The situation in Egypt

[SpellAndShield]

It is part of their

 

General Strategic Goal For North America

 

Click the link, and then go to page 21 where there is a translation.

Whats "http://www.investigativeproject.org/"?

 

I would like to know for sure that they accurately said that and its not something random from one site...

 

Well, seeing as when you are actually given sources you don't believe them and can't actually be bothered to scan through them, you will have failed to notice that at the very bottom of page 1 there is a stamp indicating that it was used as an exhibit in the case of US v HLF et al, a well known case heard before the District Court in North Texas, Dallas division concerning conspiracy and terrorism, Google it and a load of stuff pops up.

 

And Nadimos - I don't use Vodaphone, I'm with O2 myself. And that statement about some people have not yet reached that level of awareness is quite astonishing. Some of us have actually been around long enough to have reached quite a high state of awareness, and despite being old, are capable of using the internet and media and coming to our own conclusions, which may not be the politically correct or popular on the forums here ones.

 

I am curious: do you believe Blow Back exists and do you believe that the recent events in Egypt are a result of Blow Back?

[marharth]

It is part of their

 

General Strategic Goal For North America

 

Click the link, and then go to page 21 where there is a translation.

Whats "http://www.investigativeproject.org/"?

 

I would like to know for sure that they accurately said that and its not something random from one site...

 

Well, seeing as when you are actually given sources you don't believe them and can't actually be bothered to scan through them, you will have failed to notice that at the very bottom of page 1 there is a stamp indicating that it was used as an exhibit in the case of US v HLF et al, a well known case heard before the District Court in North Texas, Dallas division concerning conspiracy and terrorism, Google it and a load of stuff pops up.

 

And Nadimos - I don't use Vodaphone, I'm with O2 myself. And that statement about some people have not yet reached that level of awareness is quite astonishing. Some of us have actually been around long enough to have reached quite a high state of awareness, and despite being old, are capable of using the internet and media and coming to our own conclusions, which may not be the politically correct or popular on the forums here ones.

Ok assuming that the single source you gave with the following quote is true...

"The process of settlement is a 'Civilization-Jihadist Process' with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

 

That is in third person referring to the Muslim Brotherhood. You will need to have a source to back up the quote. The quote is not from the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

So can someone give me a action or quote that the Muslim Brotherhood said or did that makes you think they are violent? So far I have someone saying I don't have facts and covering their ears even though I gave multiple articles, and a quote from someone with their opinion.

[Aurielius]

 

Can you give any evidence the Muslim Brotherhood are violent? Can you give any evidence that they want to take over Egypt?

We have played this game before where you ask for evidence instead of supporting your claims. This is an old debating ploy to shift the focus away from the fact that you have no facts to back your claim. You claim that the Muslim Brotherhood is benign, prove it. Though Wikepedia may be your bible it is only a user edited encyclopedia , the first resort of the intellectually lazy, not an unimpeachable source. Why don't you try again with some reputable analysis from an accredited source, though that may require actual reading I'm afraid. A good start might be an intelligence précis of the Brotherhood by any western security service, they are available if you care to do your research. Oh, before you try to reverse this, it is not my avocation to do your homework.

I gave you direct links to what I said, wikipeida and other sites.

 

You keep saying I am not doing anything to back my claims when your the one who never backs your claims. I gave you direct links to both Wikipedia and there ebsite.

I also gave links to news sites, if you want to ignore them that's your issue and you can't just say I am not backing my claims.

The thing is you always say "they are available if you do the research" and can never give quotes or links.

Don't say I don't back my claims if I have given multiple news links, a Wikipedia article, and there own website.

Either read my entire post and the links or don't reply to me claiming I didn't back up what I said with facts..

 

 

As I suspected, intellectually lazy use of Wikepedia, you have done no research, quoted no source that is unimpeachable, made all the claims of fact in this dialog and failed to substantiate them. I see nothing that requires rebuttal and will go back to happily ignoring you, much as one would ignore the gurgles of the Teletubbies in an adult conversation.

