DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on February 01, 2011, 07:15:43 PM
-
(http://www.twentysomething.com/images/washingtonTimes_logo.gif)
The Muslim Brotherhood is the enemy
Islamic group poses a clear and present danger to us in the Middle East
By Frank J. Gaffney Jr. - The Washington Times
January 31, 2011
As Egypt lurches toward the end of President Hosni Mubarak?s regime, one way or another - by ?an orderly transition to democratic rule? (as Hillary Rodham Clinton delicately puts it), through violent overthrow or simply through the demise of the ailing 82-year-old president - much is unclear. One thing that should not be is that the Muslim Brotherhood is our enemy, and whatever role it plays in Egypt?s future will be to our detriment.
Such clarity is readily available because the Brotherhood (MB or, in Arabic, Ikhwan) has told us as much. Consider, for example, the mission statement for the MB found in one of its secret documents, titled ?An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.?
?The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ?sabotaging? its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God?s religion is made victorious over all other religions.?
As a blue-ribbon group of national security experts convened by the Center for Security Policy, Team B II noted in its new best-seller ?Shariah: The Threat to America,?the incompatibility of the Ikhwan?s agenda with our interests has been evident from its inception: ?The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928. Its express purpose was two-fold: (1) to implement Shariah worldwide, and (2) to re-establish the global Islamic State (caliphate). Therefore, al Qaeda and the MB have the same objectives. They differ only in the timing and tactics involved in realizing them.?
We also know how the Brotherhood plans to pull off our destruction. Another MB document, this one undated, is called ?Phases of the World Underground Movement Plan.? It describes a five-installment program for achieving the triumph of Shariah - together with a status report on the realization of several of the phases? goals:
Phase 1: ?Discreet and secret establishment of leadership.?
Phase 2: ?Phase of gradual appearance on the public scene and exercising and utilizing various public activities. [The MB] greatly succeeded in implementing this stage. It also succeeded in achieving a great deal of its important goals, such as infiltrating various sectors of the Government.?
Phase 3: ?Escalation phase, prior to conflict and confrontation with the rulers, through utilizing mass media. Currently in progress.?
Phase 4: ?Open public confrontation with the Government through exercising the political pressure approach. It is aggressively implementing the above-mentioned approach. Training on the use of weapons domestically and overseas in anticipation of zero-hour. It has noticeable activities in this regard.?
Phase 5: ?Seizing power to establish their Islamic Nation under which all parties and Islamic groups are united.?
If any further evidence were needed of the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood, consider the comments on Oct. 6 by Mohamed Badie, the Ikhwan?s virulent promoter of Shariah who was installed as its leader (Supreme Guide) last year. According to a translation provided by the indispensable Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Mr. Badie declared: ?[Today, the United States] is withdrawing from Iraq, defeated and wounded, and it is on the verge of withdrawing from Afghanistan. [All] its warplanes, missiles and modern military technology were defeated by the will of the peoples, as long as [these peoples] insisted on resistance. Its wealth will not avail it once Allah has had his say, as happened with [powerful] nations in the past. The U.S. is now experiencing the beginning of its end, and is heading towards its demise.?
Barry Rubin, one of the most astute observers of the Middle East, warned within days that this speech represented a ?declaration of war? by the Brotherhood, with it ?adopting a view almost identical to al Qaeda?s? but coming from ?a group with 100 times more activists than al Qaeda.?
At first blush, it seems incredible that the sort of clarity about the Brotherhood?s intentions that the foregoing provide seems to be eluding many in official Washington and the policy elite. On closer inspection, however, the muddle-headedness that has many describing the Ikhwan as ?nonviolent,? ?democratic? and desirable candidates for a coalition to replace Mr. Mubarak?s dictatorship is, to use an old Soviet expression, ?no accident, comrade.?
In fact, the aforementioned MB ?Explanatory Memorandum? provides a list of ?Our Organizations and the Organizations of Our Friends? that includes virtually every prominent Muslim-American organization in business at that time. What is incredible, therefore, is that many of these same Muslim Brotherhood fronts are used by the U.S. government for ?outreach? to the Muslim community and policy advice. The nation?s top intelligence official, James Clapper, has actually characterized the resulting ?dialogue with the Muslim community? as ?a source of advice, counsel and wisdom.?
As a result, one other thing should be frighteningly clear: We are having our policies toward Egypt?s succession - and the tsunami it is accelerating elsewhere in the region - influenced, shaped and probably subverted by the Muslim Brotherhood?s American operatives. If we let our enemies call the shots, there is no doubt who will wind up taking the bullet.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/the-muslim-brotherhood-is-the-enemy/?page=1 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/the-muslim-brotherhood-is-the-enemy/?page=1)
-
What do Mr's Gaffney and Rubin suggest we do about the Muslim Brotherhood?
Should we stand in the way of Egypt's lurch towards democracy? Would that counteract the Bush Doctrine?
-
Look at the pictures of the demonstrators in Egypt. Note that there are a LOT of women protesting in the street. Note that they are NOT wearing any sort of scarf, hejab or head covering.
If the Muslim Brotherhood was such a pervasive influence, you would not see this at all. There would be very few women protesting, and they would all he wearing scarves at the very least.
The influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in exaggerated by Mubarak, the Israelis and their toadies, the neocons.
-
Look at the pictures of the demonstrators in Egypt. Note that there are a LOT of women protesting in the street. Note that they are NOT wearing any sort of scarf, hejab or head covering.
If the Muslim Brotherhood was such a pervasive influence, you would not see this at all. There would be very few women protesting, and they would all he wearing scarves at the very least.
The influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in exaggerated by Mubarak, the Israelis and their toadies, the neocons.
I am having a good laugh at all of the wailing about the MB and their supposed takeover of the Arab world. And these "secret" documents (interpret as conspiracy theory) are even funnier.
I liken the MB to having the "religiosity" of the Christian Coalition. Extremely God-loving... but not so terribly extreme. (Note that I really don't care for the Christian Coalition and their influence on American politics - I also don't like their Muslim equivalent's influence on Arab politics (when it exists) - but in the sphere of "least-worst" I pick the MB over the alternatives in the region, hands down.)
What is happening in Egypt, is as they say, an organic movement. People from all walks of life are united - Muslim, Christian and other; men and women; poor, middle class, rich - all pushing to oust Mubarak. The MB couldn't pull that off - no one single group could do this.
So let's get down to the REAL issue here that is on everyone's minds and in the undertones of even the most liberal press: if the MB gains control, will the Israelis be driven into the sea?
On the Egypt end - NO. Egypt and Israel have been working together for too long and are too intertwined and interdependent. Egypt's 80 million people need American aid. Regardless of who is ruling the country, the suffering as a result of losing said aid would be a disaster. Even the jobs created by military posts (financed by the U.S.) are crucial. I do think, however, that any new government in Egypt will put pressure on Israel to return to the 1967 borders, and will use that gas pipeline as an incentive to move the issue.
If we were talking about Israel's other pal - Jordan - I would be much more worried. Take a look at Egypt; as I said above, all people are united for a common cause. This will never happen in Jordan. You have tribal Jordanians, Palestinians, Chechyns, Iraqis. Everyone is pissed about something different. Everyone wants change, but there is no unity in what is wanted. If the King of Jordan can't hold this together, the ensuing upheavel will be chaos without a clear solution and a power vacuum without any one strong, leading candidate to fill the void. And with no unity, no one will care about the overall good of Jordan and least of all Israel and how the peace treaty benefits the people in Jordan.
(And now the King has fired the PM and the Ministers and appointed a PM that he fired only a few years ago - fired in 2007 for corruption which he admitted to. And a military leader to boot, which is a pretty strong statement in light of regional events. PROBLEM! Firstly, the people in Jordan have been demanding the right to elect the PM rather than have him appointed and this nomination by the King was a slap in the face. The people are furious and only now am I concerned that the people are mad enough for something potentially serious to happen here. I hope I'm wrong.)
-
I am having a good laugh at all of the wailing about the MB and their supposed takeover of the Arab world. And these "secret" documents (interpret as conspiracy theory) are even funnier.
Protocols of the Elders of Zion - the sequel
-
Robert Fisk: Secular and devout. Rich and poor. They marched together with one goal.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-secular-and-devout-rich-and-poor-they-marched-together-with-one-goal-2201504.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-secular-and-devout-rich-and-poor-they-marched-together-with-one-goal-2201504.html)
It was a victory parade ? without the victory. They came in their hundreds of thousands, joyful, singing, praying, a great packed mass of Egypt, suburb by suburb, village by village, waiting patiently to pass through the "people's security" checkpoints, draped in the Egyptian flag of red, white and black, its governess eagle a bright gold in the sunlight. Were there a million? Perhaps. Across the country there certainly were. It was, we all agreed, the largest political demonstration in the history of Egypt, the latest heave to rid this country of its least-loved dictator. Its only flaw was that by dusk ? and who knew what the night would bring ? Hosni Mubarak was still calling himself "President" of Egypt.
Mubarak ended the day as expected, appearing on television to announce that he will hang on until the next election ? a promise that will not be accepted by the people he claims to love. The people of Egypt were originally told this was to be "the march of the million" to the Kuba Palace, Mubarak's official state pile, or to the man's own residence in Heliopolis. But so vast was the crowd that the organisers, around 24 opposition groups, decided the danger of attacks from the state security police were too great. They claimed later they had discovered a truck load of armed men close to Tahrir Square. All I could find were 30 Mubarak supporters shouting their love of Egypt outside the state radio headquarters under the guard of more than 40 soldiers.
