Muslim Brotherhood, Obama, and Egypt


In light of the turbulent uprising in Egypt, I decided to try to put a few pieces together in order to spotlight a few events that may factor in to what we’re seeing while also giving some thought going into the future of Egypt. In no way is this all of the factors, this merely a few dots that I am connecting. Hopefully, there will be someone who can come along and add more dots to this with their post in the future. For the purposes of clarity and trying to quell debate over Islamophobia, I am specifically speaking of the Muslim Brotherhood alone and my quotes will have come from their site or their representatives as found on other websites.

The breakdown of Egypt’s government seemingly came out of nowhere unless you were following some subtle nuances in reports that came out of the country over the past year or two. I must confess, I was blindsided by this, myself… too busy trying to figure out my own President to see what was happening in Egypt. As time has passed, we’re seeing a groundswell of support for Muslim Brotherhood(from here on out MB) leadership in Egypt and suddenly the name Mohamed ElBaradei is being bandied about as the choice of the MB. If you want to learn about ElBaradei, you can Wikipedia him here. My concern has less to do with who he is but what he has done. One thing is known for sure, during his time with the IAEA, he insured us that Iran had no real intent for nuclear capacity. He strongly cautioned the US and Israel against engaging Iran in order to stop their pursuit of nuclear technology. Well, we listened and look where that got us.

So, why would the MB want a former Director General to the IAEA and Nobel Peace Prize recipient to lead their efforts to wrestle control over Egypt’s government? The first thought is that he lends credibility to the organization, perhaps even making it seem like a legitimate organization working for peace. Well, to those who see him for who he is, they would also see anything he says as nothing short of taqiyya. So let’s examine the Muslim Brotherhood and their message… There are MANY sources out there to research the MB with including Wikipedia, but I’m choosing to use a few specific examples that I believe clarify their true intent and their true message. At this point it might also be useful to know that the MB has been banned in Egypt(up until now.) Having it’s roots in fundamental Sufi belief, the MB is not currently considered to be a terrorist organization as it doesn’t appear on the official State Department terrorist list or the Treasury List of terror organizations. However, the MB does remain a ‘unindicted co-conspirator’ in the “HLF” trial from 2007 in which money was raised and funneled to Hamas through an organization called the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development.

Hamas is considered to be an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, many groups that we consider radical and/or terrorist organizations can trace their roots to the MB… 

“A number of groups and figures who espouse terrorist tactics were taught or influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood, such as Ayman Al Zawahiri, who founded the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (in part because he wanted an organization that would make more effective use of violence in the service of jihad)”

For further understanding of the belief system of the MB I consulted the Creeping Sharia site

“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. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.”

The first part of that statement uses the word “Ikhwan” which is arabic for “brothers” and is also the name of the MB english speaking American website: http://www.ikhwanweb.com . Read those bold words carefully…  Is that a call for the destruction of America from the inside or what? How is this organization not considered a terrorist organization? Are we really to believe that their idea of “brothers” includes those of us Western infidels? Continuing on with the rest of that quote, it is clear that the intent is global destruction of all other religions until they establish a caliphate or global empire(again). There is no exception and no rest until they are successful. For more info on just what all of that statement by Mohamed Akram, a.k.a. Mohamed Adlouni, for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood meant, go here to read the full statement and more including this gem:

“Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective and stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims’ causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims’ efforts, presents Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic state, wherever it is.”

Now this next part is VERY lengthy and it too comes from Creeping Sharia. Normally I would excerpt the most important parts but to be honest, there is so much relevance to this in it’s entirety that to fragment it would do more to cloud the point of the message. I will give some background to help set this up, though. This comes from a Hudson Institute conference in Washington in which the topic was about “how the radical Muslim Brotherhood has established front groups in the US to mask and mainstream its Islamist ideology.” The following is from one of the speakers at the event, Husain Haqqani who has since become Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US.

 Remarks by Husain Haqqani:

Let me begin by saying that this morning we all heard about the Muslim Brotherhood’s history, but to set the stage for my discussion of the Muslim Brotherhood’s politicization of Islam in America, I would like to begin by just a few direct quotes from the work of the Muslim Brotherhood’s founder, Hassan al-Banna to explain the world view of the Muslim Brotherhood as the movement sees it.

