Posted on 01/17/2015 12:38:21 PM PST by Truth29
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi continues to be the antithesis of longstanding mainstream media portrayals of him.
First there was his historic speech where he, leader of the largest Arab nation, and a Muslim, accused Islamic thinking of being the scourge of humanityin words that no Western leader would dare utter
Next, Sisi went to the St. Mark Coptic Cathedral during Christmas Eve Mass to offer Egypt's Christian minority his congratulations and well wishing. Here again he made history as the first Egyptian president to enter a church during Christmas massa thing vehemently criticized by the nation's Islamists, including the Salafi party (Islamic law bans well wishing to non-Muslims on their religious celebrations, which is why earlier presidentsNasser, Sadat, Mubarak, and of course Morsinever attended Christmas mass).
Sisi stood side-by-side with Coptic Christian Pope Tawadros IIperhaps in remembrance of the fact that, when General Sisi first overthrew President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, Pope Tawadros stood side-by-side with himand paid a heavy price: the Brotherhood and its sympathizers unleashed a Kristallnacht of "reprisals" that saw 82 Christian churches in Egypt attacked, many destroyed.
(Excerpt) Read more at meforum.org ...
Mubarak wasn’t as impressive as Sadat. That’s why I’m hoping al-Sisi takes really good care of himself; we might get another Mubarak.
Yeah, Mubarak passed up a chance to hang Ayman al-Zawahiri, at the time a junior member of the Mooselimb Brotherhood, now the top guy in AQ.
Did you know that Dr al-Zawahiri speaks English?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A55lIzz8hXo
The above rant was delivered from Mubarak's cage, al-Zawahiri having been swept up in the dragnet following Sadat's assassination. Regrettably, he was cut loose.
What Egypt needs is an Ataturk. Hopefully, al-Sisi is that person.
100% correct.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
About the same life expectancy, though.
The only problem I see with this is that from my understanding the more non violent section is the from the beginning and it becomes more violent as the book goes along. So you would think that the violent section is more present and therefore would supersede the more benevolent nonviolent section. That must be the way the violent Muslims see it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.