Evolving Middle East Crisis Thread

[Calabrio]

Foreign Islamists Get Little Support in Egypt

The Muslim Brotherhood saying that there is no international element to this is irrelevant. The Brotherhood IS a group with international reach.

The issue isn't the students on the street. They will be used and dismissed after wards, just as they are after all of these 20th century revolutions. They supply the initial energy and manpower to trigger events, when that is done, the "grown ups" step in. Men with articulated goals and visions, with organization, will use those 'students' and assert themselves at the opportune moment.

I think you feed and thrive on having a generalized anxiety about events that sometimes overwhelms your judgement(opinion?) demonstrated in the tone of the articles and the alarmist musings you post.

There's no "generalized anxiety" in anything I'm saying. My concerns are incredibly specific and easily supported. The fact is, you are more interested in trying to appear clever and are more invested in generating a response rather than a thoughtful contribution to a discussion. And another member has an entirely different agenda that undermines ANY kind of honest or interesting dialog.

I suggest you put aside your arrogance and replace it with some intellectual curiosity and integrity and actually learn about these subjects. It'd be far more interesting

Personally I think it's great and refreshing they're saying FU and humiliating the religious zealots.
We should be so strong ourselves with ours

History will prove you wrong. Though it's interesting how you are speaking about riots and protests associated with the Muslim brotherhood and Islamists at university as an FU to zealots because they aren't identifying with the Iranians. No one with any understanding of evens thinks there's complete unity with all of these different factions in the region. However, there are mutual goals and mutual enemies.

I suggest you learn your history, replacing factual knowledge and context simply with your prejudices and insecurity makes it impossible to understand and analyze events. This isn't a subject that can be easily condensed into a paragraph or a page. Much of the history has been revised so it takes a considerable amount of time and effort to study the region.

Additional point- the events in Egypt are NOT isolated.
The narrow magnifying glass of the media might make it seem that way, but that's not the case. If you're viewing Egypt as an isolated event, you are missing half of the story.

 

[Calabrio]

Egypt has Sharia law anyway - that isn't going to go away - but, at least sharia law within a democracy is better than sharia law within the grasp of a strong arm dictator.

No, Egypt didn't have Sharia law. They had incorporated some aspects of Sharia into the legal system, but it was not a theocracy.

What you say demonstrates a horrible misunderstanding of what Sharia IS. And be careful, when discussing Sharia, don't discuss it as you would want it to be, or infuse it with your own Western sensibilities.

You can use democracy to arrive at Sharia, but you can't have a free Sharia state. They aren't compatible. And any compromise is little more than an incremental approach toward arriving at a Sharia government.

To put it simply, Sharia isn't a couple values or rules. It's not like embracing the 10 commandments when writing the legal code. It's a system of rule that involves EVERYTHING in a person's life and how they relate to other people as well. From personal behavior to financing to marriage and foreign policy.

So, there is no such thing as a democratic Sharia as we'd understand it. You can't pass a referendum to change the Koran. And mullahs aren't elected.

You may be able to vote for your street sweeper, dog catcher, or other civil servants, but the ultimate power is held by the theocratic state.

 

[foxpaws]

No, Egypt didn't have Sharia law. They had incorporated some aspects of Sharia into the legal system, but it was not a theocracy.

Personal status law in Egypt is Sharia - and the official religion in Egypt is Islam. It also uses Islamic jurisprudence as the principle source of legislation - it is just a 'squeek' away from a theocracy. But, you are right - it isn't a true theocracy

You can use democracy to arrive at Sharia, but you can't have a free Sharia state. They aren't compatible. And any compromise is little more than an incremental approach toward arriving at a Sharia government.

You can have sharia in parts of the legal system and still have a secular government... Egypt has been doing it for years, so has India.

You may be able to vote for your street sweeper, dog catcher, or other civil servants, but the ultimate power is held by the theocratic state.

Sharia doesn't have to encompass all - as both India and Egypt have shown us for years - And you seem to forget Cal the Egypt is Sunni, and Hanafi Sunnis at that.

And you have it wrong Cal - this revolution isn't just about students - almost all parts of Egyptian society are taking part - This isn't Tiananmen Square.

 

[Calabrio]

Despite your defiance, you've merely repeated what I just said.
You can incorporate some aspects of Sharia into the legal system, but that does not make it a country governed under Sharia law.

The rest you didn't challenge.

Again, I will repeat a quote the current Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey made when he was mayor of Istanbul in the nineties, "(Democracy is like) a train that takes you to your destination, and then you get off.”

And you have it wrong Cal - this revolution isn't just about students - almost all parts of Egyptian society are taking part - This isn't Tiananmen Square.

