Egyptian State Security Archives Yield Evidence of False Flag Attacks


"Baby, I'm trying to find our sex tape, but it's a madhouse in here!"

As Jesse Walker reported on Saturday, angry protesters stormed various State Security buildings throughout Egypt over the weekend after hearing reports that officials were destroying files that could shed light on various abuses over the years. While Human Rights Watch yearns for a "procedure" for publishing the documents that were saved from State Security's shredders, Egyptians opted for the WikiLeaks model. Scans of files have been appearing on Facebook and image hosting sites like Yfrog ("problematic," says HRW), and the Twitter hashtag #AmnDawla has been flooded with discussions and links to the documents since Friday.

Documents published so far, assuming they're real (and the Obama administration seems to be acting as if they are), have unearthed everything from Skype snooping to a whole room full of compromising sex tapes. But perhaps the most incendiary files posted have been those tying the Interior Ministry to attacks supposedly perpetrated by terrorists. Disgraced former Interior Minister Habib el-Adly had already been widely suspected of being involved in the New Year's Eve Coptic church bombing, but the appearance of a file on "Mission No. 77" seems to confirm regime critics' most damning accusations. McClatchy says that the document describes how State Security used a jailed Islamist to carry out the attack (which had been attributed to al-Qaeda), and, perhaps more ominously, they claim that there are at least seven more files on church attacks among the pilfered documents.

Aside from the New Year's Eve attack, which was already under scrutiny before the storming of State Security offices, the documents also point to a similar conclusion with regards an earlier bombing in the seaside resort of Sharm El-Sheikh. The 2005 attack, which killed 88 and was initially blamed on Bedouin terrorists, was actually a plot by el-Adly and Gamal Mubarak to get back at one of Gamal's business rivals, according to a leaked document (partial English translation here).

And beyond these two attacks documented in the leaked files, questions have been raised about the Nag Hammadi church attack in early 2010. The allegations were apparently serious enough that an Egyptian official felt the need to deny the rumors to American diplomats, while at the same time conceding that the official explanation for the attacks "doesn't seem to fit."

Up until now, claims of terrorism have been the most effective way for Arab dictators to get sympathy and support from the US. (The Yemeni regime, which is now teetering on the edge of collapse, saw its aid double after the Christmas 2009 attempted underwear bombing.) American policy in the region has been predicated on the Faustian bargain that we overlook Arab dictators' shoddy human rights record and continue to prop them up in exchange for stability and a hard line on Islamic terrorism. But the Egyptian State Security archives suggest that not only were the Mubaraks not delivering an end to Islamic radicalism, but the regime itself may have been the source of much of Egypt's terrorism and sectarian strife.

NEXT: ACLU on Obama's Policy Regarding Medical Marijuana Research: Where's Your Scientific Integrity Now?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Colour me unsurprised.

  2. Colour anybody who does not think that the US has done the same as a fucking dope.

    1. I’m sure the CIA has done this type of thing overseas. If you’re alluding to a domestic incident, though, perhaps you could share which one and what your evidence is.

      1. False flag attacks in Egype PROVE that 9/11 was an inside job!! PRUF!!!11!

        1. WTC #7!!!

        2. No, neither socialist amerika nor its minions have ever or would ever perpetrate such operations.

          1. Popular Mechanics has all the answers!

      2. They’ve sure as hell considered it, unless you think Operation Northwoods is a myth.

        1. And hopefully everyone has seen the documentary, NATO’s Secret Armies by now.

      3. Didn’t COINTELPRO specialize in “agent provocateurs”, meant to goad Radical organizations into violent acts?

      4. Pics n’ proof or it didn’t happen. This is the same CIA that couldn’t even kill Castro.

        1. Why would they want to?

    2. So you’re in the “the Bradley Manning Wikileaks cables are a government plant” camp, then? We sure are torturing him an awful lot for it to be that.

      1. You always torture the innocent the most. It’s the “radical” who we coddle and give communications access to, that you have to watch out for.

        Bradley Manning, fuck’im, hell execute him if you get a legit conviction for treason, but don’t torture him.

    3. People like you are the reason that stories about this (or the Russian government’s many false flags) never get run. Because any time you accuse a foreign government of orchestrating a terrorist attack, all the 9/11 Truthers come out of the woodwork, and the true stories about false flags in places like Russia or Egypt start to look just as nutty.

      1. People like you are the reason that stories about this (or the Russian government’s many false flags) never get run.


        You can’t blame the Truthers for bad editorial boards and bad reporting.

        Seriously did Matt or Nick (who has editorial control of Hit and Run anyway?) even hint that he might not run your story? Did he use the “feed the truthers as a hypothetical reason not to?