The cries of loathing for Mubarak are becoming familiar, the posters ever more intriguing. "Neither Mubarak, nor Suleiman, and we don't need you Obama ? but we don't dislike USA," one of them announced generously. "Out ? all of you, including your slaves," announced another. I did actually find a decaying courtyard covered in rectangular sheets of white cloth where political scribes could spray-paint their own slogans for 40 pence a time. The tea-houses behind Talat Harb's statue were crammed with drinkers, discussing Egypt's new politics with the passion of one of Delacroix's orientalist paintings. You could soak this stuff up all day, revolution in the making. Or was this an uprising? Or an "explosion", as one Egyptian journalist described the demonstration to me?
There were several elements about this unprecedented political event that stood out. First was the secularism of the whole affair. Women in chadors and niqabs and scarves walked happily beside girls with long hair flowing over their shoulders, students next to imams and men with beards that would have made Bin Laden jealous. The poor in torn sandals and the rich in business suits, squeezed into this shouting mass, an amalgam of the real Egypt hitherto divided by class and regime-encouraged envy. They had done the impossible ? or so they thought ? and, in a way, they had already won their social revolution.
And then there was the absence of the "Islamism" that haunts the darkest corners of the West, encouraged ? as usual ? by America and Israel. As my mobile phone vibrated again and again, it was the same old story. Every radio anchor, every announcer, every newsroom wanted to know if the Muslim Brotherhood was behind this epic demonstration. Would the Brotherhood take over Egypt? I told the truth. It was rubbish. Why, they might get only 20 per cent at an election, 145,000 members out of a population of 80 million.
A crowd of English-speaking Egyptians crowded round me during one of the imperishable interviews and collapsed in laughter so loud that I had to bring the broadcast to an end. It made no difference, of course, when I explained on air that Israel's kindly and human Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman ? who once said that "Mubarak can go to hell" ? might at last get his way, politically at least. The people were overwhelmed, giddy at the speed of events.
So was I. There I was, back on the intersection behind the Egyptian Museum where only five days ago ? it feels like five months ? I choked on tear gas as Mubarak's police thugs, the baltigi, the drug addict ex-prisoner cops, were slipped through the lines of state security policemen to beat, bludgeon and smash the heads and faces of the unarmed demonstrators, who eventually threw them all out of Tahrir Square and made it the Egyptian uprising. Back then, we heard no Western support for these brave men and women. Nor did we hear it yesterday.
Amazingly, there was little evidence of hostility towards America although, given the verbal antics of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton these past eight days, there might have well been. One almost felt sorry for Obama. Had he rallied to the kind of democracy he preached here in Cairo six months after his investiture, had he called for the departure of this third-rate dictator a few days ago, the crowds would have been carrying US as well as Egyptian flags, and Washington would have done the impossible: it would have transformed the now familiar hatred of America (Afghanistan, Iraq, the "war on terror", etc) into the more benign relationship which the US enjoyed in the balmy 1920s and 1930s and, indeed, despite its support for the creation of Israel, into the warmth that existed between Arab and American into the 1960s.
But no. All this was squandered in just seven days of weakness and cowardice in Washington ? a gutlessness so at odds with the courage of the millions of Egyptians who tried to do what we in the West always demanded of them: to turn their dust-bowl dictatorships into democracies. They supported democracy. We supported "stability", "moderation", "restraint", "firm" leadership (Saddam Hussein-lite) soft "reform" and obedient Muslims.
This failure of moral leadership in the West ? under the false fear of "Islamisation" ? may prove to be one of the greatest tragedies of the modern Middle East. Egypt is not anti-Western. It is not even particularly anti-Israeli, though this could change. But one of the blights of history will now involve a US president who held out his hand to the Islamic world and then clenched his fist when it fought a dictatorship and demanded democracy.
This tragedy may continue in the coming days as the US and Europe give their support to Mubarak's chosen successor, the chief spy and Israeli negotiator, Vice-President Omar Suleiman. He has called, as we all knew he would, for talks with "all factions" ? he even contrived to sound a bit like Obama. But everyone in Egypt knows that his administration will be another military junta which Egyptians will again be invited to trust to ensure the free and fair elections which Mubarak never gave them. Is it possible ? is it conceivable ? that Israel's favourite Egyptian is going to give these millions the freedom and democracy they demand?
Or that the army which so loyally guarded them today will give such uncritical support to that democracy when it receives $1.3bn a year from Washington? This military machine, which has not fought a war for almost 38 years, is under-trained and over-armed, with largely obsolete equipment ? though its new M1A1 tanks were on display yesterday ? and deeply embedded in the corporation of big business, hotels and housing complexes, all rewards to favourite generals by the Mubarak regime.
And what were the Americans doing? Rumour: US diplomats were on their way to Egypt to negotiate between a future President Suleiman and opposition groups. Rumour: extra Marines were being drafted into Egypt to defend the US embassy from attack. Fact: Obama finally told Mubarak to go. Fact: a further evacuation of US families from the Marriott Hotel in Cairo, escorted by Egyptian troops and cops, heading for the airport, fleeing from a people who could so easily be their friends.
Egypt in tweets
The ban on the internet in Egypt was yesterday circumvented by Google and Twitter, which launched a service to enable people caught in the unrest to post messages. The 'speak-to-tweet' system allows people to leave a voice message which is posted on Twitter. By yesterday evening more than 800 had been posted, and many of those in Arabic had been translated.
* "I am a writer and I just want to tell people in the free world who are afraid that Islamic fanatics can take over, that this will not happen in Egypt. When Egyptians enjoy real freedom, they will never let fanaticism to take over."
* "For the last 30 years, we admire the American dream which calls for freedom and democracy. So we are looking to you to support the people all around the world who are seeking freedom and democracy."
* "I am very happy to have finally a way to express how we feel here in Egypt. This is a historical moment. I wish that it will end up with the way that we all want. We all want democracy."
* "Whoever fears to climb mountains will live forever in the ditches. We don't want to live in the ditches again."
* "I'm an Egyptian and I ask the help of every human being on the face of Earth. Not only us should hold this tyrant accountable. The whole world should."
* "2 million of us at Tahrir Square and we won't leave until we hear the Hosni Mubarak is gone"
* "God will help us and be on our side. Don't be afraid, don't be afraid. We've killed the fear in our hearts."
* "Whatever happens can't be worse than if we went backwards. The road is one, we have to follow to the end. I feel like even the wind, the wind is new and the wind is different. Even the wind and the ground we walk on has changed."
-
Muslim Brotherhood - - Oldest International Islamist Organization
http://terrorism.about.com/od/politicalislamterrorism/a/MuslimBrothers.htm (http://terrorism.about.com/od/politicalislamterrorism/a/MuslimBrothers.htm)
The Muslim Brotherhood is not on the U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organizations list. It renounced violence in the 1970s and has no active militia (although a provocative martial arts demonstration in December 2006 raised some alarm that they may be regrouping a militia.)
Nevertheless, the Muslim Brotherhood or Ikhwan Al Muslimun in Arabic, is frequently mentioned in relation to groups such as Hamas and Al Qaeda. And, although today they may be best known as the largest independent bloc in the Egyptian parliament, they are nearly always invoked as the origins for extremist visions of Islam that root today's jihadist movements.
Founded In: 1928 by Hassan Al Banna
Home Base: Egypt
Objective: The establishment of a democratic state grounded in Islamic precepts. Quoting members from the mid 1990s, Sana Abed-Kotob, wrote that:
Muslim Brother Isam Al Aryan, for example, [says] "The Brothers consider constitutional rule to be closest to Islamic rule ? We are the first to call for and apply democracy. We are devoted to it until death. Similarly, Brother Fahmi Huwaydi comments, "the Brothers support pluralism and reject democracy . . ." (from International Journal of Middle East Studies 27 (1995)).
Attitude toward Violence:The group has declared its renunciation of violence in Egypt. In the early 1940s, the group created a secret paramilitary wing known as the "secret apparatus," which operated somewhat independently of the main organization. In 1948, the group assassinated the Egyptian prime minister; group members fought in the 1948 war against Zionist forces in mandate Palestine.
Organization: The Muslim Brotherhood has gone through several incarnations. It was founded as a youth group that used education and propaganda to spread its messages. In 1939, the organization was organized as a political party. In 1942, the group created a created a militia called the "Secret Apparatus." that used terrorist tactics within Egypt. It was outlawed by the Egyptian government in 1948, recognized in 1950 as a religious group, and banned again in 1954. In 1984, it was recognized as a religious organization but it still has not been recognized as a political party (members in parliament ran as independents).
A number of groups and figures who espouse terrorist tactics were taught or influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood, such Ayman Al Zawahiri, who founded the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (in part because he wanted an organization that would make more effective use of violence in the service of jihad), and Hamas, the Palestinian group that began as a branch of the Muslim Brothers.
However, currently, as Robert Leiken and Steven Brooke point out in the March/April 2007 Foreign Affairs magazine, "jihadists loathe the Muslim Brotherhood ? for rejecting global jihad and embracing democracy."
A Powerful Social Welfare Organization: The Muslim Brotherhood has always provided social welfare to poor Egyptians, from health care to books and subsidies for university students.