I don't have anything wrong, you've just chosen to misrepresent what I said. To quote myself:
The issue isn't the students on the street. They will be used and dismissed after wards, just as they are after all of these 20th century revolutions. They supply the initial energy and manpower to trigger events, when that is done, the "grown ups" step in. Men with articulated goals and visions, with organization, will use those 'students' and assert themselves at the opportune moment.

 

[04SCTLS]

" There's no "generalized anxiety" in anything I'm saying. My concerns are incredibly specific and easily supported. The fact is, you are more interested in trying to appear clever and are more invested in generating a response rather than a thoughtful contribution to a discussion. And another member has an entirely different agenda that undermines ANY kind of honest or interesting dialog.

I was refering to shag having generalized anxiety not you cal but it's interesting you thought I was refering to you.
You usually don't do a snit dance prefering some words strung together no one else finds clever but you.

 

[cammerfe]

Words

...no one else finds clever but you.

Au Contraire, I always find his words clever.

KS

 

[shagdrum]

It always amazes me the lengths that people go to save themselves from reality.

When one viewpoint can control the narrative, they can avoid inconvenient facts and legitimate contradictory views by easily dismissing them as irrelevant and illegitimate; by controlling the debate.

But the greatest test of a viewpoint is how it responses to criticism. Generally speaking, the response comes in one of two flavors, A) an attempt avoid confronting the critique by posturing in an attempt to delegitimizing the contradictory viewpoint and those promoting it, or B) an honest attempt to confront the contradictory viewpoint on it's merits.

The former is much easier, convenient and can be a means to reassert dominance of the debate. However it is, ultimately, a demonstration of both inferiority of and lack of confidence in the favored viewpoint.

In regards to the current debate, the Utopian delusions have been shown to be flawed and, since those flaws cannot reasonably be account for, the focus turns avoiding those critiques and regaining control of the debate.

While starting out subtly through assertions and rhetorical sleight of hand, when pressed this often gets downright nasty and shamelessly dishonest. Condescension, distraction and blatant distortion of the contradictory views becomes the norm and quickly devolves vile smears. Post in all the faux outrage and shear brashness of the rebuttals is the fact that they are often more personal in nature, inconsistent and even contradictory, or that the original critique is conveniently avoided.

This manifests itself in a number of ways.

For instance, it is rather common to distort the opposing view to make it seem guilty of the same criticism it is leveling at the favored view and, through inference, making the person leveling the criticism a dishonest hypocrite. In all the faux outrage, the accuracy of the original criticism is never considered.

It is also effective to subtly distort the opposing view so as to draw false inferences from it that only serve to discredit it and make those articulating the opposing view seem irrational. Again, examination of the actual criticism is avoided.

We also get the more simple-minded condescension (often bordering on mocking if not going so far as open hostility) to give the appearance that the critical viewpoint beneath consideration.

All these efforts serve two functions; to avoid confronting the critical viewpoint by delegitimizing it and to bully those leveling the criticism into acquiescence and reestablish control of the debate.

This is very dangerous, because the ultimate effect is an insulation of the favored viewpoint from reality. These efforts to dodge criticism inhibit the feedback mechanism from reality that those contradictory viewpoints serve as.

The resulting myopic focus on an ideal or set of ideals has been one of the most socially destructive forces of the past century. Every modern tyranny has had this type of Utopian delusion as it's catalyst.

Any viewpoint that has to insulate itself from reality in such a way is demonstrating that it is rooted in feeling, not reason, confirming the earlier cited quote by John Stewart Mill:

So long as an opinion is strongly rooted in feelings, it gains rather then loses in stability by having a preponderating weight of argument against it. For if it were accepted as a result of argument, the refutation of the argument might shake the solidity of the conviction; but when it rests solely on feeling, the worse it fares in argumentative contest, the more persuaded are it's adherents that their feelings must have some deeper ground which the argument does not reach.​

Feelings do not make for a legitimate viewpoint.

Attempts to avoid reality by avoiding legitimate contradictory views are the result of the phenomenon that Mill was talking about.

 

[04SCTLS]

In regards to the current debate, the Utopian delusions have been shown to be flawed and, since those flaws cannot reasonably be account for, the focus turns avoiding those critiques and regaining control of the debate.

You mean like when you talk about social justice and I point out that unionized government workers have become the new object of envy and you cannot reasonably account for that so you just avoid the critique

 

[shagdrum]

Muslim Brotherhood text reveals scope of radical creed
By OREN KESSLER

Translated by Palestinian Media Watch, book details group’s goal of global Islamic conquest.

One of the greatest beneficiaries of the unrest in Egypt has been the Muslim Brotherhood.

Banned but tolerated for decades by successive Egyptian regimes, the Islamist movement is now emerging as a central player in the country’s resurgent opposition.

