It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by exile1981
Boondock and Burn the ships
Are we seeing the beginning of a new Theocracy or the beginning of the rebuilding of the Caliphate or is there a chance that that we may see a democracy dispite all the whitewashing going on? I think things will get very expensive on the east coast and europe if the suex falls to the brotherhood.
Jeremy Bowen, BBC Middle East editor, says "Unlike the jihadis, it does not believe it is at war with the West. It is conservative and non-violent,"  and "untested in government and poorly understood - especially in the West"
Similarly, some analysts maintain that whatever the source of modern Jihadi terrorism and the actions and words of some rogue members, the Brotherhood now has little in common with radical Islamists and modern jihadists who often condemn the Brotherhood as too moderate. They also deny the existence of any centralized and secretive global MB leadership. Some claim that the origins of modern Muslim terrorism are found in Wahhabi ideology, not that of the Muslim Brotherhood.
However, once Al Qaeda was fully organized, it denounced the Muslim Brotherhood's reform through nonviolence and accused them of "betraying the cause of Islam and abandoning their 'jihad' in favour of forming political parties and supporting modern state institutions".
The Brotherhood condemned terrorism and the 9/11 attacks, but whether or not it has ties to terrorism is a matter of dispute. Its position on violence has also caused disputes within the movement, with advocates of violence at times breaking away to form groups such as the Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (The Islamic Group) and Al Takfir Wal Hijra (Excommunication and Migration).
Despite getting trounced in the most recent election, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Web geeks are transforming Egypt’s Islamist group from a shadowy organization with power bases in mosques and charities into a media-savvy machine.
By his account, Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna “preached a fundamentalist Islamism and advocated the creation of an Islamic Egypt, but he was also open to importing techniques of political organization and propaganda from Europe that rapidly made the Brotherhood a fixture in Egyptian politics.” What this omits, as I recount in The Grand Jihad, is that terrorism and paramilitary training were core parts of Banna’s program. It is by leveraging the resulting atmosphere of intimidation that the Brotherhood’s “politics” have achieved success. The Ikhwan’s activist organizations follow the same program in the United States, where they enjoy outsize political influence because of the terrorist onslaught.
Banna was a practical revolutionary. On the one hand, he instructed his votaries to prepare for violence. They had to understand that, in the end — when the time was right, when the Brotherhood was finally strong enough that violent attacks would more likely achieve Ikhwan objectives than provoke crippling blowback — violence would surely be necessary to complete the revolution (meaning, to institute sharia, Islam’s legal-political framework). Meanwhile, on the other hand, he taught that the Brothers should take whatever they could get from the regime, the political system, the legal system, and the culture. He shrewdly realized that, if the Brothers did not overplay their hand, if they duped the media, the intelligentsia, and the public into seeing them as fighters for social justice, these institutions would be apt to make substantial concessions. Appeasement, he knew, is often a society’s first response to a threat it does not wish to believe is existential.
Originally posted by Maslo
I am still not convicted that the Muslim Brotherhood are extremists. Their official stance is relatively pro-western:
They call for non-violent spread of islamic values, condemn terrorism against civilians, Taliban and Al-Quaeda (by which they were called "traitors to the cause of islam, abandoning jihad") - they even have a critical section "MB vs. Al-Quaeda" on their main page, condem 9/11 attacks, support democracy and freedom of speech. They have been criticized also by wahhabist Saudis. According to my research, alhrough extremist element exist in MB, majority of members oppose it.edit on 1/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)
There is no agreement as to whether the renunciation of violence by Muslim Brotherhood groups is permanent and sincere or a tactic that was adopted due to exigencies of government repression. It is not clear either if this renunciation is a general renunciation of violence, or whether it limited to taking power in Egypt by democratic means, after which Islam must be spread by violent Jihad. There is also disagreement about the relation between different offshoots of the brotherhood. There has been, over time, a progressive process in which older groups assume non-violent means either in reality or professedly, and new groups are formed from members and leaders of the older groups, which are more violent. Thus, the Ikhwan Muslim brotherhood became professedly non-violent in the 1970s, spawning the al Jihad or Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Gama'a Islamiyeh of the blind Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman. In turn, when the Gama'a Islamiyeh renounced violence in 1997, a part of its members joined other groups to form Al-Qaeda. All these groups apparently believe in imposition of a Sha'aria state and Muslim world dominion as an end goal, and in education toward this goal, but some profess non-violent and democratic means, others are committed to violence against the west and Israel, and others are committed to violence against "non-believing" or "hypocritical" (takfiri) Muslims as well.
Mubarak scheduled to give another speech Tuesday; reports say he is due to announce that he will not run in the upcoming elections
Originally posted by Maslo
I am still not convicted that the Muslim Brotherhood are extremists.
After Egyptian President Gamal Abddul Nasser dies in October 1970, he is succeded as president of Egypt by his former Vice President, Anwar Sadat. Sadat is also a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and he promptly reinstates the group as a legal organization and welcomes them back into Egypt. Sadat also has a very close relationship with the head of Saudi intelligence, Kamal Adham. Through Adham, Sadat also develops close working relationships not only with the Saudis, but with the CIA and Henry Kissinger. Sadat uses the power of the religious right, and the Muslim Brothers in particular to contain the Nasserites and their resistance to the radical changes he introduces. During Sadat’s tenure in the 1970’s Egypt becomes a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism, and figures like Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman and Ayman al-Zawahiri gain great power in Egypt during this period. Ironically Sadat himself is assassinated in 1981 by Islamic Jihad, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, in 1981, because of his accommodation with Israel.
Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
Have the smearing campaign of the muslim brotherhood, an only thinly supported group in the Egyptian revolution, to put fear into worldwide masses from rising up against enslavement and corruptions, ran out of steam yet? Or is this just a pause, to see if it is possible to find other sources to badmouth the Egyptian masses for deciding their own destiny and standing up for their own country against tyranny?