oldahmed

It all comes together now. I'd been puzzled for awhile over the description of the opposition being fractured. This opinion article written for the Christian Science Monitor by a law professor at Georgetown University is the missing puzzle piece I've been looking for. Now I can see fully the larger picture and it solidifies in my mind the dilemma that was faced and why the revolution wasn't over yet.

Those who fought for the revolution were fractured in the elections because the military cracked down on them for bringing the instability in the country and thus put the leaders and the organizers in jail so they couldn't continue to participate; which left the majority of people with only two options to choose from and neither of which they really wanted.

Be inclusive, Morsi, or you may face a second Egyptian revolution

Also massive demonstrations are going on today, June 28th. Many news reports and social media activity show Egypt is burning and blood is being shed. The boiling point has been reached.

The article ascribes whatever the court decides to the MB, assuming that they control it. If you rely on facts this article doesn't make sense. Recently, the Egyptian court has ruled many times against the MB in major cases. The MB is not in control of the Egyptian institutions neither the government does. The author also suggests that MB won the elections because the former regime imprisoned the author political opponents, but going back to history you'll see that the MB has always won parliament seats wherever they run but then their representatives get jailed. That is why they've always entered the elections with a minimum number of representatives to avoid greater backlash from Mubarak's regime.

I don't understand when people state that their revolution has been hijacked but never explain what they mean. If the revolution was to give people the right to chose then the people have spoken.

health is good

age is 20 days

passport in morroco ready i 7 days.

Some airlines have restrictions on new born travel, it usually affects babies less than 10 days. I would call the airline company and ask them about it. Also, once you decide to travel, call the company and ask them for accommodations especially the baby bassinet.

If any child is ready to travel in 7 days I will be amazed. You have to wait for the child and mother to be releases from the hospital regularly 3 days. Then you have to get the birth certificate this depends on your country processing times. Lastly you have to apply for the passport fastest I have seen out of Morocco is 2 weeks it is then that the visa if already approved can be affixed to the passport. With all that being said if you can make this happen in 7 days I will be surprised. Only recommendation I ever got about small children and travel from a doctor was to wait until they receive their two month vaccines ti protect the infant from disease. If you are cleared to travel that is up to the parents.

I think you have a wrong mathematical approach. You don't need the mother and child to be released from the hospital to do the paper work. Meaning, you can register the child the day its born and get a birth certificate, then you don't need to get the child its own passport, you just add it to one of the parents' passports.

That being said, I'm speaking in general. I don't know much about the Moroccan bureaucracy.

Sorry. Posted wrong URI

America's "Africa Agenda" The Role of John Foster Dulles

I found this article interesting and relevant to today's events

America's "Africa Agenda" The Role of John Foster Dulles

On February 11, 1958 Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was asked about Tunisia during a press conference.

A few days earlier French planes had bombed and strafed schools and a local market in the village of Sakiet. Dulles’ reply was ignored by the daily press, and before the Internet that meant it almost didn’t happen. But Toward Freedom obtained a transcript and printed it verbatim.

Editor Bill Lloyd said it seemed like “the most eloquent testimony in many months on the inadequacy of U.S. policy regarding North Africa.” The headline read: “Dulles Humor slights Tunisia Policy”

Dulles had been asked to “define a little more specifically for us” the US interest in the Tunisian crisis, basically, “what US objectives are in dealing with this situation?” TF continues online & in communities “We would like to see in Indonesia a government which is constitutional and which reflects the real interests and desire of the people of Indonesia,” Dulles began. He went on to say that the Indonesian people would never want a Communist government, especially since “most of them are Moslems,” and wouldn’t want a government that “maintains itself only by coercive methods and does not respond to the will of the people.”

Only then did someone in the press corps suggest that perhaps Dulles had misunderstood the question, since he was being asked about Tunisia “and you replied on the Indonesian. But could I ask the question again, sir?”

Dulles replied, “Maybe the same answer applies.”

What followed was laughter. Eventually, Dulles did add that the US hoped to minimize the impact of any incident in Algeria. Nothing should deflect “the trend toward cooperation which we believe is in the interest on all concerned.”

