by Jack Lee
It was during a House Intelligence Committee hearing last Thursday that the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called Egypt’s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood movement “largely secular” and non-violent. He went on to say, the term ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ … is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, its a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam. They have pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera. … In other countries, there are also chapters or franchises of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally.”
This information is completely false and misleading and this is the man who gives the President updates on global events on a daily basis. You would hope that a guy in such high office would be smarter than you and certainly better informed. And if he is, then he has deliberately lied and that is even worse. He’s playing a role and trying to say what his White House handlers want the public to hear, even though its not the truth. It’s scary to think political appointees like Clapper and Janet Napolitano were handed their jobs as payback for past political favors. They should resign because they have both played suck-up politics and schmoozed the public in the process, rather than speak the hard truth. Neither can be trusted and they need to go.
These top administrative positions should be forever removed from the realm of politics and be based on a merit system. If we don’t do that we’re going to have a continued stream of clueless people stunning us with what they don’t know. In this complex and dangerous world stupid can kill.
Clapper also drew a total blank a few months ago when reporters asked him about the terrorist attack in Great Britain, certainly the most important intelligence event of the week, if not the year. The only conclusion we can draw is that Clapper is not intelligent, not well-informed, just plain stupid, low IQ, Gomer Pyle-type stupid. Unfortunately, that is precisely why Obama chose him to head up the intelligence program. In a similar way, Obama chose Holder to be in charge of justice precisely because he would put politics ahead of law enforcment, and he chose Napolitano to be in charge of Homeland Security because he knew she was soft on border control. As they say, elections have consequences.
“This information is completely false and misleading . . .”
How do you know this, Jack?
Can you give us the sources for the information you used to come to your conclusion?
Quentin, how about the MB organization? Take a look at what they say and what they do. Its why they are outlawed in several Arab nations.
Well, of course I checked their website. I don’t know any members personally. Do you? It is easy to see that many extremist, non secular governments would want them banned for their moderate views–much like the TEA party might want voices of moderation silenced, or arrested. Hard-core conservatives have never tolerated dissent, have they?
Do you, perchance, have any evidence at all that would prove your assertions?
Please?
Quentin, yes I have an abundance of evidence. Did you not read the factual findings on the Muslim Brotherhood? It’s all there – just read it over. If you disagree with the findings and facts that’s another thing, but then the burden of proof is on you to say why?
Let’s keep it real simple because I am a simple guy. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.
ADL reports, the MB seeks a theocracy in Egypt and eventually worldwide by….”Preaching, political agitation and advocating terrorism. The brotherhood participates in elections and attempts to gain influence through the political process. Although it is banned in Egypt, members of the brotherhood have been elected to the legislature there and in Jordan. It also promotes violence against the U.S. and Israel.”
Let’s get real specific: The Muslim Brotherhood’s own crest or symbol says they approve of violence, by their own statement of what their organization embraces they approve of violence and then we have y their own actions – they have engaged in major forms of violence. Their stated goal world domination for Islam, a theocracy under Sharia law which openly advocates the most extreme forms of violence for offenses not rising to a misdemeanor in the civilized world. This is their own published work, not mine, so I am inclined to think they just passed the duck test. But, you say no? I’m stunned. You just dismissed all the facts and evidence.
Quentin, the Muslim Brotherhood on their own website says they deny Israels right to exist and they back Hamas a well known terrorist organization. Denying a nations right to exist is pretty extreme. Backing terrorism is pretty extreme. Committing terrorism is pretty extreme. But, if you want to call the MB a “moderate” non-violent organization compared to Hamas or Al Qaeda, well it’s a stretch but at least there is some rational comparison to make such a judgment call.
But, to say the MB is getting a bad rap just because of some nefarious rightwing agenda and then to make a quid pro quo between them and the Tea Party, well, that’s good for a chuckle but not much else. Where’s your proof? I’ve at least made a good faith attempt at showing of proof, where’s yours?
I didn’t think I was asking for so much, Jack!
“Did you not read the factual findings on the Muslim Brotherhood? It’s all there – just read it over.”
May I have the links?
The ADL is hardly an unbiased source.
How many organizations worldwide have some sort of symbol of violence? Any Christian organizations you could name that have a sword in their logo?
Didn’t Jesus tell His followers to “take up the sword?”
That dog isn’t going anywhere.
“- they have engaged in major forms of violence.”
You used to be a cop so you know about evidence. For the third time I will ask you: Do you have ANY evidence of this? Enough to convict? Or, is it hearsay?
May I please have a link to some facts–and not someone else’s opinion?
Here is my problem with you guys on the Right: “But, if you want to call the MB a “moderate” non-violent organization compared to Hamas or Al Qaeda, well it’s a stretch but at least there is some rational comparison to make such a judgment call.”
I DON’T want to call the MB anything but what it is!!!
WHY do you think I do?
Because I questioned you?
ALL I am asking for is PROOF of your assertions. A link, or ANYthing resembling a shred of evidence. NOT someone’s opinion. You know, like a wire-service news story: “MB convicted of using violence.” Something like that!
“But, to say the MB is getting a bad rap just because of some nefarious rightwing agenda and then to make a quid pro quo between them and the Tea Party, well, that’s good for a chuckle but not much else. Where’s your proof? I’ve at least made a good faith attempt at showing of proof, where’s yours?”
Proof of what, Jack?
Proof that the TEA party is a conservative organization? Sorry, they ain’t! Just a bunch of ill-informed people.
Proof the the MB is conservative? You have said it yourself.
Proof of what I say about the MB? I don’t say anything–for I do not have all the facts.