On Tuesday, two Brotherhood representatives participated in an opposition delegation that met with Vice President Omar Suleiman for the first set of talks over implementing political reforms.

Pundits have portrayed the Brotherhood as uncompromising zealots or beneficent providers of social services that long-deprived Egyptians desperately need.

But a translation released Tuesday of a 1995 book by the movement’s fifth official leader sheds light on just how Egypt’s Brotherhood views itself and its mission. Jihad is the Way is the last of a five-volume work, The Laws of Da’wa by Mustafa Mashhur, who headed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt from 1996-2002.

They detail the Brotherhood’s objectives of advancing the global conquest of Islam and reestablishing the Islamic Caliphate, the public and private duties of jihad and the struggle Muslims must wage against Israel.

The full text, translated by PMW, will be posted Wednesday on the organization’s website, Palwatch.org.

“The Islamic ummah,” it says, referring to the supranational community of Muslims, “can regain its power and be liberated and assume its rightful position which was intended by Allah, as the most exalted nation among men, as the leaders of humanity.”

Elsewhere, it exhorts Muslims, “Know your status, and believe firmly that you are the masters of the world, even if your enemies desire your degradation.”

Marcus spoke to the Post about what he views as the danger of downplaying the Brotherhood’s ideology, or expecting it to moderate its objectives after being allowed into the political process. The movement differs from international terror groups like Al-Qaida, he said, only in tactics, not in its goals.

Marcus cited passages in the text that urge Muslims to wage jihad only when circumstances are ripe.

“The Brotherhood is not rushed by youth’s enthusiasm into immature and unplanned action which will not alter the bad reality and may even harm the Islamic activity, and will benefit the people of falsehood,” Mashhur wrote.

“One should know that it is not necessary that the Muslims repel every attack or damage caused by the enemies of Allah immediately, but [only] when ability and the circumstances are fit to it.”

Jihad is the Way explicitly endorses the reinstatement of a worldwide Islamic regime.

“It should be known that jihad and preparation towards jihad are not only for the purpose of fending off assaults and attacks of Allah’s enemies from Muslims, but are also for the purpose of realizing the great task of establishing an Islamic state and strengthening the religion and spreading it around the world.”

“Jihad for Allah,” Mashhur wrote, “is not limited to the specific region of the Islamic countries, since the Muslim homeland is one and is not divided, and the banner of Jihad has already been raised in some of its parts, and shall continue to be raised, with the help of Allah, until every inch of the land of Islam will be liberated, and the State of Islam established.”

Hassan al-Banna, the movement’s founder, “felt the grave danger overshadowing the Muslims and the urgent need and obligation which Islam places on every Muslim, man and woman, to act in order to restore the Islamic Caliphate and to reestablish the Islamic state on strong foundations.”

Despite its universal message, the book attaches particular significance to the Holy Land.

“Honorable brothers have achieved shahada [martyrdom] on the soil of beloved Palestine, during the years ’47 and ’48, in their jihad against the criminal, thieving, gangs of Zion,” it says.

“Still today, memory of them horrifies the Jews and the name of the Muslim Brotherhood terrifies them.”

Elsewhere, Mushhar wrote, “The imam and shahid Hassan Al-Banna is considered as a martyr of Palestine, even if he was not killed on its soil ... in all his writings and conversations, he always urged towards jihad and aroused the desire for seeking martyrdom ... he did not content himself only with speech and writing, and when the opportunity arrived for jihad in Palestine, he hurried and seized it.”

Wielding a broader brush, Mashhur wrote, “The problems of the Islamic world – such as in Palestine, Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea or the Philippines – are not issues of territories and nations, but of faith and religion.

They are the problems of Islam and all Muslims, and their resolution cannot be negotiated and bargained by recognizing the enemy’s right to the Islamic land he stole, and therefore there is no other option but jihad for Allah, and this is why jihad is the way.”

 

[04SCTLS]

Muslim Brotherhood text reveals scope of radical creed
By OREN KESSLER

Translated by Palestinian Media Watch, book details group’s goal of global Islamic conquest.

One of the greatest beneficiaries of the unrest in Egypt has been the Muslim Brotherhood.

Banned but tolerated for decades by successive Egyptian regimes, the Islamist movement is now emerging as a central player in the country’s resurgent opposition.

On Tuesday, two Brotherhood representatives participated in an opposition delegation that met with Vice President Omar Suleiman for the first set of talks over implementing political reforms.

Pundits have portrayed the Brotherhood as uncompromising zealots or beneficent providers of social services that long-deprived Egyptians desperately need.

But a translation released Tuesday of a 1995 book by the movement’s fifth official leader sheds light on just how Egypt’s Brotherhood views itself and its mission. Jihad is the Way is the last of a five-volume work, The Laws of Da’wa by Mustafa Mashhur, who headed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt from 1996-2002.