Lloyd proceeded to deconstruct the answer. By failing to push for peace, he explained, US policy was really encouraging “bitter-enders” and undermining any cooperation trend. He also took aim at Dulles’ exaggeration of the communist threat, and said his so-called joke raised questions about his judgment and the information he received. Lloyd also pointed to the banning of unions and mentioned a controversial topic, the “French tactic of encouraging communist penetration to destroy nationalism.” Then this:

“The communist label which was so playfully tossed on to Tunisia by Secretary Dulles also looks pretty foolish when one reflects that there are no communists whatever in the Tunisian assembly but that slightly more than one-fourth of the Deputies in Paris are communists.

“The danger of communism is North Africa arises largely from the repressive French policy and our support of it with gifts of guns and money.”

Among the lessons for today is to stay alert for signs of the establishment’s favorite fallback strategy – distracting the public with a dehumanized enemy – and how the actions of other countries can create unexpected ripples. Father & son, 1957 President Bourguiba hoped the UN Security Council would take up the Algerian crisis. But many in his own political party were skeptical, and called British and US help in Tunisia’s negotiations with France an “Angle-Saxon smothering operation.”

Bill Lloyd admitted that Tunisia really had no one in her corner. After all, the French used US NATO planes to bomb Sakiet and the State Department opted to ignore it. But President Eisenhower had changed his tune since 1955. In March 1956, he had promised to do everything possible for a peaceful settlement in Algeria. The State Department pretended not to get the memo. The “smothering operation” apparently meant burying Bourguiba’s efforts to make the Algerian war part of any larger North Africa discussions, and blocking any push for separate Algerian nationhood. Lloyd reached a common sense conclusion. Only the US was in a position to speak firmly with France about the necessity of peace and independence for Algeria. Until then leaders would just be addressing fringe issues – or, in the case of Dulles on Tunisia – or Indonesia, make matters worse.

Global Visions By the end of the 1960s the non-aligned agenda, the movement Toward Freedom had pioneered in the US, was a plank in the foreign policy platform of many new nations. Making an editorial adjustment, the newsletter gradually shifted focus to the emerging impacts of neo-colonialism, acknowledging the complex economic challenges of independence, and promoting a role for non-aligned countries as peacemakers. Lloyd also took up a new fight – promoting satellite broadcasting as a tool for development and peace. Clearly ahead of his time, he offered a radical vision that still resonates almost half a century later. He wrote:

“World communication are as important to the future of world society as the nervous system is to the human body….A new structure commensurate with today’s technological advances is necessary, institutionalizing the concept of reciprocity, in which each nation will be given the opportunity to broadcast its music, drama, literature and views on world affairs to the rest of the world.”

Imagine: a true global exchange of cultures beyond the reach of commercial media, embracing interdependence and proudly promoting diversity. The 1970s began with groundbreaking reports on the proclamation of a “cooperative republic” in Guyana, emerging disaster in Cambodia, and Gulf Oil’s support for Portuguese colonialists in Africa. Where was the US media by this time? Still ignoring most struggles for freedom around the world. And when they did pay attention the coverage frequently reinforced stereotypes. TF continued to correct the record and fill in the gaps by drawing on a network of independent correspondents Lloyd had recruited. Maps were frequently used to reveal geopolitical dynamics (still a good note for media covering international news).

As editor, Bill Loyd focused primarily on the UN’s role, non-alignment and Africa. He saw hope in countries likes Tunisia, and advanced new proposals for mediation and peacemaking. In 1973, for example, he called for “a nonviolent international volunteer corps” that could help reduce violence and perform essential tasks in threatened regions. That was a decade before the launch of Witness for Peace. At the end of the ’70s Bill lobbied for world authority over the radio spectrum and the geostationary orbit for satellites. Covering a month-long International Telecommunications Union conference in Geneva, he peppered the leadership with questions and ideas. Here’s a taste of his thinking on the subject:

“Direct satellite broadcasting should be freed from the straightjacket of observing national boundaries at the receiving end and put on the basis of a world forum, with every national having its right to speak. The need for a world forum of nations is clear. US policy over the past 25 years has been seriously flawed by the pervasive ignorance on the part of the US public of the aspirations and demands of the majority of humankind living in the developing world.”

“As the late Adlai E. Stevenson said, ‘What America needs is a good hearing aid!’ All other countries need good hearing aids, too, in order to understand the real world of which they are only a part. Therefore, a forum by direct satellite broadcast, in which each nation had equal time to present its music, literature, and view on world affairs, would be a valuable supplement to existing news and cultural exchange channels.” *

On The Road Toward Freedom: A Cold War Story, part six of six. Greg Guma edited Toward Freedom from 1986-88, and 1994-2004.