I seek them.
I wish I could have found them here.
Alas.
ps, it’s “a comparison vis a vis . . .”, not quid pro quo.
1. The swords reinforce the group’s militancy and, as traditional weapons, symbolize historic Islam. They also reinforce the group’s commitment to jihad. The Koran denotes the group’s spiritual foundation. The motto, “Be prepared,” is a reference to a Koranic verse that talks of preparing to fight the enemies of God.
Logic: The MB has been investigated for international crimes and by many intelligence agencies and there have been published findings they were strongly suspected in terrorist crimes and have terrorist associations. This reinforces statement #1. Absent a reason to believe otherwise, we are left with statement #1.
2. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, an Egyptian seeking to overthrow Egypt’s monarchy, expel western influences and establish an Islamic theocracy.
Logic: This is recent history and many accounts are widely published. Absent a reason to believe otherwise we are left the findings of history.
3. Since its founding, the Muslim Brotherhood, a Sunni Islamic movement, has pursued these goals through political activity, ideological influence and acts of violence.
Logic: This an Islamist organizations and it is widely known and accepted as such in history. Which part of this historical statement do you dispute? Do you deny they are a Sunni or an Islamist organization? Do you deny the objectives of the political arm of Islam which they represent? “Political Islam” is a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system; that modern Muslims must return to the roots of their religion, and unite politically. Do you deny this?
It is illogical to think they have not pursued their own published goals which mirror Islams goals. Why would an organization created to follow a stated set of goals not pursue said goals?
Quentin in your quest for the truth about the MB you must have missed this one, “Mohamed Ghanem, one of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, calls Egypt to stop pumping gas to Israel and prepare the Egyptian army for a war with its eastern neighbor.
Speaking with Iranian television station Al-Alam, Mohamed Ghanem blamed Israel for supporting Hosni Mubaraks regime. Ghanem also said that the Egyptian police and army wont be able to stop the Muslim Brotherhood movement.” Here’s the news article…http://www.forexcrunch.com/muslim-brotherhood-wants-war-with-israel/
In a report by Meredith Jessup titled Muslim Brotherhoods Goals Uncovered: Global Islamic Conquest & Caliphate, he writes, “As anti-government protests continue brewing in Egypt, opposition groups such as the banned Muslim Brotherhood are gaining steam and popularity among disillusioned Egyptians bent on ousting President Hosni Mubarak from office. But excerpts of a 1995 book written by the Muslim Brotherhoods fifth leader and translated by Palestinian Media Watch are lending a disturbing look at the groups views and stated mission.
Jihad is the Way is the last of a five-volume work, The Laws of Dawa, written by Mustafa Mashhur, the reported leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt from 1996 until 2002. The Jerusalem Post reports that excerpts from the book detail the Brotherhoods objectives, including the global conquest of Islam and reestablishing the Islamic Caliphate, the public and private duties of jihad and the struggles Muslims must wage against Israel.
The Islamic ummah, [the book] says, referring to the supranational community of Muslims, can regain its power and be liberated and assume its rightful position which was intended by Allah, as the most exalted nation among men, as the leaders of humanity.
Elsewhere, it exhorts Muslims, Know your status, and believe firmly that you are the masters of the world, even if your enemies desire your degradation.
Again Quentin. . . absent any factual data to the contrary we are left with this historical perspective, articles and books and current news developments. So unless you can offer us specifics areas where you disagree with what we have posted, I don’t know what else I can do for you? I hope whaqt was provided was of some help?
Here are additional links for your reference:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/muslim-brotherhoods-goals-uncovered-global-islamic-conquest-caliphate/
http://www.mideastweb.org/Middle-East-Encyclopedia/muslim_brotherhood.htm
http://www.uncoverage.net/2011/02/here-are-the-goals-of-the-muslim-brotherhood-in-its-own-words/
http://www.investigativeproject.org/document/id/91
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/05/the-muslim-brotherhoods-american-goals
http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-national/muslim-brotherhood-s-goals-unveiled-today-egypt-tomorrow-the-world
There are more…lots more, but if you read this and still need more evidence then it’s up to you to go find it.
Quentin: “It is easy to see that many extremist, non secular governments would want them banned for their moderate views–much like the TEA party might want voices of moderation silenced, or arrested. Hard-core conservatives have never tolerated dissent, have they?”
OK, Your turn. I demand proof!
1. Proof that secular government’s ban MB for their “moderate” views.
2. Proof that the Tea Party might want voices of moderation silenced.
3. Proof that “hard-core” conservatives fail to “tolerate dissent”.
Quentin: “Any Christian organizations you could name that have a sword in their logo?”
I don’t off the top of my head…do you?
“Didn’t Jesus tell His followers to “take up the sword?”
The passage you may be referring to comes from Mathew 10 where Jesus is instructing his disciples about what to expect when they follow him with conviction. His message was that his coming would not bring peace but would instead bring discord, even to the extent that family members might turn against them (against anyone who becomes a devout follower). He was not advocating or suggesting violence. In Mathew 26:52 he further instructed them, Put your sword back in its place for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”
Soaps–
“he chose Napolitano to be in charge of Homeland Security because he knew she was soft on border control.”
Yes, Napolitano is extremely soft on border control. That’s why under her authority, we have had more deportations than any time in American history, more money is spent on border security than at any other time in American history, and more arrests of illegal immigrants have been made than at any other time in American history.
This meme that the Obama administration isn’t doing anything about the border makes no effing sense, and is completely contrary to the facts, but somehow that hasn’t made you stop repeating it.