They detail the Brotherhood’s objectives of advancing the global conquest of Islam and reestablishing the Islamic Caliphate, the public and private duties of jihad and the struggle Muslims must wage against Israel.

The full text, translated by PMW, will be posted Wednesday on the organization’s website, Palwatch.org.

“The Islamic ummah,” it says, referring to the supranational community of Muslims, “can regain its power and be liberated and assume its rightful position which was intended by Allah, as the most exalted nation among men, as the leaders of humanity.”

Elsewhere, it exhorts Muslims, “Know your status, and believe firmly that you are the masters of the world, even if your enemies desire your degradation.”

Marcus spoke to the Post about what he views as the danger of downplaying the Brotherhood’s ideology, or expecting it to moderate its objectives after being allowed into the political process. The movement differs from international terror groups like Al-Qaida, he said, only in tactics, not in its goals.

Marcus cited passages in the text that urge Muslims to wage jihad only when circumstances are ripe.

“The Brotherhood is not rushed by youth’s enthusiasm into immature and unplanned action which will not alter the bad reality and may even harm the Islamic activity, and will benefit the people of falsehood,” Mashhur wrote.

“One should know that it is not necessary that the Muslims repel every attack or damage caused by the enemies of Allah immediately, but [only] when ability and the circumstances are fit to it.”

Jihad is the Way explicitly endorses the reinstatement of a worldwide Islamic regime.

“It should be known that jihad and preparation towards jihad are not only for the purpose of fending off assaults and attacks of Allah’s enemies from Muslims, but are also for the purpose of realizing the great task of establishing an Islamic state and strengthening the religion and spreading it around the world.”

“Jihad for Allah,” Mashhur wrote, “is not limited to the specific region of the Islamic countries, since the Muslim homeland is one and is not divided, and the banner of Jihad has already been raised in some of its parts, and shall continue to be raised, with the help of Allah, until every inch of the land of Islam will be liberated, and the State of Islam established.”

Hassan al-Banna, the movement’s founder, “felt the grave danger overshadowing the Muslims and the urgent need and obligation which Islam places on every Muslim, man and woman, to act in order to restore the Islamic Caliphate and to reestablish the Islamic state on strong foundations.”

Despite its universal message, the book attaches particular significance to the Holy Land.

“Honorable brothers have achieved shahada [martyrdom] on the soil of beloved Palestine, during the years ’47 and ’48, in their jihad against the criminal, thieving, gangs of Zion,” it says.

“Still today, memory of them horrifies the Jews and the name of the Muslim Brotherhood terrifies them.”

Elsewhere, Mushhar wrote, “The imam and shahid Hassan Al-Banna is considered as a martyr of Palestine, even if he was not killed on its soil ... in all his writings and conversations, he always urged towards jihad and aroused the desire for seeking martyrdom ... he did not content himself only with speech and writing, and when the opportunity arrived for jihad in Palestine, he hurried and seized it.”

Wielding a broader brush, Mashhur wrote, “The problems of the Islamic world – such as in Palestine, Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea or the Philippines – are not issues of territories and nations, but of faith and religion.

They are the problems of Islam and all Muslims, and their resolution cannot be negotiated and bargained by recognizing the enemy’s right to the Islamic land he stole, and therefore there is no other option but jihad for Allah, and this is why jihad is the way.”

These people are poor and backward and have nothing but religious bluster in the face of the material and technological superiority of their enemies and competitors.
Other than setting off a few bombs here and there none of which they've managed to do on US soil since 9/11 they are no match and no real threat to us.
A bomb here and there is not the end of the US and western civilization.
We've put the screws to the jihadis and continue to do so.
Nazi Germany was a real economic technological and military power with german science engineered advanced superweapons(which lucky for us were late in development) so there is no comparison to these medieval thinking clowns we seem to fear out of proportion to their negligible accomplishments.
Werner Von Braun Nazi Germany's V1 V2 rocket scientist put Niel Armstrong on the Moon and developed nuclear ballistic missiles for the US.
Until I see these Muslim countries develop into a real competitive economic threat to the US Germany China Japan and India these musings about Muslim world domination are nothing but a pathetic fantasy from humiliated people who have nothing but found by US and Britain crude oil resourses to offer clinging to pride and religion in the face of facts and reason.
Empty threats is what I see.
How exactly are they going to dominate the world anyways.

 

[04SCTLS]

Does Egypt make al-Qaida irrelevant?

