Friday, February 11, 2011

Fwd: [bangla-vision] EgyptUnrest: Islamists & Egyptian revolution..Salafis backing the dictator!.. How hard would it be to back Egyptian democracy, Mr President? Wealth of the Mubarak dynasty/arabic ( الأسرة الحاكمة في مصر في بنوك العالم 40 مليار دول



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Erooth Mohamed <ekunhan@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 3:26 AM
Subject: [bangla-vision] EgyptUnrest: Islamists & Egyptian revolution..Salafis backing the dictator!.. How hard would it be to back Egyptian democracy, Mr President? Wealth of the Mubarak dynasty/arabic ( الأسرة الحاكمة في مصر في بنوك العالم 40 مليار دولار))) Mubarak tells A


 


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: raja chemayel <chemayelraja@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:08 AM
Subject:  22.10 Hrs at the 10th of Feb 2011
To: 



The Nero of the Nile
has spoken..............he shall not leave !!

The grand-son of Cleopatra
has  spoken.............he shall not leave !!

I hereby leave everything and any option
in the hands of the Egyptian-people.



Raja
 
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: raja chemayel <chemayelraja@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:43 PM
Subject:  it is 21.45 Hrs pm. on the 10th of Feb....2011
To: 
 
It is almost 22hrs in the evening..
and since 2 hours I have 2 TVś on
and my computer on........
waiting for the speech of Husni Mubrarak

he is late  !!! 46 minutes late
actually 30 years and 46 minutes late !!!

He might be delayed because Husni
might be caught while stealing the towels
before leaving the presidential palace.


Raja
   
++++++++++
 
 
Home
 
Islamists and the Egyptian revolution
Tue, 08/02/2011
 
 
  • Salafi groups were clearly supportive of the regime.
  • Many salafis opposed the revolution and the principle of political opposition more broadly, which the regime tried to use to its favor.
  • Salafis unanimously boycotted the revolution, claiming it was sedition; they accepted decades of injustice, but rejected the revolution.
  • The revolution revealed an unintended alliance between the Mubarak regime and the Salafi movement, this movement is backed by elements in Saudi Arabia.
  • The Egyptian regime had just recently banned Salafi TV channels, accusing them of inciting sectarian conflict.
  • The Egyptian regime reversed this stand when unrest started and employed Salafi sheikhs as a tool in its war against the revolution.
  • Salafi sheikhs and figures, such as Mohammed Hassan, Mahmoud Al-Masri, Mostafa al-Adawi, appeared on state television and private channels close to the regime, calling to end the protests, arguing security, dangers of sedition.. some even instigated the revolution is a American-Zionist conspiracy or akin to the Iranian revolution.
  • Salafis stand toward the Egyptian revolution has no surprise, they have a history of supporting the regime - the famous Salafi edict to kill prominent reform advocate Mohammed ElBaradei is proof. 
  • Salafis  issued an edict banning nominations against President Mubarak in the 2005 presidential elections on grounds that Mubarak was the commander of the faithful.
  • Salafis involvement in Egyptian terrorism;  Two Saints Church in Alexandria on New Year 's Eve, hundreds of Salafis were arrested and one died as a result of torture.. but still the Salafs in Alexandria (and across various other governorates) opposed the revolution, going as far as closing down some mosques on the "Friday of Departure."
  • Salafis are the strongest source of religious support--direct and indirect--for the regime at the moment.
  • The fact that the Salafi movement generally opposed to the revolution and allied with the regime does not mean that there were no Salafi voices in favor of revolution. Some voices have taken a progressive stance against the regime, perhaps even more radical than many liberals and leftists. This was particularly true of the Islah Party project, advocated by Salafi politicians like Gamal Sultan in the late 1990s.

Any discussion of the status of Islamists in a new Egypt makes little sense if it's based on the same data that was previously used to study religious movements, and if it ignores the fact that Egypt has witnessed a revolution that destroyed many of the old features of its religious scene.

The revolution was not just directed against the autocratic, repressive and corrupt Egyptian regime, which relied on an alliance of money, power and corruption. It was also directed against the official religious establishment and its discourse that supports this regime, either directly or indirectly.

The Egyptian revolution has completely reconfigured the religious scene and clarified the public's position towards religious institutions and discourses in the country. The result has been surprising. No one expected that religious Egyptians are capable of overriding the powers of religious institutions and of challenging religious discourses that they suddenly perceived as part of a corrupt and repressive regime.

