Egyptian (Muslim Brotherhood) Morsi to be overthrown?-Military Moves in to take over

[Osomir]

No worries, I was born and raised in one of those shit holes and I can read and speak most of the languages in that area. So when I am saying mid east is a paradise for depression, I base it on something, "a real life experience", unlike just putting words on the air.

In middle east, if you want popular support, you have to be against west. This has been the same way starting from the Ottoman, 1800s, when west was superior in technology and muslim military power was fading. Than when British and German started with their struggle for oil, Brits got the Arabs back, Germans got the Turks back, and they both had the same policy, throw shit to the other side. Bot sides claimed the other one was allied with infidels. And that has not changed a bit from that point on. They have a reason each time they fuck up now. Army suporters claim Morsi got the western support, the infidels, so should be punished. And Morsi supporters claim army got the western support, and should be punished

Look at Turkey for instance, the most "democratic" and close to the west state, in the last protests, both sides, again, claimed the other side being backed by the western powers.

This is the reality of the mid east. It is a tradition of politics. You can not even exist, without blaming it on the west. This is how it worked as long as I have known myself, and able to track back in the history. My whole childhood was listening stories how west did that, did this, just like how you guys listened to the same stories against the communists. You were lucky communism no more. It is not easy to get out of this loop, for a society that has been in it for the last 200 years, tough like a mother...

So; to summarize, mid east is doomed till they figure out blaming it on others will not help you solve your problems, like Chinese did long time ago.

I don't know where exactly you are from or what your family background is like, but given my own experience in counter-terrorism, and Middle Eastern and African political affairs I still find it to be grossly overly simplistic.

You also addressed neither the Arab Spring, nor the existence of many of Al Qaeda's affiliates who are all largely regionally focused despite their ideological commitment to targeting the US.

Perhaps if I knew what country you were from originally I could utilize an example in your own country's / region's history.

We can take Syria as an example, since it is a hot topic. What does Arab Spring mean for Syria? Who is fighting whom for what reason?

As far as my knowledge on the region is concerned, there are 2 camps all over the area. One is the military, effected by the nationalist ideas of the west during its encounter in a desperate act of modernization; and the islamists camp, like muslim brotherhood and varieties, who see western freedom ideas as a tool rather than a target.

Once upon a time there was more variety in the political scene, like socialists and liberals, but the cold war made it impossible for them to gain any ground against those main stream camps. So the traditional politics of the middle east depends on these 2 camps struggling each other. A political party has no chance in any election, democratic or not, if they can not penetrate in either of these. So as a politician, you either a secularist against islamists, or an islamist against secularists. I can show this same pattern in any nation, with or without the so called Arab Spring, that did not have a revolutionary power vacuum like Iran, which the same pattern applied before the revolution.

Well once again I think this is an oversimplification, and a dangerous one at that. There are much more than two camps in Syria. A lot more. In the general arenas, you have Alawites and other minorities, you have pan-Arabists, moderate Islamists, Salafists, other jihadi groups, liberal and secular rebel organizations, Lebanese forces in the form of Hezbollah (who are both Islamists and on the side of the Syrian government) and Iranian support of the government in power as well.

You have scores of different major actors here. Lumping them simply into two camps is an oversimplification that will ensure that anyone utilizing it won't have any real idea about what is going on within the Syrian conflict. The conflict itself began as a much more secular conflict against the government. The demographics of the rebels changes constantly, but while most are Muslims and have their own differing levels of religious zeal, most are also not members of Islamist groups. The opposition depends heavily on local revolutionaries (local and in community oriented within Syria). There are some moderate Islamist groups like Suquor Al Sham and the Umma Brigade, then there are more extreme groups like Ahrar Al-Sham and then of course your full on Salafist groups who also court foreign fighters such as Al Nusra.

These groups aren't all unified (one of the reasons why the government has been able to launch an effective counter attack against them), just the other day Salafis killed a leader within the Free Syrian Army.

Lumping them together obscures the reality of what is going on.

Apologies for the delay in my response I get pretty busy with work.

 

[alpine]

I don't know where exactly you are from or what your family background is like, but given my own experience in counter-terrorism, and Middle Eastern and African political affairs I still find it to be grossly overly simplistic.

You also addressed neither the Arab Spring, nor the existence of many of Al Qaeda's affiliates who are all largely regionally focused despite their ideological commitment to targeting the US.

Perhaps if I knew what country you were from originally I could utilize an example in your own country's / region's history.

We can take Syria as an example, since it is a hot topic. What does Arab Spring mean for Syria? Who is fighting whom for what reason?

As far as my knowledge on the region is concerned, there are 2 camps all over the area. One is the military, effected by the nationalist ideas of the west during its encounter in a desperate act of modernization; and the islamists camp, like muslim brotherhood and varieties, who see western freedom ideas as a tool rather than a target.

Once upon a time there was more variety in the political scene, like socialists and liberals, but the cold war made it impossible for them to gain any ground against those main stream camps. So the traditional politics of the middle east depends on these 2 camps struggling each other. A political party has no chance in any election, democratic or not, if they can not penetrate in either of these. So as a politician, you either a secularist against islamists, or an islamist against secularists. I can show this same pattern in any nation, with or without the so called Arab Spring, that did not have a revolutionary power vacuum like Iran, which the same pattern applied before the revolution.

Well once again I think this is an oversimplification, and a dangerous one at that. There are much more than two camps in Syria. A lot more. In the general arenas, you have Alawites and other minorities, you have pan-Arabists, moderate Islamists, Salafists, other jihadi groups, liberal and secular rebel organizations, Lebanese forces in the form of Hezbollah (who are both Islamists and on the side of the Syrian government) and Iranian support of the government in power as well.

You have scores of different major actors here. Lumping them simply into two camps is an oversimplification that will ensure that anyone utilizing it won't have any real idea about what is going on within the Syrian conflict. The conflict itself began as a much more secular conflict against the government. The demographics of the rebels changes constantly, but while most are Muslims and have their own differing levels of religious zeal, most are also not members of Islamist groups. The opposition depends heavily on local revolutionaries (local and in community oriented within Syria). There are some moderate Islamist groups like Suquor Al Sham and the Umma Brigade, then there are more extreme groups like Ahrar Al-Sham and then of course your full on Salafist groups who also court foreign fighters such as Al Nusra.

These groups aren't all unified (one of the reasons why the government has been able to launch an effective counter attack against them), just the other day Salafis killed a leader within the Free Syrian Army.

Lumping them together obscures the reality of what is going on.

Apologies for the delay in my response I get pretty busy with work.

I did not say there are only 2 elements, I said there are 2 camps, which is highly accurate if you have ever been or lived to mid east, let alone being born and raised there. There are 2 camps, and each element in society, like the alevis(some type of shite but much more than that) and sunnis and shite(the hard core) and kurds and assyrians, you name it, have to chose one. You can not be against the military coup in Egypt and be an Assad opposer at the same time. This is what mid east has all been about, all along.