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/09/6014280-does-egypt-make-al-qaida-irrelevant

Two weeks into the Egyptian revolution, there’s been no communiqué, no message from the hills of the Pakistani hinterland. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have been notably silent.
For years, the two have regularly spoken in audio and video messages about events and trends in the Muslim World, attempting to continue their legacy as leaders of radical Islam. Now with Egypt, al-Zawahiri’s home turf, in turmoil, shouldn’t they have issued something?
An al-Zawahiri aide did release a statement last weekend but it was short and not broadcast. Moreover, the deputy, Thirwat Shehata, was forced to admit that his and al-Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad have had no role in the uprising. “Indeed, the Pharaoh and his rotten party must depart, ” Shehata’s statement said.
But Shehata is not al-Zawahiri or bin Laden, NBC News analyst and former NSC official Roger Cressey said, adding that without something directly from them, the two “are in danger of becoming the ‘emperors with no clothes’.” Moreover, the lack of an al-Qaida role or even a message was undercutting their influence.
“I think it’s curious why they haven’t. Al-Qaida needs to inject itself. It’s been presented with an opportunity to be supportive of their narrative,” Cressey said.
One reason, according to analysts inside and outside the U.S. government, could be the declining security situation in northeast Pakistan where both are believed to be hiding.
Weeks pass and still nothing
Getting a message out will often take a week to 10 days and involve a network of couriers. Egypt’s revolution is still only two weeks old. But others point out that the first demonstrations in Tunisia began nearly a month ago … and still nothing.
“They may be working on it,” one counter terrorism analyst inside the U.S. government said. “They operate on their own timetable, not ours. Just because we expect one, doesn’t mean they feel that way.”
He and others noted that the frequency of statements by al-Zawahiri and bin Laden had dropped off significantly in the last year, which they attribute to the ramped up use of Predators and other armed unmanned aerial vehicles by the U.S.
Starting in the middle of 2008, the U.S. has carried out 200 or so strikes. They’ve killed some 1,300 militants. Attacks have increased dramatically under President Obama. The strikes have gone from about 35 in 2008 to 50 in 2009 and 115 last year, said a U.S. official.
“They may simply be hunkered down,” added the counter-terrorism official.
“These attacks are not just aimed at thwarting operations,” said Cressey. “They are aimed at preventing them from getting out their message.”
Beyond personal safety — and delays in transmitting a message, often by hand, from secure locations to trusted computers — there may be political considerations.
Evan Kohlmann, another NBC News analyst who tracks radical Islamic forums, said it’s less personal safety or logistics that have kept bin Laden and al-Zawahiri off the air.
“I think they are sitting and watching what happens before jumping the gun ... they call it the benefit of hindsight,” Kohlmann said.
Bruce Riedel, a former high ranking CIA official with a long history in the Middle East, wrote last week that al-Zawahiri “probably also has very mixed feelings about what is going on in his homeland.”
“No doubt he welcomes Mubarak’s demise,” he added. “He has called for the Egyptian leader’s overthrow for three decades. But al-Qaida and Zawahiri know they have been bypassed in the streets of Cairo, Suez and Alexandria. This is not their revolution and they are not its inspiration. They may try to jump on the bandwagon but this is not their caravan.”
Peaceful protest seems to work
The U.S. official said he doesn’t disagree, adding al-Zawahiri may be “nervous” that his whole life’s work may be at risk.
“He’s worked a lifetime on this and gotten nothing. It’s the demonstrators who are effecting regime change,” he said.
Cressey added, “Each day’s demonstration shows how irrelevant al-Qaida’s philosophy is because it (al-Qaida philosophy) is based on violence. But al-Qaida had nothing to do with this.”
And, the U.S. analysts said, this could lead to opportunities for the United States.
“People see that with patience, consistency and commitment, you can change things,” said the U.S. official. “If there is a peaceful transition, it’s a huge blow to their al-Qaida philosophy, and it follows Tunisians being able to do the same thing. It proves you don’t have to go to Pakistan to carry out a suicide bombing. You can protest.”
Riedel wrote even the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egyptian politics was unlikely to change the perspective that this is a “disaster” for al-Qaida.
“They have denounced the Brotherhood for years for participating in Mubarak’s rigged elections and for advocating change through non-violence,” Riedel wrote. “Both Zawahiri and bin Laden were once members ... but long ago they left it because it would not support their use of terror. To see the Brotherhood now playing a significant role in changing Egypt is a major setback for al-Qaida.”

________________________________________________________

Our "scary" enemies have been reduced to something like the bad guys out of Johnny Quest

 

[Calabrio]

These people are poor and backward and have nothing but religious bluster in the face of the material and technological superiority of their enemies and competitors.

Your conceit blinds you.
The Muslim Brotherhood isn't run by "poor and backward" people. I've addressed this before. The organizations are run by Muslims, many from affluent families, who were educated in the West.

For example, let's look at the attacks on 9/11 that have strong connections to the Muslim brotherhood.
This also somewhat addresses your second post concerning Al-Queda v. The Brotherhood.

