mindset is revealed as one of fantasy- We are nice and kind and see all points of view. from our own perspective of course, and we are sure that Egypt will turn into a model democracy with it’s own version of the BBC and a lovely little paper like the Guardian.
    The danger to the West is discounted and made light of. Israel? barely mentioned.
    The unrest in Egypt must really delight Iran. Without a hostile Egypt Iran has one less obstacle to ME domination. This situation is really dangerous and we are all , not all some are still sane. going to bitterly regret cheering on the demonstrators in Cairo.
    I put it down to the liberal media’s folk memories of the 60s and their deluded youthful passions. Nothing else explains such wilful stupidity.


  23. JohnW says:

    This insane euphoria is reminiscent of the mood when Ohbummer was elected in November 2008. I had just returned from the US and was at Heathrow watching the TV screens on the day his victory was announced. Two teenage girls watching the screen alongside were almost in raptures, jumping and screaming with excitement, exclaiming how wonderful it all was.

    I had to supress my gag reflex and head to the bar. How naive these people are.