The proverbs are the best way to understand the inner workings of any society, because they are proverbs for a reason.

A very very famous one from mid east;

"If you dont take your camp, you will be without one"

As I said before, one camp is the army lead camp, started from the ottoman time when they only had the money to modernize their army (which was much more important than people since ottoman was mainly a military force than anything else), so army has always been forward thinking and people backward (Egypt poppulation 40% illiterate). This is the 2 main camps in the region you have to take into account. The rest are like bunch of cockroaches trying to make their living in the middle, sometimes in this camp and sometimes in the other.

And what are you supposed to be? A political strategist? And what you do to analyze your subject I wonder? What would be a better source than the people of the region, when you are studying that region?

That's me buddy. I am not someone you can debate to, especially and very especially on this subject. I am the one you learn from. I am the one you should be asking questions to understand what the fuck is going on in the mid east, if you ever want to know of course. I can get anybody a promotion who is a political analyst working on mid east, because I am full of it, it is coming out of my ears. I am on this board because I have to be able to unload it, not to debate or see what your perspective is, because there is no way one can have any idea of it before living in it and you can find very few people lived it the way I did.

 

[Vikrant]

^ Rock on, brother!

 

[Osomir]

I did not say there are only 2 elements, I said there are 2 camps, which is highly accurate if you have ever been or lived to mid east, let alone being born and raised there. There are 2 camps, and each element in society, like the alevis(some type of shite but much more than that) and sunnis and shite(the hard core) and kurds and assyrians, you name it, have to chose one. You can not be against the military coup in Egypt and be an Assad opposer at the same time. This is what mid east has all been about, all along.

The proverbs are the best way to understand the inner workings of any society, because they are proverbs for a reason.

A very very famous one from mid east;

"If you dont take your camp, you will be without one"

As I said before, one camp is the army lead camp, started from the ottoman time when they only had the money to modernize their army (which was much more important than people since ottoman was mainly a military force than anything else), so army has always been forward thinking and people backward (Egypt poppulation 40% illiterate). This is the 2 main camps in the region you have to take into account. The rest are like bunch of cockroaches trying to make their living in the middle, sometimes in this camp and sometimes in the other.

Once again I greatly disagree. The fact that there are so many competing elements means that there are quite a few different camps in and of themselves. Kurdish nationalists are a significantly different camp from Damascus merchant unions, or religious leaders or rural land owners / tribal leaders. Even the Ba'athists were highly divided across national boundaries.

with your reference to the Ottoman's you are talking about Ottman policies of defense developmentalism, but they eventually came to be replaced during the colonial period with western developmentlalist political platforms in Syria. So you had the Ottoman Era elites and nationalists, but then you also had the Islamists, the new age socialists, and the newer developmentalists resulting from post Great Depression economic structures.

Your notion of only two camps within Syria ignores the development of the old elite vs the new western developmentlaists, vs the Islamist populaces, vs the favored European rural landowners and tribal leaders. It greatly oversimplifies Syria's political history, diversity, and the great diversity within each of these elements of Syrian society.

there was a lot of intermixing too, The Damascus Ulama during the late 1800's told the Young Turk political movement that whoever does not advance economic interests strays from Islam. So there we have an urban religious unit bleeding into the developmentlaist stage when many other salafists may be more inclided to shun modernization as a movement away from traditional Islamic values (we see that a lot on the Arabian Peninsula too with Hanbalism and Wahhabism).

Syria had major internal struggles with land ownership too which dominated the political arena for some time as under colonial power Europeans granted large land tracks to influence power bases in Syria to the extent that by the mid 20th century 1% of the Syrian population owned 50% of the land in Syria.

We see this diversity in Egypt too which is why you can have Salafist Islamists like Al Nour pulling out of coalition movements with the moderate Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood. They obviously aren't "one camp" if al Nour can so easily turn on them. The same is true for the Egyptian opposition. they were only really unified in their opposition of Morsi, but they themselves are incredibly diverse and you will see that as the new constitution and government is attempted to be formed. They aren't by far one cohesive camp at all. There is absolutely no evidence of that being the case.

And what are you supposed to be? A political strategist? And what you do to analyze your subject I wonder? What would be a better source than the people of the region, when you are studying that region?

That's me buddy. I am not someone you can debate to, especially and very especially on this subject. I am the one you learn from. I am the one you should be asking questions to understand what the fuck is going on in the mid east, if you ever want to know of course. I can get anybody a promotion who is a political analyst working on mid east, because I am full of it, it is coming out of my ears. I am on this board because I have to be able to unload it, not to debate or see what your perspective is, because there is no way one can have any idea of it before living in it and you can find very few people lived it the way I did.

For someone with so much expertise you haven't been able to do a very good job at addressing the specifics of my posts.

 

[alpine]

I did not say there are only 2 elements, I said there are 2 camps, which is highly accurate if you have ever been or lived to mid east, let alone being born and raised there. There are 2 camps, and each element in society, like the alevis(some type of shite but much more than that) and sunnis and shite(the hard core) and kurds and assyrians, you name it, have to chose one. You can not be against the military coup in Egypt and be an Assad opposer at the same time. This is what mid east has all been about, all along.

The proverbs are the best way to understand the inner workings of any society, because they are proverbs for a reason.

A very very famous one from mid east;

"If you dont take your camp, you will be without one"

As I said before, one camp is the army lead camp, started from the ottoman time when they only had the money to modernize their army (which was much more important than people since ottoman was mainly a military force than anything else), so army has always been forward thinking and people backward (Egypt poppulation 40% illiterate). This is the 2 main camps in the region you have to take into account. The rest are like bunch of cockroaches trying to make their living in the middle, sometimes in this camp and sometimes in the other.

Once again I greatly disagree. The fact that there are so many competing elements means that there are quite a few different camps in and of themselves. Kurdish nationalists are a significantly different camp from Damascus merchant unions, or religious leaders or rural land owners / tribal leaders. Even the Ba'athists were highly divided across national boundaries.

with your reference to the Ottoman's you are talking about Ottman policies of defense developmentalism, but they eventually came to be replaced during the colonial period with western developmentlalist political platforms in Syria. So you had the Ottoman Era elites and nationalists, but then you also had the Islamists, the new age socialists, and the newer developmentalists resulting from post Great Depression economic structures.

Your notion of only two camps within Syria ignores the development of the old elite vs the new western developmentlaists, vs the Islamist populaces, vs the favored European rural landowners and tribal leaders. It greatly oversimplifies Syria's political history, diversity, and the great diversity within each of these elements of Syrian society.

there was a lot of intermixing too, The Damascus Ulama during the late 1800's told the Young Turk political movement that whoever does not advance economic interests strays from Islam. So there we have an urban religious unit bleeding into the developmentlaist stage when many other salafists may be more inclided to shun modernization as a movement away from traditional Islamic values (we see that a lot on the Arabian Peninsula too with Hanbalism and Wahhabism).