The power of the Muslim Brotherhood is such that every political leader of Egypt has outlawed the group. Following a Brotherhood assassination attempt in 1954, Gamal Abd Al Nasser outlawed the group and made Egypt extremely inhospitable to members. During his presidency, which lasted until 1970, many members in Egypt were imprisoned and tortured, which shaped their worldview. Many others left for surrounding states, in the Gulf or the Levant which helped spread the group's influence. Despite their illegality as a party, Brotherhood members won 20% of political seats in 2005 parliamentary elections.
Founder: Hasan Al Banna
Hasan Al Banna was born in 1906 in the Egyptian village north of Cairo. His father, an imam (prayer leader) was trained as a religious scholar by one of the most famous Islamic reformers of the time. Islamic reformers sought to make sense of new ideas of governance, such as democracy (which was a new idea in Western Europe as well, at the time), and figure out how they were compatible with Islamic ideas of governance.
Hasan was religious from an early age, and played substantial roles while still a teenager in groups seeking to make sure people adhered to Islamic ways. He was also opposed to the Christian missionaries and British occupiers he grew up with in his town. Hasan, training to be a schoolteacher, arrived in Cairo in the early 1920s, then went on to teach Arabic in a city near the Suez Canal, Ismailiya, in 1927, where he founded the Muslim Brotherhod.
Affiliations: The Muslim Brotherhood has branches throughout the Arab/ Islamic world including Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinian territories, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya and Sudan as well as Eurasia and Africa. There are Muslim Brotherhood supporters in the United States.
-
Once the snowball gets rolling there is no controlling , its path depends on what condition the snow is in and how steep the hill.
The US isn't defending Mubarak and is getting some criticism for abandonment of a pal. The US isn't buying Mubarak a plane ticket or a poison pill and is getting criticised for not helping progress to progress.
I don't expect pronouncements from Washington to cause much harm nor help now , the avalanche is flowing and the momentum of it will overwhelm all intervention until it runs its full course.
If the result is a potential friend for the US we will be fortunate, perhaps we can make a new deal with the new Regime.
If the result is a democratic regime that is really responsive to the people this requires more than just good fortune , Egyptions who really care will have to carry the project.The Egyption constitution which has been amended to favor the regime will need fixing, the Egyption Army will have to act to deserve the respect that it has been given.
Effective US reactions will happen after the dust is settleing.
-
Once the snowball gets rolling there is no controlling , its path depends on what condition the snow is in and how steep the hill.
The US isn't defending Mubarak and is getting some criticism for abandonment of a pal. The US isn't buying Mubarak a plane ticket or a poison pill and is getting criticised for not helping progress to progress.
I don't expect pronouncements from Washington to cause much harm nor help now , the avalanche is flowing and the momentum of it will overwhelm all intervention until it runs its full course.
If the result is a potential friend for the US we will be fortunate, perhaps we can make a new deal with the new Regime.
If the result is a democratic regime that is really responsive to the people this requires more than just good fortune , Egyptions who really care will have to carry the project.The Egyption constitution which has been amended to favor the regime will need fixing, the Egyption Army will have to act to deserve the respect that it has been given.
Effective US reactions will happen after the dust is settleing.
One important thing that I think many forget when they are demanding democratic reforms in countries like Egypt is that our own democratic system did not come overnight, nor did it come without a price.
Further, just having democratic elections isn't enough - it's what happens after the elections; as you said, amending the constitution, etc. Making sure that no one man (or woman) has so much power that they become a dictator as well.
-
I am having a good laugh at all of the wailing about the MB and their supposed takeover of the Arab world.
Who said that?
The Muslim Brotherhood are one small piece of a complicated puzzle.
-
What do Mr's Gaffney and Rubin suggest we do about the Muslim Brotherhood?
I can't speak for them....
What do you normally do with people that want to destroy you?
Should we stand in the way of Egypt's lurch towards democracy?
No...who said that?
The Muslim Brotherhood are not the majority in Egypt.
But IslamoNazis dont care about democratic majorities.
would that counteract the Bush Doctrine?
And what is that Sarah?
-
The Muslim Brotherhood is first and foremost anticolonialist, which means that it resents US and UK intrusion in Egypt's affairs. It is NOT an advocate for any sort of Unified Muslim Caliphate. It is NOT Al Qaeda. It is mostly a group of old geezers sitting around thinking up how Egypt might get by without all that US aid, I imagine.
Egypt was a colony of England, then an independent nation that was run by the Brits clandestinely through a disinterested and incompetent king (Farouk), who was deposed by Nasser. Mubarak is an extension of Nasser, probably the last of a series of three military demogogues (Sadat being the one in the middle). Sadat was very popular in the West, more so than either Nasser or Mubarak, but he was basically a dick just like Nasser and Mubarak at home, an elitist who could have cared less about the plight of Egypt's huge peasant caste who still are mired in the XIV Century.
It would be helpful if the new Egyptian government would serve to pressure Israel (perhaps by using those tunnels under the border) to cease the colonization of Palestinian areas in the WB and East Jerusalem. The Palestinian situation needs a settlement.
And that Debkafiles post was a total joke: all those clowns do is pread bogus panic, panic panic, and you eat it up as fast as they can dish it out.
-
One important thing that I think many forget when they are demanding democratic reforms in countries like Egypt is that our own democratic system did not come overnight, nor did it come without a price.
True , during our Colonial period there was a long discussion about what a rebellion and new government should be like, after Congress was victorious there was a period in which federalism was hashed out and the principals of which were published to the people , then once the Constitution was written there was also a twelve admendment package proposed for the purpose of insureing certain rights.Ten admendments were adopted which shaped the constitution finally as we know it now, and every few decades another admendment improves its fit for us again.
Expecting perfection early isn't reasonable , especting a good direction to be chosen is reasonable.
-
The Muslim Brotherhood .....is NOT an advocate for any sort of Unified Muslim Caliphate.
The Muslim Brotherhood's own website states that founder HASAN AL-BANNA stated:
"Islam does not recognize geographical boundaries, not does if acknowledge racial and blood differences,
considering all Muslims as one Umma. The Muslim Brethren consider this unity as holy and believe in this
union, striving for the joint action of all Muslims and the strengthening of the brotherhood of Islam,
declaring that every inch of land inhabited by Muslims is their fatherland The Muslim Brethren do not
oppose every one's working for one's own fatherland. They believe that the caliphate
is a symbol of Islamic Union and an indication of the bonds between the nations of Islam.
They see the caliphate and its re-establishment as a top priority, subsequently;
an association of Muslims people should be set up, which would elect the imam"
http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=17065 (http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=17065)
-
So does that mean Dearborn MI is no longer part of the USA?
-
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/images/toolbar/logo.jpg)
Obama Stands by Muslim Brotherhood Endorsement
by Hillel Fendel
For the first time, a U.S. government supports granting a government role to an extremist Islamic organization:
the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
On Monday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Egypt's new government will have to include a "whole host
of important non-secular actors." Most prominent among these is clearly the Muslim Brotherhood ? which has
made Islamic world domination one of its ultimate goals. It also opposes Egypt's 30-year-old peace treaty with Israel.
Gibbs said the Muslim Brotherhood must reject violence and recognize democratic goals for the U.S. to be comfortable
with it assuming a role in the new government. This caveat does not significantly alter the new American approach,
which is very different than that of the previous Administration, in which George W. Bush pushed Mubarak for democratic
reforms but never publicly accepted a role for Islamists.
Today, new White House chief of staff William Daley moderated the position very slightly, saying the U.S. hopes for a
"strong, stable and secular Egyptian government." Noting that the strengthening of the Muslim Brotherhood is "some people's
expectation [and] some people's fear," Daley acknowledged that the situation in Egypt is largely out of American control.
Obama's new position, while not totally surprising, is worrisome to many. "The White House appears to be leaving
Hosni Mubarak, an ally for three decades and lynchpin of Mideast stability, twisting slowly in the wind," writes
David Horowitz of the Freedom Center. "And worse, it appears to be open to allowing the Muslim Brotherhood
to play a key role in a 'reformed' Egyptian government, as long as the organization renounces violence and
supports democracy. If the Obama White House really believes this is possible, it is even more hopelessly
incompetent than we imagined!"
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, with 600,000 members, is not on official U.S. terrorism lists, as are Hamas and Hizbullah,
but the American government has had no contact with it because of what Gibbs said were "questions over its commitment
to the rule of law, democracy and nonviolence."
It stands for the re-establishment of the Islamic Empire (Caliphate), the takeover, spiritually or otherwise,
of the entire world, and jihad and martyrdom. It has front organizations in the UK, France, and the United States.
A former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations, Dr. Dore Gold, writes of a fear that the Muslim Brotherhood,
widely seen as having become moderate over the years, will "exploit a figure like [Mohammed] ElBaradei in order
to hijack the Egyptian revolution at a later stage." Gold noted that ever since the Brotherhood was founded
over 80 years ago, it has engaged in political terrorism, assassinating Prime Minister Mahmoud al-Nuqrashi Pasha
in 1948, trying to kill President Abdul Nasser several years later, and more.
"A former Kuwaiti Minister of Education, Dr. Ahmad Al-Rab'i, argued in Al-Sharq al-Awsat on July 25, 2005 that the
founders of most modern terrorist groups in the Middle East emerged from 'the mantle' of the Muslim Brotherhood,"
Gold writes.
Even Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, says that the prospect of the Muslim Brotherhood's
rise to power "would be calamitous for U.S. security? The [Brotherhood] supports Hamas and other terrorist groups, makes
friendly noises to Iranian dictators and torturers, would be uncertain landlords of the critical Suez Canal, and opposes the
Egyptian-Israeli agreement of 1979, widely regarded as the foundation of peace in the Mideast. Above all, the [Brotherhood]
would endanger counter terrorism efforts in the region and worldwide? The real danger is that our experts, pundits and
professors will talk the Arab and American worlds into believing we can all trust the [Brotherhood]..."