The official religious establishments--both Islamic and Christian--have been the biggest losers in the revolution. Al-Azhar was late in addressing the situation. Ahmed al-Tayyib, the Grand Sheikh, waited a long time before making statements that departed from his unequivocal support for the regime. But these statements did not measure up to the revolution. As an official religious institution that is wholly connected to the state--structurally and financially--Al-Azhar did not change its discourse very much after the revolution.

Al-Azhar called for calm when the revolution reached its peak. It rejected Egyptian "in-fighting"--ignoring that what happened was a shameful attack orchestrated by the regime with the help of criminals and thugs. Al-Azhar issued vague statements about the need to end the revolution, but made no mention of the regime. Al-Azhar's only redeeming stance was to invite youth activists for a dialogue. Also, Al-Azhar's official spokesperson Mohammed Rifa'a al-Tahtawi, submitted his resignation and allied himself with the protesters and several preachers joined the protesters in their unique attire.

For its part, the Grand Mufti's Office did everything possible to provide a religious cover for the regime. Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa issued an edict on the "Friday of Departure" (February 4) barring Muslims from praying in mosques.  

Fourteen days into the revolution, it has become clear that the public has paid little attention to the Islamic religious establishment. Aware that Gomaa's edicts are politically motivated (like his earlier pronouncements that youth who die while emigrating illegally are committing suicide and cannot be considered martyrs), protesters ignored Gomaa's words.  

The position of the most prominent Christian religious institution, the Coptic Church, has been the most blatantly biased toward the regime. Pope Shenouda opposed the 25 January protests and called on Copts not to participate. He maintained this position throughout the revolution, openly declaring his support for Mubarak. Many Copts still took to the streets, refusing to abide by the Pope's directives. The revolution came as Copts had been mounting the biggest challenge of the Church and its monopoly over the representation of Egypt's Christians.  Tens of articles were being written over the last few months arguing that Christian voices must be heard outside the Church, in political parties and programs. The participation of Christians, especially Christian youth, in these protests constitutes another revolution--one that is directed against the Church that has used a sectarian discourse to isolate Copts from the street and to rally Christians behind Mubarak's regime on grounds that it offers guarantees to the Christian community.

Much like the Egyptian people succeeded in overriding state-supported religious institutions, they have also succeeded in overriding Salafi groups that were clearly supportive of the regime. Many salafis opposed the revolution and the principle of political opposition more broadly, which the regime tried to use to its favor. Salafis unanimously boycotted the revolution, claiming it was sedition. They accepted decades of injustice, but rejected the revolution. The revolution revealed an unintended alliance between the Mubarak regime and the Salafi movement. On the one hand, this movement is backed by elements in Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, its members are periodically subjected to harassment by the regime. However, the regime does not see this as completely eliminating its alliance with the movement, as long as the movement continues to support the regime politically.

One of the paradoxes of the Egyptian revolution is that a regime that had just recently banned Salafi TV channels and accused them of inciting sectarian conflict reversed its position and employed Salafi sheikhs in its war against the revolution. This time, Salafi sheikhs and figures, such as Mohammed Hassan, Mahmoud Al-Masri, Mostafa al-Adawi, appeared on state television and private channels close to the regime. They called for an end to protests, using arguments about security and the dangers of sedition. Some went as far as questioning the patriotism of those who instigated the revolution, arguing that it was an American-Zionist conspiracy or akin to the Iranian revolution. The manipulative statements of Iranian leaders in support of the Egyptian uprising further contributed to the Salafi counterattack.

The position of Salafis toward the Egyptian revolution comes as no surprise, especially as they have a history of supporting the regime. The famous Salafi edict to kill prominent reform advocate Mohammed ElBaradei is proof. The same sheikh issued an edict banning nominations against President Mubarak in the 2005 presidential elections on grounds that Mubarak was the commander of the faithful. What's surprising, however, is the position of Salafis in Alexandria. This school is among the most independent from the regime and has sometimes even opposed it. Its members have been subjected to tight security measures and arrest campaigns. These campaigns peaked following the attack on the Two Saints Church in Alexandria on New Year 's Eve. Hundreds of Salafis were arrested and one died as a result of torture. Despite this, the Salafs in Alexandria (and across various other governorates) opposed the revolution, going as far as closing down some mosques on the "Friday of Departure." They stoked fears about the threat other political currents--a possible reference to ElBaradei's National Association for Change--posed to the Islamic identity.