Syria had major internal struggles with land ownership too which dominated the political arena for some time as under colonial power Europeans granted large land tracks to influence power bases in Syria to the extent that by the mid 20th century 1% of the Syrian population owned 50% of the land in Syria.

We see this diversity in Egypt too which is why you can have Salafist Islamists like Al Nour pulling out of coalition movements with the moderate Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood. They obviously aren't "one camp" if al Nour can so easily turn on them. The same is true for the Egyptian opposition. they were only really unified in their opposition of Morsi, but they themselves are incredibly diverse and you will see that as the new constitution and government is attempted to be formed. They aren't by far one cohesive camp at all. There is absolutely no evidence of that being the case.

And what are you supposed to be? A political strategist? And what you do to analyze your subject I wonder? What would be a better source than the people of the region, when you are studying that region?

That's me buddy. I am not someone you can debate to, especially and very especially on this subject. I am the one you learn from. I am the one you should be asking questions to understand what the fuck is going on in the mid east, if you ever want to know of course. I can get anybody a promotion who is a political analyst working on mid east, because I am full of it, it is coming out of my ears. I am on this board because I have to be able to unload it, not to debate or see what your perspective is, because there is no way one can have any idea of it before living in it and you can find very few people lived it the way I did.

For someone with so much expertise you haven't been able to do a very good job at addressing the specifics of my posts.

That was in the past, islamist groups were competing each other. When they got hit on the head by secular dictators, they decided to join their forces. The best example, Turkish islamist party holding the power now, AKP. There are bunch of different elements in it, they are called camaat. And take a guess where the leader of the biggest camaat located at? Pennsylvania

The liberals of Turkey did think it the same way. Their calculations showed these were competing cammats. They considered them like political parties, just like how you are painting them here. But they were wrong. You can see they were wrong 10 years later now, when they gather millions of people against protestors(your friends) using their democratic rights to protest and openly asking for revenge on them, thats sad. They were wrong to underestimate the power of islamic institutions. They were wrong to think islam can ever leave the power that it had its hands on. I wonder what they were thinking, in islam there is no democracy, because in islam there is no dispute. Who will dispute to the words of Allah, which is clearly written in text. Islam is no christianity nor buddhism, nor like any other religion that came to existence. Islam has the words on Allah written in a book. This alone makes it the most dangerous idea of the human kind has ever faced.

 

[Osomir]

That was in the past, islamist groups were competing each other. When they got hit on the head by secular dictators, they decided to join their forces.

Except they are still very much so competing against each other. Hezbollah is an islamist party and they are backing Assad (which also destroys your two camp theory). Al Nusra is Islamist and they killed one of the heads of the Free Syrian Army (if that's not competition I'm not sure what you would qualify as competition). All of the Islamists aren't even in the same political coalition in Syria. That doesn't seem like one camp to me. And that "past" that you are dismissing wasn't that long ago, that was Cold War era too which you referenced yourself.

We can talk about Turkey next if you so desire, but first I want you to explain how the current and historical makeup of Syria in any way fits your overly simplistic model? I'm not sure Syria ever has fit your model, even under Ottoman rule.

You're the one who picked Syria as an example of your model. Defend it.

 

[alpine]

That was in the past, islamist groups were competing each other. When they got hit on the head by secular dictators, they decided to join their forces.

Except they are still very much so competing against each other. Hezbollah is an islamist party and they are backing Assad (which also destroys your two camp theory). Al Nusra is Islamist and they killed one of the heads of the Free Syrian Army (if that's not competition I'm not sure what you would qualify as competition). All of the Islamists aren't even in the same political coalition in Syria. That doesn't seem like one camp to me. And that "past" that you are dismissing wasn't that long ago, that was Cold War era too which you referenced yourself.

We can talk about Turkey next if you so desire, but first I want you to explain how the current and historical makeup of Syria in any way fits your overly simplistic model? I'm not sure Syria ever has fit your model, even under Ottoman rule.

You're the one who picked Syria as an example of your model. Defend it.

There is a saying, in war there are no rules. Syria is no exception. FSA tried to block Al Nusra, to be able to get more military support from the west, and got hit back. But look at it from this perspective, Turkey and the Arab League has been long helping the FSA, and the Al Nusra receiving some of that military help did not bother them at all, because they are all in the same band wagon, till USA declared she would not help FSA unless they distant themselves from Al Nusra. This is no competition, this is sacrifice for the greater good(historically speaking; Ottoman sultans would get their brothers killed once they get the throne, for the greater good). FSA sacrificed Al Nusra to be able to get more weapons. You seriously think FSA is any different from Al Nusra?

And as for hezbollah helping Assad, what would anyone expect. They are both shia. I already told you about the middle parties, go back to my older messages, and you will see the remark about some elements being in this or that camp, depending on the situation. This situation proves my point, you have to chose a camp, otherwise you are without one. Assad can be a dictator, and could be a ruthless one too, and could be backed by Iran and hezbollah (well, he was the one feeding hezbollah in the first place but anyways) but this doesn't change the fact that Assad is the leader of the seculars and forward thinking camp of Syria, unfortunately.

As always, you have not get to the real subject yet, Syria. Hezbollah is not Syria, nor Al Nusra, Syria is Syrian people, millions of people living in that country. Do you really think there are more than 2 camps Syrian people are divided in to? And can you name them? Do you have any facts revolved around the people of Syria which will make the whole difference at the end if there will be any democracy(you remember the original debate here) at the end, or you just look at which group of thugs screwed which other group of thugs? If your whole argument is based on not more than couple cockroaches of the mid east, you missed the WHOLE POINT, the people of mid east. The whole argument was(from the beginning), democracy will do no good in mid east, meaning people voting, because of the facts I have been putting in front of you for the last how many days I already forgot. But all you have is Senegal and Hezbollah supporting Assad in a war effort and Al Nusra doing this, FSA doing that etc etc etc....

But the whole point stands still, mid east people are divided in 2 camps, they have to choose. And the camp of the islamists will always prevail, due to the act that, mid east countries has a long history of tendency to backwardness and lack of literacy and education in its highly populated rural areas that islamists can penetrate very easily. You can not expect to get any positive results from this picture you are looking at because islamists are sure to win any election, and they are sure to have no agenda of any progressive action, rather using democracy as a tool to push their backward agenda of islamism.

