Article

2007-06-21 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by 2007-06-21 03:03|| || Front Page|| [6 views ] Top

#1 This would give all their violent acts legitimacy and prove terrorism's effectiveness. It would be the worst mistake since pulling out of Gaza.

So I have no doubt that the pansies in DC WILL do it.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2007-06-21 08:35|| 2007-06-21 08:35|| Front Page Top

#2 I think the stress of a wartime president and a traitorous press has caused Bush to go off the deep end. He said you are either with us, or the terrorists. More and more he is with the terrorists.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-06-21 09:36|| 2007-06-21 09:36|| Front Page Top

#3 You are either with us, so you get taxed, or you are with the terrorists, so you get aid.
Hey Condi, help me with my math here. Should we tax Massachusetts or give then aid ?

Posted by w 2007-06-21 10:32|| 2007-06-21 10:32|| Front Page Top

#4 This is incredible. Note the "State Department" is sponsoring this. This president really is lost because he himself has no sense. He's allowing aides to put him in deep do-do just as Lyndon Johnson did years ago. When Kennedy brought in his glamor crew of academic advisors, he could control them because he himself was a capable filter on their nuttiest ideas. Once Johnson inherited them, he was not capable of comprehending their basic foolishness and got his ass into a real jam. History repeats. No more Texans in the White House. I guess they need to stay out on the ranch.

Posted by Woozle Elmeter2970 2007-06-21 10:41|| 2007-06-21 10:41|| Front Page Top

#5 hey rantburgers here's YOUR president guys doing what comes naturally to people like you, caving in!

Posted by Elmereper B. Hayes9247 2007-06-21 10:45|| 2007-06-21 10:45|| Front Page Top

#6 This is the egyptian MB.

Not a lovely set of guys, to be sure. But havent done any actual terror in quite a long time.

And not being able to talk to them, severely reduces our leverage on Mubarak. Which is not a good thing.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2007-06-21 10:50|| 2007-06-21 10:50|| Front Page Top

#7 "In part this was because these parties offered an uncorrupt alternative to the more secular parties in power..."

If you exclude bad faith negotiations, hypocracy, and revenge killings as "uncorrupt", I guess that statement makes sense.

Oh BTW...
"hey rantburgers here's YOUR president..."

Elmereper, here in the states we refer to the POTUS as "The" President regardless of party affiliation. A basic civics class is offered to immigrants at a reduced cost. Feel free to take advantage of the hospitality.

Posted by DepotGuy 2007-06-21 11:31|| 2007-06-21 11:31|| Front Page Top

#8 This is just another step toward the so-called 'realist' school. We have some 'idealist' policies and some 'realist' policies. Many of these policies are seamlessly reversable (e.g., we can 'engage' with the Egyptian MB and then 'disengage').

If the Egyptian MB can be of use dealing with Iran/shiite infiltration into Gaza or South Egypt(marginally possible), then its not a big deal.

Posted by mhw 2007-06-21 11:34|| http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/]">[http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/] 2007-06-21 11:34|| Front Page Top

#9 The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is the grandfather of this current round of muslim terrorism and spawned Zawahiri, al-Qaeda and other of the world's worst murders. I'm trying to wrap my brain around the immense stupidity of this, but I can't.

I think a lot of the head snapping, WTF naivety of the our leaders is founded on the belief that all people are the same and the same phony, glad handing that works in Washington will actually win over those who are indoctrinated to kill and enslave them. The world is not a D.C. cocktail circuit and real monsters do exist and are in charge of most of it.

Posted by ed 2007-06-21 12:33|| 2007-06-21 12:33|| Front Page Top

#10 ed,

if you refuse to support lesser evil for tactical reasons, then

there is no reason to support Fatah against Hamas

no reason to support the Iraq govt against Al Q

no reason to support the Pakistan govt against their enemies

and

no reason to support the Afghan govt against the Taleban.

Posted by mhw 2007-06-21 12:42|| http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/]">[http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/] 2007-06-21 12:42|| Front Page Top

#11 mwh, the Muslim Brotherhood is not the lesser evil. They are the root cause of today's suffering. As the other side of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood struggle is Mubarak, are you actually advocating supporting EMB against Mubarak? Hop would that help our cause?

Posted by ed 2007-06-21 13:10|| 2007-06-21 13:10|| Front Page Top

#12 These developments, in light of Hamas's control of Gaza, suggest that President Bush who has been careful to distinguish the war on terror from a war on Islam has done more than any of his predecessors to accept the movement fighting for the merger of mosque and state in the Middle East.

Must have gone on a real bender with that Religion of Peace [spit] Kool-Aid he's so fond of sipping. Lesser evil and other diplospeak platitudes aside, as bigjim noted, such actions will only lend an air of credibility and prestige to an organization that seeks a global caliphate.

