Questions and Answers regarding the Egyptian, Tunisian, Libyan and Yemen Revolutions

MARCH 22, 2011

Question: [1] The events in Egypt and Tunisia started as self-initiated and we consider them a blessing; the same is the case with Libya and Yemen, with people coming out in huge numbers. Why, then, have the revolutionaries been content with ‘cosmetic surgery’ of the regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, where the situation seems to have ended as if the revolutionaries have won, but in truth the ‘body’ of the regime remains as it was – even the loyalty of the Tunisian and Egyptian regimes not having changed?

Answer: [1] It is correct to state that the events in Tunisia and Egypt and even Libya and Yemen were self-initiated with a positive impact in that the people broke the barrier of fearing the rulers, covered by Islamic sentiments; people began mobilizing and shouting Allahu-Akbar without fearing the oppression of the rulers. This has its benefits in moving the people. Therefore, from this angle this is good and a blessing.

On the other hand, these movements stirred emotional feelings using general slogans. The likes of these movements easily allow strong international forces and their agents to intervene and penetrate them. Thus, European forces – French and British -

were able to penetrate these movements in Tunisia using agents trained by these countries who infiltrated the rebels or those revolting. By this they managed to maintain the original structure of the regime and influenced those revolting to accept ‘cosmetic surgical change’ only.

This is what has also happened in Egypt where America has managed to infiltrate the rebels/protesters through her agents.

It is evident to any sincere and aware person that these movements are emotional, which made it easy for them to be influenced and penetrated by international forces and their agents. Therefore, the sincere forces focused their contact with the protestors to alert them and raise their awareness about ongoing events, urging them not to betray the blood that was spilled and to make their uprisings in accordance with the demands and requirements of their religion for which they chant takbirs and eulogies.

But despite these intense, serious and sincere attempts with the protesters, other forces had recruited their supporters and influenced the protesters/uprisers to some degree to the extent that while they were praying in Tahrir Square in Egypt as thousands in congregation, chanting takbirs and eulogies, showing the Islamic sentiments and emotions, yet they never mentioned the demand for Islamic rule nor even mention jihad against the Zionist entity that occupies Palestine; and they did not even mention the abolition of the Camp David treaty.

This confirms the correctness of the saying of the wise person that the achievement of the correct change requires two things:

1. Public opinion based upon public awareness, rather than public opinion alone.

2. Support of the people of power, rather than any support (like that of the masses).

The uprisers and protesters were not aware of these two matters, so the result was a cosmetic surgery without any change in the political structure (of the regime).

Question: [2] In Egypt and Tunisia, events occurred swiftly and rapidly but when the ‘fever’ of revolt extended to Libya and Yemen, it has taken longer and is more protracted. Why this difference?

Answer: [2] As for the difference between what happened in Tunisia and Egypt regarding the overthrow of Ben Ali and Mubarak within a few days and what has happened and still happens in Libya and Yemen, in terms of the persistence of events longer than that in Tunisia and Egypt.

The reason of this difference is that the international powers active in Tunisia and Egypt remained in control of their area of influence. Europe controlled the situation in Tunisia and dealt with it gradually and at intervals. So, whenever the people protested Europe changed one of the ruling faces, but the structure of the secular Capitalist system remained as it was.

With regards to Egypt, America was alone in its contact with the political forces in both the previous era and the current era; and it treated the issue gradually also. So, whenever the protestors protested America changed one ruling face with somebody else.

Thus, that which facilitated the departure of Ben Ali and Mubarak in a few days was because the international player on the scene was one: Europe in Tunisia and America in Egypt.

These two international players, through their agents in the two countries who were raised within the confines of the former regime for decades, were able to infiltrate the protestors and to shout louder than them, and called for demands stronger and more powerful than those of the protestors who rebelled against injustice, oppression and repression imposed by the tyrant rulers of darkness in Tunisia and Egypt.

Thereafter, they mastered the trick in the face of the protestors.

This means that the conflicting parties in Tunisia and Egypt were:

Rebels with spontaneous emotions against injustice,
Europe in Tunisia through its agents and
America in Egypt through hers as well.
Thus it was easy for them to maintain the structure of the secular capitalist system in the name of freedom and democracy, through plastic surgery that will be exposed, but after it is too late.

In Libya and Yemen, the situation was different. Here Europe was not able to prevent America from interference in Libya or in Yemen, as both countries were not theatres purely for Europe to set things as she pleases, where she pleases the people by superficial change while keeping her two agents as she was trying at the beginning.

That is to keep Gaddhafi in Libya and Ali Saleh in Yemen if they were able to continue offering initiatives, trying to convince people. Europe gave them room in this matter until it became clear that the two agents had failed in maintaining her interests, even if they controlled the rebels through a lot of blood and massacres.

