Connect with us



Egypt has enemies: The Muslim Brotherhood and the biggest terrorist atrocity in Egyptian history

No group has claimed responsibility for the tragic attack in Egypt’s Bir al-Abed, but there are many clues.




235 people have been killed, according to a statement by the Egyptian Attorney General.  The   massacre was carried out at al-Rawdah mosque in Bir al-Abed, west of Arish city.  According to eye witnesses, there was a huge explosion, and then the terrorists opened fire on the worshippers as they prayed the Friday prayers on Nov. 24, 2017.  Afterwards, the terrorists also set fire to cars, and shot at ambulances which rushed to the scene.   The terrorists were dressed in military uniforms and drove a jeep, and fled with Egyptian security forces in pursuit.

On Nov. 23, 2017, the Egyptian state-run media announced they had arrested 29 suspects for 15 days, pending investigations into allegations that they engaged in espionage with Turkey, for the purpose of overthrowing the Egyptian government.

The Egyptian General Intelligence Agency stated the arrested spy network was financed by Turkey, but also supported by Qatar.  The 29 member spy ring was directed by Turkish Intelligence officials, with direct Qatari coordination.

The Egyptian authorities uncovered the elaborate plot  to take over power in Egypt by  attacking state institutions, and the Turkish Intelligence and their global terror partner, the Muslim Brotherhood, were responsible.

In addition to the 29 arrested, there are 5 suspects abroad, who are charged with terrorism, money laundering, and illegal currency trading.

The arrested men allegedly formed a network, with members of the Muslim Brotherhood abroad, in order to destabilize Egypt and thus overthrow the government of Pres. Sisi, who is          hated by the Muslim Brotherhood because he banned the group and labeled them a global terrorist organization.

Pres. Erdogan of Turkey also faced an attempt to overthrow his government in July of 2016.  He is convinced that the US was behind the failed attempt to remove him from power.  Turkey is a member of NATO and had been a close ally of the US, with a large US military base hosted on Turkish soil.  When the US attack on Syria began in March 2011, for the purpose overthrowing Syria’s Pres. Assad, Turkey and the US Pres. Obama were on the same team.  However, the plan failed miserably, and left Turkey standing alone, as Pres. Erdogan continued his own Anti-Israeli political tirades, which infuriated Washington, DC as the Turkish-Israeli axis was crucial to American strategies in the Middle East.

Pres. Erdogan had supported the Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Mursi, who was elected as President of Egypt, but now is in prison for murder.  Ankara has kept up verbal attacks on the government of Pres. Sisi , while  Cairo has answered back  with accusations of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood who is considered a banned terrorist organization.

Additionally, on Nov. 23, 2017 Egyptian police killed three alleged terrorists in a shootout and arrested nine belonging to the Lewaa al-Thawra group, which is an armed group of the Muslim Brotherhood   which surfaced in Egypt after the 2013 ouster of Pres. Mursi, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate who had been elected in Egypt by a rigged election engineered in part by a Washington, DC based NGO.  The official of the NGO, who is American, received a 5 year prison sentence in absentia for her role, by the Egyptian court.

The police raid in Beheira was on a homemade bomb making facility, and the suspects opened fire as police approached, which then turned into a shootout, which left three Muslim Brotherhood terrorists dead, according to the Egyptian officials.  The massacre at the al-Rawdah mosque the next day also used bombs and involved shooting, mirroring the Muslim Brotherhood group.

Members of the Muslim Brotherhood have found safe haven in Turkey, and TV stations which broadcast Muslim Brotherhood propaganda, including verbal attacks on the Pres. Sisi government, are sanctioned by the Turkish broadcast authorities.

Turkey and Qatar worked hand in hand supporting the Radical Islamic terrorists in Syria.  Both countries were integral partners with the US-NATO attack on Syria.  However, once Pres. Trump took office, the foreign policy changed, and Turkey and Qatar were left holding the bag, and being blamed for their support of terrorism.   After the elaborate Trump-Saudi terrorism summit, things changed rapidly and Qatar was singled out as the whipping boy of the region.  It was Turkey who stood up in defense of Qatar, and came to their aid in their time of need when faced with a blockade.

In a recent summit of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) General Assembly in the southern Mediterranean resort city of Antalya, Turkey, the Chairman of Qatar Red Crescent Society Mohammed Al-Maadheed has praised the cooperation with the Turkish Red Crescent.  He stated, “At the international level, we are always in a very good relationship with Turkey because we have the same vision.”