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142101 (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142101)
-
Today, new White House chief of staff William Daley moderated the position very slightly, saying the U.S. hopes for a "strong, stable and secular Egyptian government." Noting that the strengthening of the Muslim Brotherhood is "some people's expectation [and] some people's fear," Daley acknowledged that the situation in Egypt is largely out of American control.
I'm sure if Israel has a problem with this they will take care of it, instead of asking us to do it for them.
-
I really want a good definition of "the caliphate" as a Muslim brother would mean it when he said it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate)
So is democracy possible for a Caliph?
-
http://www.caliphate.eu/ (http://www.caliphate.eu/)
-
I am having a good laugh at all of the wailing about the MB and their supposed takeover of the Arab world.
Who said that?
The Muslim Brotherhood are one small piece of a complicated puzzle.
Actually, a lot of people. Friends and family included who keep sending me frantic messages about it.
-
It stands for the re-establishment of the Islamic Empire (Caliphate), the takeover, spiritually or otherwise,
of the entire world, and jihad and martyrdom. It has front organizations in the UK, France, and the United States.
Jeezus. As if it could ever even happen.
But to answer other questions I see in this thread which address the Caliphate in a historical context, here it is in a more current context: Arab Nationalism - Arab Identity. Caliphate is another one of those Islamic "fear words" that is thrown around, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of Arabs truly desire to be united rather than the current status of being split up into a bunch of different waring countries. And that is a sentiment that is shared across religious boundaries, which is why I purposely am not referring to Islamic Nationalism or Identity.
However, it is also utopian. The Ottoman Empire isn't coming back and they'll never be united like that again. Their interests are too split now.
-
It stands for the re-establishment of the Islamic Empire (Caliphate), the takeover, spiritually or otherwise,
of the entire world, and jihad and martyrdom. It has front organizations in the UK, France, and the United States.
Jeezus. As if it could ever even happen.
But to answer other questions I see in this thread which address the Caliphate in a historical context, here it is in a more current context: Arab Nationalism - Arab Identity. Caliphate is another one of those Islamic "fear words" that is thrown around, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of Arabs truly desire to be united rather than the current status of being split up into a bunch of different waring countries. And that is a sentiment that is shared across religious boundaries, which is why I purposely am not referring to Islamic Nationalism or Identity.
However, it is also utopian. The Ottoman Empire isn't coming back and they'll never be united like that again. Their interests are too split now.
So the Muslim Brotherhood is no more onerous than the Knights of Columbus, but with less drinking?
Like Western societies are built upon Judeo-Christian Principles the MB is wanting the same bonds of fraternity in Arab lands?
-
It stands for the re-establishment of the Islamic Empire (Caliphate), the takeover, spiritually or otherwise,
of the entire world, and jihad and martyrdom. It has front organizations in the UK, France, and the United States.
Jeezus. As if it could ever even happen.
But to answer other questions I see in this thread which address the Caliphate in a historical context, here it is in a more current context: Arab Nationalism - Arab Identity. Caliphate is another one of those Islamic "fear words" that is thrown around, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of Arabs truly desire to be united rather than the current status of being split up into a bunch of different waring countries. And that is a sentiment that is shared across religious boundaries, which is why I purposely am not referring to Islamic Nationalism or Identity.
However, it is also utopian. The Ottoman Empire isn't coming back and they'll never be united like that again. Their interests are too split now.
So the Muslim Brotherhood is no more onerous than the Knights of Columbus, but with less drinking?
Like Western societies are built upon Judeo-Christian Principles the MB is wanting the same bonds of fraternity in Arab lands?
BT, I really don't see them as any threat as I mentioned before, BUT, I don't trust any one group who gains absolute control without the checks and balances of a true democracy. And that is the biggest problem that I see in Egypt - that regardless of who gains control that even if elections are free and fair the first time, it might be all downhill after that. The MB with unchecked power might end up evolving into something else entirely.
Note that I don't think they'd ever get like Saudi - simply because the only thing reason that the Saudis can get away with their abysmmal human rights record is because they are loaded with oil money and not so much dependent on the support from the rest of the world. Egypt is dependent hugely on tourism, for example. If a group started throwing burqas on women and banning what they consider to be vices, the entire country would suffer.
-
The Caliphate is akin to the concept of Christendom: a vague idea that has only been approximated in the past and that has no hope of existing in the future. Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Libya and Iraq, during the Nasser regime, at one time or another claimed to be united as the "United Arab Republic", but this never worked out, because Egypt dominated the union to the detriment of the other entities.
-
So the Muslim Brotherhood is no more onerous than the Knights of Columbus, but with less drinking?
yeah sure BT....lol
but i'll bite anyway
Is the Knights of Columbus asking people to prepare for War against other independent countries?
http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=206130 (http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=206130)
Is the Knights of Columbus demanding government regimes to be overthrown?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/03/us-egypt-brotherhood-idUSTRE71225H20110203 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/03/us-egypt-brotherhood-idUSTRE71225H20110203)
Were many of the world's current leading terrorists influenced or taught by the Knights of Columbus?
al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri and 9/11 architect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed came of age in
Muslim Brotherhood....Abdel Rahman notoriously had a close working relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Has the Knights of Columbus ever had a group (Hamas) grow out of it that carried out suicide bombings
and attacks using mortars and short-range rockets....and fired military weapons at neighboring countries
civilian cities?
Has the Knights of Columbus ever attempted an assassination of a country's leader like the Muslim Brotherhood
did with Nasser in Egypt?
Does the Knights of Columbus have a motto that talks about jihad and dying for the cause?
The Muslim Brotherhood's motto:
"Allah is our objective, the Prophet is our leader, the Koran is our law,
Jihad is our way, and dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.
Allahu akbar!"
-
I'm sure one could find parallels between arms of the Catholic Church and the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Crusades come to mind. The existence of the IRA comes to mind. Poland, Solidarity and Rome come to mind. The prayers for the return of the Holy Mother Church in Russia come to mind.
-
So the Muslim Brotherhood is no more onerous than the Knights of Columbus, but with less drinking?
yeah sure BT....lol
but i'll bite anyway
Is the Knights of Columbus asking people to prepare for War against other independent countries?
http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=206130 (http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=206130)
Is the Knights of Columbus demanding government regimes to be overthrown?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/03/us-egypt-brotherhood-idUSTRE71225H20110203 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/03/us-egypt-brotherhood-idUSTRE71225H20110203)
Were many of the world's current leading terrorists influenced or taught by the Knights of Columbus?
al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri and 9/11 architect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed came of age in
Muslim Brotherhood....Abdel Rahman notoriously had a close working relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Has the Knights of Columbus ever had a group (Hamas) grow out of it that carried out suicide bombings
and attacks using mortars and short-range rockets....and fired military weapons at neighboring countries
civilian cities?
Has the Knights of Columbus ever attempted an assassination of a country's leader like the Muslim Brotherhood
did with Nasser in Egypt?
Does the Knights of Columbus have a motto that talks about jihad and dying for the cause?
The Muslim Brotherhood's motto:
"Allah is our objective, the Prophet is our leader, the Koran is our law,
Jihad is our way, and dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.
Allahu akbar!"
Give the KoC enough kegs, political control and no checks and balances... and who knows what happens next? :D
-
I'm sure one could find parallels between arms of the Catholic Church and the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Crusades come to mind. The existence of the IRA comes to mind. Poland, Solidarity and Rome come to mind. The prayers for the return of the Holy Mother Church in Russia come to mind.
How much like the Crusades is it ?
If it is very simular we are talking about horror.
-
I'm sure one could find parallels between arms of the Catholic Church and the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Crusades come to mind. The existence of the IRA comes to mind. Poland, Solidarity and Rome come to mind. The prayers for the return of the Holy Mother Church in Russia come to mind.
How much like the Crusades is it ?
If it is very simular we are talking about horror.
Well they don't have the equivalent of the Pope and all the alliances with the various heads of state so where they are and where they hope to be are orders of magnitude apart.
Henny brought up a good point. Is the MBs desire to install a code of justice based on Sharia Law much different than those who implemented social laws based on their interpretation of the bible? And maybe some good will come of it. Blue laws begat NASCAR
-
And maybe some good will come of it. Blue laws begat NASCAR
Yeah BT.....oh I cant wait for Sharia too!
Maybe Sharia can hammer women, execute the homos, and usher in more socialism!
We see how far "that model" has advanced those societies.
Lots of impressive achievments compared to the Judeo-Christian Western Values! ::)
Oh the poor things were dominated by the West....BoooooWhoooo
How come nobody has dominated the West?
How come we dont have a built-in excuse/crutch for failure?
Your "find every excuse" to defend & attempt moral equivalence is really sickening BT.
yeah the Crusades almost a 1000 years years ago really has relevance to Muslim fanatics killing 1000's today!
yeah the entire IRA body count compares to radical Islam! ::)
Maybe people motivated by Islam will blow up more buildings here in the US and
you can race to defend their right to build "islam cultural centers" there too!
I say lets build a mosque or Islam Cultural Center in the field in PA where the Sept 11 plane crashed!
when Islam brings a nuke to the US & blasts away everything you hold dear you'll realize how wrong you are.