Gaddhafi and Ali Saleh’s power to influence had fallen away, i.e. they had completed their roles. Therefore, they are now trying to build an alternative political class in Libya and Yemen. However, it was not easy for Europe as it was in Tunisia, for example, because it was faced with another colonial power (America) that is looking seriously to have influence in Libya and Yemen. Thus the theatre of events in Libya was not limited to Europe only, otherwise, it would have been easily resolved as in Tunisia. Rather America had intervened from early on through open or hidden contacts (overtly and covertly).

This suggests that the rival parties in both countries are three:

1. The protesters who arose against injustices of the regime out of emotion and anger.

2. Europe, i.e. ‘Britain and France in Libya’ and ‘Britain in Yemen,’ trying to maintain their former influence but with a change of faces.

3. And America that is trying to be the influencing political actor in the two countries.

These two rivaling international parties tried to demonstrate through their contacts and in media outlets that they were against the rulers, tyrants and dictators in these countries, as if Europe and America were oblivious to the tyranny of these rulers despite the fact that these disbelieving states were behind the colonial rulers and tyrants of taghut in the Muslim countries as long as they were securing their interests.

When their purpose and benefit was completed, they would get rid of them and begin searching for less blackened faces (least bad replacements). In other words, the presence of an international rival in Libya and Yemen is the reason behind prolonging and still protracting the movements in Libya and Yemen more than it was the case of Tunisia and Egypt.

Question: [3] Moreover, the media have reported over the last three days- and still reports – that Europe (Britain and France) is interested to intervene in Libya, and it prepares a draft resolution for a no-fly zone over Libya, while America is distancing itself and hesitating!

On 09/03/2011, France announced its recognition of the Libyan Transitional National Assembly and called on the European Union to recognise it as well. The European Union in its meeting today in Brussels, 11.3.2011, was close to recognising the National Council and considered it an official negotiating side, and they requested Gaddhafi to step down immediately. At the same time, America does not show the enthusiasm to intervene as Europe does despite the fact that it is expected of American to exploit this opportunity to her advantage in order to replace British influence there. Why has Europe shown more interest and enthusiasm than America?

Answer: [3] As for the third question on [the apparent reluctance of American] intervention, it was evident that America, from the beginning of events on 17th February 2011, was interested in intervention and in the no flight zone. Thus she moved her warships to be close to the shores of Libya. This is her usual behaviour which is to be the only one to dominate the no flight zone and to manipulate this matter as if she is protecting the “revolution” and use this as a pretext to intervene and set up the replacement of Gaddhafi in Libya, and thus her [US] influence replaces Britain.

However, Britain moved quickly, so it sent its fighters to Cyprus. Moreover, it acted in solidarity with France regarding the subject of the no fly zone, and even sent a delegation to the Transitional Council in Benghazi. But the National Council repulsed it.

The intervention of Europe differs from American intervention. Britain has a political class that was built through its influence in Libya. Gaddhafi and his followers were in the service of the interests of Britain throughout the years of his reign. But when his reign is about to end, it is important for Britain to be close to her agents in Libya under the pretext of the no-fly zone so as to manage the political situation that allows her to replace Gaddhafi.

Thus, her intervention by whatever ‘legal’ means is designed to keep her near her agents in Libya so that she can find a replacement for Gaddhafi whose image became so bad in the sight of the people, with someone whose image is little better! Thus, this military intervention is a cover for her political activity with her followers in Libya, and this explains the activity of Britain and France on the subject of the air embargo, as well as the decisions of the European Union at its emergency meeting today 11th March 2011.

It is well known that other European countries like France, Italy, etc. have huge economic interests, and so they have a reason to intervene in order to maintain their

interests as much as they can. As Britain strengthens herself there in the face of America; and Britain started to prepare herself and work through her agents at home and abroad to take the power once Gaddhafi fell as it has politicians in Libya that can change their faces in front of people.

As for the United States, Gaddhafi has not left for her any political class to work with, so she wants to ensure the presence of followers to her before the military intervention.

Accordingly, America is reluctant in accepting intervention in order the rebels realize that America is the one that can deliver the people from the flames of Gaddhafi, and so they would ask her, rather insist on asking her to intervene.

In particular, America is aware that a no-fly zone alone does not solve the problem. America is thus reluctant in intervening, but not refusing intervention, just because she wants to ensure she has followers in place if she intervened. This means she wants to secure achieving results equivalent to the burden of intervention once involved in it. This is because American intervention has huge burdens and difficulties:

America cannot lead a third war; for it is still fighting the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and has not completed the situation in Iraq along with its financial crisis which it has not recovered from despite the assurances and reports, which are in any case considered to be incorrect. Hillary Clinton has indicated in her speech before the U.S. House of Representatives where she complained of budget cuts to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by almost half and described it as “a meager budget for difficult times.” The U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said “that military action may have results that are not directly clear and so need to be studied very carefully.” (Washington Post, 03/02/2011). Hence, America’s direct involvement in a third war would burden her and exhaust her in light of the other regions and their internal issues.