Salafis are the strongest source of religious support--direct and indirect--for the regime at the moment. But this means the future of the Salafi movement is on the line. On the one hand, the revolution's triumph over the Salafi movement might lead Salafis to revise their positions. On the other hand, if the revolution is unable to achieve its democratic aspirations, the Salafi movement may reassert its old position with the backing of the regime.

Surely, this analysis includes a great deal of generalization with regards to the Salafi movement. The fact that the Salafi movement was generally opposed to the revolution and allied with the regime does not mean that there were no Salafi voices in favor of revolution. Some voices have taken a progressive stance against the regime, perhaps even more radical than many liberals and leftists. This was particularly true of the Islah Party project, advocated by Salafi politicians like Gamal Sultan in the late 1990s.

The rest of the political forces comprising the Islamist current are divided into armed Jihadi groups that fought against the regime for decades before renouncing violence, and peaceful groups, most prominently the Muslim Brotherhood.

With the exception of a statement by Jihadi leaders Abud and Tarik Al-Zumur in support of the revolution, Al-Jamaat Al-Islamiya and the rest of the Jihadis that renounced violence called for the end of the revolution. Al-Jamaat refused to bring down Mubarak and expressed its satisfaction with his intention not to seek another term in office. Al-Jamaat leaders also insisted on the group's participation in any political dialogue, even though it had not participated in the revolution. The regime immediately accepted Al-Jamaat's request. This can be seen as part of the regime's strategy to include many different political forces in a dialogue to discuss demands that are not those of the revolution.

For its part, the Muslim Brotherhood, continues to participate in protests and has not yet pulled out. Despite this, however, there was a significant shift in the Brotherhood's position in the past few days after the group agreed to participate in a national dialogue with Mubarak is still in power. This effectively means the Brotherhood has conceded on its demand for the president's immediate departure, and that it has entered into a dialogue in accordance with the regime's conditions.

Many harbor the usual doubts that the Brotherhood remains close to the regime, even as it revolts on the street. There are always great pressures governing the Brotherhood's relationship to the state, most notably its desire to become a legal political movement. There is also a desire to translate the gains of the revolution into tangible improvements in the Brotherhood's political and legal standing, both domestically and abroad, especially after the movement was invited to join the national dialogue as any other legal political party.

Many in the Brotherhood seem to be acting with a pre-revolutionary mentality, as if no revolution has taken place and as if the regime is still strong. They are failing to ask themselves whether they should fully embrace the demands of the revolution. This is a problem, for it sets limits on what the revolution can achieve rather than thinking about the possibilities that it offers.

Related Links:
 
--------------------

 
How hard would it be to back Egyptian democracy, Mr President?
 
 
This is a simple enough choice between liberty and tyranny, yet the White House has done nothing but equivocate and dodge.
 
Hosni Mubarak and Barack Obama meet at the White House. Hosni Mubarak and Barack Obama meeting at the White House, in 2009: the US president has been far too timid in his calls for Mubarak to step aside, argues Joshua Treviño. Photograph: Dennis Black/EPA
 

The administration of Barack Obama has reacted to the uprising againstHosni Mubarak with the enthusiasm of a man condemned to consume a gallon of plain yoghurt. The president of the United States is not against Egyptian democracy, exactly – but neither is he especially for it.

His administration's pronouncements on events have reflected his dilatory approach: the day of the revolution's inception saw his secretary of state affirming the "stability" of the regime; then there was the infamous Robert Gibbs presser in which confusion and uncertainty were clearly communicated; then, there was the White House's efforts to leak to the press its masterful behind-the-scenes engagement with Egyptian power brokers; and then, there was this past weekend's jaw-dropping declaration by its envoy Frank Wisner that Mubarak ought to stay. Following that was the secretary of state's declaration that the American government's own man in Egypt "does not speak for the American government".

Well. During the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries, Hillary Clinton ran an ad asking whom voters trusted to receive the "3am phone call". At this point, Egyptians and Americans both would be happy if President Obama handled a call at 3pm.

The inability of the United States's foreign policy apparatus to develop a coherent and public response to the Egyptian revolution is not simply a condemnation of the president's management. Nor is it a stumble with limited consequences. As the UAE journalist Habiba Hamid quipped, "Imagine the tremendous outpouring of US support that 60 million Egyptians [sic] would have shown had the US actually supported democracy in Egypt." Indeed, imagine that.