However, his colleague, the director of the Qatar Red Crescent’s International Relief and Development Department, Khalid Nazem Diab, was recently named by the US as a global terrorist, and he was formerly listed similarly by the UN.  Diab, an American of Syrian descent, is a financier of the armed militias in Syria, and his terrorist activity has expanded to several other hot spots.

Over three months ago, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE and Bahrain cut ties with Qatar and issued thirteen demands; the key was that Qatar stop supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorist groups.  Qatar has funded terrorist groups in the Middle East for the last ten years, and participated in the attempts to overthrow major Arab governments.  After Egypt’s Mubarak was overthrown in 2011, it was Qatar who funded and gave refuge to Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s theological and spiritual leader.

Qatar was uncovered recently with transporting ISIS terrorists from Syria and Iraq to Libya, from whence they travel to Egypt to attack and massacre.

General Khalifa Hafter of the Libyan National Army has revealed  to the Arab media that Qatar provides financial  support to ISIS.

Former U.S. Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta also said recently that Qatar has a history of supporting terrorism.  He said, “Qatar, frankly, has had a mixed record. We know they’ve provided support, financial support, for the Muslim Brotherhood, for terrorism, for Hamas, for elements of al-Qaida, the Taliban.”

The terrorists are on a round-trip-ticket: they departed Libya in 2011, arrived in Syria, and now in 2017 are arriving again in Libya.  This migration movement is facilitated by Qatar, and in coordination with their partner Turkey.

Dr. Abdelmonem Saeed said in his weekly column published in Ash-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper, that the origin of terrorist ideology in the Muslim world finds itself in the Muslim Brotherhood.    Saeed concluded: “The Brotherhood is the first incubator of terrorist groups and their major and global school.”

63 members of the US Congress have asked Sec. of State Rex Tillerson to consider the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2017, because the Brotherhood threatens the U.S’ national security interests and should be designated an outlawed terrorist group.  The discussion on Capitol Hill concerning the Muslim Brotherhood has been bantered back and forth for years.  During the Obama administration the Muslim Brotherhood had received support and protection.   The top aide to Hillary Clinton was Huma Abedin, who was the daughter of Saleha Abedin,  who under Pres. Obama  sat on the Presidency Staff Council of the International Islamic Council for Da’wa and Relief, a group that is chaired by the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, now  in exile in Qatar.

While the Muslim Brotherhood is an outlawed terrorist organization in many countries around the globe, it has remained protected and unhindered across America.   With all eyes on Egypt and the recent massacre, it remains to be seen if the Muslim Brotherhood in USA may have worn out their welcome.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Notify of


Bercow blocks Brexit vote, May turns to EU for lifeline (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 112.

Alex Christoforou



The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss Theresa May’s latest Brexit dilemma, as House of Commons Speaker John Bercow, shocked the world by citing a 1604 precedent that now effectively blocks May’s third go around at trying to pass her treacherous Brexit deal through the parliament.

All power now rests with the Brussels, as to how, if and when the UK will be allowed to leave the European Union.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via Bloomberg

Theresa May claims Brexit is about taking back control. Ten days before the U.K. is due to leave the European Union, it looks like anything but.

House of Commons Speaker John Bercow’s intervention, citing precedent dating back to 1604, to rule out a repeat vote on May’s already defeated departure deal leaves the prime minister exposed ahead of Thursday’s EU summit in Brussels.

Bercow, whose cries of “Orrdurrr! Orrdurrr!’’ to calm rowdy lawmakers have gained him a devoted international following, is now the pivotal figure in the Brexit battle. May’s team privately accuse him of trying to frustrate the U.K.’s exit from the EU, while the speaker’s admirers say he’s standing up for the rights of parliament against the executive.

If just one of the 27 other states declines May’s summit appeal to extend the divorce timetable, then the no-deal cliff edge looms for Britain’s departure on March 29. If they consent, it’s unclear how May can meet Bercow’s test that only a substantially different Brexit agreement merits another vote in parliament, since the EU insists it won’t reopen negotiations.

Caught between Bercow and Brussels, May’s room for maneuver is shrinking. Amid rumblings that their patience with the U.K. is near exhaustion, EU leaders are girding for the worst.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


President Putin signs law blocking fake news, but the West makes more

Western media slams President Putin and his fake news law, accusing him of censorship, but an actual look at the law reveals some wisdom.

