Who are the real terrorists?

[marharth]

The US government has allied with terrorists before...

 

The muslim brotherhood has not committed any acts of violence, if a part of the group wants to be violent then that group will split off into another group separate from the muslim brotherhood.

 

The muslim brotherhood spreads Islam peacefully, I have never seen them commit acts of violence without disbanding into another group due to violence.

 

:wallbash: Oh for goodness sake, don't tell me you have already forgotten;-

 

General Strategic Goal of The Muslim Brotherhood (see page 21)

 

They support overthrowing the kuffar by any means possible and they like to kid the naive into believing that certain terrorist groups are nothing to do with them. It is a rather familiar tale where I come from.

They may of my threats of violence (like the US has done many times) but they haven't done any violent acts correct?

 

They admit to be friendly with certain terrorist groups, that doesn't mean they like their ideology. The USA is friendly with China, so we all must be communists right?

 

They have said they are peaceful, and there have been no acts of violence from them. Just because one small part of a article from 10 years ago says a single person saying something about the muslim brotherhood does not mean they are all violent.

 

Unless you can show me more then one section from a document, I am more willing to beleive they are peaceful due to their quotes and other sources (posted multiple links in a different topic.)

 

If they were a terrorist group then they wouldn't have a website, the USA could easily track their website if they wanted to. Hell any country could track their website and capture them.

 

If they were a terrorist group they wouldn't have buildings in the USA, the government would have taken care of that already.

 

If they were a terrorist group then they would have been easily captured by now.

 

Before replying to this post make sure you answer how they can have long standing buildings in the US, and how they haven't been captured yet despite knowing exactly were they are. Also try to post more links to proof they are violent, and prove they have done acts of violence.

[ginnyfizz]

I do not think it is your job to be moderating this forum and telling me whether I can or cannot reply to your post. That right is reserved to the staff.

 

In the case of the USA v HLF et alin which the document linked was an exhibit, and in all subsquent analyses, the Moslem Brotherhood have been shown up to be a threat and a front for other organisations. Try reading this, although it is quite long;-

 

Moslem Brotherhood Defined As Threat In USA

 

I wonder, have you looked in the State of Texas records at the Holy Land Foundation case? Try Googling it. It's a real court case. They have evidence presented in those. A lot of it, volumes of it.

 

US Congress, Homeland Security and other believe The Brotherhood are linked to terrorism. So does a court of law. To say that they have not committed any acts of violence is really, really naive. We have some groups just like that in the UK who have gone "respectable" There are some infamous tyrants of history who never had their finger on the trigger personally, but who are still mass murderers nonetheless (Adolf Hitler, anyone?)

[Aurielius]

I do not think it is your job to be moderating this forum and telling me whether I can or cannot reply to your post. That right is reserved to the staff.

 

In the case of the USA v HLF et alin which the document linked was an exhibit, and in all subsquent analyses, the Moslem Brotherhood have been shown up to be a threat and a front for other organisations. Try reading this, although it is quite long;-

 

Moslem Brotherhood Defined As Threat In USA

 

I wonder, have you looked in the State of Texas records at the Holy Land Foundation case? Try Googling it. It's a real court case. They have evidence presented in those. A lot of it, volumes of it.

 

US Congress, Homeland Security and other believe The Brotherhood are linked to terrorism. So does a court of law. To say that they have not committed any acts of violence is really, really naive. We have some groups just like that in the UK who have gone "respectable" There are some infamous tyrants of history who never had their finger on the trigger personally, but who are still mass murderers nonetheless (Adolf Hitler, anyone?)

 

@Ginny

Perhaps if you presented your argument in cartoon format it might be understood but even that might be too complex for some. You are asking the improbable, that actual research be done before reflexive nay saying. Personally you have more patience than I, but after reading the Texas court case I found no wiggle room available but then again I read it (it was a long read). Thanks for the link.

[marharth]

I do not think it is your job to be moderating this forum and telling me whether I can or cannot reply to your post. That right is reserved to the staff.