And I am tired to make this point to you. You are like a lawyer trying to twist the words of your client, the words that came out of their own mouth, that I did not make up, that I did not twist in any way, that I did not put any of my perspective in. Here is your soooooo democratic Turkish leader Mr Erdogan, a friend from Turkey did send this to me against your claims that islamists are "OK";

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBqSwjjzOSc]Recep Tayyip Erdogan democracy in his own words - YouTube[/ame]

Funny, innit?

And this is the sooooo democratic Morsi

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8NtiUMOFFg]Mohamed Morsi-The Koran is our constitution -The Prophet Muhammad is our leader Jihad is our path - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Osomir]

There is a saying, in war there are no rules. Syria is no exception. FSA tried to block Al Nusra, to be able to get more military support from the west, and got hit back. But look at it from this perspective, Turkey and the Arab League has been long helping the FSA, and the Al Nusra receiving some of that military help did not bother them at all, because they are all in the same band wagon, till USA declared she would not help FSA unless they distant themselves from Al Nusra. This is no competition, this is sacrifice for the greater good(historically speaking; Ottoman sultans would get their brothers killed once they get the throne, for the greater good). FSA sacrificed Al Nusra to be able to get more weapons. You seriously think FSA is any different from Al Nusra?

Yes the FSA is different from Al Nusra, and no they aren't all on the same team. Like the Egyptian opposition they are only "allies" of convenience because they share a common enemy: Assad. Al Nusra is more Salafist and Al Qaeda leaning and groups like Al Qaeda hate moderate Islamists like the Brotherhood (who contribute politically to the opposition). Simply lumping them together under one banner ignores the major splits that naturally exist between these elements of Syrian society in their ideological systems.

And as for hezbollah helping Assad, what would anyone expect. They are both shia.

Exactly, but they aren't both Islamists. Hezbollah is though, so you have Islamists on multiple different fronts in this conflict so your original attempt to lump all Islamists together into one camp is obviously not a very good one.

I already told you about the middle parties, go back to my older messages, and you will see the remark about some elements being in this or that camp, depending on the situation. This situation proves my point, you have to chose a camp, otherwise you are without one. Assad can be a dictator, and could be a ruthless one too, and could be backed by Iran and hezbollah (well, he was the one feeding hezbollah in the first place but anyways) but this doesn't change the fact that Assad is the leader of the seculars and forward thinking camp of Syria, unfortunately.

As always, you have not get to the real subject yet, Syria. Hezbollah is not Syria, nor Al Nusra, Syria is Syrian people, millions of people living in that country. Do you really think there are more than 2 camps Syrian people are divided in to?

Yes. Do you really think that millions of individual people from so many different walks of life can so easily be lumped into two different camps?

And can you name them?

I already named several, you never addressed them. as a side note Al Nusra is largely made up of domestic Syrians even if they court foreign Jihadis as well. They are an internal Salafist movement indigenous to the country.

Do you have any facts revolved around the people of Syria which will make the whole difference at the end if there will be any democracy(you remember the original debate here) at the end, or you just look at which group of thugs screwed which other group of thugs? If your whole argument is based on not more than couple cockroaches of the mid east, you missed the WHOLE POINT, the people of mid east. The whole argument was(from the beginning), democracy will do no good in mid east, meaning people voting, because of the facts I have been putting in front of you for the last how many days I already forgot. But all you have is Senegal and Hezbollah supporting Assad in a war effort and Al Nusra doing this, FSA doing that etc etc etc....

The point was to blast apart your over simplified depiction of Middle Eastern politics. you claimed they blames everything on the West, and then tried to use Syria as an example. We haven't even gotten to that part of Syria though because we are still working out how many factions actually exist in Syria.

 

[alpine]

There is a saying, in war there are no rules. Syria is no exception. FSA tried to block Al Nusra, to be able to get more military support from the west, and got hit back. But look at it from this perspective, Turkey and the Arab League has been long helping the FSA, and the Al Nusra receiving some of that military help did not bother them at all, because they are all in the same band wagon, till USA declared she would not help FSA unless they distant themselves from Al Nusra. This is no competition, this is sacrifice for the greater good(historically speaking; Ottoman sultans would get their brothers killed once they get the throne, for the greater good). FSA sacrificed Al Nusra to be able to get more weapons. You seriously think FSA is any different from Al Nusra?

Yes the FSA is different from Al Nusra, and no they aren't all on the same team. Like the Egyptian opposition they are only "allies" of convenience because they share a common enemy: Assad. Al Nusra is more Salafist and Al Qaeda leaning and groups like Al Qaeda hate moderate Islamists like the Brotherhood (who contribute politically to the opposition). Simply lumping them together under one banner ignores the major splits that naturally exist between these elements of Syrian society in their ideological systems.

And as for hezbollah helping Assad, what would anyone expect. They are both shia.

Exactly, but they aren't both Islamists. Hezbollah is though, so you have Islamists on multiple different fronts in this conflict so your original attempt to lump all Islamists together into one camp is obviously not a very good one.

I already told you about the middle parties, go back to my older messages, and you will see the remark about some elements being in this or that camp, depending on the situation. This situation proves my point, you have to chose a camp, otherwise you are without one. Assad can be a dictator, and could be a ruthless one too, and could be backed by Iran and hezbollah (well, he was the one feeding hezbollah in the first place but anyways) but this doesn't change the fact that Assad is the leader of the seculars and forward thinking camp of Syria, unfortunately.



Yes. Do you really think that millions of individual people from so many different walks of life can so easily be lumped into two different camps?

And can you name them?

I already named several, you never addressed them. as a side note Al Nusra is largely made up of domestic Syrians even if they court foreign Jihadis as well. They are an internal Salafist movement indigenous to the country.

Do you have any facts revolved around the people of Syria which will make the whole difference at the end if there will be any democracy(you remember the original debate here) at the end, or you just look at which group of thugs screwed which other group of thugs? If your whole argument is based on not more than couple cockroaches of the mid east, you missed the WHOLE POINT, the people of mid east. The whole argument was(from the beginning), democracy will do no good in mid east, meaning people voting, because of the facts I have been putting in front of you for the last how many days I already forgot. But all you have is Senegal and Hezbollah supporting Assad in a war effort and Al Nusra doing this, FSA doing that etc etc etc....

The point was to blast apart your over simplified depiction of Middle Eastern politics. you claimed they blames everything on the West, and then tried to use Syria as an example. We haven't even gotten to that part of Syria though because we are still working out how many factions actually exist in Syria.

Yes, as I mentioned before, many factions revolve around 2 camps, as you have already admitted yourself. They are allies and they will stay that way because in mid east, thats how it works, and how it worked for centuries, as yet you again and again failed to realize. Once there is muslim brotherhood in Syria, we all know what the majority of Syrians will do, elect an islamist as the president and let him make koran the constitution.

Any other questions?