Now, though, the post-Mubarak era is both imminent and inevitable – it was so on 25 January – and when it comes, over 80 million Egyptians will remember not that Obama was nuanced and deliberate, but that the United States of America stood against its advent.

The real tragedy of the president's epic mishandling of Egypt is not merely the sceptical-at-best Egypt that will emerge. It's that Egypt is merely the latest episode in a pattern laid down by Barack Obama in the first two years of his presidency. In just two years, he has faced multiple crises of liberty, democracy and the American national interest abroad – and he has failed each test. Even rhetorical support for those seeking freedom, the bare minimum a president can do, is strikingly absent except under duress.

The plain and pathetic reality is that Barack Obama chooses the existing regime over any alternative, and/or against the American ally, every time. Ask the Hondurans who ejected their Chavista president. Ask the Falkland islanders sold out by the Secretary of State Clinton intoning on the "Malvinas". Ask the east European Nato members stripped of a full American deterrent in the name of a Russia "reset". Ask the Tunisians who received not a word of endorsement as they ejected Ben Ali. Ask the Iranians who fought and died for their freedom in the hot summer of 2009.

And now, ask the Egyptians who gather, once again, in Tahrir Square as you read this.

None of this is to say that there is no legitimate apprehension over the Egyptian revolution. That apprehension is well-founded in a country where a "supermajority" polls in favour of the most brutal criminal sanctions in Islam's name, and where the most organised opposition force, the Muslim Brotherhood, has ideological spinoffs including Hamas and al-Qaida to its credit. The rightful fear of the new Egypt cloaks itself in many justifications, ranging from appeals to Edmund Burke's cautionary doctrine, to insane conspiracy theories of socialism and universal caliphates.

President Obama's lacklustre response to Egypt's liberation reflects none of these concerns: only his profound apathy towards the aspiration for freedom, and his striking disconnect from America's best historic role in the world.

Even if the president did share those concerns, the conduct of the Egyptian revolutionaries to date has been generally exemplary in the face of attack, murder, deprivation and arduous struggle. America's own Declaration of Independence asserts that Egyptians deserve liberty by their very nature as men. Their actions since 25 January only underscore that case. Perhaps they do not deserve American support – but they have earned it. The American people understand that, as shown in the latest Gallup poll revealing 82% public support for Egypt's revolution.

Americans who just celebrated the centenary of President Ronald Reagan may well recall his 1982 address to the British parliament, in which he famously declared that Marxism-Leninism would end up "on the ash-heap of history". But he said something else there that bears repeating as we witness millions of Egyptians seizing their liberties:

"[D]emocracy is not a fragile flower. Still it needs cultivating. If the rest of this century is to witness the gradual growth of freedom and democratic ideals, we must take actions to assist the campaign for democracy."

Reagan knew it then. The American people know it now. The Egyptian people know it now. Why doesn't Barack Obama know it?

++++++++
 EgyptianOutrage.jpg 


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: raja chemayel <chemayelraja@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:03 PM
Subject: Hariri, Husni and Berlusconi......and all the popes !!
To: popes@opinions.eg


 

Das bin ich, Raja !
my secretary, Carla, said that 
I am a worse dictator than Husni
and that 
Husni is at least "Funny"


Joe Biden has said once that Husni Mubarak "is not a dictator ".

The Shaikh of Al Azhar did not say anything yet , 
and I doubt that he might  ever give his own opinion, 
on that matter .

Nevertheless being the highest moral-and-ethical-authority of Egypt , 
it is his duty to evaluate and to assess the latest developments on the ground.

I am sure that if the Coptic-Pope would be allowed to speak ,
he would have spoken !!

As for the Ayatollah of Iran , 
he at least has congratulated the Egyptian people .
and he is the only Muslim leader to do so .

And the Pope of Rome is too busy checking out
if Belusconi is wearing a condom , (and who is not !!)

Last but not least :
Mr. Berlusconi supports Husni Mubarak
although he is a bit jealous that Husni is much richer.
But then and again , Berlusconi has many prostitutes
when Husni has only one !!



Eng. Moustafa Roosenbloom
9Th of Feb.2001


NB:
Berlusconi, Mubarak and Hariri
all three own a private political party
and they all  have separately 
a private parliament coalition.
++++++++++
 
The immense fortune of the Mubarak dynasty
is, on its own, a valid reason to have Hu$ni 
investigated, accused and judged .