-
I doubt you would be subject to Sharia Law being an infidel and all.
But what really is your problem with them having their own religious beliefs and customs in their own countries?
I mean Jews are here in America and i don't keep kosher. So what's the deal?
-
I doubt you would be subject to Sharia Law being an infidel and all.
But what really is your problem with them having their own religious beliefs and customs in their own countries?
I mean Jews are here in America and i don't keep kosher. So what's the deal?
Excellent point. I'm living under Sharia law now in Jordan, but get a pass for not being a Muslim. And you also don't read much about hangings of gays in Jordan or stonings of adulterers - cuz it never happens.
Sharia is another Islam scare word. Clearly, one size doesn't fit all even among Muslims.
-
Ignoring the fact that it was the MB that apparently assasinated Sadat, I'd like Miss Henny and/or Bt to help refute this op-ed (http://townhall.com/columnists/DianaWest/2011/02/11/no_matter_what_their_us_name,_theyre_the_muslim_brotherhood), at their convenience of course.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Matter What Their U.S. Name, They're the Muslim Brotherhood
Guess who said the following?
"The earliest defenders of Islam would defend their more numerous and better-equipped oppressors because the early Muslims loved death -- dying for the sake of almighty Allah -- more than the oppressors of Muslims loved life. This must be the case when we are fighting life's other battles."
I know I haven't asked a fair question. As Andrew McCarthy put it recently, "that leitmotif -- We love death more than you love life -- has been a staple of every jihadist from bin Laden through Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood killer."
He isn't kidding. In 2008, as McCarthy notes, the "Supreme Guide" of the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammad Mahdi Akef, while praising Osama bin Laden, urged teaching young people "the principles of jihad so as to create mujahidin who love to die as much as others love to live." In 2004, the 3/11 bombers in Madrid left behind a tape saying, "We choose death, while you choose life." MEMRI's Steven Stalinsky has noted the origins of this necro-parable in the Battle of Qadisiyya, 636, when the Muslim commander called for the conversion to Islam of his Persian enemies "for if you don't, you should know that I have come to you with an army of men that love death, as you love life."
Just to be sporting, here's more of the same mystery quotation: "What are our oppressors going to do with a people like us? We are prepared to give our lives for the cause of Islam."
Chilling, but not helpful, right? Similar death-cult code could come from any jihadist, from Mohammed Atta, in his night-before-9/11 instructions, to Anwar al-Awlaki, in his e-mails "ministering" to the underpants bomber, Umar F. Abdulmutallab.
But could it also come from a former Bush administration appointee? A board director of the American Conservative Union (ACU), sponsor of the C-PAC convention in Washington, D.C., where the newest batch of 2012 presidential hopefuls have been speech-o-flexing before 10,000 grassroots activists?
The surprise answer is yes. The former Bush official and ACU board member who I am quoting above is Suhail Khan, a protege, you might say, of the weirdly influential, not-very-conservative activist Grover Norquist. Khan's shocking quotation -- shocking, that is, for a classic conservative, but not for a classical jihadist -- comes from a 1999 speech Khan gave at another convention, that of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).
As Suhail Khan has said himself, his father, Mahboob Khan, helped found and was very active in ISNA. He said so in that same 1999 speech, further pledging as his "life's work, inspired by my dear father's shining legacy ... to work for the umma," which means transnational Islam. According to a key internal document of the Muslim Brotherhood, ISNA is a Muslim Brotherhood front, probably the largest one in America. Which means that no matter what CNN's Anderson Cooper ignorantly accepted from Khan as fact recently, Khan's father, Mahboob Khan, was part of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB or Ikhwan) in America.
That's right, America. The Brotherhood isn't merely an Egyptian movement committed to Islamic world government (caliphate) and Shariah (Islamic law); the Brothers are here. According to evidence introduced by the U.S. government in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial, MB claims 29 front and "friendly" organizations that include virtually every big Muslim organization such as ISNA and CAIR. Due to the mass suicidal reflex known as "Muslim Outreach,' representatives from these fronts are routinely invited into practically every American institution to pronounce on all things Islamic. What we're talking about is an influence operation to rival, or perhaps surpass, that of the communist Kremlin.
Are the ACU and C-PAC easier marks? I have read through and watched what is by now a compendium of literature on the subject, the lion's share on the subject by Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan Pentagon official who started tracking this phenomenon in 1999. I believe all the signs of an MB influence operation are there -- troubling signs that spell an ultimate transformation of C-PAC conservatism.
Conservative leaders, the 10,000 activists and all those presidential hopefuls must ask themselves: At what point does MB influence become a liability for conservatives? After it's completely successful?
-
Have you seen this gross photo?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20110211/ts_yblog_thecutline/worlds-best-news-photo-is-time-cover-of-disfigured-afghan-woman (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20110211/ts_yblog_thecutline/worlds-best-news-photo-is-time-cover-of-disfigured-afghan-woman)
This is tipical Taliban, their members seem empowered to exact extreme retribution in the cause of their sort of justice. The Taliban has a lot in common with the KKK the nearest American equivelent.
Americans who want to get elected have to be willing to denounce the KKK even if there has never been a connection to be renounced.
There is a distinction to be made between the MB and the Taliban , they are not the same thing .
But......
Does the Muslim Brotherhood denounce the Taliban?
-
There is a distinction to be made between the MB and the Taliban , they are not the same thing .
But......
Does the Muslim Brotherhood denounce the Taliban?
This has been an ongoing great question Plane. Under Bush, I recall the same query, as to why aren't more moderate muslim, especially those in power, demonstrating any widespread condemnation by the acts of Islamic terrorists, AlQeada, and the Taliban? And, IIRC, there were lots of rationalization efforts on how they really couldn't
Which then, unfortunately enables those same terrorist elements to do even more and far greater death & damage
And, what if someone(s) are actually supportive of the likes of Bin Laden. Are we to take them seriously as an appropriate arm of trying to bring "democracy" to the region?
-
For someone who has never lived in a country or even visited a country to demand that group X denounce group Y is simply silly. The Muslim Brotherhood officially wants to impose the Koran on the people, and the Family wants to make sure that all the world's leaders swear fealty to Jesus Christ. So what? If I were an Egyptian, I would not vote for the MB. But to deliberately harass a group by demanding that they take an oath against some other group is likely to be counterproductive.
-
...not to mention enabling that of the one group, with some perceived ipso-facto support. Aounter productive to terrorist organizations, perhaps, or those that seek the status quo.
What do you think the people of Egypt/group X are doing....widespread condemnation and denouncement of Mubarak/group Y. And guess which just stepped down and lost power??
-
Mubarak stood for mostly just one thing: Mubarak staying in power.
I would say that we should regard the stated objectives of the MB as we do the political platforms of our political parties: the Republicans endorsed the Bricker Amendment for thirty years, as well as an anti-flag-burning amendment. But they never really tried to get these things done.
Most Egyptians are NOT members of the MB, and it is mostly a man's organization. There are already a number of MB members in the Egyptian Parliament. What we need to do is to watch what people DO, rather than what they say.
-
What part do you want refuted, Sirs? The MB is in every corner of the world and always have been. To be honest, I skimmed this. I've been refuting anti-MB propaganda for the past 3 weeks and I'm tired of it. (No offense to you, Sirs.) So you have some statements taken out of an entire speech, which means you've lost context. I find it incredibly hard to believe that Bush was actively engaging a dangerous Islamist.
Also, I think it should be remembered that the MB is NOT on the U.S. terrorists lists and the U.S. knows and has always known that they are there.
But if a large number of Americans want to believe that the MB is the boogeyman under the bed, believing every word in the distorted media (CNN and Fox News look the same to me from this point of view) and parroting the stories they are told to believe, that's really their choice. I just wish that more people could see it from the other angles as well. I wish I could beam you over my satellite connection with news broadcasts from numerous different nations to show you all how different it sounds, to see other people's views of Arab and Muslim political realities.
Ignoring the fact that it was the MB that apparently assasinated Sadat, I'd like Miss Henny and/or Bt to help refute this op-ed (http://townhall.com/columnists/DianaWest/2011/02/11/no_matter_what_their_us_name,_theyre_the_muslim_brotherhood), at their convenience of course.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Matter What Their U.S. Name, They're the Muslim Brotherhood
Guess who said the following?
"The earliest defenders of Islam would defend their more numerous and better-equipped oppressors because the early Muslims loved death -- dying for the sake of almighty Allah -- more than the oppressors of Muslims loved life. This must be the case when we are fighting life's other battles."
I know I haven't asked a fair question. As Andrew McCarthy put it recently, "that leitmotif -- We love death more than you love life -- has been a staple of every jihadist from bin Laden through Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood killer."
He isn't kidding. In 2008, as McCarthy notes, the "Supreme Guide" of the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammad Mahdi Akef, while praising Osama bin Laden, urged teaching young people "the principles of jihad so as to create mujahidin who love to die as much as others love to live." In 2004, the 3/11 bombers in Madrid left behind a tape saying, "We choose death, while you choose life." MEMRI's Steven Stalinsky has noted the origins of this necro-parable in the Battle of Qadisiyya, 636, when the Muslim commander called for the conversion to Islam of his Persian enemies "for if you don't, you should know that I have come to you with an army of men that love death, as you love life."
Just to be sporting, here's more of the same mystery quotation: "What are our oppressors going to do with a people like us? We are prepared to give our lives for the cause of Islam."