Mohammed Atta studied architecture at Cairo University, graduating in 1990, and continued his studies in Hamburg, Germany at the Technical University of Hamburg. His father was a lawyer, his mother came from a wealthy farming and trading family and was also educated. After Atta graduated with a degree in architecture he joined the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated "Engineers Syndicate organization" in 1990.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the “principal architect of 9/11 attacks" and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood since he was 16. He attended North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University and completed a degree in mechanical engineering in 1986.

Ayman Al-Zawahiri joined the Muslim Brotherhood at the age of 14. He was born to a prominent upper middle class family in a suburb of Cairo,. His father was a pharmacologist and a chemistry professor coming from a large family of doctors and scholars, while his mother came from a wealthy, politically active clan. Al-Zawahiri graduating from Cairo University in 1974 and spent three years as a surgeon for the Egyptian military. He then established a medical clinic and earned his Master's degree in surgery.

Other than setting off a few bombs here and there none of which they've managed to do on US soil since 9/11 they are no match and no real threat to us. A bomb here and there is not the end of the US and western civilization.

"Ending" a civilization is too broad a term to discuss. But you're foolish if you think that's not possible. No, it doesn't happen in a day, or a weekend, or even a year. But that is a goal of Islam and not only have they done it in the past, but they speak of doing it again.

Real simple question. What happens to our economy and way of life if oil shoots up to $150 a barrel over the summer?

We've put the screws to the jihadis and continue to do so.
Nazi Germany was a real economic technological and military power with german science engineered advanced superweapons(which lucky for us were late in development) so there is no comparison to these medieval thinking clowns we seem to fear out of proportion to their negligible accomplishments.

Again, you make the critical mistake of thinking this movement is lead by the poor, uneducated, goat hearder on a mountain in Tikrit. That's not the case. The Muslim Brotherhood don't have meetings in remote caves, they aren't a local organization that send smoke signals. They are an international organization, with groups in the United States as well, which is very well funded and lead by well educated, often Western educated, men, many of which have apocalyptic ideals.

Until I see these Muslim countries develop into a real competitive economic threat....

What brought about the end of the Roman Empire?

How exactly are they going to dominate the world anyways.

Notice how you didn't even end that sentence with a question mark.
This is the problem. You know virtually nothing about this subject, yet you refuse to listen or even consider information outside of your preconceived arrogance.

 

[04SCTLS]

You're conceit blinds you.
The Muslim Brotherhood isn't run by "poor and backward" people. I've addressed this before. The organizations are run by Muslims, many from affluent families, who were educated in the West.

For example, let's look at the attacks on 9/11 that have strong connections to the Muslim brotherhood.
This also somewhat addresses your second post concerning Al-Queda v. The Brotherhood.

Mohammed Atta studied architecture at Cairo University, graduating in 1990, and continued his studies in Hamburg, Germany at the Technical University of Hamburg. His father was a lawyer, his mother came from a wealthy farming and trading family and was also educated. After Atta graduated with a degree in architecture he joined the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated "Engineers Syndicate organization" in 1990.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the “principal architect of 9/11 attacks" and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood since he was 16. He attended North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University and completed a degree in mechanical engineering in 1986.

Ayman Al-Zawahiri joined the Muslim Brotherhood at the age of 14. He was born to a prominent upper middle class family in a suburb of Cairo,. His father was a pharmacologist and a chemistry professor coming from a large family of doctors and scholars, while his mother came from a wealthy, politically active clan. Al-Zawahiri graduating from Cairo University in 1974 and spent three years as a surgeon for the Egyptian military. He then established a medical clinic and earned his Master's degree in surgery.


"Ending" a civilization is too broad a term to discuss. But you're foolish if you think that's not possible. No, it doesn't happen in a day, or a weekend, or even a year. But that is a goal of Islam and not only have they done it in the past, but they speak of doing it again.

Real simple question. What happens to our economy and way of life if oil shoots up to $150 a barrel over the summer?


Again, you make the critical mistake of thinking this movement is lead by the poor, uneducated, goat hearder on a mountain in Tikrit. That's not the case. The Muslim Brotherhood don't have meetings in remote caves, they aren't a local organization that send smoke signals. They are an international organization, with groups in the United States as well, which is very well funded and lead by well educated, often Western educated, men, many of which have apocalyptic ideals.


What brought about the end of the Roman Empire?


Notice how you didn't even end that sentence with a question mark.
This is the problem. You know virtually nothing about this subject, yet you refuse to listen or even consider information outside of your preconceived arrogance.

So what have all these educated Muslims accomplished that would lead you to believe they are a formidable threat.
Thinking they will overcome americans with their repugnant practices
is ludicrous.
What information other than their fanciful self serving threats do you have for me to consider.
They got lucky on 9/11 and haven't been able to follow up with anything as spectacular.
We've been beating them down mercilessly.
Even the poorest countries have their educated professional people.