Seraphim Hanisch



The TASS Russian News Agency reported on March 18th that Russian President Vladimir Putin signed off on a new law intended to block distorted or untrue information being reported as news. Promptly after he did so, Western news organizations began their attempt to “spin” this event as some sort of proof of “state censorship” in the oppressive sense of the old Soviet Union. In other words, a law designed to prevent fake news was used to create more fake news.

One of the lead publications is a news site that is itself ostensibly a “fake news” site. The Moscow Times tries to portray itself as a Russian publication that is conducted from within Russian borders. However, this site and paper is really a Western publication, run by a Dutch foundation located in the Netherlands. As such, the paper and the website associated have a distinctly pro-West slant in their reporting. Even Wikipedia noted this with this comment from their entry about the publication:

In the aftermath of the Ukrainian crisis, The Moscow Times was criticized by a number of journalists including Izvestia columnist Israel Shamir, who in December 2014 called it a “militant anti-Putin paper, a digest of the Western press with extreme bias in covering events in Russia”.[3] In October 2014 The Moscow Times made the decision to suspend online comments after an increase in offensive comments. The paper said it disabled comments for two reasons—it was an inconvenience for its readers as well as being a legal liability, because under Russian law websites are liable for all content, including user-generated content like comments.[14]

This bias is still notably present in what is left of the publication, which is now an online-only news source. This is some of what The Moscow Times had to say about the new fake news legislation:

The bills amending existing information laws overwhelmingly passed both chambers of Russian parliament in less than two months. Observers and some lawmakers have criticized the legislation for its vague language and potential to stifle free speech.

The legislation will establish punishments for spreading information that “exhibits blatant disrespect for the society, government, official government symbols, constitution or governmental bodies of Russia.”

Insulting state symbols and the authorities, including Putin, will carry a fine of up to 300,000 rubles and 15 days in jail for repeat offenses.

As is the case with other Russian laws, the fines are calculated based on whether the offender is a citizen, an official or a legal entity.

More than 100 journalists and public figures, including human rights activist Zoya Svetova and popular writer Lyudmila Ulitskaya, signed a petition opposing the laws, which they labeled “direct censorship.”

This piece does give a bit of explanation from Dmitry Peskov, showing that European countries also have strict laws governing fake news distribution. However, the Times made the point of pointing out the idea of “insulting governmental bodies of Russia… including Putin” to bolster their claim that this law amounts to real censorship of the press. It developed its point of view based on a very short article from Reuters which says even less about the legislation and how it works.

However, TASS goes into rather exhaustive detail about this law, and it also gives rather precise wording on the reason for the law’s passage, as well as how it is to be enforced. We include most of this text here, with emphases added:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a law on blocking untrue and distorting information (fake news). The document was posted on the government’s legal information web portal.

The document supplements the list of information, the access to which may be restricted on the demand by Russia’s Prosecutor General or his deputies. In particular, it imposes a ban on “untrue publicly significant information disseminated in the media and in the Internet under the guise of true reports, which creates a threat to the life and (or) the health of citizens, property, a threat of the mass violation of public order and (or) public security, or the threat of impeding or halting the functioning of vital infrastructural facilities, transport or social infrastructure, credit institutions, energy, industrial or communications facilities.”

Pursuant to the document, in case of finding such materials in Internet resources registered in accordance with the Russian law on the mass media as an online media resource, Russia’s Prosecutor General or his deputies will request the media watchdog Roskomnadzor to restrict access to the corresponding websites.

Based on this request, Roskomnadzor will immediately notify the editorial board of the online media resource, which is in violation of the legislation, about the need to remove untrue information and the media resource will be required to delete such materials immediately. If the editorial board fails to take the necessary measures, Roskomnadzor will send communications operators “a demand to take measures to restrict access to the online resource.”

In case of deleting such untrue information, the website owner will notify Roskomnadzor thereof, following which the media watchdog will “hold a check into the authenticity of this notice” and immediately inform the communications operator about the resumption of the access to the information resource.
The conditions for the law are very specific, as are the penalties for breaking it. TASS continued:

Liability for breaching the law

Simultaneously, the Federation Council approved the associated law with amendments to Russia’s Code of Administrative Offences, which stipulates liability in the form of penalties of up to 1.5 million rubles (around $23,000) for the spread of untrue and distorting information.