Terrorism or not, the mere notion of a global caliphate represents the penultimate extinction of human rights as we know them. Islam and terrorism are inseparable. The Koran preaches it and far too many of its adherents practice it. Islam is the only ideology that has embraced terrorismnot as a disdained and infrequently used expedientbut as a central tenet and fixture of its overall strategy.

I invite others to consider just exactly how this sort of backpedaling by terrorism's staunchest opponent will facilitate even more appalling degrees of accommodation and appeasement by the Democrats. Those who were once unafraid to name them as such have just presented the Axis of Evil with engraved calling cards.

In Egypt, Iraq, and the Palestinian territories, Islamist parties trounced their secular rivals. In part this was because these parties offered an uncorrupt alternative to the more secular parties in power, but some advocates inside the administration also say it reflects a tangible momentum for parties that seek to create Islamic republics.

This idiotic notion completely ignores the fact that said Islamist parties are corrupt at a far deeper level. DepotGuy rightly points out Islams common mode theocratic government brings with it a host of other far more profound flaws than merely siphoning off foreign aid funding. The entire framework of Islamic governance is at odds with every single aspect of Western liberty and freedom.

One leading European Islamist, Tariq Ramadan, who is the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, is being denied a visa to assume a professorship he has been offered at Notre Dame University.

Yet, this is insufficient to sway those involved away from such an incredibly bad idea.

The policy debate inside the administration is also contentious, with law enforcement agencies such as the FBI skeptical that the Muslim Brotherhood is not clandestinely more involved in supporting violent jihad than the organization's emissaries let on.

It is precisely for this reason that Islam needs to be banned instead of being granted even greater plausibility. Taqiyya firmly stands in the way of all possible progress towards rapprochement. It is a stumbling block of insurmountable proportions. There is no way to trust a living Muslim that their words and deeds will correspond correctly. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in Afghanistan and Iraq. Karzai signs The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, then shrinks from vocally ensuring the right of Abdul Rahmans right to convert away from Islam to Christianity. The near constant treachery of al-Maliki in Iraq needs no further elucidation.

Making the case today for outreach is Mr. Leiken, who co-authored with Steve Brooke a paper for the March-April issue of Foreign Affairs titled, "The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood." That paper argues that Ikhwan has drawn contempt from violent Islamists such as Al Qaeda for its general disavowal of armed struggle. Tracing its history to its founding, the paper says the group today, particularly in Egypt, is genuine in its desire to participate in democratic politics.

Quite obviously no one is paying attention. Hamas was democratically elected and only brought further mayhem and installation of Islams theocratic crapulence in the Gaza Strip. While Democracy is a vital component of good government, it does not ensurein and of itselftrue liberty and freedom. Hitler was democratically elected.

He said he thinks diplomacy with Ikhwan could help us help them to moderate Hamas. "It is conceivable that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, aware Gaza could serve as an index, will try use its influence to get Hamas to be constructive," he said. The Egyptian government has used the Muslim Brothers for at least 10 years as a back channel to Hamas.

It is delusional in the extreme to think that any Muslim organization sincerely wishes to see a resolution of the Palestinian crisis that does not involve the destruction of Israel. Our politicians cherish this illusion and continue to invest massive amount of personal and political capital while just as persistently ignoring the blowback of uninterrupted terrorist attacks against Israel.

Zeyno Baran, did say she was worried about a new direction by the Bush administration.

"The thinking is that to deal with terrorism, we need to deal with Muslims who will take care of their communities so there will not be people here and there doing terrorism," she said. "So we treat the brotherhood like an umbrella organization, like the Council on American Islamic Relations or the Islamic Society of North America. You make them partners. They might Islamize the Muslims, but it's okay because they can think or do what they want as long as they are not violent. That is the misunderstanding and mistake."

Clearly, Ms. Baran gets it. The fact that CAIR still operates inside of America is living proof of how hopelessly inadequate our efforts at fighting terrorism are to date. Seeking some middle ground with the Muslim Brotherhood is of absolutely no use when a consistent trademark of such groups is tilting the playing field to their advantage in every conceivable respect. You may as well try to win money at cards by playing a skilled magician.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-06-21 13:47|| 2007-06-21 13:47|| Front Page Top

#13 The MB in Egypt is pretty close to the situation that exists in Turkey with their Islamic party. That is, they're just borderline enough, and hugely popular, that it would be injudicious to mess with them unless you have to.

In the case of Turkey, they DO run the place, but the military keeps them in check. In Egypt, they are the opposition, with the government keeping them in check.

Frankly, even if we were opposed to both of them, there is damn little we can do about it other than to declare war against Egypt or Turkey. The Saud family as a whole is far more troublesome than either.

So what do you do? Engage or ignore? Declaring them as a terrorist organization is like declaring the Democrats a terrorist organization. Sure they help the enemy, and sure they want the US to lose in the war. But then what?

There are times when being a realist is actually realistic.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-06-21 14:12|| 2007-06-21 14:12|| Front Page Top

#14 Waiting for Hillary.