The Roman Empire was overrun by the Visigoths and other primitives but I don't see how they can cross the ocean and invade us.
This is a false comparison.

 

[foxpaws]

Again, I will repeat a quote the current Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey made when he was mayor of Istanbul in the nineties, "(Democracy is like) a train that takes you to your destination, and then you get off.”

Do you have the whole quote in context - I know the Erdogan has disavowed that quote - I would like to see where it is from

The issue isn't the students on the street. They will be used and dismissed after wards, just as they are after all of these 20th century revolutions. They supply the initial energy and manpower to trigger events, when that is done, the "grown ups" step in. Men with articulated goals and visions, with organization, will use those 'students' and assert themselves at the opportune moment.

Have you seen the people on the street - the leaders of this revolt Cal - they are not just students - in fact, they are not mostly students - there are housewives, business people, ex-military, ex-government, middle class, and yes some students -

If this is an uprising orchestrated by the muslim brotherhood, I would like to see concrete evidence and not just a Chicken Little "the sky is falling" type of reaction.

 

[Calabrio]

So what have all these educated Muslims accomplished that would lead you to believe they are a formidable threat.

Hold on.
Let's first recognize that your initial claims are demonstrably false. Your insistence that what we call radical Islam is lead by uneducated, backward, cave-men is not true. If you really are interested, we'll walk forward from there.

We can't discuss these things, due to the complexity and uncertainty, until we at least agree on the facts. You can't keep redefining and narrowing the challenge in terms to the point of irrelevancy while refusing to acknowledge when you're foundational premises are proven to be false.

We'll just talk past each other.

They got lucky on 9/11 and haven't been able to follow up with anything as spectacular.

Why does it have to initially be spectacular?
Why is your concern so narrowly focused on some kind of 19th century ground invasion?
Your tunnel vision is so myopic, you're blind to the realities and risks of the world.

Again, here's a very simple and very realistic possibility, what happens if fuel prices shoot up to $150+ by the end of the summer.
No spectacular explosions. No ground invasion.
What happens in the U.S. What happens in Europe.

Once you recognize the known facts, only then can we actually have a meaningful, interesting conversation of what may happen. But if you're still arguing that this movement is driven by illiterate goat herders and they pose no threat to America because they can't cross the ocean on rafts to throw rocks at us, there's no point.

This isn't a simple topic to discuss.
Unfortunately, people don't have a deep enough understanding of geo-politics and the region inorder to discuss it fluidly. You certainly can't assume they do.

So, unless the conversation is very narrow, you have to provide extensive exposition to frame everything. Even then, individual statements can still be pulled out and taken wildly out of context, and misrepresented.

I've repeatedly said, if you focus solely on Egypt, you're missing most of the story.
And Sharia isn't the only threat in the world.

 

[Calabrio]

Do you have the whole quote in context - I know the Erdogan has disavowed that quote - I would like to see where it is from.

Here you go

 

[04SCTLS]

Hold on.
Let's first recognize that your initial claims are demonstrably false. Your insistence that what we call radical Islam is lead by uneducated, backward, cave-men is not true. If you really are interested, we'll walk forward from there.

We can't discuss these things, due to the complexity and uncertainty, until we at least agree on the facts. You can't keep redefining and narrowing the challenge in terms to the point of irrelevancy while refusing to acknowledge when you're foundational premises are proven to be false.

We'll just talk past each other.



Why does it have to initially be spectacular?
Why is your concern so narrowly focused on some kind of 19th century ground invasion?
Your tunnel vision is so myopic, you're blind to the realities and risks of the world.

Again, here's a very simple and very realistic possibility, what happens if fuel prices shoot up to $150+ by the end of the summer.
No spectacular explosions. No ground invasion.
What happens in the U.S. What happens in Europe.

Once you recognize the known facts, only then can we actually have a meaningful, interesting conversation of what may happen. But if you're still arguing that this movement is driven by illiterate goat herders and they pose no threat to America because they can't cross the ocean on rafts to throw rocks at us, there's no point.

This isn't a simple topic to discuss.
Unfortunately, people don't have a deep enough understanding of geo-politics and the region inorder to discuss it fluidly. You certainly can't assume they do.

So, unless the conversation is very narrow, you have to provide extensive exposition to frame everything. Even then, individual statements can still be pulled out and taken wildly out of context, and misrepresented.

I've repeatedly said, if you focus solely on Egypt, you're missing most of the story.
And Sharia isn't the only threat in the world.

