Egypt Rejects Military Intervention In Syria

[Catherina]

Source: Amwal Al Ghad English

Published Wednesday, 28 August 2013 09:32 | Written by Amwal Al Ghad English

Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nabil Fahmy, has stated that Egypt refutes military intervention in Syria, insisting that the only way is a political solution in the war-torn country.

"Egypt rejects military intervention in Syria, as we believe a political solution is the only way out for the crisis there. Egypt supports the Geneva Two talks," said FM Fahmy in a press conference held at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Cairo Tuesday.

"Egypt condemns the use of chemical weapons, not only in Syria. We strongly refute it regardless of whoever uses such weapons against civilians," said the FM, who added that Egypt is waiting for the results of UN investigations concerning Ghouta's chemical weapons attack.

"Accountability should be based on accurate information, in order to determine who is responsible for the chemical attack in Ghouta," said Fahmy. He also stated that Egypt does not support 'Jihadists' in Syria.

Tensions have ratcheted up dramatically in recent days as Washington has warned Syria's regime it will face action over alleged chemical weapons strikes in Damascus in which hundreds are said to have been killed.

....

Read more: www.amwalalghad.com/en/news/egypt-news/20694-egypt-rejects-military-intervention-in-syria.html

---

Copying this too from my post in GD before I could find confirmation

Pepe Escobar
BREAKING NOW.

VERY interesting. According to Egyptian TV, Pinochet Sisi - the House of Saud protege - is NOT allowing US and UK warships to pass through the Suez Canal; they will, obviously, attack Syria. Cairo is AGAINST Obama's Tomahawk war.

Let's see if this ends up sinking the $1.3billion in military aid from the US - which to a great extent translates into Egypt giving priority to US ships across Suez.

Obviously the House of Saud and the UAE could easily make up for the $1.3billion. And Egypt could buy Russian weapons - as Bandar and Putin discussed in Moscow. Sisi would NEVER do this without Saudi approval (after all, they are paying the bills).

Shadowplay is on, BIG TIME, at all levels.

https://m.facebook.com/pepe.escobar.77377/posts/10151842038886678

I could only find one mention of this on the Anglo net and it was on a French-Iranian Website. I apologize for the source. Make of it what you will. Translation mine

Wednesday, August 28, 2013 5:53
"No warship has the right to pass through the Suez Canal to attack Syria" (Egyptian Minister of Defense)

IRIB-"No American war ship or British or else is allowed to pass through the Suez Canal ship," ordered the Egyptian Minister of Defense.

According Farsnews, citing Reuters, General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi insisted that no authorization be given to warships that would attack Syria. The decision was taken as part of the Egyptian government's respect of the the joint defense agreement signed between Egypt and Syria, Reuters announced, making an attack against Syria difficult for the United States and Great Britain, according to the same agency.
===

mercredi, 28 août 2013 05:53
"Aucun bateau de guerre n’a le droit de passer par le canal de Suez, pour attaquer la Syrie" (ministre égyptien de la Défense)

IRIB- "Aucun bateau de guerre américain ou navire britannique ou autre n’est autorisé à passer par le canal de Suez", a ordonné le ministre égyptien de la Défense.

Selon Farsnews, citant Reuters, le général Abdel-Fattah al-Sissi a insisté pour qu’aucune autorisation ne soit donnée aux bateaux de guerre qui entendraient attaquer la Syrie. La décision a été prise, dans le cadre du respect du gouvernement égyptien envers l’accord de défense commun signé entre l’Egypte et la Syrie, annonce l’agence Reuters, ce qui rend difficile aux Etats-Unis et à la Grande-Bretagne une attaque contre la Syrie, selon cette même agence.

http://french.irib.ir/info/moyen-orient/item/272184-aucun-bateau-de-guerre-n%E2%80%99a-le-droit-de-passer-par-le-canal-de-suez,-pour-attaquer-la-syrie-ministre-%C3%A9gyptien-de-la-d%C3%A9fense

Edit: Here it is from Egyptian News. Microsoft Translation



http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alnaharegypt.com%2Ft~144828

[David__77]

1. Thank you to Egypt and to the democrats that threw out the Islamic extremists!

Egypt, as the most populous Arab country, is seeming to take the correct approach.

[snappyturtle]

2. This news will throw a crowbar into well laid plans!

Maybe it's just the right thing to happen to slow down the
march into war. Thanks Catherina for the find and translation!

[ConcernedCanuk]

3. USA has NO business in Syria.

.
.
.

USA seems to be asking permission to wage yet another war on another continent.

Has anyone ASKED the USA for their "assistance"??

There are lots of countries around Syria that are aware of, and can deal with the situation.

USA has been told flat out by numerous countries close to Syria to stay out of it.

I hope Obama pays close attention to that, because if he does not,

USA will just be making even more enemies.

Maybe the USA doesn't care . . .

They just want WAR.

(sigh)

CC

[PatrynXX]

4. As Egypt currently has no elected Government

They have no voice. Would need to listen to President Morsi to know what Egypt's voice says..

[happyslug]

5. This is like someone telling someone NOT to have sex with his wife, when she is out of town.

Except for three carriers, all of the US carriers are in US ports, under some sort of rehab in the US, or off the coast of the US. The three exceptions, is one in Japan (USS George Washington), one in the Persian Gulf (USS Nimitz) and one in the Mediterranean (USS Harry S Truman which is now in the Red Sea heading for the Persian Gulf).

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=217811069988644259786.000489a6f745d8c886913

The one in the Persian Gulf is further away then the one in the US, thus no US Ships need to go through the Suez Canal to attack Syria. If the US wanted to attack Syria, it will send ships directly from the US NOT via the Suez Canal.

Thus this comment from Egypt is a statement with no meaning. It is like telling someone he can not havre sex with his own wife, when the wife is out of town and the husband has no way to even touch her with her let alone do anything with her other then talk on a telephone. The same with the Suez Canal, we do not need it to send ships to attack Syria, thus we can obey this rule by Egypt, for it is what we have to do in the first place.

I notice this "Ban" occurred AFTER the USS Harry S Truman went through the Suez Canal on August 20, 2012 on its way to the Persian Gulf, thus today the US has NO carriers in the Mediterranean.

http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/egypt-allows-uss-truman-to-transit-suez-canal-1.236237

The only naval vessels Scheduled to go through the Suez Canal, are British ships on Maneuvers, but maneuvers that started in the Mediterranean and expected to end in the Persian Gulf next month. Thus nothing heading TO the Mediterranean in the foreseeable future.

See Operation Cougar 2013:
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/The-Royal-Marines/3-Commando-Brigade/539-Assault-Squadron