In one of his writings, Hassan al-Banna claims Muslims should strive for the Muslim individual, Muslim family, Muslim nation, Muslim government and a state that should be able to lead the Islamic governments, should be able to unite the dispersed Muslims, should be able to regain their honor and superiority, should be able to recover their lost lands, their usurped regions and their occupied territories. Then it should be able to raise the flag of Jihad and the call towards Allah until the entire world is benefited by the teachings of Islam. Addressing members of the Muslim Brotherhood, he writes: Always remember that you have two basic objectives: number one, that the Islamic country should be free from all foreign control, for freedom is the natural right of every man which can be denied only by an oppressive dictator; second, although the concept of freedom is very different (just in case anybody is wondering), in this free land, a free Islamic government should be established, which should act according to the Islamic commands and enforce its collective system, declare its right principles as operative and popularize among the people its message which is based on wisdom. As long as the government is not established, all Muslims will be guilty, and for any slackness and carelessness in this connection will have to be accountable before Allah.

Following this, there is the Muslim Brothers’ concept of a pledge of allegiance, and here there are six points to which the allegiance is undertaken. First, that a person who takes the oath of allegiance to the Brotherhood acknowledges that he would build up an Islamic personality, his body should be strong, his character should be firm, his thinking should be mature and balance. Also, he should be capable of earning his living and be resourceful, his belief should be on the right lines and his prayers should be selfless, he should be keen for his progress as an individual, and mindful of his time, all his affairs should be organized and his existence should be beneficial for others to the best possible extent. These are the duties of every Muslim Brother individually.

The second point is that the Brother should establish a Muslim family, where Islamist ideals triumph over loyalty to his family-members. The Brother should be able to make them prepared to be respectful to the Islamic etiquette in their private lives and to follow it. He should give to his sons and his servants the best available training and instruct them in Islamic teachings. This is the duty of a Muslim Brother in relation to his family.

The third point holds that he should work to reform society. He should popularize among people the righteous living, prohibit evil deeds and encourage good ones, exalt virtue and a competitive spirit in performing good deeds. He should induce the people to “color their whole living in the Islamic hue.” This is the duty of the Muslim Brotherhood, of every Brother individually, as well as the responsibility of the entire Jama’ah of the Brotherhood.

Fourth, a Muslim Brother should free his country from every foreign, non-Islamic control. He should not allow any other political, spiritual or economic power to step into his country. The fifth point, is that the Brother should reform the government until the government is, in the true sense of the word, Islamic. Further, the government should be able to perform its duty and responsibility as a servant for the entire Muslim Umma.

The sixth principle states that the Muslim Brotherhood collectively should work to restore the international position of the Muslim Umma. For this purpose it will be necessary free the occupied Muslim lands. It should restore its honor and superiority, promote its civilization and culture anew. A new spirit of oneness and unity should be instilled in the Muslim Umma until the entire Umma is unified, and in this way, the crown and throne of the caliphate of the world may be regained.

The last principle relates to how the strategy of the Muslim Brotherhood has been operationalized in the United States. According to the seventh principle, the Brotherhood should function as a teacher, and guide the whole world.

In sum, the first stage concerns the individual and the family, then the Muslim society, then the Muslim states and governments and finally, the entire world. The Brotherhood should thus spread the message of Islam to every nook and cranny of the world in such a way that the invigorating sight of obedience to Allah may be seen.

These outlined principles are the objectives, method and message of the Muslim Brotherhood as defined by its own founder. As Hillel pointed out, the Brotherhood was created in 1928. What has happened since then, especially in the United States and what has been the U.S.’s linkage with the Muslim Brotherhood is the topic of my presentation.

Muslims started arriving in the United States as immigrants. It is true that there was an indigenous Muslim community, especially among African-Americans long before, but immigrant Muslims arrived in significant numbers since the 1950s. The number became more significant after the 1960s. In the 1950s, the people who came here were either students at American institutions of learning, colleges, universities, or students who completed their education and decided to pursue the American dream. So they were not people who came here to Islamize the United States. They happen to be Muslims who came here, and when they came here, certain needs arose.

They needed a mosque to pray in, they needed to find halal food, as they had children and settled down here, they needed education for their children which would emphasize their religious and cultural background, they needed to arrange and organize marriages, burials, and various other things according to Islamic rituals. Then, as some of them discovered the concept of certain economic practices being questioned by some theologians in the Muslim world, they began to worry about how to be able to have banking arrangements that were not entirely interest-based.

These were their concerns. These concerns were taken advantage of by the Muslim Brotherhood, which had its own agenda in mind, outlined earlier.

Four things happened simultaneously in the 1950s. First, the Muslim Brotherhood needed cadres. It realized that since their message was global, the cadres should be global as well, and they were looking for talented people. Now where could one find a better talent pool than among Muslims who were receiving higher education in places like the United States? Thus, the first step was for the Brotherhood to recognize that Muslims studying in the States were suited for its aims.