 

[Osomir]

Yes, as I mentioned before, many factions revolve around 2 camps, as you have already admitted yourself. They are allies and they will stay that way because in mid east, thats how it works, and how it worked for centuries, as yet you again and again failed to realize.

They aren't allies though. Al Nusra has threatened to kill every single FSA leader. That's not an alliance. You also ignore the SNC, and the Kurdish Nationalists. And you ignore the vast differences in political ideology and even theological ideology that exists within the larger opposition movement. just because they all oppose Assad doesn't mean that they all agree or even get along.

Once there is muslim brotherhood in Syria, we all know what the majority of Syrians will do, elect an islamist as the president and let him make koran the constitution.

Then why has the Muslim Brotherhood's faction in Syria received less support than the current and more secular National Coalition?

Also how did you, the self proclaimed "Middle Eastern expert", not know that the Muslim Brotherhood was already in Syria and has been for a long time?

 

[Osomir]

The big problem with your characterization of Syria is that you want to paint it in the form of only two camps:

The Assad Regime vs. Islamists 1 on 1

But the reality is that Syria really looks something more like this:

And you reducing it to the former causes a lot to be lost in your analysis.

 

[alpine]

The big problem with your characterization of Syria is that you want to paint it in the form of only two camps:

The Assad Regime vs. Islamists 1 on 1

But the reality is that Syria really looks something more like this:


And you reducing it to the former causes a lot to be lost in your analysis.

I told you; you lack of attention. You can not even READ what the person across from you is typing. That should be a challenge for you.

First of all, I did already told you it is not 1 on 1. There are 2 camps and each element has to chose their camp accordingly, just like the Kurdish nationalists in Turkey, BDP does at the moment, with islamists but soon to turn around for the secular camp, because they realized how shit head the islamists are. And Egypt the same scenario. All liberals are back to the army camp.

You are just scratching the surface. You are putting some names of groups up here, like the regular mid easterner people sitting in their homes watching tv all day just like a westerner does, has anything to do with any of these. I am talking about the people of mid east, who are going to be voting as soon as you call for elections. The illiterate, uneducated, religious conservative majority workers, farmers, shop owners, cab drivers, against the people with somewhat an understanding of the world and surrounding who somewhat did a little better in education. Millions I am talking about, the silent millions.

In middle east, there is no way, no chance to come anything progressive out of this equation, not in million years, as long as they believe in a book that claims power on the state itself, IT WILL NOT HAPPEN! And as I already showed you, it is not me claiming this, it is the islamists themselves, as seen in the video.

You my friend, are just putting the results of the inner dynamics. If this is how you are analyzing a region, you really not doing any better than a coin flip for your boss. You are just hanging on the surface of the whole matter, playing with these funny graphics, blue balloons and lines I could do better in paint. I could just watch cnn all day and put each name I hear in a balloon and draw a line.

You kinda seem stuck in this 2 camp rhetoric.

 

[Osomir]

I'll number my comments on your posts so that you can respond to them on a more point by point basis:

1.) In This: http://www.usmessageboard.com/7527834-post202.html post you lectured me on your expertise and told me that I should rely on you for my information; however I am curious how you reconcile your claim of expertise with this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/7537063-post209.html post, where you appear to be unaware that the Muslim Brotherhood not only already operates in Syria within a multi-party political coalition, but that the Muslim Brotherhood has operated in Syria for many years. All of this keeping in mind of course that you specifically chose Syria as an example with which to demonstrate your expertise. How can you claim expertise in political Islam when you don’t even know the operating parameters of the single largest and most popular Islamist political party, not only in the entire Middle East, but in the entire world?

2.) In this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/7527834-post202.html post you claimed that, based on your two camp model, one couldn’t support both the opposition to the Assad Regime and the military coup in Egypt. If true then how do you account for Al Qaeda? As one of the largest non-state actors in the region Al Qaeda and its affiliates are actively engaged in providing logistical support against the Assad Regime but also was happy to see the military coup in Egypt take place against the Muslim Brotherhood. Al Qaeda hates the Muslim Brotherhood AND the Assad regime. If there are really only two camps how do you explain this divergence from your model and the large ideological and political differences between the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda Central?

3.) In this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/7496536-post200.html post, you claim that there are two camps in Syria. How then do you explain the low level civil conflict that exists between jihadis such as Al Nusra and the FSA which have already claimed many lives? How do you explain the large differences in their ideological and political structures as well (if they are indeed part of the same camp)?

4.) Related to the above question, how do you further explain your two camp model with the emergence of competing opposition political groups (the National Coalition, the NCC, the SNC, etc) which all utilize different tactics and emphasize different governance styles?

5.) In addition to the political party differences, if there are only two camps as you suggested then why do we not see the Kurdish nationalist groups participating in the primary opposition coalition despite their 2012 revolt?

Some dangers associated with your model:

6.) It simply isn’t detailed enough. It reduces a huge global community into gross generalizations and stereotypes. Now, I don’t think you do so maliciously, but as a former terrorism and conflict analyst, and as someone who is familiar with best practices within the industry, experience has shown that such categorizations are a poor methodology for the promotion of understanding and for use in the field when it comes to political dynamics and operational logistics. I don’t think that you are stupid, I just think that your experience is a little different and not as targeted and is also coupled with obviously very bitter feelings about your past experiences. I understand that you have valuable insight to contribute, but you should likewise recognize the analytical industry’s value and insight, and the very real experience of others. You’re not the only one who has experience in the area.

7.) How do you reconcile the Islamist BNP party of Bangladesh and the fact that it is headed by a women? Also, how does the Islamist coalition’s defeat in free elections to a much more secular party fit into your model of Islamic populations under democracy (especially since the winner of the Prime Ministership was also a woman)? Bangladesh is a very religiously conservative society, but has been fast changing internally. If we were to blindly subscribe to your instance on Islamic population generalizations then Bangladesh would make no sense at all. Or how do you explain the triumph of the secular Pakistan People’s Party in the 2008 elections over the Pakistan Muslim League and the recent and subsequent peaceful transition of power to the opposition (a coalition of the two PMLs)? You also still haven’t explained the existence of Senegal and Sierra Leone to me (the latter of which currently has a democratically elected Christian leader despite a Muslim majority within the country). Your model simply has so many exceptions to it that it (no offense) isn’t a very good one. But all singular models attempting to place over one billion people in general aren’t going to be very good which is why I have had a problem with your posts concerning these topics across multiple threads. I’m not out to get you, I merely strongly disagree with your methodology, one which you still haven’t explained the logic behind despite numerous promptings.

