jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (34 posts)

U.S. engaging with Muslim Brotherhood

  1. American View profile image60
    American Viewposted 5 years ago

    The Obama administration's outreach to the Muslim Brotherhood may be no big departure from the State Department's existing policy implemented by Obama, but it will probably do little to reassure Jewish voters skeptical about the president's stand on Israel:

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday that the Obama administration was pursuing an approach of “limited contacts” with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood — a policy, she said, that has “existed on and off for about five or six years.”

    Is she kidding me? First correction, 5 or 6 years ago Bush was President. Like him or not, he stood tall on the ongoing US policy to not negotiate with terrorists, a policy Obama said in his Campaign for President he would change. And he has. Obama is currently talking with 2 terrorist organizations. The brotherhood will make 3.

    Nothing like talking to the terrorists that tell the world they will instill Shariah, or Islamic law in the US. Do not take my word for it Here is one of the sources. Of course all they are doing is stringing the US along while they continue their ways. Just look at recent events in Afghanistan as proof. The US is in negotiations with the Taliban but they had 3 major attacks last week.

    Muslim Brotherhood's papers detail plan to seize U.S.
    Stop the presses! The Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamic supremacist group! It is good to see this article in the Dallas Morning News echoing what we have said here for years. Robert Leiken of the Nixon Center, one of the chief proponents of the idea that the U.S. should negotiate with the Brotherhood, is quoted toward the end still as resolute as ever not to take the Brotherhood at its word, but the Holy Land Foundation is waking up at least some people.

    "Group's takeover plot emerges in Holy Land case," by Jason Trahan for The Dallas Morning News (thanks to all who sent this in):
    Amid the mountain of evidence released in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial, the most provocative has turned out to be a handful of previously classified evidence detailing Islamist extremists' ambitious plans for a U.S. takeover.

    A knot of terrorism researchers say the memos and audiotapes, many translated from Arabic and containing detailed strategies by the international Islamist group the Muslim Brotherhood, are proof that extremists have long sought to replace the Constitution with Shariah, or Islamic law.

  2. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    What is the Muslim Brotherhood?

    1. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The Muslim Brotherhood opposes secular tendencies of Islamic nations and wants return to the precepts of the Qur'an, and rejection of Western influences. They also reject extreme Sufism. They organize events from prayer meetings to sport clubs for socializing.

      The organization's motto is as follows: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

      An important aspect of the Muslim Brotherhood ideology is the sanctioning of jihad such as the 2004 fatwa issued by Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi making it a religious obligation of Muslims to abduct and kill U.S. citizens

      Nasser legalized the Brotherhood again in 1964, and released all prisoners. After claiming more assassination attempts against him, he had leaders executed in 1966 and imprisoned most others again.

      Nasser's successor in Egypt, Anwar Sadat, promised reforms, and that he would implement Shariah. However, Sadat's peace treaty with Israel in 1979 angered the Brotherhood, which led to his assassination in 1981.

      The appointment of Hafez al-Assad, an Alawite Muslim, as the Syrian president in 1971 angered the Brotherhood even more because the majority of Muslims do not consider Alawites true Muslims at all. Assad initially tried to placate them, but made very little progress. Assad’s support of Maronites in the Lebanese Civil War made the Brotherhood re-declare its jihad. They began a campaign of strikes and terrorist actions. In 1979, they killed 83 Alawite cadets in the Aleppo artillery school. Assad’s attempts to calm them by changing officials and releasing political prisoners did not help. Eventually the army was used to restore order by force.

      An assassination attempt against Assad on June 25, 1980, was the last straw. Assad made the Syrian parliament declare Brotherhood membership a capital offense and sent the army against them. In the operation, which lasted until February of 1982, the Syrian army practically wiped out the Brotherhood, killing an unknown but large number of people in the Hama Massacre. The Syrian branch disappeared, and the survivors fled to join Islamic organizations in other countries.