 

In the case of the USA v HLF et alin which the document linked was an exhibit, and in all subsquent analyses, the Moslem Brotherhood have been shown up to be a threat and a front for other organisations. Try reading this, although it is quite long;-

 

Moslem Brotherhood Defined As Threat In USA

 

I wonder, have you looked in the State of Texas records at the Holy Land Foundation case? Try Googling it. It's a real court case. They have evidence presented in those. A lot of it, volumes of it.

 

US Congress, Homeland Security and other believe The Brotherhood are linked to terrorism. So does a court of law. To say that they have not committed any acts of violence is really, really naive. We have some groups just like that in the UK who have gone "respectable" There are some infamous tyrants of history who never had their finger on the trigger personally, but who are still mass murderers nonetheless (Adolf Hitler, anyone?)

 

@Ginny

Perhaps if you presented your argument in cartoon format it might be understood but even that might be too complex for some. You are asking the improbable, that actual research be done before reflexive nay saying. Personally you have more patience than I, but after reading the Texas court case I found no wiggle room available but then again I read it (it was a long read). Thanks for the link.

That gave me a idea, maybe if I uploaded a animation to my youtube channel you might watch it and listen rather then skipping over everything and posting the same link over and over. Then again you would probably just ignore that also, so I won't bother.

 

There is a big difference between a court considering you a "threat organization" and you being a terrorist organization.

 

The court trial you speak of was the US against The Holy Land Foundation, that happened around the time of 9/11. The tensions around that time were extremely high so am sure that effected the case. I don't think your evidence is very strong if you can only supply a single document from a court case 10 years ago after 9/11.

 

I asked you to respond to my argument before replying, but that seems to be too hard for you to do. Instead you post about how you think I am acting like a moderator, which makes no sense.

 

They admit to be friendly with certain terrorist groups, that doesn't mean they like their ideology. The USA is friendly with China, so we all must be communists right?

 

So if they are a terrorist group like you claim can you answer how they can have long standing buildings in the US, and how they haven't been captured yet despite knowing exactly were they are. Also try to post more links to proof they are violent, and prove they have done acts of violence.

[ginnyfizz]

You clearly haven't even clicked the latest link that I posted as it is actually a new one. :laugh: So here it is again...

 

Moslem Brotherhood Defined As Threat In The USA

 

Do try reading it this time. And try to accept that some of us DO know what we are talking about. Now, I have a legal qualification although I am not currently practicing. And I can tell you that it doesn't matter two hoots how old a case is, and btw that case was 2006 IIRC, and last time I checked the date we were at Feb 25th 2011, if it sets a legal precedent, if it is a landmark ruling, then that is that. This case was such a one. Read the court papers in toto. That's thoroughly and all the way through. If that is not too difficult for you. And do not cloud the issue with total irrelevancy such as ;-

 

"So if they are a terrorist group like you claim can you answer how they can have long standing buildings in the US, and how they haven't been captured yet despite knowing exactly were they are" (should there not be a question mark at that end?)

 

Really, that proves NOTHING. So they have buildings and cannot be terrorists? Haven't been captured despite knowing exactly who they are? Well you see, there's this problem where terrorists are concerned. They terrorise people. In Britain we have had a number of cases where information has been laid against people, but get the informant to actually testify, now that's a different matter. Because people have been murdered and their families hounded for even being suspected of doing so. Google the name Jean McConville. But eventually you will get someone brave enough.

 

What the HLF case did was to mark the cards of the Moslem Brotherhood, and about time. As in "We know who you really are....so watch it!"

 

And as for your

"I asked you to respond to my argument before replying, but that seems to be too hard for you to do. Instead you post about how you think I am acting like a moderator, which makes no sense."

 

Well there you go again, just proving me right by once more trying to dictate how and what I post.

[Aurielius]

@Ginny

"Disputatio per stolidus est amo iugum a sanctimonia ut a tardus"

[SpellAndShield]

@Ginny

"Disputatio per stolidus est amo iugum a sanctimonia ut a tardus"

 

That sentence is grammatically speaking, gibberish.