        Don’t blame the truthers for the state of journalism today. If anything they are a symptom.

        By the way great story.

        1. Actually, David Koch is the real decider when it comes to what gets posted on H&R.

          But seriously, you’re probably right. I just need to keep telling myself that it’s the Truthers to keep my sanity.

        2. Truth, good article. Thanks, Stephen.

      2. You’re right, Truthers are almost as nutty as people who believe the Sasquatch walks among us.

        1. Thats fucking funny. I was eating lunch in a bar in brooklyn, and there was a guy next to me who clearly wasn’t too bone-stupid explaining to his neighbor that there was in fact plenty of scientific evidence for the existence of the sasquatch in the Pacific northwest/canada.

          I listened long enough to want to tell him to get a freaking life, but i was impressed by his references to existence of different hominid varieties in different parts of the world, comparative anatomy, environmental considerations enough to… well, tell him to get a freaking life, but with the caveat that clearly he was only educated well enough to let the stupid part of his brain run amok far more widely. I gently suggested Hoffer’s “True Believer”, and ran away before he regaled me with more detail on the veracity of historical sasquatch sightings…

          Seriously, some people have plenty RAM but a buggy freaking low-power CPU installed.

          1. You had a face-to-face discussion with an actual person?

      3. Please present proof of these Russian false flags or STFU and stop embarrassing Reason. This whole is a bit premature these leaks just came out and have not been verified.

        1. stop embarrassing Reason

          Way too late.

    4. And what’s with the Limey spelling, anyway? Are you in Lovecraftian mode or something?

  3. The Egyptian Troofers were right all along. Next they’ll find a birth certificate proving Mubarek was born in Kenya.

    1. Worse, Hawai’i.

  4. You know, I almost feel sorry for Obama on the foreign policy front at this point. Most of the shitstorm that he’s dealing with now, and the possbily even bigger shitstorm probably in the future, has nothing to do with his policies; on the international front he’s clearly just trying to tread water so he can concentrate on domestic stuff.

    1. I don’t. He’s part and parcel of the “serious” school of foreign policy – the idea that we have to be involved anywhere and everywhere. Had he been President from 2000-2008, we would be facing the exact same issues.

      1. I liked Baked’s case better then Lost’s.

    2. Shit happens. If he wasn’t prepared to take on this, he should have stayed a senator. If he lacks decisiveness and bends to public opinion, he’s not worth a shit anyway. He either knows whats right and does it or waffles and gets remembered as “real nice speaker”

      1. Unlike Joshua above, I combined the nuances of both cases and got baked waffles. Much more rewarding.

        1. baked waffles

          I don’t know what you are saying so i am going to alleviate my bewilderment and the possibility that you might have said somehting over my head that makes me look like a fool by calling you a racist.

          1. BakedPenguin

            He either knows whats right and does it or waffles and gets remembered as “real nice speaker” -Lost

            But touch

    3. Got to earn that Peace Prize!

    4. Not sure about that, Tulpa. I thought I read that what started much of the protester anger were high prices for food and other staples. These higher prices were due to two things: worldwide monetary inflation, which hasn’t been helped by things like QE1 and 2, and Mubarak removing price caps and trying to open up markets a few years ago. Good idea for making Egypt competitive; bad though if you’re a peasant used to a certain amount of free/underpriced goods.

      Totally agree with your point that he is just trying to tread water and thereby not get into an Iran hostage-type crisis. Also agree with L_I_T that, if you didn’t think you could handle stuff like this, you really shouldn’t have applied for the job.

      1. Well I did say *almost* 😉

        Luckily my anger over his behavior on domestic issues overwhelms any pity on other issues.

      2. In some respect Obama shares guilt. The ethanol subsidies and crop subsidies contributed to higher food prices. Obama did nothing to stop them while in the Senate.

    5. You know, I almost feel sorry for Obama on the foreign policy front at this point. Most of the shitstorm that he’s dealing with now, and the possbily even bigger shitstorm probably in the future, has nothing to do with his policies; on the international front he’s clearly just trying to tread water so he can concentrate on domestic stuff.

      True but Biden can take a shit heap of the blame. He was neck deep in foreign affairs for a long long time while he was in the Senate.

    6. Pfft. If you’re bone-ignorant about international affairs (despite having lived overseas), and you appoint nearly as bone-ignorant heads of State and other relevant agencies, don’t proclaim yourself the great re-setter of international affairs. Obama bought all this, he owns it, let’s make him deal with it.