Chilling, but not helpful, right? Similar death-cult code could come from any jihadist, from Mohammed Atta, in his night-before-9/11 instructions, to Anwar al-Awlaki, in his e-mails "ministering" to the underpants bomber, Umar F. Abdulmutallab.
But could it also come from a former Bush administration appointee? A board director of the American Conservative Union (ACU), sponsor of the C-PAC convention in Washington, D.C., where the newest batch of 2012 presidential hopefuls have been speech-o-flexing before 10,000 grassroots activists?
The surprise answer is yes. The former Bush official and ACU board member who I am quoting above is Suhail Khan, a protege, you might say, of the weirdly influential, not-very-conservative activist Grover Norquist. Khan's shocking quotation -- shocking, that is, for a classic conservative, but not for a classical jihadist -- comes from a 1999 speech Khan gave at another convention, that of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).
As Suhail Khan has said himself, his father, Mahboob Khan, helped found and was very active in ISNA. He said so in that same 1999 speech, further pledging as his "life's work, inspired by my dear father's shining legacy ... to work for the umma," which means transnational Islam. According to a key internal document of the Muslim Brotherhood, ISNA is a Muslim Brotherhood front, probably the largest one in America. Which means that no matter what CNN's Anderson Cooper ignorantly accepted from Khan as fact recently, Khan's father, Mahboob Khan, was part of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB or Ikhwan) in America.
That's right, America. The Brotherhood isn't merely an Egyptian movement committed to Islamic world government (caliphate) and Shariah (Islamic law); the Brothers are here. According to evidence introduced by the U.S. government in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial, MB claims 29 front and "friendly" organizations that include virtually every big Muslim organization such as ISNA and CAIR. Due to the mass suicidal reflex known as "Muslim Outreach,' representatives from these fronts are routinely invited into practically every American institution to pronounce on all things Islamic. What we're talking about is an influence operation to rival, or perhaps surpass, that of the communist Kremlin.
Are the ACU and C-PAC easier marks? I have read through and watched what is by now a compendium of literature on the subject, the lion's share on the subject by Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan Pentagon official who started tracking this phenomenon in 1999. I believe all the signs of an MB influence operation are there -- troubling signs that spell an ultimate transformation of C-PAC conservatism.
Conservative leaders, the 10,000 activists and all those presidential hopefuls must ask themselves: At what point does MB influence become a liability for conservatives? After it's completely successful?
-
Mubarak stood for mostly just one thing: Mubarak staying in power....Most Egyptians are NOT members of the MB, and it is mostly a man's organization. There are already a number of MB members in the Egyptian Parliament. What we need to do is to watch what people DO, rather than what they say.
A) never said anyone was a member of MB, much less "most Egyptians"
B) The people of Egypt/group X demonstrated widespread condemnation and denouncement of Mubarak & his government/group Y.
You apparently must think his resignation was counterproductive
-
What part do you want refuted, Sirs? The MB is in every corner of the world and always have been. To be honest, I skimmed this. I've been refuting anti-MB propaganda for the past 3 weeks and I'm tired of it.
I can concede you must be tired of it. And it then becomes easy to call anything critical of MB as merely propoganda. By all means, take whatever time you need to rest and go at this article, full boar....if you so want the challenge My point is that perhaps the MB isn't quite as "innocent" and merely looking for democracy, as you might have me believe. I didn't realize that they were the ones behind Sadat's assasination, until this AM. That while Mubarak may have been an oppressive dictator, with horrible conditions in Egypt, is that perhaps better than an organization that has as its calling card references analogus to AlQeada's goals? The Taliban?
And of course, that's not our call. It's the people of Egypt, of Jordan, or any other country in the Middle East, to make that call. That said, allowing things to play out, and potentially producing IranII, or a border country to Israel now bent on its destruction vs a longstanding peace agreement, something that's in the best interests of America's national security?
-
I didn't realize that they were the ones behind Sadat's assasination, until this AM.
Source?
-
Henny...where are all the examples of Muslim/Arab huge success in the last couple of centuries?
Do we see great innovation coming from those countries?
Do we see multiple breakthrough life-changing medical and drug inventions?
When is Syria going to produce a Toyota Corportion or a Boeing?
Do some people never look in the mirrror & admit a huge part of their failures are their own fault?
Is it always "somebody else's fault"?.....Are they forever gonna blame a boogy-man?
As if had the US not supported Mubarak that Egypt would be creating Apple and Microsofts?
There are pissed off people everywhere....even where the US is not involved
There are people pissed in Russia....China.....life is hell...unless ya got somebody to always blame.
-
I didn't realize that they were the ones behind Sadat's assasination, until this AM.
Source?
I heard it on the news this AM, on the radio
------------------------------------------------------
The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna, a 22-year-old elementary school teacher, as an Islamic revivalist movement following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent ban of the caliphate system of government that had united the Muslims for hundreds of years. Al-Banna based his ideas that Islam was not only a religious observance, but a comprehensive way of life, on the tenets of Wahhabism, better known today as "Islamism", and he supplemented the traditional Islamic education for the Society's male students with jihadia training.
The Brotherhood grew as a popular movement over the next 20 years, encompassing not only religion and education, but also politics, through the Party of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimoon. It blamed the Egyptian government for being passive against "Zionists" and joined the Palestinian side in the war against Israel; and started performing terrorist acts inside of Egypt, which led to a ban on the movement by the Egyptian government. A Muslim Brother assassinated the Prime Minister of Egypt, Mahmud Fahmi Nokrashi, on December 28, 1948. Al-Banna himself was killed by government agents in Cairo in February, 1949.
The Egyptian government legalized the Brotherhood again in 1948, but only as a religious organization; it was banned again in 1954 because it insisted that Egypt be governed under shari'a (Islamic law).
Abdul Munim Abdul Rauf, a Brotherhood activist, attempted to assassinate Egyptian President Nasser in 1954 and was executed, along with five other Brothers. Four thousand Brothers were also arrested, and thousands more fled to Syria, Saudia Arabia, Jordan, and Lebanon.
In 1964, Nasser granted amnesty to the imprisoned Brothers, hoping that their release would weaken interest in the recently formed Arab Socialist Union party; the result was three more assassination attempts by the Brothers on Nasser?s life. The top leaders of the Brotherhood were executed in 1966, and many others were imprisoned.
Nasser's successor, Anwar-as-Sadat, promised the Brothers that shari'a would be implemented as the Egyptian law and released all of the Brotherhood prisoners; however, the Brothers lost their trust in Sadat when he signed the peace agreement with Israel in 1979; four Brothers assassinated Sadat in September, 1981.
One source, other than hearing it on the radio (http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/mb.htm)
-
I didn't realize that they were the ones behind Sadat's assasination, until this AM.
Source?
I heard it on the news this AM, on the radio
Did the radio folks source the accusation?
-
So, now that we have a source, how do you intend to tear it down or minimize it? I'm sure we can find other sources, if you wish
-
So, now that we have a source, how do you intend to tear it down or minimize it? I'm sure we can find other sources, if you wish
Since the charge was that the Muslim Brotherhood assassinated Sadat, perhaps you can show the link between those charged with the assassination and the brotherhood. BTW what radio program did you hear this on?
-
I provided you a source, that you demanded. The radio station was 640 KFI
-
I provided you a source, that you demanded. The radio station was 640 KFI
What program?
-
I think it was with a fella named Handel, but he was interviewing a former military officer who reported the Sadat/MB news
-
show the link between those charged with the assassination and the brotherhood.
"The attackers would eventually come to be identified as Islamist nationalists
associated with the Muslim Brotherhood under the name of Islamic Jihad"
http://middleeast.about.com/od/egypt/a/me081006a.htm (http://middleeast.about.com/od/egypt/a/me081006a.htm)
"since the October 1981 assassination of his predecessor, Anwar Sadat,
by followers of a Muslim Brotherhood splinter group"
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/06/among-the-believers.html (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/06/among-the-believers.html)
"Jamaat al-Islamiyya (Sadat's killers) is Egypt's largest Islamist militant organization .....
a radical offshoot of the much older and more grassroots-oriented Muslim Brotherhood"
http://www.cfr.org/egypt/jamaat-al-islamiyya/p9156 (http://www.cfr.org/egypt/jamaat-al-islamiyya/p9156)
Did the Muslim Brotherhood kill Anwar Sadat ? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LDakIYho1Y#noexternalembed)
-
So if i am reading this correctly, those charged with killing Sadat were from a splinter group or offshoot of the Musalim Brotherhood. They weren't members of the Muslim Brotherhood itself.
So then the next question is why did these groups splinter from the brotherhood? Was there a philosophical difference in how best to achieve their goals? If so , what was that difference.
-
Actually a question just as important, if not more so, is did MB itself condemn the act, publically distancing themselves from the actions of a completely indep group, with a different philosophy
-
So if i am reading this correctly, those charged with killing Sadat were from
a splinter group or offshoot of the Musalim Brotherhood. They weren't members
of the Muslim Brotherhood itself.
You asked for Sadat's killer's link to the Muslim Brotherhood.
I gave it to you.
So then the next question
LOL....I knew that was coming since the last one didnt work out to well!
;)
why did these groups splinter from the brotherhood?
Who knows?
IslamoNazis splinter off alot.
Many times they disagree about the best way to kill us &/or imprison us in their so called religion.
After they are done killing us they will probably kill each other.
But IslamoNazis are already doing a pretty good job killing each other
-
Actually a question just as important, if not more so, is did MB itself condemn the act, publically distancing themselves from the actions of a completely indep group, with a different philosophy
The Muslim Brotherhood is under no obligation to condemn actions it is not responsible for, just as you are under no obligation to condemn the actions of a few at Abu Ghraib wearing the uniform of your country.
