Monday, January 31, 2011

Religions Role in Egypt

     As we can see in Egyptian protests everyone is fighting for democracy and they are influenced by AlBaradei that it will come through religion and that would be Islam. All access to Internet and cell phone reception has been cancelled in Cairo, Alexandria and other possible cities. The Muslim Brotherhood is the largest organization opposing the country so they decided to take part in the protest. As this group keeps gaining more power it will eventually gain a lot of supporters for President Hosni Mubarak to drop down. Other religious leaders do not support the protests because they believe that the democratic government will not benefit at all. One group would be the Salafists who are Sunni-Muslims, many radical Salafists were arrested because of the New Year's bombing of a Coptic church. On another note some religious groups have been banned from protest like Sufis who are Shia-Muslims. So instead they stayed in the mosques and did not participate in the illegal protests. According to Hamid Said, the founder of Nasar Center for Human Rights in Alexandria, said, "You did not have the Muslim Brotherhood protesting here, you had normal people protesting against their problems." The main problem is that people are against the police brutality and political oppression. Mr Said stated that, he was well qualified for a position but lost to a son of a government minister. Abu Omar said that many conservative Muslims do not support a secular politician like Mohamed AlBaradei, Nobel Prize winner and former head of International Atomic Energy Agency. Abu Omar was kidnapped by the Central Intelligence Agency in 2003. It is not effective anymore that the government blocks social access. 

     I would like to start off by saying people do not learn from prior events and seem to be so blunt. Before I support this statement I would like for you to know that I think people in Egypt should not protest and let president Mubarak stay in power; they have caused so much damage to their own country and other people. In 1979 Iran was fled with protests from people who were influenced by Islamic leaders that Iran was not religious enough. So all the fault was blamed on the King of Iran and he saw that most people turned against him. The Islamic leaders promise the people that they would go to a place more than heaven if they protested until a new revolution had come. The country was one of the most prosperous and visited places in the world until the Islamic leaders took over and killed millions of people and made stupid laws that all women have to wear a hijab (covers female hair) and that there were separate sex schools and a whole load of BS. People these days don't know all about this and it should be known but I feel that news coverages especially the ones in UK and USA are controlled by the government to cause revolutions, by favouring a side or delivering information in a bias manner to influence viewers. The same thing is happening to Egypt, if AlBaradei becomes president then what I expect to happen is for him to take dictatorship and make the country worse than Mubarak. President Mubarak has taken care of the country well in the past years and there is no need to make the country better because everyone in Egypt is living a well life, also compared to most Middle-Eastern countries. And how can you trust AlBaradei if all you are focusing on is getting rid of Mubarak and not looking at AlBaradei's promises. What has he promised and what has he done? I can tell you! He has influenced the minds of people in Egypt that Mubarak is evil and should drop down ,that is all he has done; he isn't going to bring democracy he is just going to be another dictator like the Khamenei in Iran. As an Iranian I have knowledge about some people that most people in the world don't. People in Egypt are influenced by AlBaradei because he wants to strengthen the religion just like what happened in Iran.
        In Iran the Islamic people who run the government and the ones who support them are called Mullahs. AlBaradei's sister-in-laws husband is a Mullah that works in the Iranian government-I know this because my family in Iran has the sources, but countries like America and Britain will not expose such things because they are the main cause of such tragedies. Iran's goal is to eliminate Israel off the map and what better way to do it when you are closer to it in Egypt. What better person like AlBaradei, former head of International Atomic Energy Agency to operate such a job. This may have gone a little too far, but I highly doubt AlBaradei will reign for a long time although I can see Mubarak will drop down. The only reason he is staying so far is he doesn't want the country to get worse; he is doing it for Egypt's safety. I'm not choosing sides, I am just simply saying people have to start putting clues together because if we don't then this world is going to collapse. It is kind of late now for Egypt!  

