Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of all the talk about Egypt, there is a growing consensus that the Muslim Brotherhood will in fact take up some role in Egypt's future. Even the United States has had dialog with them and there is no shortage of opinions on what exactly the Muslim Brotherhood is, what it's ambitions are, and what it means to the world if they gain some level of political ascendancy in Egypt's future government.
Now there are no shortage of quotes, articles and opinions on the dangers of the Muslim Brotherhood and I in fact encourage people to post them, as I know several posters have a page of links waiting in the wind to post over and over and here is your chance to post them again.
However, I recently posted the assessment of the Nixon Center which takes a different approach that I have no doubts many will disagree with. In addition there was the following article published by the Council on Foreign Relations.
U.S. policymaking has been handicapped by Washington's tendency to see the Muslim Brotherhood -- and the Islamist movement as a whole -- as a monolith. Policymakers should instead analyze each national and local group independently and seek out those that are open to engagement
I realize the Council on Foreign Relations is a fly by night blogger site (humor off)
Of course it doesn't end there, as according to another article in Foreign Policy in Focus, there is yet a different opinion, yet one that also contradicts the idea that the Muslim Brotherhood is evil incarnate.
Although I suspect the title alone will raise ire.
Since it's likely that the Muslim Brotherhood will play a key role in Egypt's post-Mubarak future, it's important to address this hysteria. The Brotherhood has moved on, even if Bolton and McCarthy have not.
At the very least those two words, "Muslim Brotherhood" have just now entered nearly every American's vocabulary.
Since the little AOL blog had one of them stating that Israel should prepare for war, I would put them in the bad column. This is all we need is a war to break out against Israel.
As the oldest Islamic group in the world, Brotherhood is beyond simple characterizations. While the Brotherhood does advocate the centrality of Islam with the organization of the state, it has remained dedicated to a peaceful transition having renounced violence as a tactic in 1928. It position on non-violence has resulted in a number of former members to leave the organization in order to form more radical and violent organizations. It was one of the first Muslim group to denounce the attacks on 9/11, was renounced by Al Qaida as a traitor to the Islamic cause.
But instead of me writing about the Islamic Brotherhood, perhaps the discussion would be better served if folks would read what the Islamic Brotherhood has to say for itself:
So based upon the statements made at an AOL blog, do you dismiss the assessment of the Council on Foreign Relations or Foreign Policy in Review?
What do you think about the following statement from the second article?
Quote:
Unsurprisingly, not everyone in the Muslim world felt warm and fuzzy about the Brotherhood’s shift. "Al-Qaeda’s leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri, started their political lives affiliated with the Brotherhood, but both have denounced it for decades as too soft and a cat’s paw of Mubarak and America," writes former CIA officer Bruce Reidel at The Daily Beast.
One of the primary documents [pdf] used in the Holy Land Foundation trial in 2008 was the “Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group”. It was written on May 22, 1991 by Mohamed Akram, and gave a brief description of the mission of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States:
The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] 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 Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. […] It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is…
The above is a clear declaration that the front organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood — CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, NAIT, MSA, IIIT, etc. — intended to “bore from within” and overthrow American constitutional government by subverting our own institutions.
So based upon the statements made at an AOL blog, do you dismiss the assessment of the Council on Foreign Relations or Foreign Policy in Review?
What do you think about the following statement from the second article?
You have to go with the reality on the ground. The leader of the Muslim Brotherhood on hte groung told Egyptians to prepare for war with Israel. They are unrepentent extremists.
"A leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt told the Arabic-language Iranian news network Al-Alam on Monday that he would like to see the Egyptian people prepare for war against Israel, according to the Hebrew-language business newspaper Calcalist."
But instead of me writing about the Islamic Brotherhood, perhaps the discussion would be better served if folks would read what the Islamic Brotherhood has to say for itself:
Yet how does one respond to the statements as said by Muhammad Ghannem, as linked by others here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
You have to go with the reality on the ground. The leader of the Muslim Brotherhood on hte groung told Egyptians to prepare for war with Israel. They are unrepentent extremists.
Quoting a single quote by an Israeli source that supports Mubarak lends itself to some bias, no? I'm not denying this person said it but I also do not know the full context in which it was said.
Again, this single statement has been repeated numerous times, yet our own government has decided to have dialog with them and the assessment of the Council on Foreign Relations as well as other foreign policy groups do not come to the same conclusion as the Israelis.
So again, when you say reality on the ground, do we consider a single statement made by this Muslim and that Israeli, or a more consensus view as depicted by various intelligence and policy centers?
An example, if I were to take a single statement made by Nancy Pelosi, could I then say that this is what America thinks? If I took a single statement by John McCain, could I even say this is how all Republicans think?
Yet how does one respond to the statements as said by Muhammad Ghannem, as linked by others here?
In two days of searching the source of the alleged Ghannem story, I have not been able to find a single independent secondary source for the story put out by Forexcrunch.com a three person Israeli based website that is:
"all about the foreign exchange market, which consists of tutorials, basics of the forex market, daily and weekly forex analysis, technical analysis, forex software posts, insights about the forex industry and whatever is related to Forex."
As the oldest Islamic group in the world, Brotherhood is beyond simple characterizations. While the Brotherhood does advocate the centrality of Islam with the organization of the state, it has remained dedicated to a peaceful transition having renounced violence as a tactic in 1928. It position on non-violence has resulted in a number of former members to leave the organization in order to form more radical and violent organizations. It was one of the first Muslim group to denounce the attacks on 9/11, was renounced by Al Qaida as a traitor to the Islamic cause.
But instead of me writing about the Islamic Brotherhood, perhaps the discussion would be better served if folks would read what the Islamic Brotherhood has to say for itself:
Muslim Brotherhood: We Don't Lead Egypt's Revolt - World Watch - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20030242-503543.html - broken link)
Oh yeah, let's listen to what admitted liars have to say. Yeah, you're cooking with gas. Is there any chance that they say exactly what people want to hear? Nah, not religious fanatics that are told by their holy book to lie about their true Islamification intentions. Not them, they are honest good willed people right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