      The Russian government alleges that the Muslim Brotherhood is a key force in the ongoing Chechen revolt. Russian officials accused the Muslim Brotherhood of planning the December 27, 2002 suicide car bombing of the headquarters of the Russian-backed government in Grozny, Chechnya.

  3. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Muslim Brotherhood big in Egypt. So if
    Hosni Mubarak was a fascist, who supplied him with all his weapons to sustain his power, the US or the Muslim Brotherhood?

  4. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "However, Sadat's peace treaty with Israel in 1979 angered the Brotherhood, which led to his assassination in 1981."

    This set off my propaganda-meter.....cause I knew I had heard quite the opposite before. Nothing usually happens that doesn't benefit the usual suspects.

    "We are told that Sadat was assassinated because Islamic Jihad (al-Qaeda) wished to usher in a pure Islamic state in Egypt, and because Sadat had made peace with Israel (22). In part, that may have been the motives of at least some of the plotters.

    However, the result of the assassination, was to remove an independently minded leader who had ushered in Islamic law and who was making overtures to Islamic fundamentalists and offering them a role in his government.

    For example, in 1981, Sadat declared that the Shari'a, that is, orthodox, Sunni, Islamic law (29), would be the basis of Egyptian law. Egyptian law would become Shari'a (18). Sadat was in fact an extremely devout Sunni Muslim. His forehead was marked with the permanent bruise of those who bow their heads to the ground and pray five times a day (18). Indeed, there was a fear, among some Western leaders, that because of Sadat, Islamic fundamentalism would mushroom out of control, and that Egypt was in danger of being a radicalized Islamic nation, similar to Iran.

    The assassination of Sadat did not help the Islamic cause but resulted in a massive and brutal crackdown on Islamic fundamentalism. Over 10,000 Islamic leaders were eventually jailed.

    The assassination also resulted in the regular deployment of U.S. forces in Egypt, as well as the installation of a pro-western government in Sadat's place -- a government that is so friendly to the U.S. that it receives massive military and economic aid from the United States, the OECD countries and the World Bank -- over $52 billion from the U.S. alone (30) -- massive financial and military aid that was not available in the 1970s. This aid, of course, makes Egypt that much more dependent on the U.S. Indeed, since Sadat's death, Egyptian society has been increasingly shaped by Western hands and the Western strings attached to foreign aid (30). Hence, the consequences of killing Sadat were completely opposite to the ideas Islamic Jihad and Osama bin Laden espouse -- which can only make us wonder as to what may have been the real agenda.

    To answer that question, we need only ask: who benefits?

    Answer: The U.S. and Wall Street merchants of death."


    1. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Are you kidding me? I knew you were wrong as I read it. This set off my propaganda-meter. Nothing usually happens that doesn't benefit the usual suspects. Please LMC why do you offer opinions not based in fact, or reality, or in this case history. The facts I have cited are found in several places and in the court documents of the Holy Land Case. I will post that for you to read though you will say it was propaganda and I made the whole trial up.

      So you challenged me with an article from Ralph Nader. Talk about no credebility. No point in going further. Nader, what a joke

      "DALLAS, May 27 (UPI) -- Five leaders of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development were sentenced to prison Wednesday for helping the terrorist group Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

      U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis of Dallas sentenced the men for their convictions by a federal jury in November on charges of providing material support to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

      "Today's sentences mark the culmination of many years of painstaking investigative and prosecutorial work at the federal, state and local levels. All those involved in this landmark case deserve our thanks," said David Kris, assistant attorney general for national security. "These sentences should serve as a strong warning to anyone who knowingly provides financial support to terrorists under the guise of humanitarian relief."

      Sentenced were Shukri Abu Baker, Mohammad El-Mezain, Ghassan Elashi, Mufid Abdulqader and Abdulrahman Odeh. Their sentences ranged from 15 to 65 years in prison, a Justice Department statement said.