[marharth]

 

Can you give any evidence the Muslim Brotherhood are violent? Can you give any evidence that they want to take over Egypt?

We have played this game before where you ask for evidence instead of supporting your claims. This is an old debating ploy to shift the focus away from the fact that you have no facts to back your claim. You claim that the Muslim Brotherhood is benign, prove it. Though Wikepedia may be your bible it is only a user edited encyclopedia , the first resort of the intellectually lazy, not an unimpeachable source. Why don't you try again with some reputable analysis from an accredited source, though that may require actual reading I'm afraid. A good start might be an intelligence précis of the Brotherhood by any western security service, they are available if you care to do your research. Oh, before you try to reverse this, it is not my avocation to do your homework.

I gave you direct links to what I said, wikipeida and other sites.

 

You keep saying I am not doing anything to back my claims when your the one who never backs your claims. I gave you direct links to both Wikipedia and there ebsite.

I also gave links to news sites, if you want to ignore them that's your issue and you can't just say I am not backing my claims.

The thing is you always say "they are available if you do the research" and can never give quotes or links.

Don't say I don't back my claims if I have given multiple news links, a Wikipedia article, and there own website.

Either read my entire post and the links or don't reply to me claiming I didn't back up what I said with facts..

 

 

As I suspected, intellectually lazy use of Wikipedia, you have done no research, quoted no source that is unimpeachable, made all the claims of fact in this dialog and failed to substantiate them. I see nothing that requires rebuttal and will go back to happily ignoring you, much as one would ignore the gurgles of the Teletubbies in an adult conversation.

 

Yet you fail to even realize I put the link to their website as well as multiple news sites. You continue to ignore that and act like I only used Wikipedia.

 

Also the person I replied to used the Wikipedia article to argue against me, so don't act like it was my fault.

 

Not to mention that acting like Wikipedia isn't a good source is kind of stupid. People think it makes them look smart by saying you need to read some kind of advanced book in order to learn when you don't.

 

If you don't like Wikipedia fine, but its a better system to have everyone be able to edit since errors are cut out in a short time if someone messes with a article.

 

Unlike books and other sources that need to be rewritten by the same person many times, which is much more likely for error and bias.

 

Hating on Wikipedia and acting like I only using it as sources doesn't make you look any smarter, and it doesn't help your argument.

 

Maybe you didn't know this but the way arguments and facts work is you have to prove something before disproving it.

 

In this case everyone is saying that the Muslim Brotherhood is violent without proof, and I am attempting to say they are not with proof.

 

Much like the court system, innocent before proven guilty.

 

So unless you want to have a debate on the subject I don't think you need to be posting here. Just replying to my posts claiming what I am saying is like the "gurgles of the Teletubbies in an adult conversation" without even bothering to make a counter point is childish and makes you look foolish.

[SpellAndShield]

 

Can you give any evidence the Muslim Brotherhood are violent? Can you give any evidence that they want to take over Egypt?

We have played this game before where you ask for evidence instead of supporting your claims. This is an old debating ploy to shift the focus away from the fact that you have no facts to back your claim. You claim that the Muslim Brotherhood is benign, prove it. Though Wikepedia may be your bible it is only a user edited encyclopedia , the first resort of the intellectually lazy, not an unimpeachable source. Why don't you try again with some reputable analysis from an accredited source, though that may require actual reading I'm afraid. A good start might be an intelligence précis of the Brotherhood by any western security service, they are available if you care to do your research. Oh, before you try to reverse this, it is not my avocation to do your homework.

I gave you direct links to what I said, wikipeida and other sites.

 

You keep saying I am not doing anything to back my claims when your the one who never backs your claims. I gave you direct links to both Wikipedia and there ebsite.

I also gave links to news sites, if you want to ignore them that's your issue and you can't just say I am not backing my claims.