Some real life examples on how your generalizations may lead to poor policy formulation and missteps:

8.) Yemen. Al Qaeda operates in Yemen and is a Salafist Jihadi group. Yemen is a country that also experienced an Arab Spring uprising and a shift in internal power. According to your camp theory which you utilized in your characterization of Syria those groups against the central government would fall into the same camp, but they absolutely don’t. The Houthis in the north are a much different camp from the Southern socialist opposition, and both are very different from the Eastern Salafis. Even Al Qaeda (once again also regarded as Salafi) is very different in terms of politics, and methodology than majority Yemeni Salafis. Most eastern Salafis are very passive and do not promote the Al Qaeda ideology of armed jihad against the state. Yet, if we when with your generalization of Islamist camps we would probably bomb them indiscriminately with drones like we do Al Qaeda despite the fact that there is no need to. In fact we would simply, under your model’s guidance, ensure an even larger and more radical opposition against us stemming from a group of persons who didn’t have to be our enemy.

9.) An example of the above scenario actually happening: Somalia. Back in 2006 under Bush Jr. We utilized a national dialogue that was very similar to the one you are supporting now, so when we saw Islamists in Somalia under the ICU we screamed “Al Qaeda” despite the fact that they weren’t Al Qaeda affiliates and not only bombed them, but backed an Ethiopian invasion and occupation of the southern part of the country. The result: Al Shabaab’s establishment as an independent faction and the ACTUAL creation of a strong Al Qaeda affiliate in the region. Now, having realized our mistake, we are allied with the remnants of the ICU against Al Shabaab. It was a perfectly avoidable situation but our generalizations turned it into a catastrophe for regional stability.

10.) Al Shabaab also represents an interesting example of how generalizations afford missed opportunities. Al Shabaab isn’t a singular entity. In fact, it has three main divisions within itself as well as coalitional partners. Now you may simply shrug them off as being all the same or all in the same camp, but that model doesn’t explain the inter-organizational violence that takes place. The violence has been so great that it lead to the deaths of a couple of the founding members of Al Shabaab not that long ago. These rifts represent cracks that we can exploit in our favor and factions that we can play off against one another in order to weaken the larger militia based hold on the southern portion of the country. Were we operating under your proposed parameters we wouldn’t have seen that and would be missing a vital opportunity to improve regional security and undermine a hostile organization and Al Qaeda affiliate. Differentiation is crucial for the formation of effective policy.

11.) Jumping back to Yemen quick, I am curious how you reconcile your notion of singular Islamist jihadi ideologies and practices with the fact that we don’t see the same sort of Sectarian violence in Yemen even at the hands of Al Qaeda that we do in say Iraq with the ISI? How do you explain the stark differences in operational procedures among these groups that you would claim are one and the same?

12.) you called me an idiot for claiming that all Islamist groups aren’t the same. The problem with your categorization of Islamist groups is much the same problem that we have seen elsewhere with your generalizations among groups: It ignores the wide diversity that is found among them both in terms of their religious ideology, political ideology, method of operations, and even method of organization. We’ve seen examples of this with the clear divisions between groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda, with divisions and conflict between Al Nusra in Syria and the FSA’s more moderate Islamist militias such as Suquor Al Sham, we have seen this in our own foreign policy past when it came to the ICU and Al Shabaab, and we readily see this in Yemen between AQAP and majority eastern Salafis (not to mention northern Houthi groups). But there are many other examples as well. For example you lumped “Islamists” in Syria together into one camp which is problematic because it 1. Ignores the large divisions between Al Nusra and the FSA 2. Ignores sharp political divides between the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria and the National Opposition Coalition. And 3. Because it ignores the presence of the Islamist group Hezbollah which is fighting for the Assad Regime. Your model also doesn’t explain for example, why the Muslim Brotherhood cracked down on Islamist jihadis in the Sinai when it first came into power in Egypt, or why the Egyptian Salafist Al Nour Party abandoned the Muslim Brotherhood during the coup and supported the military. There are many other examples from the historical divisions between the FIS and GSPC in Algeria and neighboring regions, to the civil conflict that erupted in Mali following the Tuareg rebellion last year. How do you defend your model in the face of such strong and sometimes violent Islamist divisions?

13.) How do you reconcile Your supposed expertise with the major mistep in this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/7478889-post162.html post where you claimed the Muslim Brotherhood used to hold power there; also in This: http://www.usmessageboard.com/7479176-post168.html post where you claim they held power in Algeria during the Cold War (which they didn't)?

I doubt you'll actually respond to these on a point by point basis, but I figured I'd just post them anyway just so that anyone else reading this thread can watch you dodge its contents.

 

[alpine]

I'll number my comments on your posts so that you can respond to them on a more point by point basis:

1.) In This: http://www.usmessageboard.com/7527834-post202.html post you lectured me on your expertise and told me that I should rely on you for my information; however I am curious how you reconcile your claim of expertise with this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/7537063-post209.html post, where you appear to be unaware that the Muslim Brotherhood not only already operates in Syria within a multi-party political coalition, but that the Muslim Brotherhood has operated in Syria for many years. All of this keeping in mind of course that you specifically chose Syria as an example with which to demonstrate your expertise. How can you claim expertise in political Islam when you don’t even know the operating parameters of the single largest and most popular Islamist political party, not only in the entire Middle East, but in the entire world?

What do you mean there is muslim brotherhood in Syria???

What kind of an expert you are???

Muslim Brotherhood is BANNED in Syria. They are in EXILE.

And as I said, once the doors are open to them, no one can stop them.

I am tired of teaching you your own "expertise", because you have an attitude.

You clearly lack of any understanding because you lack of simple facts of the region. And I urged you to ask those to me, so you can get better in your "expertise". My offer is still on the table, but your attitude will block my appetite for cooperation, and this should not be a surprise for you...

 

[Osomir]

What do you mean there is muslim brotherhood in Syria???

What kind of an expert you are???

Muslim Brotherhood is BANNED in Syria. They are in EXILE.

And as I said, once the doors are open to them, no one can stop them.

You apparently are unfamiliar with the Syrian National Council.

I've already asked you about them before a couple of times in this thread and you have simply ignored their existence and involvement in Syria.

I'm also still curious how you reconcile your 'expertise" with the fact that you thought that the Muslim brotherhood ran Egypt during the cold war and then also thought that it ruled in Algeria, when neither of those two things was true.

Don't get me wrong, I think that you have some valuable things to contribute, but there are also clearly large gaps in your knowledge base even when it comes to the Middle East and Arab regions.

I am tired of teaching you your own "expertise", because you have an attitude.

And yet you were only able to respond to 1 of 13 question / points.

You clearly lack of any understanding because you lack of simple facts of the region. And I urged you to ask those to me, so you can get better in your "expertise". My offer is still on the table, but your attitude will block my appetite for cooperation, and this should not be a surprise for you...

I numbered thirteen separate points above for your response and you haven't done much to address any of them.

 

[alpine]

What do you mean there is muslim brotherhood in Syria???

What kind of an expert you are???

Muslim Brotherhood is BANNED in Syria. They are in EXILE.