      1. As to Biden, if ever there was a greater fool with (documentably valid) pretensions to wisdom regarding overseas affairs, he never occupied the Naval Observatory. He demonstrates the meaninglessness of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

        Not to totally dis the committee; I expect its chief of staff would make a terrific head for State. Certainly better than the present seat-warmer.

    7. But wasn’t one of the ‘platforms’ he ran on the fact that he was so damn smart and post-whatever that the world would certainly fawn over him a la a Chrissy Matthews that world peace would just be realized everywhere overnight?

  5. This actually comes as a huge relief to me.
    I knew that the Muslim Brotherhood was NOT the primary force behind Egypt’s revolution. But I’ve remained concerned about the potential opening for Islamists. If it turns out to be true that many attacks were false flag attacks designed to get US support for the regime, or for other reasons, then it is pretty strong evidence that the Islamists are MUCH, MUCH weaker than previously thought.

    The Sharm-El-Sheikh bombing, in particular … that was a major event.
    If it turns out than many terrorist attacks were false flags, then not only does it reduce our indentices to support these regimes, it enhances the chances for a sucessful, non-Islmaist regime change.

    1. Er. .. incentives.

    2. It’s going to turn out that there never were any Jihadists. It was the Egyptian government all along.

      1. Including October 6, 1981?

        1. I mean all the way back. Ever.

          1. Spain was never invaded by the Moors. The Crusades were a papist myth. The Vikings were all actors.

            1. Thanks for the great new ideas for some historically accurate films to make!

              1. You don’t exist. You’re actually Michael Moore and have been ever since Salvador.

                1. Wait, does anyone actually exist? Aside from the cowboy poetry fans who we know exist by the grace of the NEA.

                  1. You’re cool baby, don’t sweat it. The better you look, the more you see.

          2. There is no bin Laden. Only Zuul.

            1. Zuul, speaking of which, we’ve actually unionized, and are concerned about your ideas about cutting us out of the role of unleashing the Destructor without some kind of defined benefit plan and at least some defined per-diem in any kind of end-of-world scenario, which as you know, places us in the unconfortable position of potentially losing our useful role in the management of post-destructor armageddon…. until this issue is resolved, we’re aligning with the SEIU to put the Demigod system on hold until some collective bargaining system can be equitably arranged.

    3. Actually, Hazel, this is very good.

  6. assuming they’re real

    Like it matters.

  7. Glad to see these are the bastards the foreign policy “realists” thought we should prop up.

  8. If you are a farmer, and the government comes to you and says “For every acre of corn you grow, I’m going to pay you $XXX”. If that happened, the farmer would increase his production of corn.

    So what happens if you pay foreign governments based on how many terrorists they have? Or how much poverty there is in their country?

    1. ^Ha

      That’s actually the best reading of foreign aid I’ve seen. Ever. Very well done.

    2. Bingo. From an evolutionary perspective, the ultimate cause of terrorism is Western aid.

    3. *nervous laughter*

  9. American policy in the region has been predicated on the Faustian bargain that we overlook Arab dictators’ shoddy human rights record and continue to prop them up in exchange for stability and a hard line on Islamic terrorism

    Now that is an understatement.

    Paying terrorists to attack us seems more accurate.

    1. Note I am commenting on the fact that we created these perverse intensives…not that it was a conscious decision by some traitor…only that the effect is the same sans the traitor.

      In fact in many ways it is worse that US foreign aid created this with the best of intentions.

      There is no nefarious evil Illuminati figure behind the curtain pulling the strings. We are our own villains.

      1. We are our own villains.

        You can’t argue with the fact that it’s cheaper to produce your villainy in-house rather than relying on external distributors.

        1. You can’t argue with the fact that it’s cheaper to produce your villainy in-house rather than relying on external distributors.


          It would be as hard to argue with that as arguing with the statement that it is cheaper for my land development company to make its own copy machine then it is to rely on external distributors.

          1. Wait are you agreeing with me??

            I think i have descended to far into the metaphor zone…and have lost my direction.

            1. There comes a point where you stop caring about agreement or disagreement, and just hum along anticipating the next plot twist in this great garden path run-on sentence some call life.

          2. Copy machine on offer, in exchange for developed land.

  10. McClatchy says that the document describes how State Security used a jailed Islamist to carry out the attack (which had been attributed to al-Qaeda).

    I’m agnostic about conspiracy theories, but it does amuse me to wonder about the extent to which al Qaeda is just a convenient myth.

    1. bin Laden is Snowball in this story, right?

      1. Or Goldstein.

        But with Daffy Duck in Libya blaming the uprising on “Al Qaeda”….