That lawyer is telling you to commit visa fraud and saying you will be fine and it is OK to do it. It is not ok. You should not use this lawyer, she should be reported for this.

You can come visit in the USA and get married yes, but you have to go home after your visit is over and then file the I-130.

I don't think the OP gave enough info to label what the lawyer said as a visa fraud. Don't jump on conclusions. I'm no expert, but to my knowledge, what the lawyer said is true as long as the beneficiary didn't enter the US with a tourist visa with the intention to marry and stay.

Good News guys !

Good News

Can you rely on a journalist writing on immigration and who refers to Lindsey Graham as a "She"?

Oh great so now they will face the corruption, injustice, and brutality of religious regimes. Look at Saudi Arabia and Iran! What a joke. The secular leaders were autocratic dictators. This was the problem, not that they were secular! Egypt is not a monolith. Tunisia is not a monolith. Libya is not a monolith. Even Yemen is not a monolith. You've got people of different religions and people who don't practice religion. No one should be forced to obey religious laws in the civil realm that don't apply to them, which is what will ultimately happen in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, etc.

I recognize that our media mis-characterizes the Muslim Brotherhood, as with everything in that part of the world. But it doesn't change the fact that them being in power is not a step forward. They are not a party or a president for all Egyptians, nor do they have any desire to be.

Notice you are using the future tense. You cannot judge them now by what you think they will do in the future. Let them work, then the people of Egypt will decide. That is why I emphasized the fact thet egyptian people should strive to protect their right to chose their leaders.

Whether the MB being in power is a step forward or backward is for the people of Egypt to decide not for you, and they should take responsiblity for their choices good or bad.

Look at Saudi Arabia and Iran!

Egypt is different from these two country. Very different.

Egypt is not a monolith. Tunisia is not a monolith. Libya is not a monolith. Even Yemen is not a monolith.

I thought I understtod what you meant but then you lost me when you said "Even Yemen is not monolith" which assumes Yemen is different from the other.

They are not a party or a president for all Egyptians

Barack Ibama is not a president of all Americans, neither has any [?] of the US presidents been, but that's democracy, isn't it? It works the same in Egypt and elswhere.

No one should be forced to obey religious laws in the civil realm that don't apply to them, which is what will ultimately happen in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, etc.

Totally agree with the first part, but the second part is just your biased ASSUMPTION.

I recognize that our media mis-characterizes the Muslim Brotherhood, as with everything in that part of the world.

Although that is true, we cannot blame our ignorance on the media. Soem people like what nurtures their own biases. You can easily figure the author of the article put her own spin on the story to make it "catchy", then spiced up the article with her ignorance.

Anyone feels, thinks and/or believes Egypt went from bad to worse? What hurts the most is seeing the pain in my husband's face. When he arrived, Egypt was the 'tale of 2 lands,' meaning he'll visit and relive his heritage. Now, he only talks about when and how he can get our nieces out of there.

I really do hope this gets better, especially for women.

Egypt warns giving women some rights could destroy society

By Michelle Nichols | Reuters

By Michelle Nichols

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Egypt's ruling Muslim Brotherhood warns that a U.N. declaration on women's rights could destroy society by allowing a woman to travel, work and use contraception without her husband's approval and letting her control family spending.

The Islamist party of President Mohamed Mursi outlined 10 reasons why Muslim countries should "reject and condemn" the declaration, which the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women is racing to negotiate a consensus deal on by Friday.

The Brotherhood, which was elected to power in June, posted the statement on its website, www.ikhwanweb.com, on Thursday.

Egypt has joined Iran, Russia and the Vatican - dubbed an "unholy alliance" by some diplomats - in threatening to derail the women's rights declaration by objecting to language on sexual, reproductive and gay rights.

The Muslim Brotherhood said the declaration would give "wives full rights to file legal complaints against husbands accusing them of rape or sexual harassment, obliging competent authorities to deal husbands punishments similar to those prescribed for raping or sexually harassing a stranger."

U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice last week touted at the commission - a global policy-making body created in 1946 for the advancement of women - progress made by the United States in reducing the rate of violence against women by their partners.