      The court also reaffirmed the jury's $12.4 million money judgment against the defendants, with the exception of El Mezain, who was not convicted of money laundering.

      Federal authorities said that from its inception the Holy Land Foundation, based in Richardson, Texas, existed to support Hamas and others, which has been designed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government. Before it was shut down in December 2001, it was the largest U.S. Muslim charity".

      1. Gail Anthony profile image61
        Gail Anthonyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        To help clarify a point,  America Betrayed was written by Rhawn Joseph, PhD and is made available through the Ralph Nader Library, a project of American Buddha.  Ralph Nader had nothing to do with the topic,

  5. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "Although we are told that he was assassinated because his attackers wished to establish an Islamic state, the gun fire was concentrated only on Sadat (22). Although vice-president Hosni Mubarak and many other top army officers and diplomats, sat to Sadat's left, to his right, and behind him, thus making them easy targets, they were spared injury, which is surprising if the attackers wished to overthrow the government. If they had really aspired to establish an Islamic state, then why didn't they kill all the top politicians and military men seated around President Sadat?"

    1. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Because Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist group that will terrorize you. In this case the assasination was doen to trigger new elections with the hope a member of the Muslim Brotherhood would become President. They know they cannot out fight any government to take them over. Hence why they say defeat  the US from within. Wonder if they have any persons elected here in the US? never will know because they will never tell until they have enough people in high controling offices. Look at Egypt. The were very influential with the revolution. Now they have many people running for office in the next election including for the office of President. And they did not have to do much fighting to accomplish this

  6. TMMason profile image75
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Chris... Mubarak cracked down on the olds guard of the Muslim Brotherhood wihtin the Atmy and on the streets, becasue they had done that assassination with the Egyptian Army behind his back.

    Mubarak was the head of the Egyptian Army at the time, and was in a seat right bedside Sadat, and was shot, but he lived. A bad mistake to make when you want to betray anyone, thus the crack-down and cleansing of his military to gain loyalty once again, and on the street to rid the scourge of treason.

    Reminiscent of Stalin's, Hitler's, Mousolini's and Castro's own purges. You leftists sure do undertsand that traitors are not to be trusted. That is why the Communists consistantly slaughter the Socialists, as soon as the Agendas are fulfullied. If one betray their countrry to institutute Socialism, then surely they would do the same to the Communists.

    A vicious cycle you all live in on that side of the spectrum.

    1. lovemychris profile image79
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You should read that link I provided....see the Angels who live on your side.

      btw, Hitler was best buds with Mussolini the Fascist and the Vatican.
      Hardly lefty organizations.

      Why don't you read up on Operation Galdio to see what I mean.

      Or don't.
      Like that great intellectual statesman said: "What a waste it is to lose one's mind."

      1. TMMason profile image75
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Didn't see me claim any angels were in control of our Govt..

        Did ya?

        But you have heard me sa, and have seen me prove, the Leant Lefist Socialist Democrat/Progressive machine is, and it is driving its agendas in all directions.

        So... try again.

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Heard you say it but haven't seen you prove it.

          1. TMMason profile image75
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Over and over I have, or you would still be babbling inanely.

  7. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "Didn't see me claim any angels were in control of our Govt.."


    What is your criticism of Bibi Netanyahu if I may ask.

    He did, after all receive a glorious standing ovation from our gvt....
    So, what's he ever done wrong?

    The reason I ask is because you surely are not going to claim that he is a leant left socialist.

    So--he's as far right as you get: Criticize away! Drop those bombs like you do on the left!

    1. TMMason profile image75
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      He has to play the game to keep getting the support of our Govt., that is why he spoke directly to the American People when he dressed down you hero.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAlJ6erL … re=related

      http://www.bucksright.com/obama-loses-i … rence-6877

      And I have never claimed Netanyahu was an Angel, either. These are just Men you speak of, Chris... do not expect miracles or Angelic behaviour from any of them.

      Do not be so naive, Chris.