-
So if i am reading this correctly, those charged with killing Sadat were from
a splinter group or offshoot of the Musalim Brotherhood. They weren't members
of the Muslim Brotherhood itself.
You asked for Sadat's killer's link to the Muslim Brotherhood.
I gave it to you.
So then the next question
LOL....I knew that was coming since the last one didnt work out to well!
;)
why did these groups splinter from the brotherhood?
Who knows?
IslamoNazis splinter off alot.
Many times they disagree about the best way to kill us &/or imprison us in their so called religion.
After they are done killing us they will probably kill each other.
But IslamoNazis are already doing a pretty good job killing each other
So if the split was over the use of violence to achieve political ends, that wouldn't matter?
-
BT...like I said who knows?
The IslamoNazis that want to take over the world come in all forms.
It takes alot of different players to put the ball in the endzone.
They aren't all strapping suicide vests on....
Some play different roles so they can reach their goals
They are good at "hiding"
In fact that's what makes them so difficult to beat
My niece died of leukemia a few years ago...
The doctor told us the cancer would run hide in her brain when he cranked up the poison (chemo)
The leukemia knew it could hide in the brain because the doc couldn't poison her brain
The IslamoNazis do the same....they blend in...they hide...they shoot rockets from schools...
In my mind they have the same goal as the cancer....kill the host.
-
Actually a question just as important, if not more so, is did MB itself condemn the act, publically distancing themselves from the actions of a completely indep group, with a different philosophy
The Muslim Brotherhood is under no obligation to condemn actions it is not responsible for, just as you are under no obligation to condemn the actions of a few at Abu Ghraib wearing the uniform of your country.
The soldiers of Abu Ghraib are not an "offshoot" of me. If they were, I'd have reacted the same as the Military, the actual organization the soldiers were an offshoot of, did....condemn their actions, and make it clear they were not part of any sanctioned policy.
So yea, under the current circumstances being discussed, they absolutely had an obligation to condemn actions of those that were assocated with their organization. Otherwise the perception is that of tacit support/agreement, if not actual sanctioning
-
BT...like I said who knows?
The IslamoNazis that want to take over the world come in all forms.
It takes alot of different players to put the ball in the endzone.
They aren't all strapping suicide vests on....
Some play different roles so they can reach their goals
They are good at "hiding"
In fact that's what makes them so difficult to beat
My niece died of leukemia a few years ago...
The doctor told us the cancer would run hide in her brain when he cranked up the poison (chemo)
The leukemia knew it could hide in the brain because the doc couldn't poison the brain
The IslamoNazis do the same....they blend in...they hide...they shoot rockets from schools...
In my mind they have the same goal as the cancer....kill the host.
And all I'm saying is that if the Muslim Brotherhood was behind the killing of Sadat, then it would seem to be important to the accuser that they were in fact behind it, and not some third cousin removed.
And if they were behind the assassination shouldn't they be on the terror list? If not, why not?
Perhaps we should investigate that.
-
Actually a question just as important, if not more so, is did MB itself condemn the act, publically distancing themselves from the actions of a completely indep group, with a different philosophy
The Muslim Brotherhood is under no obligation to condemn actions it is not responsible for, just as you are under no obligation to condemn the actions of a few at Abu Ghraib wearing the uniform of your country.
The soldiers of Abu Ghraib are not an "offshoot" of me. If they were, I'd have reacted the same as the Military, the actual organization the soldiers were an offshoot of, did....condemn their actions, and make it clear they were not part of any sanctioned policy.
So yea, under the current circumstances being discussed, they absolutely had an obligation to condemn actions of those that were assocated with their organization. Otherwise the perception is that of tacit support/agreement, if not actual sanctioning
You are a US citizen are you not?
The soldiers at Abu Ghraib were US citizens were they not?
Is that not a common link?
I anxiously await your denouncements.
-
Sorry, doesn't work that way. The soldiers are a direct offshoot of the military. The Cub Scouts are an offshoot of the Boy Scouts. Wolverine was an offshoot of the X-men movies.
So no, not a "common link" in even the most rationalized effort on your part. We're talking about direct links
But to placate your rationalizion effort, I thoroughly and demonstrably denounce the actions of the Abu Ghraib guards who performed those heinous acts of torment & torture, and were prosecuted & convicted on
-
just as you are under no obligation to condemn the actions of a few at Abu Ghraib
wearing the uniform of your country.
If a US soldier acts in a disgraceful manner it is a poor reflection on my country.
It may not be an "obligation" by law, but I would see it as an obligation of
decency. Wouldn't you? This week I showed my disgust with the married
Republican Congressman trolling CraigsList looking for sex from strangers.
I was raised Catholic and strongly condemn all the sick homo priests that
have raped young boys. In fact I would support an execution sentence for
these reckless homo priests. Silence is not always golden!
-
just as you are under no obligation to condemn the actions of a few at Abu Ghraib
wearing the uniform of your country.
If a US soldier acts in a disgraceful manner it is a poor reflection on my country.
It may not be an "obligation" by law, but I would see it as an obligation of
decency. Wouldn't you? This week I showed my disgust with the married
Republican Congressman trolling CraigsList looking for sex from strangers.
I was raised Catholic and strongly condemn all the sick homo priests that
have raped young boys. In fact I would support an execution sentence for
these reckless homo priests. Silence is not always golden!
Nothing in my posts precludes you from condemning, if you so wish.
I just don't see it as some requirement and failure to do so indicates complicity( or speaks volumes and will be duly noted) in acts you have no control over.
-
I have a closer "links" to Kevin Bacon than the soldiers of Abu Ghraib......if that helps. And I already explained the "need" vs your use of "requirement". It's a far more pertinent question by an organization whose direct links assasinated an Egyptian President. Which would ironically likely help answer your questions in the process.
Your free to disregard it however. Some sources have been presented, per your demand
-
It's a far more pertinent question by an organization whose direct links assasinated an Egyptian President.
You haven't shown any direct links to the Muslim Brotherhood.
-
Yes, we have...via those direct links both I and Cu4 have provided. Muslim Brotherhood --direct link --> Islamic Jihad -- assassinated --> Sadat
-
Yes, we have...via those direct links both I and Cu4 have provided.
Those were splinter groups. Not direct links.
You claimed as did the guest on your radio show that the Muslim Brotherhood killed Sadat.
You have not proven that.
-
They WERE a direct link to MB. If we were talking AlQeada or Hamas or Hezobollah, then you'd have a leg to stand on. They WERE an offshoot of and directly conntected to MB
My claim was based on what was reported, NOT that it echoed something I already believed. And upon further review, the connection remains undebunked. The fact that you can't produce any spefic denouncement by MB of this supposed Indep group supposedly not associated with MB in any way.........drum roll.........speaks volumes
In other words, I haven't proven it to your satisfaction.......as if that would ever happen
-
If the killers were an offshoot of, how could they be directly related to the Muslim Brotherhood?
-
Because that's who they were directly connected to. They weren't an offshoot of the Taliban. You can keep trying to defend the MB with these semantic games, but the connections/sources you demanded of the link between Sadat and MB have been provided. Enjoy
-
Because that's who they were directly connected to. They weren't an offshoot of the Taliban. You can keep trying to defend the MB with these semantic games, but the connections/sources you demanded of the link between Sadat and MB have been provided. Enjoy
I'm not defending anyone. If you can prove a direct link then do so, that was your claim.
There is only an indirect link as far as I can see. And the reason the link is indirect is because the brotherhood splintered, for some reason. So what was the reason that the group directly responsible for killing Sadat splintered from the Muslim brotherhood? Why is the Muslim Brotherhood not on the terror watch list, if they are directly responsible for a head of states assassination?
And probably in the answer to those questions, the truth, no matter what it may be, will be furthered.
And that is what I am after. That is the goal of my questions.
-
Because that's who they were directly connected to. They weren't an offshoot of the Taliban. You can keep trying to defend the MB with these semantic games, but the connections/sources you demanded of the link between Sadat and MB have been provided. Enjoy
I'm not defending anyone. If you can prove a direct link then do so, that was your claim.
LOL....its like BT demanding "show me you exist dammit. I want proof that you exist" The links were provided. Your choice to ignore them and keep demanding to see what's already been shown. And you can play the semantic indirect splinter tact, all the while ignoring the fact its the Muslim Brotherhood were talking about. Not an AlQeada offshoot, Taliban splinter, Hamas subset, etc., but MB
Link has been shown; Muslim Brotherhood --direct link --> Islamic Jihad -- assassinated --> Sadat . Ignore at your leisure
-
Link has been shown; Muslim Brotherhood --direct link --> Islamic Jihad -- assassinated --> Sadat . Ignore at your leisure
Then we will leave it at you can not show that the Muslim Brotherhood assassinated Sadat.
-
I clarified my earlier reference that I heard on the radio, which still remains undebunked. A group, directly linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, assassinated Sadat
Now, you may ignore at your leisure
-
I clarified my earlier reference that I heard on the radio, which still remains undebunked. A group, directly linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, assassinated Sadat
Now, you may ignore at your leisure
When did you do that. Did you take back your assertion that the MB did it? Perhaps you can provide that link.
Holding the MB responsible for some splinter groups actions is akin to holding me responsible for my ex-wifes actions.