The thing is you always say "they are available if you do the research" and can never give quotes or links.

Don't say I don't back my claims if I have given multiple news links, a Wikipedia article, and there own website.

Either read my entire post and the links or don't reply to me claiming I didn't back up what I said with facts..

 

 

As I suspected, intellectually lazy use of Wikepedia, you have done no research, quoted no source that is unimpeachable, made all the claims of fact in this dialog and failed to substantiate them. I see nothing that requires rebuttal and will go back to happily ignoring you, much as one would ignore the gurgles of the Teletubbies in an adult conversation.

 

Well, what about my question? Are the recent events in Egypt the result of the US propping up an 'unpopular' (note euphemism) dictator for 30 years? for reasons wholly unrelated to that?

[Aurielius]

@ Stardusk

Sorry, missed your question while dealing with the kiddies. Yes, we did prop up a dictator (Murbark) for geopolitical reasons much as we did on many occasions in South America for Cold War imperatives. Strategically defensible but not morally defensible. Is that sufficient response? Foreign Policy rarely has anything to do with morality but more to do with geopolitical necessity an unfortunate reality that America has trouble coming to grips with, but the Europeans with their longer history have. It would be nice to wear the white hat all the time but that is not how power politics works. But and this is a big But, the recent events had nothing to do with American Foreign Policy and everything to do with Egyptian internal affairs, they wanted change and achieved it.

Edited February 14, 2011 by Aurielius

[ginnyfizz]

It is part of their

 

General Strategic Goal For North America

 

Click the link, and then go to page 21 where there is a translation.

Whats "http://www.investigativeproject.org/"?

 

I would like to know for sure that they accurately said that and its not something random from one site...

 

Well, seeing as when you are actually given sources you don't believe them and can't actually be bothered to scan through them, you will have failed to notice that at the very bottom of page 1 there is a stamp indicating that it was used as an exhibit in the case of US v HLF et al, a well known case heard before the District Court in North Texas, Dallas division concerning conspiracy and terrorism, Google it and a load of stuff pops up.

 

And Nadimos - I don't use Vodaphone, I'm with O2 myself. And that statement about some people have not yet reached that level of awareness is quite astonishing. Some of us have actually been around long enough to have reached quite a high state of awareness, and despite being old, are capable of using the internet and media and coming to our own conclusions, which may not be the politically correct or popular on the forums here ones.

Ok assuming that the single source you gave with the following quote is true...

"The process of settlement is a 'Civilization-Jihadist Process' with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

 

That is in third person referring to the Muslim Brotherhood. You will need to have a source to back up the quote. The quote is not from the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

So can someone give me a action or quote that the Muslim Brotherhood said or did that makes you think they are violent? So far I have someone saying I don't have facts and covering their ears even though I gave multiple articles, and a quote from someone with their opinion.

 

Oh for goodness sake! PLEASE READ THE DOCUMENT! As in top to bottom. IT IS AN OFFICIAL MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD MEMORANDUM/MISSION STATEMENT and that is a direct quote from it. Which was produced as evidence in a court of law. Which court duly found that there had been material support of a terrorist organization and ordered the seizure/garnishment of the assets of that organization, upheld on appeal.

 

No wonder the Egyptian people have expressed their dismay at the idea of these guys taking a hold in their country. And as for

 

"Are the recent events in Egypt the result of the US propping up an 'unpopular' (note euphemism) dictator for 30 years? for reasons wholly unrelated to that?"

No. They are the result of the people having had enough of said dictator, which is not the same thing as the US propping him up, not at all.

[HappyHerring]

Consider the damage to the world economy which a few hundred kidnappers with small vessels, assault rifles and RPGs do in the Indian Ocean.

One of the concerns of the west has to be access to the Suez Canal. I cannot imagine anyone in the trading communities of the world relishing a return to a wreck strewn canal. Neither would any of us who use sweatshop priced goods from China.

