About that Muslim Brotherhood...

[mercury14]

Your reading assignment http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1235

Still think the protests in Egypt are about freedom and democracy?

Oh goodie. Another thread full of right wing predictions doomed to fail. Can't wait to bump this sucker in couple months. All the usual suspects are here, gloating over things that will not come to pass, and holding up David Horowitz's blog as a rock-solid source.

Egypt in 2011 is the same as the Iran of the 1970s.

None of what you say will come to pass.

Bookmarked.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Why is it that there is no way in hell this administration is going to listen to Karzai and let the Taliban into the government but has zero problem with the Muslim Brotherhood being a part of the Egyptian government?

They both equally represent "the will" of the people, no?

Why were we so damned sure that Democracy could never work in Iraq and did everything we could do to defeat Bush's efforts, but it can work in Egypt because Obama is President and once made a speech in Cairo?

Why are we so sure that El Baradei can effectively bring about this change when he's been so ineffective in his past endeavors?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

merc? Do you study any history at all?

In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood has moved very deftly in the current crisis, throwing its support to Mohamed ElBaradei — the sort of international diplomat (he’s also a Nobel laureate) that Western liberals call a “moderate.” In fact, he’s a transparent apologist for Islamists worldwide. As the Jerusalem Post’s Caroline Glick detailed, when ElBaradei headed the International Atomic Energy Agency, he repeatedly ignored evidence that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon, resisted sanctions on Tehran, and called Israel “the number one nuclear threat to the Middle East.” Last week, ElBaradei told Der Spiegel “We should stop demonizing the Muslim Brotherhood. . . . [T]hey have not committed any acts of violence in five decades. They too want change. If we want democracy and freedom, we have to include them instead of marginalizing them.”

There is the echo of every naïve revolutionary in the history of the world. Such people can topple autocrats — as the Mensheviks did in Russia, the secular reformers in Iran, the anti-Batista forces in Cuba, and liberal elements in Nicaragua — but they can seldom seize and hold power. Most are rewarded with a bullet to the back of the head within hours of the new regime’s ascendancy.

Optimists about the possibility of a sunny result from the current unrest in Egypt point to the Philippines and South Korea. But the U.S. enjoyed prestige and outsized influence in those countries, and could accordingly shape events in a democratic direction. As Barry Rubin of Pajamas Media reminds us, public opinion in Egypt is a bit more problematic. Asked whether they preferred “Islamists” or “modernizers,” 59 percent chose the former, only 27 percent the latter. Some 82 percent think adulterers should be stoned to death, 77 percent favor the amputation of thieves’ hands, and 84 percent approve of the death penalty for apostates.

In 2005, tens of thousands of Lebanese thronged the streets in the so-called “Cedar Revolution” to demand freedom, democracy, and the ouster of the Syrians. Today, Hezbollah is in effective control of the country. In 2006, the Palestinians, voting against corruption and for change, elected Hamas.

The men and women on the streets of Egypt’s cities have been inspired by the example of Tunisia and the hope of a better life. But the Muslim Brotherhood has been preparing for this day for decades. As Michael Ledeen’s grandmother warned: “Things are never so bad that they can’t get worse.”

Mona Charen
NRO

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Another why is it:

In a country of 80 million people, they have yet to even have a million protestors and we should give in to what they want while in this country, we ignored 60% of the voting public and made them swallow ObamaCare...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Who is it that's been bombing the Copts, harassing them, murdering them and forcing them out of Egypt?





Those tolerant moderates longing for "democracy?"





... or Mubarek?

 

[vrosej10]

How so?

The creation of the state of Israel in the first place was the instigatory action. I think it was Holocaust guilt that led to this (and I am NOT a denier). I think this action should not have been taken so hastily. Wanting to live somewhere and being entitled to are two different things; ask anyone wanting a green card.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The creation of the state of Israel in the first place was the instigatory action. I think it was Holocaust guilt that led to this (and I am NOT a denier). I think this action should not have been taken so hastily. Wanting to live somewhere and being entitled to are two different things; ask anyone wanting a green card.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel

Then put the Palies back under Ottoman rule so they can go back to being good little NAZIs just like the Brotherhood...

They obviously cannot rule themselves.

 

[vrosej10]

Then put the Palies back under Ottoman rule so they can go back to being good little NAZIs just like the Brotherhood...

They obviously cannot rule themselves.

And Israel are seeking revenge for the injustices the felt have been done to them over the centuries. This shit goes round and round in circles. To paraphrase Kennedy, the fruits of victory for this kind of persistance of war will be ashes in our mouths.