The Code’s new article, “The Abuse of the Freedom of Mass Information,” stipulates liability for disseminating “deliberately untrue publicly significant information” in the media or in the Internet. The penalty will range from 30,000 rubles ($450) to 100,000 rubles ($1,520) for citizens, from 60,000 rubles ($915) to 200,000 rubles ($3,040) for officials and from 200,000 rubles to 500,000 rubles ($7,620) for corporate entities with the possible confiscation of the subject of the administrative offence.

Another element of offence imposes tighter liability for the cases when the publication of false publicly significant information has resulted in the deaths of people, has caused damage to the health or property, prompted the mass violation of public order and security or has caused disruption to the functioning of transport or social infrastructure facilities, communications, energy and industrial facilities and banks. In such instances, the fines will range from 300,000 rubles to 400,000 rubles ($6,090) for citizens, from 600,000 rubles to 900,000 rubles ($13,720) for officials, and from 1 million rubles to 1.5 million rubles for corporate entities.

While this legislation can be spun (and is) in the West as anti-free speech, one may also consider the damage that has taken place in the American government through a relentless attack of fake news from most US news outlets against President Trump. One of the most notable effects of this barrage has been to further degrade and destroy the US’ relationship with the Russian Federation, because even the Helsinki Summit was attacked so badly that the two leaders have not been able to get a second summit together.

While it is certainly a valued right of the American press to be unfettered by Congress, and while it is also certainly vital to criticize improper practices by government officials, the American news agencies have gone far past that, to deliberately dishonest attacks, based in innuendo and everything possible that was formerly only the province of gossip tabloid publications. The effort has been to defame the President, not to give proper or due criticism to his policies, nor credit. It can be properly stated that the American press has abused its freedom of late.

This level of abuse drew a very unusual comment from the US president, who wondered on Twitter about the possibility of creating a state-run media center in the US to counter fake news:

Politically correct for US audiences? No. But an astute point?


Freedom in anything also presumes that those with that freedom respect it, and further, that they respect and apply the principle that slandering people and institutions for one’s own personal, business or political gain is wrong. Implied in the US Constitution’s protection of the press is the notion that the press itself, as the rest of the country, is accountable to a much Higher Authority than the State. But when that Authority is rejected, as so much present evidence suggests, then freedom becomes the freedom to misbehave and to agitate. It appears largely within this context that the Russian law exists, based on the text given.

Further, by hitting dishonest media outlets in their pocketbook, rather than prison sentences, the law appears to be very smart in its message: “Do not lie. If you do, you will suffer where it counts most.”

Considering that news media’s purpose is to make money, this may actually be a very smart piece of legislation.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


ABC’s Ted Koppel admits mainstream media bias against Trump [Video]

The mainstream news media has traded informing the public for indoctrinating them, but the change got called out by an “old-school” journo.

Seraphim Hanisch



Fox News reported on March 19th that one of America’s most well-known TV news anchors, Ted Koppel, noted that the once-great media outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post, have indeed traded journalistic excellence for hit pieces for political purposes. While political opinions in the mainstream press are certainly within the purview of any publication, this sort of writing can hardly be classified as “news” but as “Opinion” or more widely known, “Op-Ed.”

We have two videos on this. The first is the original clip showing the full statement that Mr. Koppel gave. It is illuminating, to say the least:

Tucker Carlson and Brit Hume, a former colleague of Mr. Koppel, added their comments on this admission in this second short video piece, shown here.

There are probably a number of people who have watched this two-year onslaught of slander and wondered why there cannot be a law preventing this sort of misleading reporting. Well, Russia passed a law to stop it, hitting dishonest media outlets in their pocketbook. It is a smart law because it does not advocate imprisonment for bad actors in the media, but it does fine them.

Going to prison for reporting “the truth” looks very noble. Having to pay out of pocket for it is not so exciting.

Newsmax and Louder with Crowder both reported on this as well.

This situation of dishonest media has led to an astonishing 77% distrust rating among Americans of their news media, this statistic being reported by Politico in 2018. This represents a nearly diametric reversal in trust from the 72% trust rating the country’s news viewers gave their news outlets in 1972. These statistics come from Gallup polls taken through the years.


Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...


Quick Donate

The Duran
Donate a quick 10 spot!


The Duran Newsletter