And as I said, once the doors are open to them, no one can stop them.

You apparently are unfamiliar with the Syrian National Council.

I've already asked you about them before a couple of times in this thread and you have simply ignored their existence and involvement in Syria.

I'm also still curious how you reconcile your 'expertise" with the fact that you thought that the Muslim brotherhood ran Egypt during the cold war and then also thought that it ruled in Algeria, when neither of those two things was true.

Don't get me wrong, I think that you have some valuable things to contribute, but there are also clearly large gaps in your knowledge base even when it comes to the Middle East and Arab regions.

I am tired of teaching you your own "expertise", because you have an attitude.

And yet you were only able to respond to 1 of 13 question / points.

You clearly lack of any understanding because you lack of simple facts of the region. And I urged you to ask those to me, so you can get better in your "expertise". My offer is still on the table, but your attitude will block my appetite for cooperation, and this should not be a surprise for you...

I numbered thirteen separate points above for your response and you haven't done much to address any of them.

What do you want to know about the Syrian National Council? That protestors in Gezi in Turkey also did protest them? Gezi is the place where this whole argument started actually. Islam vs the military elite, and none has changed so far. This is what you see in Syria, Turkey, Iran(before the revolution), Egypt.... Most others don't even have that, thanks to the free oil money. So the Syrian National Council has everything islamic in it, against the alevi elites. And the people has 2 choice, one over the other, they make their choice. If you are alevi, you immediately remember islamists burning 30+ alevis alive just 20 years ago. And of course you will go with Assad.

And to see the determination on the other side, one can look at any of the leaders of the so called "democratic" countries, they openly say they will simply reproduce more than the others to overtake the whole thing, to invade it, to conquer it, whatever name would be appropriate, just like the Muslim Brotherhood and its alike in Algeria. Muslim Brotherhood was the 2nd islamist party in the first elections(1991), after which the Muslim Brotherhood alike party, the islamist party who got more islamist votes, did say "democracy no more, no constitution, OUR CONSTITUTION IS KORAN", exactly what Morsi said in the video I showed you earlier. So same shit in a different color is still shit to me. And I think it is ok if you can not figure out which one is which just by the smell. I had to look it up, but I was still to the point, except the names. They both got hammered by the, yet again, army.

We keep going back to Turkey, but the matter of Syria has tight ties to Turkey. Turkey always suffered from Syria, especially during the time of the military regime, but never dared to do anything about Assad. Just one time they warned Assad to get rid of the Kurdish guerilla, and he did take it seriously and did deport the Kurdish guerilla leader, simply did hand him over to Turkey. So Turkey was actually in a pretty good relationship with Syria, till the islamist party did take over and army was too weakened by European Union, could not respond to the take over, and once the islamists were in control in Turkey, they started poking the hornets nest, Syria (and we can discuss how it all got there, the islamic PR of Turkish PM at Davos, forcing himself into the minds of Syrian sunnis, and ordering them attack when he saw the time right; a cheap marketing campaign but hey, it worked, who am I to judge...).

And here we get a civil war. So islamists feel very very comfortable starting civil wars over control of the region, in which there is all kinds of horror one can imagine for the loser of the war. So this is a fight for life or death. And you my friend, have no idea what this feeling would be like, thats why you can not know what the outcome will be. Islamic countries are on the sharp edge of the blade, they either on one side or the other, either islamists or military.

Whatever you know is fine, but what ever you don't know, is a HUGE gap that gets you stuck. And you don't seem to care to learn about that either.

And yet you are here and expecting me to answer your LONG list of gaps you prepared for the last 2 days,.... in an hour. Seriously how much time you think it would take someone to come up with answer to a systematic rain of questions, that did take the preparer 2 days to put together in the first place?

What is happening? Are you getting emotional or what? What is it to you? Is there a reason for your unjustness, or it is usual?

 

[Osomir]

I'll number my comments on your posts so that you can respond to them on a more point by point basis:

1.) In This: http://www.usmessageboard.com/7527834-post202.html post you lectured me on your expertise and told me that I should rely on you for my information; however I am curious how you reconcile your claim of expertise with this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/7537063-post209.html post, where you appear to be unaware that the Muslim Brotherhood not only already operates in Syria within a multi-party political coalition, but that the Muslim Brotherhood has operated in Syria for many years. All of this keeping in mind of course that you specifically chose Syria as an example with which to demonstrate your expertise. How can you claim expertise in political Islam when you don’t even know the operating parameters of the single largest and most popular Islamist political party, not only in the entire Middle East, but in the entire world?

2.) In this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/7527834-post202.html post you claimed that, based on your two camp model, one couldn’t support both the opposition to the Assad Regime and the military coup in Egypt. If true then how do you account for Al Qaeda? As one of the largest non-state actors in the region Al Qaeda and its affiliates are actively engaged in providing logistical support against the Assad Regime but also was happy to see the military coup in Egypt take place against the Muslim Brotherhood. Al Qaeda hates the Muslim Brotherhood AND the Assad regime. If there are really only two camps how do you explain this divergence from your model and the large ideological and political differences between the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda Central?

3.) In this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/7496536-post200.html post, you claim that there are two camps in Syria. How then do you explain the low level civil conflict that exists between jihadis such as Al Nusra and the FSA which have already claimed many lives? How do you explain the large differences in their ideological and political structures as well (if they are indeed part of the same camp)?

4.) Related to the above question, how do you further explain your two camp model with the emergence of competing opposition political groups (the National Coalition, the NCC, the SNC, etc) which all utilize different tactics and emphasize different governance styles?

5.) In addition to the political party differences, if there are only two camps as you suggested then why do we not see the Kurdish nationalist groups participating in the primary opposition coalition despite their 2012 revolt?

Some dangers associated with your model:

6.) It simply isn’t detailed enough. It reduces a huge global community into gross generalizations and stereotypes. Now, I don’t think you do so maliciously, but as a former terrorism and conflict analyst, and as someone who is familiar with best practices within the industry, experience has shown that such categorizations are a poor methodology for the promotion of understanding and for use in the field when it comes to political dynamics and operational logistics. I don’t think that you are stupid, I just think that your experience is a little different and not as targeted and is also coupled with obviously very bitter feelings about your past experiences. I understand that you have valuable insight to contribute, but you should likewise recognize the analytical industry’s value and insight, and the very real experience of others. You’re not the only one who has experience in the area.