They pose some threat but it is not as great as you make it out to be.
Your overly highly valuing of and too much respect for religion has clouded your judgement
Their leaders may not be cavemen but as a race of people their accomplishments are underwhelming unless you want to go back 600 years.
9/11 gave Al Queda a higher fear and respect for their capabilities than is warranted by what they've done since.
Just the fact that they point to their religion as the source of their strength
that will allow them to somehow triumph over us shows their real weakness.
The world is awash in oil.
We only buy 5% from the middle east.
Any disruption in prices would be only temporary and prices could then collapse like after the 79 Iranian revolution when prices were predicted to reach 5.00 a gallon instead fell to less than a dollar in some states.
These people are not as formidable an enemy as hyped and advertized other than for the defense department and Homeland Security to use as an excuse for higher spending.

 

[cammerfe]

Better Shape

...these people are not as formidable an enemy as hyped and advertized other than for the defense department and Homeland Security to use as an excuse for higher spending.

If we underestimate them, we will forevermore be in serious trouble. On balance, we are in much better shape if you are correct.

On the other hand, Jomini and Clausewitz's admonitions are to be heeded.

'...plan for what's possible, not for what you think your enemy might do...'

KS

 

[04SCTLS]

If we underestimate them, we will forevermore be in serious trouble. On balance, we are in much better shape if you are correct.

On the other hand, Jomini and Clausewitz's admonitions are to be heeded.

'...plan for what's possible, not for what you think your enemy might do...'

KS

Their accomplishments will speak for themselves.
We'll are able to see what is possible from the enemy over time and act accordingly which I think we're doing.
We shouldn't grossly over estimate them either.
They're prone to fued amongst themselves.
Blowing up a religious gathering or funeral is not unusual
as a target.

 

[foxpaws]

Here you go

I see you can't find it either -

So, I am rather inclined to discount it.

 

[shagdrum]

If this is an uprising orchestrated by the muslim brotherhood, I would like to see concrete evidence and not just a Chicken Little "the sky is falling" type of reaction.

And who is actually arguing this?

Again,

It is...effective to subtly distort the opposing view so as to draw false inferences from it that only serve to discredit it and make those articulating the opposing view seem irrational. Again, examination of the actual criticism is avoided.

 

[shagdrum]

We'll are able to see what is possible from the enemy over time and act accordingly which I think we're doing.

So...self defense should be reactionary? There's a recipe for failure.

We shouldn't grossly over estimate them either

There is a HUGE, and DANGEROUS difference between "over" estimating them and under estimating them.

People under estimated Hitler's ambitions and the military capabilities of Nazi Germany. Look at the destruction and suffering that short-sightedness unleashed.

Considering the uncertainty involved, it is a LOT safer to err on the side of caution and VERY reckless and foolish to err on the side of wishful thinking. History conclusively backs this up.

Underestimating evil leads to suffering.

 

[04SCTLS]

So...self defense should be reactionary? There's a recipe for failure.


There is a HUGE, and DANGEROUS difference between "over" estimating them and under estimating them.

People under estimated Hitler's ambitions and the military capabilities of Nazi Germany. Look at the destruction and suffering that short-sightedness unleashed.

Considering the uncertainty involved, it is a LOT safer to err on the side of caution and VERY reckless and foolish to err on the side of wishful thinking. History conclusively backs this up.

Underestimating evil leads to suffering.

The Arabs are not the Nazis other than taking their antisemitism pointers from them.
Hitler had many years to build up his military industrial complex.
Germans are brilliant engineers and Germany is an economic powerhouse, the engine of europe.
We did underestimate and dismiss the Muslims until their extremists pulled off 9/11.
We are erring on the side of caution now.
I'm just pointing out that that the enemy though dangerous is mostly a paper tiger and will never be the superpower of Nazi Germany.
We should keep our alarm in perspective.

 

[Calabrio]

Is your point, essentially, that no matter what they do, we can simply kill them all, so there's no reason to concern ourselves?

That really seems to be about the depth of your analysis.
Nothing else matters. They can't hold American territory right now and if they did launch a strike, we'd assuredly just nuke them.

Nothing else we say will matters unless it challenges that narrow understanding of things?

 

[04SCTLS]

Is your point, essentially, that no matter what they do, we can simply kill them all, so there's no reason to concern ourselves?

That really seems to be about the depth of your analysis.
Nothing else matters. They can't hold American territory right now and if they did launch a strike, we'd assuredly just nuke them.

Nothing else we say will matters unless it challenges that narrow understanding of things?

Not at all.
I'm saying they are not as scary as you think they are.
They may talk a good talk but lack the capacity and capability to carry it out
any time soon.
You're the one simplifying things and bringing up nuking them.
Your fear of the thing is greater than the thing itself.
And it looks like the military has a firm grip on the country and Mubarek is still there.
The villagers have not run the lord out yet.