If Hu$ni Mubarak would have had a printing machine
in the cellar of his palace, and he would be
printing his money illegally , or otherwise.........
Hu$ni could have not reached the fortune
of 70 Billion dollars.......
not even one quarter of it !! .

Forget anything else !!
(like closing the Tunnels of Gaza)
just bring Hu$ni to a Court-of-justice and ask him :
"from where did you get this fortune ?? and how ?? "


Sherlock Hommos
8Th. Feb.2011
++++++
 
PS :
Al Capone was jailed , not for his killings and his gangsterism ,
but for his tax evasions !!


Related Links:


 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Adibsk <adibsk@cyberia.net.lb>
Date: 2011/2/5
Subject: Wealth of the Mubarak dynasty/arabic ( الأسرة الحاكمة في مصر في بنوك العالم 40 مليار دولار)))
To: Adibsk <adibsk@cyberia.net.lb>


ثروات آل مبارك

(تملك الأسرة الحاكمة في مصر في بنوك العالم 40 مليار دولار)

الترجمة إلى الإنجليزية: أديب قعوار

 

Wealth of the Mubarak Dynasty

The ruling family  of Egypt owns US$40 Billon

deposited in international bans and real estate

 

Al-Khabar Algerian daily wrote

Translated by: Adib S. Kawar

 

The Algerian daily "Al-Khabar" published a documented report

supported with figures about Mubarak's family wealth given

by well informed sources, and said that the family of

Muhammad Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president,

including his wife, Suzan Mubarak, and his two sons, Jamal and Allaa

own more than US$ 40 billion in real estate and cash in banks,

American financial establishments and Swiss and British banks.

 

The paper's sources points out that Jamal Mubarak, assistant secretary general

of the ruling party, The National Democratic Party, owns alone

a wealth estimated at US$ 17 billion invested in secret accounts

spread in several financial establishments in Switzerland,

Germany, the United Stated and the United Kingdom,

where he owns a secret current account in the Swiss Bank U.B.S.

another in I. C.M…His wealth is spread through several funds

in the United States and the United Kingdom, among which are

are the British real estate "Bristol and West" establishment

and "Financial Data Service". which runs mutual financial

investment funds.

 

As for Mrs. Suzan Mubarak she owns as per a secret report

by high foreign sources, she entered the billionaires club since

the year 2000, when her personal fortune exceeded one

billion dollars, deposited mostly in American banks, she also

owns real estate in several European cities such as London, Frankfort,

Madrid and Paris and in Dubai. Egypt's "first lady" owns today between

three and five billion Dollars, most of which she got through

personal interferences in the interest of businessmen.

 

As for Allaa, his personal fortune that includes real estate and cash

is worth US $ 8 billion. His real estate belongings are spared around

in Los Angeles, Washington and Rodeo Drive Manhattan,

New York, one of the most prestigious streets in

the world, worth more than two billion Dollars

in addition two private aero planes and a royal yacht worth

about sixty million US Dollars

 

"Al-Khabar" said in its report, as for the son of the

Egyptian peasant. President Hosni Mubarak's fortune is worth

more than US$ 15 Billion, which he earned from commissions

on real estate, arms transactions, suspicious real estate transactions

and touristic sites such as Al-Ghardakah and Sharm Al-Sheikh.

It is not strange that the Mubarak Dynasty's fortune is estimated

at about US$ 40 bollion. The source of income is from 50% commissions on

net profits imposed in the interest of one of the members of the Mubarak clan

on most big companies of cigarettes such as Marlboro, Hermes and 

MacDonald's (Mansour), Skoda (Shafik Jaber), Al-Izz Iron (Ahmad Izz)

Dream Land (Ahmad Bahjat), which is a company that owns

TV stations that daily attack Algeria. ART (Saleh Kamel), First

(Kamel Al-Khawli), Moven Peak  (Hussein Salem), The Tijari 

(Al-Malwani), Vodafone (Nseir) previously before imposing the

same percentage on the British company that own Vodafone Egypt,

Cyrenaica (Abu Al-Ainan), Nassajoun (Weavers) (Khamis)

Hyundai (Gouyour), Minable (Sawiros), Al-Ahram for Drinks

(Al-Rayan), City Stars (Al-Sharbatly and Al-Shakishi),

Amercana (Al-Khurafi and Al-Alfi), Schuler (Mansour Amer)

and many others of big companies.

