Gerald Flurry Thinks America Overthrew Mubarak: Exposing A Dictatorial Mindset

Just listened to The Trumpet Weekly podcast, America Should Not Have Toppled Mubarak, by Gerald Flurry.

America toppled Mubarak? That is nonsense. The Egyptian people toppled him.

This statement exposes how Flurry is simply unable (or refuses) to believe that ordinary people, when they act together, are capable of overthrowing a mighty and established power.

The Egyptian people's brave protests are callously ignored.

The thought that ordinary people could overthrow someone like Mubarak is impossible for Flurry to comprehend, so he simply assumes that someone more powerful than Mubarak overthrew him, namely the United States.

Perhaps the thought of seemingly powerless people overthrowing those who rule over them seems scary to him. Maybe he fears PCG members could try to do something like that for themselves.

I believe the US government was wise to leave Egypt alone and let the Egyptian people and authorities deal with this matter themselves. Trying to force the Egyptian people to let Mubarak rule over them when they are unwilling to let him do so would have been a disastrous policy for the US government. That is what Russia is presently doing in Syria, but their support has been useless in preventing protesters and armed opposition groups from continuing their revolt against the Assad regime. The US avoided such a mess by letting the protests take their course.

At one point Flurry cites a statement from Mubarak who states that the protesters are striving to create an Islamic theocracy. Flurry cites this as evidence that Mubarak should have stayed in power to (supposedly) restrain Muslim fundamentalists.

It is more likely Mubarak was scared he would be overthrown and tried to scare people in order to weaken support for the demonstrators and strengthen support for himself.

Mubarak knew if you believed the protesters wanted democracy more people would support the protesters and not Mubarak. But if he could convince you that the protesters are striving towards a goal you do not like it would make you less likely to oppose him and allow Mubarak to stay in power.

Did Flurry ever discuss this possibility? No. He did not.

Throughout this broadcast Flurry denounces the Muslim Brotherhood in the strongest terms as terrorists, linked with Iran (which he teaches is to be the King of the South which will rally the Muslim world behind it and set the stage for the Great Tribulation), all in order to make people scared about what is happening in Egypt.

As far as I know it appears to me that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt no longer practice terrorism. I am under the impression that it was formerly engaged in such things or at least more open to that. But today it seems they no longer indulge in such practices. So I am willing to dismiss this accusation as crude fear mongering.

Flurry, it is called democracy. If enough people vote for them they get the right to rule. You and I may not like them very much (I certainly would never be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood) but enough other people are willing to support them and in a democratic society that means they get to rule for a term. It is absurd to so callously dismiss the considered opinion of so many Egyptians.

At one point Flurry says Mubarak made peace with Israel. Flurry is wrong. It was Mubarak's predecessor Sadat who made the peace treaty with Israel.

In this video Flurry speaks of Mubarak highly, that he made peace with Israel, that he called Iran a cancer and regarded them as an enemy, etc. He makes Mubarak sound like a swell guy. Why would anyone want to overthrow him? Flurry seems to be saying.

Flurry never mentions the 850 people who were killed trying to overthrow him. No, their blood does not matter to Flurry.

He never mentions how many Egyptian people lived in fear of an authoritarian police force that often abused their power and tortured detainees.

Once I read The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright, a history of Al Qaeda up to December 2001. It mentions that Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current head of Al Qaeda and the main ideologist for them, became radicalized and embraced terrorist tactics after experiencing torture by Mubarak's police force following the widespread suppression of Islamist groups after Sadat's assassination in 1981. Mubarak's crude suppression of dissent contributed to the radicalization of one of the main leaders of Al Qaeda. Does Flurry take any of this into account? No, of course not.

Why does Flurry give a dictator like Mubarak such sympathetic coverage? I cannot help but think that Flurry sees in Mubarak a kindred spirit. Like Mubarak before the revolution Gerald Flurry live in a group which revolves entirely around him and which he rules with power few outsiders can comprehend. And Flurry sees that even a dictator who ruled for nearly 30 years can be tossed out after 18 days of protests. This makes him fearful that something like this could happen to him. So he does everything he can to demonize this astounding achievement of the Egyptian people to blind his abused followers from learning from these events and applying its lessons for themselves.