Second, the Muslims who had come to the United States as students or professionals starting out their pursuit of the American dream needed certain services, related to prayer, religious obligations, Sunday school or the Muslim equivalent of a Sunday school for their children. Their needs were recognized, and the Muslim Brotherhood recognized that its need for cadres and the Muslim community’s need for services could actually coincide if they made it work that way.

The third thing that happened was that Saudi Arabia had emerged on the global scene, and wanted to gain influence among the world’s Muslims. Hermann Eilts, who was director of the Center for International Relations at Boston University and who used to be an Arabist in the State Department and served as ambassador to Egypt and Saudi Arabia among other places, talked about how as early as the late 1940s, Hassan al-Banna and some of his closest associates used to travel to Saudi Arabia, which was not the Saudi Arabia of today. At that time, it was still coming out of the shadows of the early Saudi sort of Wahhabi non-modernist beginnings. And yet, Eilts claims that the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt in particular had ties with the Saudis, and the Saudi deputy finance minister at the time who happened to be from Sudan, was responsible for providing money for the Muslim Brotherhood as part of the influence that coincided with the American agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood. Consequently, all they had to do was persuade the Saudis that the European and American side of things was also significant and worth the investment.

The fourth thing, which set the stage for what we are experiencing today, is the United States entering the Cold War. As it often happens, the U.S. was still trying to find its way in a complex world, and the people who were looking at that world were not necessarily fully aware of its complexity. A binary approach was adopted, designed to contain communism by preventing Muslim countries from emerging and newly independent Muslim countries from becoming friends of the Soviets. Essentially, anyone who could help in this project was deemed a useful partner.

As a result, the Saudis were becoming a key ally of the United States, while the Muslim Brotherhood were allies of the Saudis. So in the Cold War context, the Brotherhood was a ‘good guy’.

Then, an idea was proposed to find a Muslim Billy Graham. Naturally, somebody who grew up in Wisconsin or Wyoming and brought up a Lutheran or Baptist and has not clue about the intricacies of the theology or the complex ideological divisions within the world of Islam, the person they were going to find was the one who himself wanted to be identified as the Muslim Billy Graham, and was looking for resources to allow him to carry his crusade. Unsurprisingly, one of the people who showed up to fill that role was a man by the name of Said Ramadan, who was married to Wafa al-Banna, the daughter of Hassan al-Banna. Thus, he met with the president of the United States in the Oval Office, as a potential Muslim Billy Graham who was going to mobilize the Muslims of the world against evils such as atheism and communism.

Then, Iraq fell into the Ba’ath rule and later on came under communist influence. This rendered the Cold War paradigm very important, and the intelligence community started paying attention to the Muslim Brotherhood, for it had the potential of being a major sources of influence against the spread of communism.

Said Ramadan, positioning himself very cleverly, started building up the institutional mechanism of the Brotherhood. He traveled to Pakistan and forged an alliance with the Islamists in Pakistan, especially that Jamaat-e-Islami led by Abul A’la
Maududi. Ramadan had so much influence in Pakistan that when the World Muslim Congress was first held, Ramadan published one of his first books and got the then prime minister of Pakistan (a Westernized man whom Truman adored) to write the preface of the book. In other words, a secular guy writing the preface of an Islamist book shows that the real issue was for the Muslims to show that they were united with the West against communism. Putting it crudely, the Muslim notion at the time was- if you can give us a few dollars to help fight the commies, so much the better, guns can come later.

Said Ramadan set up the Islamic center in Geneva in 1961, and in 1962 Prince Faisal Abdul Aziz helped create the Muslim World League, also known as Rabita al-Alam al-Islamia, which is now based in Mecca. Looking at the founding fathers of the Muslim World League is helpful to our understanding of radical Islam today. The key places where radical Islam has flourished, are places where people linked to the Rabita came from. A few examples would be: Said Ramadan himself, Egyptian in origin, Abul A’la Maududi, Pakistani, Haj Amin al-Husaini, Palestinian, Sibghatullah Mujadidi of Afghanistan, Mohammed ibn Ibrahim al-Shehr, the Saudi Grand Mufti, and Abdul Rahman Yahya al-Iryani of Yemen. This was the basic formation.

Once the Rabita came into being, it became a major funding source for radical Islamic projects all over the world. One of the first organizational structures to emerge in the United States, considering that the Muslim population was comprised of either young professionals or students, was the Muslim Students Association. Its founder was Berzinji who was a Iraqi Kurd associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Two other people came up, Ahmad Tutungi and Hishameth Taleb, both of whom were married to Berzinji’s sisters, and this kind of family network emerged. Other institutions were then created, like the World Assembly of Muslim Youth. The Muslims Students Association of America became the pivot of an international Islamic federation of student organizations.