"All 50 states in our union now have laws that treat date rape or spousal rape as just as much of a crime as rape by a stranger," Rice said. "We cannot live in truly free societies, if women and girls are not free to reach their full potential."

The contrasting views show the gap that needs to be breached in negotiations on the declaration, which this year is focused on urging an end to violence against women and girls. The commission failed to agree a declaration last year on a theme of empowering rural women due to similar disagreements.

WORLD IS WATCHING

Egypt has proposed an amendment, diplomats say, that would allow countries to avoid implementing the declaration if it clashed with national laws, religious or cultural values. But some diplomats say this would undermine the entire declaration.

The Muslim Brotherhood warned the declaration would give girls sexual freedom, legalize abortion, provide teenagers with contraceptives, give equality to women in marriage and require men and women to share duties such as child care and chores.

It said the declaration would allow "equal rights to homosexuals, and provide protection and respect for prostitutes" and "equal rights to adulterous wives and illegitimate sons resulting from adulterous relationships."

A coalition of Arab human rights groups - from Egypt, Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, Jordan and Tunisia - called on countries at the Commission on the Status of Women on Thursday to stop using religion, culture, and tradition to justify abuse of women.

"The current positions taken by some Arab governments at this meeting is clearly not representative of civil society views, aspirations or best practices regarding the elimination and prevention of violence against women and girls within our countries," said the statement issued by the Coalition for Sexual and Bodily Rights in Muslim Societies.

Michelle Bachelet, a former president of Chile and head of U.N. Women, which supports the commission, said the commission was unable to reach a deal a decade ago when it last focused on the theme of women's rights and ending violence against women.

"Ten years later, we simply cannot allow disagreement or indecision to block progress for the world's women," Bachelet told the opening session of the commission last week. "The world is watching ... the violence needs to stop."

(Editing by Mohammad Zargham)

This is what Michelle Nichols says, not necessarly what the MB said. I personally don't believe that people around the world shouild live their lives according to the laws of the 50 U.S. states. People have their own cultures, traditions and religions, and if change needs to be done, it can only be done whithin those parametres.

Egypt is going through a transitional period, which is caracterized by instability, uncertainty and power struggle. It sometimes makes people yearn for the for the old days of a more brutal but stable dictatorships, and it usually gets worse before it gets better.

As for the secular vs religious, people in those regions have already tasted corruption, injustices, and brutality of secular regimes, let them try something different. The most important is for them to preserve the right to chose a different system if they need to.

Oh I don't think that's true ! Just saying bism Allah before eating regular meat doesn't make meat halal according to Islamic standards anywhere in the world. That's in case if you are unsure about meat is halal or not,then it may work. Otherwise an animal has to be slaughtered in an Islamic way.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081117092432AAfhiPb

And Muslims usually say Bism Allah anyway before they start eating. People just make up reasons according to their desires.They are ignorant.Because they can't always find a halal pizza hut,kfc,subway etc.

And your reference is from Yahoo Answers?

Wow. My husband was in shock when he read this. He knows of no Imam that would recommend this to replace being halal. I don't mean to get off topic here, but I just want to make sure people should research this statement and decide for themselves if this is correct for them as some Muslims and Imams believe this is still a major no. If interested, Google and the reasons for and against the idea for a clear picture.

You are right that people should search important topics for themselves, and sometimes, just like your husband, we are shocked by things we don't know, but that statement is correct according to many islamic scholars based on Q 5:5 "The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them."

Still, this is a public forum, and people should get their info from trustworthy sources.

Bwahahaha!!

Yeah, whole countries are doing it! LOL my husband just now, "Halal marriage is that you don't touch before you're married. No ceremony should have touching before marriage!" pffft!

And according to your husband/scholar, id two people touched each other before marriage, then got married while fulfilling all requierements of an Islamic marriage, their marriage is still non-hallal?

It's semantics. You enter into the lottery in the hopes of applying for a visa. It still counts as intent to immigrate. But a lot of people apply for the DV in developing countries so I never said this would pose an issue for him. If they ask him about it then he needs to tell them. He just needs to be prepared for his interview because Cairo is a tough embassy.

As for his question about mentioning the old girlfriend - don't unless they ask about her or more generally if you've ever been in a relationship with foreign women other than your wife.