Posted by gromgoru 2007-06-21 14:12|| 2007-06-21 14:12|| Front Page Top

#15 The MB in Egypt is pretty close to the situation that exists in Turkey with their Islamic party. That is, they're just borderline enough, and hugely popular, that it would be injudicious to mess with them unless you have to.

In the case of Turkey, they DO run the place, but the military keeps them in check. In Egypt, they are the opposition, with the government keeping them in check.

Frankly, even if we were opposed to both of them, there is damn little we can do about it other than to declare war against Egypt or Turkey. The Saud family as a whole is far more troublesome than either.

So what do you do? Engage or ignore? Declaring them as a terrorist organization is like declaring the Democrats a terrorist organization. Sure they help the enemy, and sure they want the US to lose in the war. But then what?

There are times when being a realist is actually realistic.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-06-21 14:13|| 2007-06-21 14:13|| Front Page Top

#16 Yes, we know that Zawahiri came from Egytian Islamic Jihad which emergerged from Egyptian MB. MB is islamist, and (pretty much) salafist - just like our "friends" the Saudis. They have not (yet) pursued a game of terror, though they certainly arent enemies of Hamas, who do.

But no is suggesting (I hope) that we support MB. Just that we talk to them.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2007-06-21 15:16|| 2007-06-21 15:16|| Front Page Top

#17 They have not (yet) pursued a game of terror, though they certainly arent enemies of Hamas, who do.

Liberalhawk, while I do not expect that you have access to classified intelligence regarding the Muslim Brotherhood, how can you make such a totally unsupported statement like the above?

Taqiyya makes, literally, anything possible. Would you willingly play chess with someone who announced beforehand that they hadnot just every intention of cheatingbut a god-given right to do so? The chess analogy is inadequate in that, at least, you can watch the board. There is no watching the board with Muslims.

You correctly note the Muslim Brotherhood's lack of enmity for Hamas, despite the MB supposedly having abandoned terrorism. You quite properly equate the MB with the Saudis, yet refuse to concede the danger of granting either of them any credibility with respect to truly fighting terrorism. Much like the era of nation building is over with, so must the ridiculous concept of realpolitik be thrown under the wheels. The recent immigration bill here in America should have served final notice of that.

NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS ONLY ENCOURAGES MORE TERRORISM.

Rewarding terrorists with the prestige of recognition and any other forms of settlement is a direct incentive for them to continue with business as usual. Additionally, Islams terms areby its own admissionnon-negotiable. Any pretense of flexibility is merely an instance of taqiyya or hudna. Do you argue this? During WWII we did not try to bribe Japan into abandoning its use of kamikaze suicide pilots. We shot them out of the sky at every opportunity and eventually used nuclear weapons to force the surrender of an unrepentantly vicious enemy.

How has this changed? It there any more worth to an Islamic caliphate in comparison to an Imperial Japanese Co-Prosperity Sphere? Is there the least difference? Finally, is there any deal with the Devil worth making? Islam is so unutterably evil thatdespite its claims of America being the Great Satanthey are the embodiment of Lucifer himself.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-06-21 17:42|| 2007-06-21 17:42|| Front Page Top

#18 Our goal should be the destruction of terrorism and terrorists--NOTHING LESS. We have been mollycoddling them for 30 or 40 years and look what it has gotten us. Zenster is right: You cannot negotiate with terrorists who have as their goal the destruction of you. If you lay down with dogs who have fleas, you get fleas.

Posted by JohnQC 2007-06-21 19:33|| 2007-06-21 19:33|| Front Page Top

#19 If I recall correctly, Hamas is the Palestinian (perhaps Gaza, anyway) branch of the Islamic Brotherhood, inspired in all things by MB writings. I think Hamas is actually an anagram of something religious and warlike, not a reference to the Syrian massacre of the residents of Hama. While I assume that the MB is not directly financing Hamas, the ties are nonetheless not attenuated, despite the MB finding it easier and more comfortable to achieve their caliphate by ballot rather than bullet.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-06-21 20:26|| 2007-06-21 20:26|| Front Page Top

#20 Sorry. That's Muslim Brotherhood, of course. I must have been momentarily distracted.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-06-21 23:49|| 2007-06-21 23:49|| Front Page Top

23:57 Shipman
23:57 trailing wife
23:55 trailing wife
23:49 trailing wife
23:46 Shipman
23:46 Zenster
23:44 Shipman
23:43 trailing wife
23:42 Shipman
23:41 Icerigger
23:39 Zenster
23:38 Icerigger
23:38 trailing wife
23:37 Icerigger
23:37 Gary and the Samoyeds
23:31 trailing wife
23:20 Icerigger
22:59 8872
22:51 trailing wife
22:48 8872
22:37 gromgoru
22:28 Zenster
22:20 Super Hose
22:17 Super Hose