Therefore, on the 1st March 2011 Gates justified ordering the two warships “USS Kearsarge” and “USS Ponce” to move near the Libyan coast. She justified it under the pretext of humanitarian assistance. America says it sends its troops under the pretext of a humanitarian mission?! While the truth is that it sent those warships in order to monitor the situation for military missions such that if it is necessary, it would act within proximity! It is also perhaps to frighten the Gaddhafi regime and at worse to prepare itself for military strikes against Libya.

With all that, America is working to contact the protestors and rebels as announced by Clinton. She also announced about other contacts before her upcoming visit to Cairo. America is working for their support without directly intervening in order to be able to gain influence through winning the local leaders as much as it is possible. She also works abroad on restricting Gaddhafi; so if she gained some of the leaders or attracted them and was assured of suitable infiltration in Libya, then this would be a price for her military intervention.

These are the reasons for America’s reluctance in intervening or delaying of its relationship with the protestors. It was waiting to ensure an effective political infiltration inside Libya. And it seems that America will continue on this course until it seems she is close to achieving it.

Question: [4] And what about the rebels/revolutionaries, can they withstand the heavily armed Libyan tyrant that carries an evil and bloody approach openly and not secretly, for he has declared that he will create a Libyan holocaust?


Answer: [4] As for the strong resistence of the “rebels”, it is clear the people are defiant before the criminal Gaddhafi and the evidence for that is their persistence in the face of Gaddhafi’s heavy weapons and their lack of fear. They have broken the fear barrier and have taken up arms, with some of the army forces as well as other tribes joining them; and they took control of many areas. They have become accustomed to the new situation and the Islamic sentiments are growing. All this makes them rush in the face of Gaddhafi’s mercenaries in great battles. However, the difference in weapons between the two parties is huge; where the tyrant of Libya has bombarded the protestors with spewing lava following the scorched-earth war.

The colonial powers of Europe and America exploited the might of Gaddhafi’s forces pretending to help the protestors. And it is feared that the colonial powers might find a justification which they call “humanitarian” to interfere and for stopping the bloody massacres committed by Gaddafi.

But what is sad and disgraceful is that the Arab states bordering Libya, with its bloody massacre, do nothing; and their armies are stationed in their barracks, where the rulers move them to kill the people; but when it comes to helping the oppressed people in Libya, they do not move them. Truly, they are deaf, dumb and blind. They do not understand.

This is what is feared: the exploitation of the bloody massacres by the colonialist kuffar as a pretext for militarily intervention in Libya. They will find Arab and Libyan parties that call them for this intervention due to the ongoing brutal massacres. This matter was mentioned by the Secretary of the Arab League.

There is a fear that something else might result. It is Britain’s attempts to make its agents the people who would hold the reins of the uprising; and so if the regime of Gaddhafi falls, she would put them in power.

Likewise, it is feared that the agents of America might take the power if they managed to find puppets and managed to buy new agents. It is not clear so far who has the upper-hand, and nor is the matter clearly settled to any party: neither to the sincere (rebels), nor the agent regime Gaddhafi, nor Britiain’s alternative agents, nor America’s agents. Even if the uprising succeeded and Gaddhafi was removed, the matter will not be resolved, in the short term, for any of these involved parties. This is because of the infiltration of these colonial powers and their competition secretly; and because of the presence of their agents who are working among the people to take charge.

The people of Libya will not be delivered from this problem unless they adopt Islam as a system of life for the state and society and in all life affairs, clearly and openly. As for rallying under the national banner, then each one, whoever he might be, would come under this national banner, and each Party will seek to take control of the matters and lead the people on a path that makes waste of the pure blood that was shed, without achieving the just and equitable system of governance, under which all of the people would live under its shade in security and safety.

This is what we fear regarding the Muslims in Libya because of the deception of the rulers neighbouring them, and the plans and conspiracies of the colonialist kuffar against Muslim lands, as well as the excessive bloody massacres committed at the hands of the tyrant of Libya.

The duty of the Ummah is to put pressure on the rulers, especially those neighboring Libya such as Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia to hold back the hands of the tyrant and mobilise the armies to crush him, thus letting him, his henchmen, mercenaries and helpers taste the torment of humiliation in this world.

And the torment of Jahannam, in the Afterlife is left to Allah The Mighty.

6th Rabi` al-Thani
11th March 2011
Source: http://www.hizb.org.uk