It is not semantics, it is what it is. An intent to immigrate does not equal applying for a visa and entering the lottery is not a visa application. why complicate simple things? If al this person did is enter the DV lottery and has an intent to immigrate that means he never applied for a visa, plain and simple, so if he is ever asked whether he applied for a visa he should answe NO. If he is asked whether he ever enter the lottery he should say yes.

I believe "proceedings" means removal proceedings. Sounds like you were never in the US so it probably doesn't apply to you. But they will definitely know you applied for the DV. They do keep those records. And if they ask if you ever applied for an immigrant visa you must tell them yes and explain those circumstances. I am not an Egypt petitioner so I don't know the specifics but it does seem the Cairo consulate is a very tough one to get through because they suspect fraud in many of their cases. You should be prepared to answer questions about your previous visa application and offer substantial proof that your marriage is bonafide. You should check the guides section of this site for examples of quality evidence.

Entering the DV lotery doesn't mean he applied for a visa, so if he was asked the question whether he ever applied for a visa, he should say NO.

Interesting. I don't know how it works in Egypt but they may try to independently confirm that you are not married. It could help to bring an affidavit or two from people who attended the engagement party saying that it was indeed an engagement party and that you are not married. That is if you want to present evidence from this engagement party for your case. Good luck!

I don't think this is necessary.

Hello

My fiance had his interview in November and after having some issues with the Affidavit of Support form and clearing that up our case STILL PENDING. The embassy replies to 1/1000 of my emails and when they finally replied they said our case was pending because my fiance gave them the impression that we don't want to live in the US!! He just stated that he was going to come here and spend time with me before the wedding and we would go back together for the wedding and figure out what we're going to do from there. I find nothing wrong with what he said because we both agreed that we would figure out where we would live after getting married according to what both makes us comfortable and what we find easier. The woman that interviewed him was very rude and told him it didn't make sense to make someone who lived in the US their whole life live in Algeria....????!!! As far as I'm concerned that is none of their business. I AM ALGERIAN, my whole family is in Algeria and I visit every summer so I know what Algeria is like. She also picked on him for wanted to proceed with the interview in Arabic and how he was going to the US and couldn't speak English. She was playing (excuse my french) ###### mind games with him.

I am beyond frustrated at this point and just came to vent on here. I don't really have a question but if anyone has any comments or something to give me a sense of reassurance please feel free to express your thoughts. I guess if anyone was in this position or a similar one how long can a case stay pending?

Thanks

There is something wrong with that statement and it is all of their business, otherwise your fiance would come to you without going through them. If you engage in an immigration process, you have to show them that you really intent to immigrate.

I'm sure the CO was not picking on your fiance, that's how the interview goes.

I think shes saying scammers want to marry because they will have a stronger case

Does that mean Mena guys = scammers ?

You need neither an Imam nor a mosque to get Islamically married, although both are welcome.

She says in her post "I did know that my husband he had been denied for his fiancé visa he had before".

Thank you. I misread that sentence.

The US citizen (Patty) was called in to USCIS to interview, she was told her petition was denied (I-130) due to fraud committed by her husband with a prior woman he was engaged too in 2010. That is my understanding

And the USC doesn't know that her husband had applied and was denied a visa?

If that's the case, then USCIS did her a good favor by denying him.

It is basically a knowledge sharing/exchange page.

And you think that information on that page can be categorized as knowledge?

I wished the original poster answered my question, at least to explain to me how is posting contradictory, wrong information about the Quran is useful? How is posting an Internet hoax is knowledge?

In this information age, some people instead of becoming information wise, they became information lazy, they share, post, repost, copy/paste or absorb information without checking its accuracy.

What is this page about?

Why was my post removed?!!!

Kalil (instead of Khalil) that is my question...i am a Kalil in america...i have traced my roots back to syria my great grand father Solomon Kalil and his daughter Sadie (sara)and his son Abraham came here in the late 1800's early 1900's...from the mt lebanon area.. I know he had brothers and sisters that stayed behind... his fathers name I believe was Ferris Kalil (atleast thats what it says on solomons death record)does not list his mother name... can anyone help out here....

My understanding is that you're asking about whether the name should be "Kalik" or "Khalil". Kalik is a very uncommon Arabic name while Khalil is very common.

Khalil is famous here in the US through the poet/write Gibran Khalil Gibran, who himself came from Mount Lebanon around 1895.

I hope this will help.