Photo 1 and Web Source:


Photo 3:

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Iran and Denial of Preconditions

         The six-nations have talked to Iran about stopping the nuclear enrichment program but they have not influenced Iran's decision as the country is going to continue building on their foundation. This involves the enrichment or Uranium which was against the preconditions of the UN Security council; the council has decided to lift sanctions. European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said that whenever Iran is ready to turn positive they can give the union a call and agree on the preconditions. Countries such as China, Germany, Britain, France, Russia and the United States are worried that the enrichment program may be used to create weapons. Tehran denies that it wants to make nuclear arms and make peaceful energy for its increasing population. There are many suspicions that Iran uses Uranium to make warhead material because Iran is not co-operating with the UN. On Friday the six-nations and Iran had a meeting regarding the enrichment and all that Iran had brought up was concerns of US base in Iraq, Israel's nuclear arsenal and global weaponry. By the looks of the action it seems Iran is asking for more sanctions and more amends on the nuclear facilities.

Second Part - Opinion

    First off I would like to start off with something on a personal note. I am an Iranian born in Canada and the opinion of most people these days on Iran is terrorism. What they don't understand is that the people that live in Iran have suffered a lot from the Islamic Movement in 1979; I have nothing against Islam but the people who caused the resolution are scattered all over the country making people's perspectives of the country just brutal. The question is should Iran accept the preconditions or keep improving their nuclear program and face sanctions? I think Iran should accept preconditions because if they keep denying them then they don't know what more sanctions are to come.

       Currently, in Tehran, Iran there has been a magnitude of construction and usage of buildings, nuclear plants and cars causing tremendous amounts of pollution - the worst pollution in its history and one of the worst in the world. It just shows how ignorant the government is and if they deny the preconditions it will make themselves look weak. If the government shows themselves as really weak, then Iranian citizens will take advantage and start another protest and perhaps lead to a new revolution. By not accepting these preconditions their country will probably be in economic downfall; current sanctions against Iran are: no shipping of arms, no banking outside of the country, no financial transactions, etc. As you can see Iran should just accept the sanctions because it is going to get a lot worse for the citizens of Iran and perhaps the people who work in the government. So much for "peaceful purposes." I think even if Iran accepts they will always find their sneaky way of enriching their nuclear programs. If the other countries are scared and know Iran isn't going to listen, why don't they build their own nuclear plants. Are we really getting the right information? Information is withheld and it raises the suspicion that, what if countries like UK, USA and Iran all work for each other? 

Web Source:

First Picture:

Second Picture:

Third Picture:

Monday, January 24, 2011

Sudan Will Accept Seperation According to President Bashir

          Omar al-Bashir president of Sudan has expected that the south of Sudan is going to secede themselves if there was a referendum vote the next year. There has been tremendous tension between south and northern Sudan even though the north-south war had ended 5 years ago. Southern politicians have accused President Bashir that the referendum vote is going to be fixed, so that there are "no votes" for segregation. The reason the north wants to keep the south is because of the oil abundance. President Bashir has promised that the north will act friendly to the south, but there is quite a great deal of skepticism. The southerns believe due to the war crimes caused by Bashir in Darfur (ethnically divided from Central Sudan), that there are ethnic groups in the south to destabilise the region. Since oil makes up 90% of the wealth in southern Sudan, the southern leader Mr. Kirr has said if there is separation in the country then the south will still distribute oil until the proper facilities are built. Mr. Kiir has accused that the conflicts that killed over 2000 people in the south have been in the fault of Bashir's allies—Bashir denies the charges.

         I feel that Sudan should undergo a separation in order to stop from conflict and pursue the peoples rights. Sudan has had too many wars between north and south just based on religion. The north part of Sudan is Muslim and the south is mainly Christian and others. Salva Kirr the Southern Sudan president stated that "The north and south will continue to be economically and politically connected whatever the choice of people of Southern Sudan." If Sudan separates into two then there will be no war. Human rights is the fairness and equality of every human to be treated equally whether gender, religion or race; now these laws don't seemed to be enforced in Sudan but it sure can be interpreted. If the reason the north wants to stay united with the south is due to oil abundance and Mr. Kirr promises that both sides will be economically friendly then there no reason there shouldn't be a segregation. Not only is the economic base still available for both sides but the conflicts are gone and less people are threatened. This segregation can change the life of many people but its always hard to predict the positives and the consequences.  

Link to Article and Pictures: