In your posts alone shag the Muslim Brotherhood has been mentioned over 20 times, usually as the 'boogie' man...
Evolving Middle East Crisis Thread
- Thread starter Calabrio
- Start date
In your posts alone shag the Muslim Brotherhood has been mentioned over 20 times, usually as the 'boogie' man...
In your posts alone shag the Muslim Brotherhood has been mentioned over 20 times, usually as the 'boogie' man...
In other words, you can not point to either Cal or I making the specific assertion you are attributing to us...
NO ONE said that the uprising is ORCHESTRATED by the MB (in fact, both Cal and I have inferred the exact opposite). But it is much easier to discredit a criticism if you can first lie and attribute false notions to it.
Yes, I simplified it in order to make it easier to clarify your opinion.
Unfortunately, you still haven't done so.
And it still sounds like you think that the only risk is a land invasion, circa 1900.
No, I recognize threats to my security and quality of life, even indirect ones.
Your view of this is far too narrow and near sighted. But because you aren't even willing to consider information outside of your preconceptions, it's impossible to expand the conversation.
You don't even know what qualifies as a threat.
Nor do you seek to understand the scope of the threat or the competing motivations.
As far as your concerned, you're o.k. today so you just presume everything will essentially stay the same next week, next month, or in ten years. It's pretty much been like that for most of your life, so the idea that the world can change is a foreign concept to you.
That normalcy bias makes us all lazy, apathetic, and vulnerable.
And in your case, it fuels your stubborn arrogance. Rather than learning history, or challenging your preconceptions with honest peopel who HAVE invested the energy to try to understand these things, and continue to do so, you'd sooner take internet IQ tests to convince yourself of your above averageness.
The news coming out of Egypt today is very unclear. It's usually poorly reported due to the general ignorance of journalists, but it's especially bad today. Every hour the reports on Mubarak change.
The Brotherhood are saying that it has become a military coupe.
If that is the case and this is an effort to maintain the power among the ruling regime, it's likely going to intensify the violence on the street as the regime seeks to create order.
If they try to impose some kind of unity government, the radicals will take over.
There's no real positive outcome here.
It's just an issue of trying to understand it and the likely outcomes.
For example, why should someone in France have cared about an assassination in Sarajevo?
You made a point earlier about the military power of the Germans, but I don't think you actually understand what you were talking about.
The Germans had begun building up their military, in defiance of the Treaty of Versailles, while the other European powers were dismantling their own.
The Germans were stinging and humiliated by the Allies after WWI and sought retribution. In the meantime, the academics were teaching passivism, rewriting their text books to exclude braggadocio, and to emasculate the next generation in the name of utopian peace.
And when Germany eventually attacked France, on paper, it was in bold defiance of all the military analysts. On paper, the Germans should have been crushed. Hitler properly gauged the spirit of the French population and took the country. Even after getting past the Maginot line, the country still should have been able to rally and turn back the army. If nothing else, they should have been able to hold the country more than a month.
...I doubt any of this has any relevance to you. You don't see any connection.
Ah, the efforts to deny reality.
In this thread, we have efforts to distort the skeptical, cautious, informed position in order to delegtimize it, and profoundly short-sighted and self absorbed efforts to provide any excuse that sticks to justify dismissing those concerns, however transparent.
It would be comical if it weren't so sad. People are more concerned about manipulation and stroking their own sense of superiority then in productive discourse aimed at analyzing the situation in Egypt honestly.
In this thread, we have efforts to distort the skeptical, cautious, informed position in order to delegtimize it, and profoundly short-sighted and self absorbed efforts to provide any excuse that sticks to justify dismissing those concerns, however transparent.
It would be comical if it weren't so sad. People are more concerned about manipulation and stroking their own sense of superiority then in productive discourse aimed at analyzing the situation in Egypt honestly.
But we are analyzing the situation honestly.
You and Cal are the ones putting forth your prejudgement, preconcieved notions and your false comparisons to nazi germany.
:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:
Sure you are. Attempts to DENY reality is always a sign of honest analysis.
You still haven't said how the unnaccomplished Muslims are going to wind up dominating the world.
You haven't even laid out what it is that you fear will happen or what the threat is.
They are over there so how are they going to put the boots to us americans here.
We don't like the authority of the government we have.
Do you think american people are going to put up with being ruled by Muslims and Sharia.
The whole thing is prepostorous.
:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:
Sure you are. Attempts to DENIAL of reality is ALWAYS a sign of honest analysis.
I'm analyzing it as I see it which is honest.
My opinion may not be what you consider accurate but it is not dishonest or some kind of manipulative plot which is what you always insinuate when you bring out your honesty canard.
The "reality" you allude to has not come to pass yet so it is not the reality today and there is nothing to deny.
Because when you should be very careful to not let experience, history, or other events taking place concurrently, influence your analysis in anyway.
Because when you should be very careful to not let experience, history, or other events taking place concurrently, influence your analysis in anyway.
This is the case law argument.
Well this happened before and the outcome was....
We've already discredited your Iran 1979 comparison.
No americans have been taken hostage though some have been roughed up as western media representatives.
The protesters themselves have said what their motivations are.
The Muslim Brotherhood has said they don't want a theocracy.
But you're too busy with your worst case scenarios buzzing in your head to listen and hear them.
Yes...because you say you did.
Nevermind that your arguments are simply short sighted rationalizations that don't stand up to critical analysis on their own.
And there is no possibility that those claims are simply reflective of them being two faced and telling Westerners what they want to hear. There is no manipulation involve in those statements. Nevermind the history of the MB and the contradictory statements made by them.
Denial of reality
Time for a New Director of National Intelligence
John Podhoretz
As I write, the world waits and watches for the astonishing moment when Hosni Mubarak announces he will step down from the presidency of Egypt. Now begins the critical time of testing for Egypt, for democracy, for reason, for Israel, and for the United States. We all know that what is happening here can and might end in disaster, and so this is the point at which the Obama administration is going to have to handle itself with far more care, assurance, and focus than it has thus far.
It is therefore horrifying to discover that hauntingly familiar happy talk is beginning to emanate from the administration’s highest reaches — talk suggesting that the possible disaster might not be a disaster, that the bad guys aren’t really the bad guys, that those who might lead the region into war are actually far more complex and reasonable than is commonly thought. This is the kind of thing that was said by Carter-administration officials in the months before the takeover of Iran by the Ayatollah. And it was said, this morning, by Obama’s director of national intelligence, James Clapper. As Politico’s splendid reporter Josh Gerstein explains:
_______________________________________________
Some quotes reflective of Muslim Brotherhood thought:
And remember, James Clapper is one of the most well informed people on this issue, yet he is promoting delusion.
Further proof that the notion that "more information = less delusion" is false.
Objectivity matters.
Time for a New Director of National Intelligence
John Podhoretz
As I write, the world waits and watches for the astonishing moment when Hosni Mubarak announces he will step down from the presidency of Egypt. Now begins the critical time of testing for Egypt, for democracy, for reason, for Israel, and for the United States. We all know that what is happening here can and might end in disaster, and so this is the point at which the Obama administration is going to have to handle itself with far more care, assurance, and focus than it has thus far.
It is therefore horrifying to discover that hauntingly familiar happy talk is beginning to emanate from the administration’s highest reaches — talk suggesting that the possible disaster might not be a disaster, that the bad guys aren’t really the bad guys, that those who might lead the region into war are actually far more complex and reasonable than is commonly thought. This is the kind of thing that was said by Carter-administration officials in the months before the takeover of Iran by the Ayatollah. And it was said, this morning, by Obama’s director of national intelligence, James Clapper. As Politico’s splendid reporter Josh Gerstein explains:
During a House Intelligence Committee hearing Thursday, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called Egypt’s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood movement ”largely secular”. …
“The term ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ … is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam,” Clapper said. “They have pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera. … In other countries, there are also chapters or franchises of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally”…
Clapper said later in the hearing that the Brotherhood in Egypt runs 29 hospitals ”not under the guise of an extremist agenda.” He said the group fills a vacuum cause by the absence of government services, but added, “It is not necessarily with a view to promoting violence or overthrow of the state.
This is one of the most reckless and irresponsible statements ever made publicly by an American official at a critical and delicate moment. If one of the key figures in the making of the administration’s foreign policy is already making excuses for the Muslim Brotherhood, the president needs to signal immediately that the United States does not view this evil and destructive force with rose-colored glasses. Hard to say how Obama can do that in a way that will be meaningful and still allow Clapper to remain in his office.“The term ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ … is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam,” Clapper said. “They have pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera. … In other countries, there are also chapters or franchises of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally”…
Clapper said later in the hearing that the Brotherhood in Egypt runs 29 hospitals ”not under the guise of an extremist agenda.” He said the group fills a vacuum cause by the absence of government services, but added, “It is not necessarily with a view to promoting violence or overthrow of the state.
_______________________________________________
Some quotes reflective of Muslim Brotherhood thought:
“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.”
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.”
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.”
Can you say, "Denial of Reality"?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.”
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.”
And remember, James Clapper is one of the most well informed people on this issue, yet he is promoting delusion.
Further proof that the notion that "more information = less delusion" is false.
Objectivity matters.
You'll first have to demonstrate where I said Muslim's were going to take over the world and the United States, because I haven't EVER said that.
Nor have I ever implied it.
You may have come to that conclusion, but that's because you're ignorant and you continue to view the world through your misplaced arrogance.
But you just said that I said they were going to take over the world and the U.S.
Which is it?
My effort was to arrive at some agreement before engaging in any kind of deeper analysis of discussion of current events. Why am I going to discuss geo-politics with you while you still won't acknowledge facts that are self-evident to ANYONE who knows ANYTHING about the region?
I go back to my earlier point, you seem limited to thinking in 19th century terms. That the only way a nation can do us harm is by invading our country with boots on the ground. And since we essentially have a nuclear deterrent, that will never happen.
If not for what is believed to have been Israel sabotage, Iran may have been pointing a nuclear warhead at Europe in the next year. How much does the world change when they do?
Pakistan is a nuclear power as well. If you have a domino effect of quasi-secular strong-arm states in that region falling to internal revolution and taken over by theocratic regimes, how long before Pakistan falls too?
Remember, as I've tirelessly been saying, Egypt is only part of the story. That's the narrow focus of the media right now, but we're seeing uprisings and instability throughout the Muslim world. Right now we're looking at Egypt, Yemen and Tunisia as well as Jordan, Algeria,and Morocco. There was a Muslim attack in Russia last week.
These protests are even taking place in Bahrain.
There are a lot of dangers associated with this. Historically, the Islamic nation and leadership have sought to reform the Caliphate and retake all of the land they lost after the Crusades and that was divided up after WW1 and WW2.
While we talk about riots and revolutions like in Egypt, triggered by hunger and austerity measures (and Marxists), you'd be mistake to avoid looking at Europe as well.
There are riots in Italy, Greece, Spain, England, Belaruse, Latvia, Ireland, among some others I can't think of at the moment.
And what is happening in our country?
How many states are literally on the verge of bankruptcy? I think 14% of the population is on food stamps, real unemployment is in over 20%, and there's no true economic recovery possible.
At the same time, we know that terrorist organizations and countries like Iran are making strategic ties with South American countries and terrorist organizations. Last month, an Iranian book about suicide bombers was found on our porous Southern border.
...this is part of the problem, there's SO MUCH information to relate, it's pointless unless we're both in agreement at the starting point. I'm just going to stop at this point because it's futile.
BINGO!
Both people have to be focused on a productive conversation to get anywhere. If anyone is focused more on some other agenda, say.... posturing and contention to demonstrate superiority, or using manipulation to nullify opposing views, the conversation is over before it begins.
You still haven't told me what the threat you fear so much is other than Iran pointing nuclear weapons at europe if they ever get them working.
Pakistan has had nuclear weapons for some time now and armageddon has not come to pass.
And how's that Caliphati retaki landi thing going for them?
Where have they gotten anywhere with that?
At least I can seperate bluster from accomplishment.
Enjoy your ignorance.
I've tried to communicate with you, you're not interested in doing so.
Continue to gratify yourself.
I called your bluff and you folded.
You still haven't said how the Muslims are going to come to dominate the world and threaten us more than they do now because you don't know how but feel vaguely threatened anyways.
I don't know how I just know is what you are saying.
Mubarek is going to address the nation tonight so let's see what happens there.
Wow!
Your short-sighted arrogance knows no bounds, does it.
I understand your argument.
I'm vaguely uneasy about Muslims myself.
I regard them with suspicion.
Their populations are growing while ours are stagnant.
I myself can't see how they would defeat us, china and the rest of the developed world so I don't expect you to answer.
I just don't see the current situation as the foregone conclusion you do.
It may be a step in that direction but that can't be concluded yet.
In other words, you can not point to either Cal or I making the specific assertion you are attributing to us..
NO ONE said that the uprising is ORCHESTRATED by the MB (in fact, both Cal and I have inferred the exact opposite). But it is much easier to discredit a criticism if you can first lie and attribute false notions to it.
So - just to be clear - you don't think it was 'orchestrated' by the Muslim Brotherhood - but, the Muslim Brotherhood, being opportunistic, will, in fact, be in charge once the dust settles?
Or - 'where are you going with this shag'?
I doubt if it makes much difference - if they started it or not - it is just important that they end it... If indeed that is the road you are going down.
00Linc'LSv8
Banned
Mubarak OUT! Foreign Influence IN!
Very powerful and influential factions have stated there goal is to establish and Islamic theocracy over as much of the world as possible, by any means necessary. This necessitates defeating us. Whether or not they are actually capable of defeating us is a secondary concern (whether or not we have the will to defeat them before it is too late is a more relevant question).
We have seen countless examples of their ingenuity and how much of an impact they can have through relatively simple and unconventional means. We have seen the damage they can cause through those means.
We see it as a threat for those elements getting more influence and more powerful means to wage jihad.
Neither I nor Cal said ANYTHING about a "foregone conclusion". Nor have we said anything to infer such.
We both simply have an understanding of how radicals have subverted legitimate grievances and uprisings toward their own tyrannical ends in the past. We also understand the truly radical nature of many of the actors in the middle east and see a number of them circling this, and setting themselves up in a position to act.
Perhaps to you but to me this is of primary importance and more needing of critical analysis than their rhetoric.
Without this capability their threats lack credibility and are more like an in house wish list.
Whether or not they can succeed in the ultimate goal does not mean that they cannot cause suffering and death in their misguided attempts to reach the goal.
YouTube - VIDEO Daniel Pearl Beheaded By Khalid Sheikh Mohammed : Daniel Pearl Execution
Germany and Japan failed in their goals during WW2 but caused countless deaths in their efforts.
To focus only on whether or not radical Islam is capable of achieving their goals makes the discussion purely academic, utterly worthless and misses the point of this conversation entirely; it is refusing to see the forest through the trees. The ONLY way to find out if they can achieve their goals is for them to actually achieve them. I do not want to ever allow them the opportunity to give us an answer to that question.
We must STOP their destructive efforts. Whether they pose a legitimate threat to world dominance or not is irrelevant.
A great power is not so great if it can be made to cower over small events.