Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We are NOT backing an uprising by the Islamic Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. We can't do that. It'd be crazy of us.
I mean, if the radical Muslims take Egype the way they took Iran from Carter, then Israel would be flanked to the North, East, South. Just like the Six Day War that the Muslims started, Israel finished, and was the root of current hatred of Israel.
For us to back an uprising of radicals in Egypt would require us to have some kind of crazy president with not only sympathy to radical Muslims and a desire to see the power of Israel severely weakened, but also to even have a wish for Jews worldwide to be harmed. And we do NOT have a president like that. If we did have a president like that, or even a candidate, we'd have seen something suspicious about him during his candidacy that would've shown his feelings towards Israel and the USA. He'd have attended some crazy church where preachers spread anti-Israeli sentiment, and yell stuff like "God Damn America", and rant about Zionism and stuff like that. And that hypothetical president would've had some sort of Muslim upbringing, not here, probably in Malaysia, Indonesia, something like that. He may have even been found to align himself or surround himself with radicals from college age and up, far left wingers, and he'd probably also show great leniancy in or hesitancy to crack down on Muslim extremists or shape it in a way that least offends them.
So calm down folks. Our current president shows none of those tendencies or past traits. So theres no way our president will support a radical Muslim uprising in Egypt.
I'm sorry, where are you getting the idea that this is a "radical Muslim uprising?" While I know the Muslim Brotherhood is playing a part, I've seen nothing from any news source to indicate that they are a primary player. There are numerous groups and individuals involved and the general tone I'm reading is definitely not calling for an Islamic revolution or theocracy.
Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com
Woman #1 sets the stage for Woman #2:
All the people hate him. Hes supporting Israel! Israel is our enemy. We dont like him Israel and America supported him. We hate them all!
Woman #1 then explains that they will accomplish the removal of Mubarak by revolution.
Then the guy that follows them takes it up a notch by explaining that when the people in Egypt are finally free they will be able to destroy Israel.
The protests are not Islamic in nature and neither the Ikhwan nor any other so-called "Islamist" or religious organization is the impetus behind the current unrest, though they and various al-Azhar 'ulema are among the protesters. For their part, the Ikhwan have cast their lot with El Baradei who is decidedly secular.
And with that I'm getting back to work.
So we should just ignore the Muslim Brotherhood?
Yeah right....
extremists are now pouring into non-exsistent borders
The protests are not Islamic in nature and neither the Ikhwan nor any other so-called "Islamist" or religious organization is the impetus behind the current unrest, though they and various al-Azhar 'ulema are among the protesters. For their part, the Ikhwan have cast their lot with El Baradei who is decidedly secular.
And with that I'm getting back to work.
So we should just ignore the Muslim Brotherhood?
Yeah right....
No, feel free to cower over a neutered opposition party with waning influence and little relevance to the current situation in Egypt.
The Muslim Brotherhood seizing control of Egypt
Quite.So we should just ignore the Muslim Brotherhood?
Yeah right....
No, feel free to cower over a neutered opposition party with waning influence and little relevance to the current situation in Egypt.
You sure about that?
And the situation was entirely different. The so-called Islamic Revolution in Iran succeeded because the movement had an effective and popular leader in Khomeini. The closest thing to a figurehead that Egyptian protestors have is El Baradei who isn't part of any revolutionary religious movement, isn't calling for a fundamental restructuring of Egyptian society, and doesn't have a following nearly as dedicated as Khomeini's. The situation in Egypt isn't going to devolve into any sort of bloody revolution.That's exactly what they said about Iran right before the Mullah Nazis took over in that country.
The Muslim Brotherhood isn't neutered anymore. Bet on that.
Reagan created a frankenstein in the region . . .
From 1994 Afghanistan was increasingly dominated by a faction of Mujahideen known as Taliban or seminary students (who were backed by Pakistani military intelligence, which learned the trick from Reagan and which were flush from all those billions the Reagan administration had funneled into the region). In 1996 Bin Laden came back and reestablished himself there, becoming the leader of 5,000 radical Arab volunteers that Reagan had urged Fahd to help come to Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Fast forward to the War on Terror
"The American Right, having created the Mujahideen and having mightily contributed to the creation of al-Qaeda, abruptly announced that there was something deeply wrong with Islam, that it kept producing terrorists."
Why did Reagan remove Hussein from the terrorist list? Why did he increase weapons support to Saudi Arabia? Why did he provide endless support to the mujahideen?
Why don't Republican voters know Reagan's history? Because they get their information from the machine.
There is a logic to Reagan did. In order to bend this crucial region to American interests, Reagan strengthened the power of terrorists. Reagan used these terrorist chess peices to A) fight the Soviets and B) soften the region to US energy needs.
Reagan had no choice. He was part of a powerful movement who silenced Carter, the man who said we needed to re-think energy in order to get out of the middle east. Carter was worried that our oil addiction was strengthening terrorist nations. He was worried that the cost of stabilizing the middle east -- a.k.a. the military extraction of petroleum -- would not only bankrupt us, but required too many questionable alliances. Reagan called him crazy and doubled down in the middle east. He formed alliances with terrorists because he had to "play ball" with whatever powers he could harness. Through all of his shadowy dealings with Iran, Iraq, the Saudis, and Mujahideen -- he made terrorism a much more powerful force going forward. Nearly all of his policies served to radicalize the region.
Welcome to the law of unintended consequences.
Welcome to what happens when Republicans trust Washington too much.
They say they hate government.
They say government is incompetent.
But their love for Reagan -- a Washington politician -- and their willingness to trust Bush's explanation & execution of the War on Terrorism . . . has hurt this country more than they will ever realize. Not only do they trust Government, they trust it enough to create a democratic utopia atop Islamic soil. They trust dear leader. They have more faith in government power than any other group of Americans in history.
America's dirty little secret has always been that the Right trusts government. The Left opposed LBJ when he spoke about Vietnam. The Right, on the other hand, trusts Washington completely when it comes to war and geopolitics. Their trust in Washington has destroyed us. They didn't know how to challenge Bush because they don't know how to question government. They are only allowed to fight and question liberals. But they are not allowed to fight and question their government leaders.
The cultivation of terrorist cells has its consequences
"On becoming president, George H. W. Bush made a deal with the Soviets that he would cut the Mujahideen off if the Soviets would leave Afghanistan. The last Soviet troops departed in early 1989. The US then turned its back on Afghanistan and allowed it to fall into civil war, as the radical Muslim factions fostered by Washington and Riyadh turned against one another and used their extensive weaponry on each other and on civilians.
In the meantime, Saddam, whom the US had built up as a major military power, invaded Kuwait. The Bush senior administration now had to take on its former protege, and put hundreds of thousands of US troops into the Gulf and Saudi Arabia. The radical Muslim extremists with whom Reagan and Bush had allied in Afghanistan now turned on the US, objecting strenuously to a permanent US military presence in the Muslim holy land."
Geez......what a surprise Another America hater shows up on the USMESSAGEBOARD!!!!
The Muslim Brotherhood seizing control of Egypt
What makes you think that this will happen?
Is this really what the Egyptians are rallying for? to remove Mubarak to follow the Brotherhood and go to war with Israel?
Is this really what the Egyptians are rallying for? to remove Mubarak to follow the Brotherhood and go to war with Israel?
No, unfortunately.