 

[Ishmael]

And Israel are seeking revenge for the injustices the felt have been done to them over the centuries. This shit goes round and round in circles. To paraphrase Kennedy, the fruits of victory for this kind of persistance of war will be ashes in our mouths.

The more I read you the more I come to understand that your grasp of history re. Israel isn't very well rounded, or very deep. The roots of the Jewish state of Israel go back before the turn of the 20th century. The decision to create a Jewish state in what is now Israel occurred prior to the end of WWI, long before the 1948 UN Resolution.

If the Israelis were indeed seeking revenge the Dome of the Rock would have been gone a long time ago.

Ishmael

 

[Wrong Element]

Why is it that there is no way in hell this administration is going to listen to Karzai and let the Taliban into the government but has zero problem with the Muslim Brotherhood being a part of the Egyptian government?

They both equally represent "the will" of the people, no?

Why were we so damned sure that Democracy could never work in Iraq and did everything we could do to defeat Bush's efforts, but it can work in Egypt because Obama is President and once made a speech in Cairo?

Why are we so sure that El Baradei can effectively bring about this change when he's been so ineffective in his past endeavors?

From reading this post, I can't tell what it is you think our policy should be (even if one assumes the U.S. has any say here, which it really doesn't). I thought you were in favor of suing for peace in Afghanistan (which would mean tolerating the Taliban at the very least), and Lord knows you favored Bush's democracy-for-the-Iraqis policy.

And as far as ElBaradei calling Israel "the number one nuclear threat to the Middle East"...er, isn't that true by definition? It's the same thing as calling the U.S. the number one nuclear threat to North America.

 

[vrosej10]

The more I read you the more I come to understand that your grasp of history re. Israel isn't very well rounded, or very deep. The roots of the Jewish state of Israel go back before the turn of the 20th century. The decision to create a Jewish state in what is now Israel occurred prior to the end of WWI, long before the 1948 UN Resolution.

If the Israelis were indeed seeking revenge the Dome of the Rock would have been gone a long time ago.

Ishmael

I actually wasn't as clear as I should have been here; sorry. What I meant was the creation of Israel as a Jewish homeland and the arrival of the refuges from europe were the insighting events. Thank you for picking me up on this.

I feel the jews, having been disempowered through history, are taking out a lot of their frustrations on the Palestinians. If this all isn't racially motivated, them why are there miscegenation laws in that country?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

From reading this post, I can't tell what it is you think our policy should be (even if one assumes the U.S. has any say here, which it really doesn't). I thought you were in favor of suing for peace in Afghanistan (which would mean tolerating the Taliban at the very least), and Lord knows you favored Bush's democracy-for-the-Iraqis policy.

And as far as ElBaradei calling Israel "the number one nuclear threat to the Middle East"...er, isn't that true by definition? It's the same thing as calling the U.S. the number one nuclear threat to North America.

Our policy should be to offer Mubarek our expertise and experience in establishing a new Constitution and government letting all parties know that his time has come, but an orderly transition is in "order." ElBaradei is a rank opportunist and amateur hoping for power, but closer to a bullet in the head than he may realize because he's full of himself.

We're never going to finish our Taliban genocide; Obama is an idiot, he sees them as one with al Qaeda, they are not, that's more likely the Brotherhood. The Taliban will leave us with our brains blown out on Afghanistan's plain.



There's a huge difference to being the number one nuclear power and the number one nuclear threat which would actually be Iran and its proxies. Maybe even the Brotherhood...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I actually wasn't as clear as I should have been here; sorry. What I meant was the creation of Israel as a Jewish homeland and the arrival of the refuges from europe were the insighting events. Thank you for picking me up on this.

I feel the jews, having been disempowered through history, are taking out a lot of their frustrations on the Palestinians. If this all isn't racially motivated, them why are there miscegenation laws in that country?

They had been returning from the Diaspora since before the war. The focus on Israel is because the Brotherhood were NAZIs, just the Arab version. Jews are Semites too...

The Palestinians are not a "people." They never have been. They are the remnants of Hitler and that's why every host country has expelled them. They had Peace, they had land, but they decided they had to kill Jews. Please keep in mind there that the Jews have lived there, as have the Christians, since before Rome was the keeper of "Palestine."

As Golda Mier said, there won't be peace until they love their children more than they hate us.

 

[vrosej10]

They had been returning from the Diaspora since before the war. The focus on Israel is because the Brotherhood were NAZIs, just the Arab version. Jews are Semites too...

The Palestinians are not a "people." They never have been. They are the remnants of Hitler and that's why every host country has expelled them. They had Peace, they had land, but they decided they had to kill Jews. Please keep in mind there that the Jews have lived there, as have the Christians, since before Rome was the keeper of "Palestine."

As Golda Mier said, there won't be peace until they love their children more than they hate us.