7.) How do you reconcile the Islamist BNP party of Bangladesh and the fact that it is headed by a women? Also, how does the Islamist coalition’s defeat in free elections to a much more secular party fit into your model of Islamic populations under democracy (especially since the winner of the Prime Ministership was also a woman)? Bangladesh is a very religiously conservative society, but has been fast changing internally. If we were to blindly subscribe to your instance on Islamic population generalizations then Bangladesh would make no sense at all. Or how do you explain the triumph of the secular Pakistan People’s Party in the 2008 elections over the Pakistan Muslim League and the recent and subsequent peaceful transition of power to the opposition (a coalition of the two PMLs)? You also still haven’t explained the existence of Senegal and Sierra Leone to me (the latter of which currently has a democratically elected Christian leader despite a Muslim majority within the country). Your model simply has so many exceptions to it that it (no offense) isn’t a very good one. But all singular models attempting to place over one billion people in general aren’t going to be very good which is why I have had a problem with your posts concerning these topics across multiple threads. I’m not out to get you, I merely strongly disagree with your methodology, one which you still haven’t explained the logic behind despite numerous promptings.

Some real life examples on how your generalizations may lead to poor policy formulation and missteps:

8.) Yemen. Al Qaeda operates in Yemen and is a Salafist Jihadi group. Yemen is a country that also experienced an Arab Spring uprising and a shift in internal power. According to your camp theory which you utilized in your characterization of Syria those groups against the central government would fall into the same camp, but they absolutely don’t. The Houthis in the north are a much different camp from the Southern socialist opposition, and both are very different from the Eastern Salafis. Even Al Qaeda (once again also regarded as Salafi) is very different in terms of politics, and methodology than majority Yemeni Salafis. Most eastern Salafis are very passive and do not promote the Al Qaeda ideology of armed jihad against the state. Yet, if we when with your generalization of Islamist camps we would probably bomb them indiscriminately with drones like we do Al Qaeda despite the fact that there is no need to. In fact we would simply, under your model’s guidance, ensure an even larger and more radical opposition against us stemming from a group of persons who didn’t have to be our enemy.

9.) An example of the above scenario actually happening: Somalia. Back in 2006 under Bush Jr. We utilized a national dialogue that was very similar to the one you are supporting now, so when we saw Islamists in Somalia under the ICU we screamed “Al Qaeda” despite the fact that they weren’t Al Qaeda affiliates and not only bombed them, but backed an Ethiopian invasion and occupation of the southern part of the country. The result: Al Shabaab’s establishment as an independent faction and the ACTUAL creation of a strong Al Qaeda affiliate in the region. Now, having realized our mistake, we are allied with the remnants of the ICU against Al Shabaab. It was a perfectly avoidable situation but our generalizations turned it into a catastrophe for regional stability.

10.) Al Shabaab also represents an interesting example of how generalizations afford missed opportunities. Al Shabaab isn’t a singular entity. In fact, it has three main divisions within itself as well as coalitional partners. Now you may simply shrug them off as being all the same or all in the same camp, but that model doesn’t explain the inter-organizational violence that takes place. The violence has been so great that it lead to the deaths of a couple of the founding members of Al Shabaab not that long ago. These rifts represent cracks that we can exploit in our favor and factions that we can play off against one another in order to weaken the larger militia based hold on the southern portion of the country. Were we operating under your proposed parameters we wouldn’t have seen that and would be missing a vital opportunity to improve regional security and undermine a hostile organization and Al Qaeda affiliate. Differentiation is crucial for the formation of effective policy.

11.) Jumping back to Yemen quick, I am curious how you reconcile your notion of singular Islamist jihadi ideologies and practices with the fact that we don’t see the same sort of Sectarian violence in Yemen even at the hands of Al Qaeda that we do in say Iraq with the ISI? How do you explain the stark differences in operational procedures among these groups that you would claim are one and the same?

12.) you called me an idiot for claiming that all Islamist groups aren’t the same. The problem with your categorization of Islamist groups is much the same problem that we have seen elsewhere with your generalizations among groups: It ignores the wide diversity that is found among them both in terms of their religious ideology, political ideology, method of operations, and even method of organization. We’ve seen examples of this with the clear divisions between groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda, with divisions and conflict between Al Nusra in Syria and the FSA’s more moderate Islamist militias such as Suquor Al Sham, we have seen this in our own foreign policy past when it came to the ICU and Al Shabaab, and we readily see this in Yemen between AQAP and majority eastern Salafis (not to mention northern Houthi groups). But there are many other examples as well. For example you lumped “Islamists” in Syria together into one camp which is problematic because it 1. Ignores the large divisions between Al Nusra and the FSA 2. Ignores sharp political divides between the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria and the National Opposition Coalition. And 3. Because it ignores the presence of the Islamist group Hezbollah which is fighting for the Assad Regime. Your model also doesn’t explain for example, why the Muslim Brotherhood cracked down on Islamist jihadis in the Sinai when it first came into power in Egypt, or why the Egyptian Salafist Al Nour Party abandoned the Muslim Brotherhood during the coup and supported the military. There are many other examples from the historical divisions between the FIS and GSPC in Algeria and neighboring regions, to the civil conflict that erupted in Mali following the Tuareg rebellion last year. How do you defend your model in the face of such strong and sometimes violent Islamist divisions?

13.) How do you reconcile Your supposed expertise with the major mistep in this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/7478889-post162.html post where you claimed the Muslim Brotherhood used to hold power there; also in This: http://www.usmessageboard.com/7479176-post168.html post where you claim they held power in Algeria during the Cold War (which they didn't)?

I doubt you'll actually respond to these on a point by point basis, but I figured I'd just post them anyway just so that anyone else reading this thread can watch you dodge its contents.

 

[Osomir]

http://http://www.aljazeera.com/video/middleeast/2013/07/201372313152861410.html

FSA fighting Kurdish rebels for weeks over a border town in the west part of the country. How does that fit into your two camp model again? Shouldn't they be on the same side since they are both rebels?

 

[alpine]

http://http://www.aljazeera.com/video/middleeast/2013/07/201372313152861410.html

FSA fighting Kurdish rebels for weeks over a border town in the west part of the country. How does that fit into your two camp model again? Shouldn't they be on the same side since they are both rebels?

Hmm, this is your view of mid east; "they are both rebels in the name, so they should be fighting together" ???

Again, what kind of an expert are you? What a retarded claim is this?

Assad and Kurdish guerilla fighting on the same side should tell you something...

But of course, it will not, like as always, you will fail again to realize what really is going on.

I wonder if anybody is paying anything for this expertise of yours, reaaaaallllyyyy wonder if anybody would consider bullshitting all day long as a full time job...

 

[alpine]

I doubt you'll actually respond to these on a point by point basis, but I figured I'd just post them anyway just so that anyone else reading this thread can watch you dodge its contents.

What makes you think I have any responsibility what so ever to take any of your comments serious and take time to answer them?

What makes you think you can actually have any word you can say on mid east while you are lacking of very basics of the region, like muslim brotherhood being banned in Syria?

What makes you think that any retarded logic you are putting up here deserves any attention all together?

And most important, what makes you think you are an 'expert' in anything in this life, really... pfffff