 

'Per' requires the accusative, so it would have to be 'stolidum' and 'A' requires the ablative, so it would have to be 'tardo'

 

The subject is amo but I only see one direct object, which is iugum but that makes no sense; 'I love the yoke/collar'...and then what?

 

I am fairly good at Latin and this sentence is really weird, though I understand the sense of what you mean, perhaps :confused:

 

Do you mind parsing that for me?

[marharth]

You clearly haven't even clicked the latest link that I posted as it is actually a new one. :laugh: So here it is again...

 

Moslem Brotherhood Defined As Threat In The USA

 

Do try reading it this time. And try to accept that some of us DO know what we are talking about. Now, I have a legal qualification although I am not currently practicing. And I can tell you that it doesn't matter two hoots how old a case is, and btw that case was 2006 IIRC, and last time I checked the date we were at Feb 25th 2011, if it sets a legal precedent, if it is a landmark ruling, then that is that. This case was such a one. Read the court papers in toto. That's thoroughly and all the way through. If that is not too difficult for you. And do not cloud the issue with total irrelevancy such as ;-

 

"So if they are a terrorist group like you claim can you answer how they can have long standing buildings in the US, and how they haven't been captured yet despite knowing exactly were they are" (should there not be a question mark at that end?)

 

Really, that proves NOTHING. So they have buildings and cannot be terrorists? Haven't been captured despite knowing exactly who they are? Well you see, there's this problem where terrorists are concerned. They terrorise people. In Britain we have had a number of cases where information has been laid against people, but get the informant to actually testify, now that's a different matter. Because people have been murdered and their families hounded for even being suspected of doing so. Google the name Jean McConville. But eventually you will get someone brave enough.

 

What the HLF case did was to mark the cards of the Moslem Brotherhood, and about time. As in "We know who you really are....so watch it!"

 

And as for your

"I asked you to respond to my argument before replying, but that seems to be too hard for you to do. Instead you post about how you think I am acting like a moderator, which makes no sense."

The link you gave me used the same article as a source, the writer just added some of his own stuff at the top that didn't mean much.

 

With the US being so bent on capturing terrorists, we shouldn't allow the muslim brotherhood in the country if they are. I don't see how the US isn't capturing anyone if they are in the country, doesn't make much sense if they are a terrorist organization. Not only do we know WHO they are we know WHERE they are.

 

 

Well there you go again, just proving me right by once more trying to dictate how and what I post.

 

The link you gave me used the same article as a source, the writer just added some of his own stuff at the top that didn't mean much.

 

I would like to know if they are peaceful or not, due to the recent Egypt protests they seemed peaceful from their quotes, and didn't take part in any violent actions. I simply want a source that doesn't use that document and court case.

 

With the US being so bent on capturing terrorists, we shouldn't allow the muslim brotherhood in the country if they are. I don't see how the US isn't capturing anyone if they are in the country, doesn't make much sense if they are a terrorist organization. Not only do we know WHO they are we know WHERE they are.

 

Why don't we capture them if they are inside of the country, not even in hiding?

 

Right now I only know of one source posted, its a court case that used a document. I would like to see a source that doesn't use that document.

 

Here are a few more things I found...

 

http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=28097

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/opinion/10erian.html

 

The National Intelligence Director has called the group peaceful as well.

 

 

@Aurielius Quit trying to be offensive please, if you don't like what I have to say that's fine. You keep trying to post offensive things, in this case its in broken Latin.

[Aurielius]

Do you mind parsing that for me?

@Stardusk et al

Actually you are right and it is beneath me to continue in this vein, I hereby retire from this particular sandbox. I have enjoyed debating with some of you and will meet again upon another field. Though I have found the obtuseness of some to be beyond compare that is no justification for being less than polite and civil. The debate is about terrorism and should return to that venue, though it seems to me that there are two camps that are not going to be convinced by any argument however cogent.

Edited February 26, 2011 by Aurielius

[marharth]

This debate is really about if the US government and military would qualify as terrorists or not, I went off topic with the muslim brotherhood thing and I am sorry for that.