The MSA did a remarkable thing from the point of the view of the Muslim Brotherhood: they got funding for a massive translation project of all the major texts of radical Islam, Qutb’s books, Maududi’s books, Hassan al-Banna’s books and articles of others belonging to the network. These texts were translated into 70 languages and made available to every Muslim center or mosque that was emerging. Consider young Muslims who came to the States- engineers studying in Oklahoma or Michigan or elsewhere. These students may want to learn about their faith. Thanks to the MSA, Muslim texts became available in prayer halls, free of charge and translated into every language. Turkish students can read Qaradawi for example in Turkish, Indians in Hindi, Pakistanis in Urdu and so on.

Then, the Muslim Student Association started inviting people from the Muslim world, and among the people who came to the States were Abul A’la Maududi, Abul Hassan Ali Nadwi, Yusuf al-Qaradawi. They all came to deliver lectures, which are of particular interest. While the American government at that time supported what it considered anti-communist crusaders, which they were, the lectures delivered in the US were about the impending clash between Islam and the West. Evidently, the Brothers were preparing for this clash down back in the 1970s. Maududi’s writings and speeches in America are very strong on this, Nadwis, Qardawis, it’s all about how the Westernized way of life is not going to be the salvation and Islamized – so instead of modernizing the Muslim world, we have to Islamize the modern world. That was the agenda.

In a nutshell, this is how it happened: ’60s and ’70s massive publication program, ’70s and ’80s, the America Project became a major source of fundraising in the Gulf region. After 1973, the Gulf countries became rich with petroleum dollars. Then, of course, came the 1980s when Jihad came about in Afghanistan, and that also enabled them to create networks that were designed for raising funds. These networks include charities of various kinds, so by the 1990s these still seemed relatively benign, as the notion was that they are still “on our side”- while they talk about Western civilization needing to the pulled down, they are still not a threat to us.

Even now, for example like Graham Fuller, who was head of Middle East analysis at the National Intelligence Council, even now he maintains that there is no clash of interest between radical Islam and the United States, and a State Department official said about the Taliban in 1995, “the Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis… there will be pipelines and there will be an emir and there will be no parliament, and lots of Sharia law. I think the United States can live with that.” So that was the attitude when the Muslim Brotherhood created the networks that have dominated the U.S.

There are four influences on the Muslim community of this Muslim Brotherhood expansion in the United States. First was that most of the leading figures in the Muslim community ended up being people from the Muslim Brotherhood or people influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood. They had the money, they had the resources, they had the connections. Consider a small town in Auburn, Alabama that needs a little mosque. Who is going to pay for the mosque? This kind of help came from the Muslim Brotherhood.

Many people became disproportionately influence. The Muslim community as a whole is very diverse. It includes people with Sufi background, Shi’as, etc. The emergence of the leadership ended up identifying the Muslim Brotherhood people as the leaders.

Second, the mosques and organizations all ended up, or most of them ended up under Muslim Brotherhood control.

The third impact was that the Muslim agenda ended up being defined by the Muslim Brotherhood, and this was a highly political agenda. Instead of Muslims like me who consider Islam their religious faith, this ended up being people who describe Islam as a political and social ideology, so Islam is ideology and Islam is faith, the distinction became blurred because of the way the organizational structure was created.

And the fourth was the marginalization of traditional Islam within the Muslim community of the United States, the kind of people who want to say their prayers but get on with the business of life, who want to have a relationship with God, but do not want to think of it as a political agenda. That’s where the politicization came.

The impact on the American mainstream, and four quick points: number one, the American media and academia. Since they are looking to understand Islam, they found it more convenient to approach Islam through the Muslim Brotherhood’s politicized version. If you look at even Islamic studies in the United States, a lot of scholars look at
the people the Brotherhood quotes. You don’t here about certain scholars. Only now some people are doing some research on Sufi traditions or non-radical versions of Islam.

It’s similar to Christian Evangelicals defining Christianity, not allowing other sects and groups to actually define it. There is pluralism within the Christian tent, big tent. The process is similar here is well. The Muslim Brotherhood’s version is now the official one. So if CNN is looking for a spokesman for the Muslims, they are going to go to any of the organizations associated with the Brotherhood to provide speakers. So then you have the others who turn around and say, where are the moderate Muslims? The point is that the moderate Muslims do not control the organizational structures out of which spokesmen are born. They are quiet.