Since at least the neolithic when there is evidence of trading networks covering hundreds of miles, crossing seas and mountain ranges nations have had an interest in the securing of the neccessities and luxuries which are not produced domestically and the freedom to trade the goods they produce to others. This quite apart from testosterone based oneupmanship is the base of geopolitics. Can anyone reading this debate doubt for a moment that a China keen not only to produce a blue water navy to project power in the pacific but to raise their status in the world would not do as western nations have done in supporting rulers they might not approve of.

Please let us not patronise those nasty rulers of these poor states such as Egypt by assuming that only intrusive, abusive, orientalizing western bigots allow such people to remain in power. These people are nasty bits of work who use what is available. If Mugabe did not have Chinese support I suppose he'd be quite happy to reduce Zimbabwe to year zero conditions so long as the survival of his coterie of hangers on and security apparatus retain comparative wealth and status.

Unfortunately for Egypt, as with so many countries, they have a growing young, undereducated, unskilled and in many instances unemployable populations. I find it hard to believe that in the conditions of the world today that whoever comes to rule will have access to enough financial and more importantly uncorrupt governance to make any real difference in the long term. Population stabilisation and massive investment are probably too much to hope for in states where the default mindset, cultured by generations, is one of nepostism, corruption and croneyism. Let us remember that for states such as these civic virutues are things to be mistrusted as they smack of concern for good government which is the reason that they have been suppressed for for so long.

 

 

[marharth]

@ Stardusk

Sorry, missed your question while dealing with the kiddies. Yes, we did prop up a dictator (Murbark) for geopolitical reasons much as we did on many occasions in South America for Cold War imperatives. Strategically defensible but not morally defensible. Is that sufficient response? Foreign Policy rarely has anything to do with morality but more to do with geopolitical necessity an unfortunate reality that America has trouble coming to grips with, but the Europeans with their longer history have. It would be nice to wear the white hat all the time but that is not how power politics works.

"The first one who degenerates to a personal attack - such as name calling - loses. if you have to attack the individual, you obviously have no real counter to their argument. If the attack is serious it could get you banned."

 

Would consider that a personal attack, but OK. If you want to debate with someone you need to do more then just call them kids and shout stuff about how there links are invalid. Honestly your the one acting like a kid by completely ignoring my posts and continuing to post about how I am wrong since I am asking you to support your facts. Even if I didn't support my claim you should be able to support your own claim.

That being said I have no issue with you going on with personal attacks, would do this forum section good to get you out of it since you just post your opinions and ignore everything else.

 

@ginny, terrorism has to do with action. Certain people in power in the USA have supported terrorist groups that oppose Al Qeuda.

 

I would also like to point out that article is entirely about North America. We should be focusing on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, not to mention that the article was written by a few people and may not represent their belief as a whole. I am also pretty sure that article is quite dated, I would like to know the date it was made.

 

From what I can tell in modern times, the Muslim Brotherhood is peaceful.

 

If they believed in change through violence why would they take part in a peaceful revolution and not use violence to overthrow the government? Why would have they of split with other groups due to the groups wanting to do things violently?

[SpellAndShield]

@ Stardusk

Sorry, missed your question while dealing with the kiddies. Yes, we did prop up a dictator (Murbark) for geopolitical reasons much as we did on many occasions in South America for Cold War imperatives. Strategically defensible but not morally defensible. Is that sufficient response? Foreign Policy rarely has anything to do with morality but more to do with geopolitical necessity an unfortunate reality that America has trouble coming to grips with, but the Europeans with their longer history have. It would be nice to wear the white hat all the time but that is not how power politics works. But and this is a big But, the recent events had nothing to do with American Foreign Policy and everything to do with Egyptian internal affairs, they wanted change and achieved it.

 

I am not comfortable with this term but I will leave it at that.

 

The question remains though, should the US be involved in Egypt n the future and if so, to what extent?