I think that this board would be better served if the folks who want to damn all muslims as jihadists just admit that they think the only good muslim is a dead one and be done with it.
-
Mark Steyn: 'The guy in charge of U.S. intelligence is an idiot' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFTV6qPh1u4#ws)
-
I clarified my earlier reference that I heard on the radio, which still remains undebunked. A group, directly linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, assassinated Sadat
Now, you may ignore at your leisure
When did you do that. Did you take back your assertion that the MB did it?
That was done as soon as Cu4 provided additional sources, that demonstrated the offshoots and the question I added as to when can we see the declaration by MB condemning these independent acts of groups directly connected to them
I think that this board would be better served if the folks who want to damn all muslims as jihadists just admit that they think the only good muslim is a dead one and be done with it.
Ahhhh, there we have it.......Bt's big bugaboo is this ongoing pre-disposed condition that criticizing any Muslim is pretty much criticizing all Muslims. No wonder there's such a knee jerk reaction to trying to defend the likes of the Imam in NY, and the Muslim Brotherhood. How dare anyone criticize someone(s) who happen to be Muslim....that's religious intolerance & bigotry, dammit
Personally, I think that this board would be better served if some weren't so close minded as to what others were trying to say. Especially those in a more leadership-like position. But that's just me
-
What part do you want refuted, Sirs? The MB is in every corner of the world and always have been. To be honest, I skimmed this. I've been refuting anti-MB propaganda for the past 3 weeks and I'm tired of it.
I can concede you must be tired of it. And it then becomes easy to call anything critical of MB as merely propoganda. By all means, take whatever time you need to rest and go at this article, full boar....if you so want the challenge My point is that perhaps the MB isn't quite as "innocent" and merely looking for democracy, as you might have me believe. I didn't realize that they were the ones behind Sadat's assasination, until this AM. That while Mubarak may have been an oppressive dictator, with horrible conditions in Egypt, is that perhaps better than an organization that has as its calling card references analogus to AlQeada's goals? The Taliban?
And of course, that's not our call. It's the people of Egypt, of Jordan, or any other country in the Middle East, to make that call. That said, allowing things to play out, and potentially producing IranII, or a border country to Israel now bent on its destruction vs a longstanding peace agreement, something that's in the best interests of America's national security?
Sirs, history does not record the MB as being behind the Sadat assasination. It was Tanzim al-Jihad. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Islamic_Jihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Islamic_Jihad))
They might have been a splinter group, but they sure weren't officially MB.
And the MB denounced violence in Egypt in the 1970s.
I am worried about this focus on the MB to the point where I almost call it a smokescreen - there are many more groups waiting in the wings that I would personally be much more concerned about (in the region as a whole, not necessarily Egypt).
I would also say that what people seem to be overlooking is that there are so many opposition leaders in Egypt - some of them really GOOD - and the MB is really playing a marginal role in Egypt at the moment.
-
Henny...where are all the examples of Muslim/Arab huge success in the last couple of centuries?
Do we see great innovation coming from those countries?
Do we see multiple breakthrough life-changing medical and drug inventions?
When is Syria going to produce a Toyota Corportion or a Boeing?
Do some people never look in the mirrror & admit a huge part of their failures are their own fault?
Is it always "somebody else's fault"?.....Are they forever gonna blame a boogy-man?
As if had the US not supported Mubarak that Egypt would be creating Apple and Microsofts?
There are pissed off people everywhere....even where the US is not involved
There are people pissed in Russia....China.....life is hell...unless ya got somebody to always blame.
C4, let me get back to you on this. This is something I've been thinking about for a long time, and I have a lot to say on the subject, but I need to get my thoughts together on paper (or screen as it may be).
-
Yes, we have...via those direct links both I and Cu4 have provided.
Those were splinter groups. Not direct links.
You claimed as did the guest on your radio show that the Muslim Brotherhood killed Sadat.
You have not proven that.
It's kind of like with Fundie Christians. They all go to church together. Then one guy has a different interpretation of some piece of Biblical text and starts a splinter church in his garage because Chuch A didn't represent the faith the way he saw it.
As BT says here, that is no direct link. It means that there was a fundamental difference in the interpretation of laws/teachings and said splinter group seeks something - creates something - that represents what he really believes.
-
It's kind of like with Fundie Christians. They all go to church together. Then one guy has a different interpretation of some piece of Biblical text and starts a splinter church in his garage because Chuch A didn't represent the faith the way he saw it.
As BT says here, that is no direct link. It means that there was a fundamental difference in the interpretation of laws/teachings and said splinter group seeks something - creates something - that represents what he really believes.
And before someone says that Fundie Christians aren't killing people, I DO realize that. I didn't mean this rough example taken to that extreme!
-
Henny
For all I know the MB could be the devil in disguise. But some "group" is very afraid of them and i sense a smear campaign is in the works where charges are hurled so frequently and so often, you don't have time to answer them all, and some false ones are bound to stick.
Reminds me of what happened after Katrina and Tucson. Blame blame blame.
And i just have a feeling people are being played.
-
I think I am ready to denounce the guards of Abu Garab, their conduct reflects badly on all of their countrymen and I am glad that most of them went to prison.
How does the Muslim brotherhood feel about the more draconian orgasations that justify extreme violence with Islam? Do they teach nonviolence ?
What happened just now in Egypt is an excellent example of the idea that nonviolence can be powerfull, if the Muslim Brotherhood is responsible for that in some way it would look good on them.
-
I think I am ready to denounce the guards of Abu Garab, their conduct reflects badly on all of their countrymen and I am glad that most of them went to prison.
Denounce away. My point was that you are under no obligation to denounce and your failure to do so should not reflect negatively on your character, nor speak volumes about you.
-
Henny
For all I know the MB could be the devil in disguise. But some "group" is very afraid of them and i sense a smear campaign is in the works where charges are hurled so frequently and so often, you don't have time to answer them all, and some false ones are bound to stick.
Reminds me of what happened after Katrina and Tucson. Blame blame blame.
And i just have a feeling people are being played.
That's how I feel too. And for all the renunciations of violence, the MB could morph yet again - no guarantees against that. But there are, right now, many worse groups out there that would gladly use this diversion to cause disruption and worse.
All I can think of as a reason for this fuss over the MB is that they would not be Israel's best friend. I DON'T think that they would renounce peace treaties. I believe that their leadership is intelligent enough to recognize that the losses of foreign aid and security of the people wouldn't be worth that. But I do anticipate that they would put pressure on Israel for concessions. They would also not automatically be complicit in whatever Israel wants the way Mubarak was. They would use their own concessions as a bargaining chip.
-
I think I am ready to denounce the guards of Abu Garab, their conduct reflects badly on all of their countrymen and I am glad that most of them went to prison.
Denounce away. My point was that you are under no obligation to denouncement and your failure to do so should not reflect negatively on your character, nor speak volumes about you.
It might be a good idea without being an obligation, if there was ambiguity working against me.
-
Henny
For all I know the MB could be the devil in disguise. But some "group" is very afraid of them and i sense a smear campaign is in the works where charges are hurled so frequently and so often, you don't have time to answer them all, and some false ones are bound to stick.
Reminds me of what happened after Katrina and Tucson. Blame blame blame.
And i just have a feeling people are being played.
That's how I feel too. And for all the renunciations of violence, the MB could morph yet again - no guarantees against that. But there are, right now, many worse groups out there that would gladly use this diversion to cause disruption and worse.
All I can think of as a reason for this fuss over the MB is that they would not be Israel's best friend. I DON'T think that they would renounce peace treaties. I believe that their leadership is intelligent enough to recognize that the losses of foreign aid and security of the people wouldn't be worth that. But I do anticipate that they would put pressure on Israel for concessions. They would also not automatically be complicit in whatever Israel wants the way Mubarak was. They would use their own concessions as a bargaining chip.
Being "played " is embarrassing because it proves ignorance, what should we know ? where are the facts? For most of my life the Muslim Brotherhood got along fine while I knew nothing about them, can I remain ignorant safely now?
-
Being "played " is embarrassing because it proves ignorance, what should we know ? where are the facts? For most of my life the Muslim Brotherhood got along fine while I knew nothing about them, can I remain ignorant safely now?
No, but it wouldn't hurt to do your own homework.
I remember back in 79-80 being on an extended business trip to Baton Rouge, in Sunday night home Friday night. Lot of room service meals. I had an Iranian room service guy one time and we ended up discussing the hostage crisis, and he pointed to the TV and said the inly thing you americans know is what you see on the box, pointing to the TV.
Now that i am older, i think i agree with him. We know what we are allowed to know, unloess we go out of our way to learn more. I'm just saying i want to learn more.
-
Are Google and Wiki just another Box to tell me an abbreiviated part of the story?
-
Are Google and Wiki just another Box to tell me an abbreiviated part of the story?
Google and Wiki are far less centrally edited.
-
I think I am ready to denounce the guards of Abu Garab, their conduct reflects badly on all of their countrymen and I am glad that most of them went to prison.
Denounce away. My point was that you are under no obligation to denouncement and your failure to do so should not reflect negatively on your character, nor speak volumes about you.
It might be a good idea without being an obligation, if there was ambiguity working against me.
BINGO
-
There was something else that I wanted to add, in general, about the MB.
This is an organization with members from all walks of life. Average, every day business men frequently join the MB. No long beard required.
-
The closest thing to the MB in the West might be Opus Dei or the Hijos de Maria in majority Catholic nations like Portugal, Spain and Mexico.
I am sure there are plenty of differences.