        One wonders if the commonly-used phrase “Al Qaeda-connected group” really means “not connected to Al Qaeda or bin Laden at all but we still want to remind people of 9/11”

  11. The problem with this story about Egypt’s supporting an attack on the Coptic Christians is that they were among the old regimes most loyal supporters because the old regime had a strong pimp hand against the Islamic radicals who really want to bomb churches.

    So why would Mubarak allow a terrorist operation against the one segment of his population that actually liked him? It’s like if George Bush did a 9/11 on Texas or the Florida Cuban community.

    1. You’re missing the point. It’s makes them the perfect target for a false flag operation. If Mubarak can blame the attack on jihadists, it pushes the Coptics closer to him, and it riles the evangelical community in America, so they will push for more money and support for the Egyptian gov’t.

  12. Since obviously more than one person was involved in planning the 9/11 attacks, then by definition the U.S. government’s mendacious, self-serving, anti-historical, anti-physical law, anti-factual, and provably false official fairy tale is a conspiracy theory, as the U.S. government is putting forth a theory concerning the 9/11 attacks which involves a conspiracy.

    Al-Qaeda was founded by the U.S. government and has always been a wholly-owned creature of those who control the U.S. government. Everything al-Qaeda does is designed to empower them.

    The below paper, published in a peer-reviewed chemical physics journal and authored by nine scientists working in laboratories at multiple universities using state-of-the-art equipment, confirms the presence of large quantities of metal microspheres of reacted thermite, and flakes (chips) of unreacted (i.e., still active) super-thermite (also called nanothermite, which is thermite which has been made even more reactive by decreasing the thermitic particle size down to the nanometer range), in different dust samples from the collapsed World Trade Center (W.T.C.) towers collected from multiple people at different sites even before cleanup operations began. The physical and chemical properties of these microspheres and flakes were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (S.E.M.), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (X.E.D.S.), and differential scanning calorimetry (D.S.C.), among other methods.

    Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”, Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol. 2 (April 2009), pp. 7-31, doi:10.2174/1874412500902010007.

    Below are two other peer-reviewed papers which also pertain to the presence of large quantities of thermite in the dust of the collapsed W.T.C. towers:

    Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley and Steven E. Jones, “Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials”, The Environmentalist, Vol. 29, No. 1 (March 2009), pp. 56-63, doi:10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4.

    Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti and James R. Gourley, “Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction”, Open Civil Engineering Journal, Vol. 2 (2008), pp. 35-40, doi:10.2174/1874149500802010035.

    See also the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

    In addition to the presence of large amounts of thermite in the dust of the collapsed W.T.C. buildings, another truly vital piece of evidence that provides definitive proof that the W.T.C. towers were brought down by controlled demolition are the videos of yellow-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower (World Trade Center Tower 2) immediately before its collapse.

    That piece of evidence isn’t merely a smoking gun: it’s a smoking nuclear cannon. Those videos, alone and by themselves, are irrefragable proof that the South Tower (at the very least) had thermite-like (“like” in the sense of producing comparable temperatures) incendiary demolition charges with the ability to easily slice through structural steel going off within it. There is no innocent explanation for what those videos record.

    That is to say, the only way to get around that it is thermite which is causing that yellow-hot metal to cascade off the South Tower before its collapse would be to posit that we are seeing a different form of extremely powerful incendiary with thermite-like temperatures at work in the videos. Of which, even if true, would be every bit as much damning, since no such powerful incendiaries can be accounted for without involving a sinister intent to plant them there.

    Below are videos which contain some of this footage:

    “Shot from street level of South Tower collapsing”, CameraPlanet, Google Video. Also at “Shot from street level of South Tower collapsing”, CameraPlanetArchive, YouTube, September 10, 2007.

    “Wtc 1, impact site close up, tower collapse close up, long shot, people shouting”, CameraPlanet, Google Video. Also at “Wtc 1, impact site close up, tower collapse close up,…”, CameraPlanetArchive, YouTube, September 10, 2007.

    From the color of the yellow-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower, it had to be at least over 1000 ?C (as the temperature of an incandescent object is exhibited by its color), yet jet fuel burns in open air at 260-315 ?C; nor do burning office, building, or plane materials impart temperatures anywhere near that hot to structural members (indeed, it would present quite a hazard if such articles were constructed with such powerful incendiaries, and so designers of such objects go out of their way to make sure that they are not). Thus, if it wasn’t molten iron from thermite that we are seeing come off the South Tower, then by necessity a reaction source with a heat intensity very much like thermite had to be present. Yet there is nothing in the U.S. government’s account that can explain such a heat source; indeed, there’s nothing innocent that could explain it, since it requires some sort of extremely powerful incendiary.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.