      1. lovemychris profile image79
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm not naive. I want them punished.

  8. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    And he did not speak directly to the American People. He spoke to his paid servants.

    And he dressed down OUR president. And you applaud it.

    1. TMMason profile image75
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I apploud anyone, who dresses down anyone, who attempts to throw Israel under the bus, as he did.

      Loudly... with great vigor. smile))))))

      And if you wanted them punished truly, you would not be so damn partisan.

      1. lovemychris profile image79
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        He did no such thing, and it is clear where your loyalties lie.

        Israeli Firsters and the Baggers are one and the same.

        1. TMMason profile image75
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this



          1. earnestshub profile image87
            earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Americas biggest enemy is itself. smile

            1. TMMason profile image75
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this


              The Enemy within E, good man.

              The liberal Socialist Democrat Progressive Agenda is destroying this nation and needs to be halted, and they removed from our Govt..


              I am glad you finally understand, E. I must admit I thought maybe you would never get it... lol

              1. earnestshub profile image87
                earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                An interesting interpretation. smile

                I blame the "I hate Obama he is an black African Muslim socialist and god is real" set myself. lol

                1. TMMason profile image75
                  TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Dude, E. These people were America's Enemies waaaaaayyyyyyyy before Obama came along... so try again.

                  1. earnestshub profile image87
                    earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I guess your right, it was religious fanatics in pointy hats who started it right? smile

  9. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "And if you wanted them punished truly, you would not be so damn partisan."

    Which Democrats had high level positions in the Bush admnistration?

    It was McCain and Graham that I saw swooning over Ehud Barak....Lieberman obviously puts Isreal ahead of America....but he's not a Democrat.

    But all the Dems in the House and Senate tend to vote straight pro-Israel....there is no one who won't!

    Which beggars the question...what are you complaining about???

    1. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Do you really want to go there with that question?

      1. lovemychris profile image79
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, I do.

  10. Ken Barton profile image61
    Ken Bartonposted 5 years ago

    Everyone knew Obama's background when they voted for him. His membership to a church whose minister preached damnation of the USA for the 20 yrs Obama was clearly brought out. Having attended a Muslim school, a Muslim father, and an atheist mother. His wife testifying that she was only now proud to be an American after Obama won the opportunity to be President. His citizenship was and is still very doubtful. Even getting the Nobel Peace Prize for doing absolutely Nothing!  All these things tell the true story of where his allegiance is. Americans knew all these things and they still voted him in to office; so, I guess that means the type of socialistic America we have today is exactly what the majority of people want.  Go figure?

  11. Franklin Lowe profile image60
    Franklin Loweposted 5 years ago via iphone

    If America hates the idea of Muslims why is it the fastest growing religious belief in America. We can blame a few people's interpretation of a religion on the entire religion. We blame the people that believed it that way. Anyone can interpret anything anyway they seem fit. Example I that people look at the Koran as a book of warfare when really it a book of peace. So who do we blame the book or the misinterpretation.

  12. theirishobserver. profile image61
    theirishobserver.posted 5 years ago

    Politicians in America are like politicians anywhere else, they would do a deal with the Devil if they thought it would get them out of a tight spot sad

  13. JT Walters profile image74
    JT Waltersposted 5 years ago

    Egypt is an ally ot the USA.  I know Mason knows this.  I think we have tried not talking for a very long time and it has only made things worse. What we really need to do is to cut the welfare checks to the world.  No one gets paid unless they serve in the USA first.  You know I am Republican but I really can't criticize Obama any worse than any of the other presidents.

    The next election question should be was Obama worse than Bush or Clinton and the answer would have to be NO!!  Ditch Clinton out of the state department and that agency will function once again.  They shouldn't be fighting over resources with Defense.

    Please stop pickng on Obama.  You don't hve to agree with him but stick to the substantative issues.  He isn't thee only one on trial in thsi country.  We all are now.