I think this is a vice versa statement. Israel doesn't want the war to end; they want to be right. As long as this thinking is happening on both sides, this conflict, all war like conflict will continue. There is good and evil, right and wrong, but how much is anyone prepared to pay for this? When does the price exceed the benefit? Whatever is going on at the moment is just not working. Al Qaida is the same. They want to be right, want glorious conquest, the US wants to be right and kick their arses. Where does it end really?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I think this is a vice versa statement. Israel doesn't want the war to end; they want to be right. As long as this thinking is happening on both sides, this conflict, all war like conflict will continue. There is good and evil, right and wrong, but how much is anyone prepared to pay for this? When does the price exceed the benefit? Whatever is going on at the moment is just not working. Al Qaida is the same. They want to be right, want glorious conquest, the US wants to be right and kick their arses. Where does it end really?

They want the war to end. They keep making treaties that the NAZIs don't feel compelled to abide by...

Your lament is what the NAZIs hope for, that the West gets so tired of their fucking antics that we just leave them to their genocide. I'm made of sterner stuff and realize that there is only one way to deal with them. Bashir Assad's dad knew what to do. When they revolted, he just surrounded them and went all Mongol on them and their hostages. They are only strong when we are weak and unresolved.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

After the debacle in Vietnam, Watergate, the Nixon resignation, and the Ford WIN buttons, voters were willing to bet on the smiling but unknown hope-and-change reformer from Plains, Georgia. Jimmy Carter’s campaign and his early presidential speeches on resetting foreign policy sounded uplifting. They were certainly a rebuke to the supposedly dark Nixon-Kissinger realpolitik and cloak-and-dagger intrigue. Indeed, Carter’s election marked a return to Wilsonian idealism that predicated American support for other nations on shared commitment to human rights and U.N. values. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance exuded probity and almost seemed to suggest at every stop, “I am not Henry Kissinger.”

Carter’s new America was to entertain no more mindless, reductionist inordinate fear of Communism. Nor would we continue to be a cynical arms merchant to our allies and profit from the tools of death. Anti-Communist, anti-fundamentalist strongman modernizers like the Shah were suddenly antithetical to American values. In contrast, his radical Islamist enemies were little more than curious and confused intermediaries whose appreciated opposition to dictators would soon be eclipsed by serious European-like socialist reformers.

While Carter’s America occasionally worried about the Communist consolidation in Vietnam or Central America, these rather violent sorts certainly had legitimate grievances given our prior support for anti-Communist authoritarians. In fact, the new United States worried far more about our own epauletted SOBs in Africa and Latin America than about the less-well-groomed AK-47-toting liberationists.

Then 1979 came around, and the unfortunate wages of a well-meaning Carterism became all too apparent after only the first two years of its implementation. The world of our Cold War allies proved not to be one of Manichean evil and good, but was revealed as complex and consisting of shades of both.

It was perhaps good to press our friends in Argentina, Central America, South Korea, and Iran to reform, but to what degree, to be consistent, were we then to pressure the Soviet Union, the autocratic Arab oil-producing world, or Communist China — all of which had far more blood on their hands than did the Shah or the South Korean anti-Communists — to likewise move toward elections and free speech?

Worse still, the more Carter spoke about human rights, the more he seemed, in hypocritical fashion, to court the Soviet Union for an arms-control agreement, the Arab world for a peace settlement and steady oil sales, and China for economic liberalization through formal diplomatic recognition. It almost seemed to the cynical diplomatic world that if a nation were hostile to the United States, powerful or strategically important — and even with a horrific record on human rights — the Carter administration would romance it as zealously as it would snub friendly countries that were less powerful and had authoritarian, rather than genocidal, tendencies. The past killing of a few thousand in allied countries warranted far more anguish than the killing of several million in enemy ones.

In short, hypocrisy and sanctimonious bullying soon replaced the promised unbending principle and moral courage. Carter seemed to be harder on our friends than on our rivals and enemies, especially odd since an aggressive war was more likely to come from North Korea than from South Korea, from the radical Arab world than from Iran or Israel, from the Soviet Union’s proxies than from our own, and from China rather than from Taiwan.

When the wages of such idealism and magnanimity came due during the annus terribilis of 1979 — with the Chinese invasion of Vietnam, the Soviet entry into Afghanistan, revolution and war in Central America, the rise of radical Islam, the flight of the Shah, and the taking of hostages in Teheran — the American response often seemed herky-jerky, ad hoc, and, once again, hypocritical. Carter’s “open-mouthed shock” at the Soviet invasion was later amplified by Vice President Mondale’s infamous “why?” summation, “I cannot understand — it just baffles me — why the Soviets these last few years have behaved as they have. Maybe we have made some mistakes with them. Why did they have to build up all these arms? Why did they have to go into Afghanistan? Why can’t they relax just a little bit about Eastern Europe? Why do they try every door to see if it is locked?”