 

 

 

---------------------------------------

Wicked cartoons by America's Most Wanted Political Cartoonist. Enjoy!

 

http://www.bendib.com/newones/2011/February/small/2-1-Ten-or-More.jpg

If the cartoons doesn't load automatically, please visit the following URL to manually load the cartoon:
http://www.bendib.com/newones/2011/February/small/2-1-Ten-or-More.jpg

Check-out-the-cartoon-book

 

الحكام العرب إلى المنفى وما نهبوه من الشعب العربي

 

 

ثروات آل مبارك

 

( الأسرة الحاكمة في مصر في بنوك العالم 40 مليار دولار)

 

صحيفة الخبر ومليارات آل مبارك
 
أوردت صحيفة (الخبر) الجزائرية تقريرا
وسعا مدعوما بالأرقام حول ثروات آل
الرئيس المصري، وقالت إن مصادر عليمة
للغاية كشفت لها أن أسرة الرئيس المصري
محمد حسني مبارك، وهي زوجته السيدة سوزان
مبارك ونجلاه جمال وعلاء، يملكون أكثر من
40 
مليار دولار كعقارات وأصول في بنوك
ومؤسسات استثمارية أمريكية وبنوك
سويسرية وبريطانية.

 


وتشير مصادر الصحيفة إلى أن جمال مبارك،
الأمين العام المساعد للحزب الوطني
الحاكم في مصر، يملك لوحده ثروة تقدر بـ17
مليار دولار موزعة على عدة مؤسسات مصرفية
في سويسرا وألمانيا والولايات المتحدة
وبريطانيا، حيث يملك حسابا جاريا سريا في
بنك ''يو بي أس'' السويسري وحسابا ثانيا في
بنك سويسري آخر هو ''آي سي أم''.. وتتوزع
ثروته عبر صناديق استثمارية عديدة في
الولايات المتحدة وبريطانيا منها مؤسسة
''
بريستول آند ويست'' العقارية
البريطانية، ومؤسسة ''فاينانشال داتا
سيرفس''، التي تدير صناديق الاستثمار
المشترك.
 
أما السيدة سوزان فإنها، حسب تقرير سري
تداولته جهات أجنبية عليا، دخلت نادي
المليارديرات منذ العام 2000، حين تجاوزت
ثروتها الشخصية مليار دولار تحتفظ
بأغلبها في بنوك أمريكية، كما أنها تملك
عقارات في عدة عواصم أوروبية مثل لندن
وفرانكفورت ومدريد وباريس وفي إمارة دبي.
وتتراوح ثروة سيدة مصر الأولى اليوم بين 3
و5 مليار دولار، وقد جنت أغلبها من
التدخلات الشخصية لها لصالح مستثمرين
ورجال أعمال.


أما علاء مبارك فقد بلغت قيمة ممتلكاته
وأمواله الشخصية داخل وخارج مصر 8 مليار
دولار، منها ممتلكات عقارية في كل من لوس
أنجلس وواشنطن ونيويورك، حيث يمتلك
عقارات تعدت قيمتها 2, مليار دولار في
شارع روديو درايف، وهو أحد أرقى شوارع
العالم، وفي ضاحية منهاتن في نيويورك،
بالإضافة إلى امتلاكه لطائرتين شخصيتين
ويخت ملكي تفوق قيمته 60 مليون أورو.
 
وقالت (الخبر) في تقريرها: اما بخصوص ابن
الفلاح المصري الرئيس محمد حسني مبارك،
فقد بلغت قيمة ثروته الشخصية في العام 2001
ما لا يقل عن 10 مليار دولار أغلبها أموال
سائلة في بنوك أمريكية وسويسرية
وبريطانية مثل بنك سكوتلاند الإنجليزي
وبنك كريديت سويس السويسري


وقدرت مصادر الصحيفة الجزائرية أموال
الرئيس مبارك، بما لا يقل عن 15 مليار
دولار جنيه أغلبها من عمولات في صفقات
سلاح وصفقات عقارية مشبوهة في القاهرة
ومناطق الاستثمار السياحي في الغردقة
وشرم الشيخ، وليس مستغربا أن تصل قيمة
ثروة آل مبارك إلى أكثر من 40 مليار، ذلك
أن أغلب الشركات الكبرى مفروض عليها أن
تقدم 50 بالمائة من أرباحها السنوية لأحد
<span lang="AR-




--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/

No comments:

Post a Comment