Victor Davis Hanson
NRO

When McCain was proclaiming, "We're all Georgians now!" Obama wanted to go to the UN security council and get a resolution past the Russians complaining about the Russian Invasion.

When they were in the streets in Iran, Obama RAN.

Now, he's whistling Dixie again while the press tries to create a revolution out of wholecloth, playing right into the hands of the Brotherhood, the same way he played to the hands of the Shia radicals and the resurgent Soviet...

__________________
Czech!
WODKA!
Владимир Владимирович Путин
(Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin)

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Now that Egypt’s much-anticipated moment of crisis has arrived and popular rebellions have shaken governments across the Middle East, Iran stands as never before at the center of the region. Its Islamist rulers are within sight of dominating the region. But revolutions are hard to pull off and I predict that Islamists will not achieve a Middle East-wide breakthrough and Tehran will not emerge as the key power broker. Some thoughts behind this conclusion:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/258457

More broadly, I bet on the more-continuity-than-change model that has emerged so far in Tunisia. Heavy-handed rule will lighten somewhat in Egypt and elsewhere but the militaries will remain the ultimate powerbrokers.

U.S. policy: The U.S. government has a vital role helping Middle Eastern states transit from tyranny to political participation without Islamists hijacking the process. George W. Bush had the right idea in 2003 in calling for democracy but he ruined this effort by demanding instant results. Barack Obama initially reverted to the failed old policy of making nice with tyrants; now he is myopically siding with the Islamists against Mubarak. He should emulate Bush but do a better job, understanding that democratization is a decades-long process that requires the inculcation of counter-intuitive ideas about elections, freedom of speech, and the rule of law.

Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

 

[vrosej10]

They want the war to end. They keep making treaties that the NAZIs don't feel compelled to abide by...

Your lament is what the NAZIs hope for, that the West gets so tired of their fucking antics that we just leave them to their genocide. I'm made of sterner stuff and realize that there is only one way to deal with them. Bashir Assad's dad knew what to do. When they revolted, he just surrounded them and went all Mongol on them and their hostages. They are only strong when we are weak and unresolved.

I think both fucking sides should give it up. Neither wants an end. They both want to be right. Compromise does not seem to be in the male vocabulary. They reckon war was nearly unheard of in matriarchial societies. Maybe its you dudes that are the problem....

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I think both fucking sides should give it up. Neither wants an end. They both want to be right. Compromise does not seem to be in the male vocabulary. They reckon war was nearly unheard of in matriarchial societies. Maybe its you dudes that are the problem....

I think your assessment is simply in error. Prolonging the conflict serves Israel no purpose. At this point peace agreements seem to serve it no good purpose either, it just gives Hamas and H'zbollah time to regroup and rearm.

 

[Ishmael]

I think this is a vice versa statement. Israel doesn't want the war to end; they want to be right. As long as this thinking is happening on both sides, this conflict, all war like conflict will continue. There is good and evil, right and wrong, but how much is anyone prepared to pay for this? When does the price exceed the benefit? Whatever is going on at the moment is just not working. Al Qaida is the same. They want to be right, want glorious conquest, the US wants to be right and kick their arses. Where does it end really?

There is absolutely NO evidence to support your supposition, none.

Ishmael

 

[vrosej10]

There is absolutely NO evidence to support your supposition, none.

Ishmael

No just a theory based on having lived with enough men. Supposition is allowed isn't it?

 

[off2bed]

I think both fucking sides should give it up. Neither wants an end. They both want to be right. Compromise does not seem to be in the male vocabulary. They reckon war was nearly unheard of in matriarchial societies. Maybe its you dudes that are the problem....

America's founding fathers compromised a hell of a lot to give us the best government possible. So that would make you incorrect. But you could compromise and say you're maybe 5% correct.

 

[vrosej10]

America's founding fathers compromised a hell of a lot to give us the best government possible. So that would make you incorrect. But you could compromise and say you're maybe 5% correct.

That was some kind of fluke . I was only being a bit of a smart arse.

 

[Ishmael]

No just a theory based on having lived with enough men. Supposition is allowed isn't it?

You can 'suppose' anything you want, but when it flies in the face of recorded history and observable conduct of the two respective parties then you suffer from a credibility problem.

Ishmael

 

[vrosej10]

You can 'suppose' anything you want, but when it flies in the face of recorded history and observable conduct of the two respective parties then you suffer from a credibility problem.

Ishmael

So be it, not claim credibility tonight, just talking.