The fourth impact on the American mainstream was that converts to Islam, as Islam started winning converts in the United States, the new converts were more likely to be influenced by radical Islam than by traditional Islam. So whether it’s the prison ministry of Muslims, or whether it’s the Chaplaincy in the military, et cetera, all of it is influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood sufficiently for Muslim Brotherhood views to be the prism through which Islam is viewed by these new converts to Islam. Now, even critics of radical Islam are affected by the Muslim Brotherhood’s notion that there is only one Islam. The plurality of Islam and the pluralism within Islam is totally ignored as a result.

If you read through all of that, you will see that the MB has used groups like ISNA and CAIR to act as legitimate ‘front’ organizations to help create a sense of acceptance of Muslim ideologies while diffusing all attempts to corner the MB and other radical agenda-holding groups through constant political correctness or lawsuits… whatever it takes. In fact, if you read those remarks carefully, you might even see the outline of how people like Mohammed Atta and the other 18 terrorists aboard the planes on 9-11 acclimated themselves to America.

Now that we have a better understanding of the ins and outs of the MB and how they operate, let’s take a look at their relationship with President Obama. For this connection, I was immediately reminded of the MB influence in the White House as soon as the events in Egypt unfolded. Mid-year 2010, it was reported that during a series of Iftar dinners hosted at the White House President Obama was going to be meeting with some member groups of the MB to discuss giving them access to money. But not just giving them access to any money… they were going to receive “direct access” to funds from tax-payer funded stimulus money. From Big Peace:

“On August 31, this coming Tuesday, the Muslim Brotherhood-associated “Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations” (CCMO) will bring 25-30 Muslim leaders of 20 national Muslim groups to attend a special workshop presented by the White House and U.S. Government agencies (Agriculture, Education, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services etc.) to provide the groups “funding, government assistance and resources.”  The workshop will apparently provide special access for these Muslim Brotherhood organizations: the organizers pledge to provide “direct access” and “cut through red tape.” Government and Muslim groups will hold an Iftar dinner (breaking the fast of Ramadan) after the workshop.

muslim brotherhood

The event was announced in an email newsletter sent August 27 by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism finance trial, long associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, the global Islamist network.

The Problem: Your Money, redistributed to the Muslim Brotherhood

This workshop constitutes an abdication of their professional responsibility by all government participants – and a taxpayer-funded government stimulus program for the attending Muslim Brotherhood-associated groups.  The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928, is a global Islamist political movement dedicated to imposing Shariah law on all nations and institutions.  Their credo is “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

Why do we think some of these groups attending, possibly all, may be associated with the Muslim Brotherhood?

Because the sponsoring organization – the Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations (CCMO), co-sponsoring with the Department of Agriculture – has a long history of associations with the Muslim Brotherhood.  They also signed a 2009 American Muslim Task Force statement threatening to “suspend” relations with the FBI, because the FBI was investigating possible links to homegrown terrorism in mosques and other Muslim organizations.”

That begs the following questions… What was the money for? Was there any involvement in planning for a future action somewhere in the world? How far does our connection with these groups go, beyond just money? Do we involve ourselves in their global agendas as well? Which brings me to this…

Courtesy of Bunkerville:

“On Friday, Wikileaks published a secret cable that detailed the U.S. government’s involvement with an Egyptian dissident. His notes of a democratic revolution for Egypt in 2011 were confiscated.

The April 6  youth activist had attended the Alliance of Youth Movements in New York City 2008, sponsored by the State Department.

Undersecretary James K. Glassman wasinterviewed on Nov. 24, 2008, and the questioner shows his concern specifically about Egypt. He asks the Undersecretary, speaking of Egypt and Turkey, “Don’t you run the risk of unleashing something here that is going to come back to bite you, especially with our allies?”

The article goes on to cite some comments made by Mr. Glassman regarding how the State Department works:

“What we do in public diplomacy and what is often done in official diplomacy. We are communicating and engaging at the level of the public, not at the level of officials. So you know, it certainly is possible that some of these governments will not be all that happy that – at what we’re doing, but that’s what we do in public diplomacy.” Following up with “And I think this is an important part. We as a government have been engaging with such civil society organizations in places like Egypt for a long time.”

I think Bunkerville rightfully sums it up with their thoughts, “So the State Department was well aware of the risks they were running, in so far that they lined up the perfect dissidents and organizers, threw a convention for them, and sent them home to start the revolution.”

As I said at the beginning, these are just some dots that may seem pretty far spread but I believe that there are many dots in between that will give us a better look at the larger picture here. It is clear that the Muslim Brotherhood cannot be trusted… based solely on their own words of the past. Yet somehow, they have received full access to American funding under President Obama and the State Department has even taken the initiative to speak with “dissidents” in Egypt after the uprising had started. Were they checking in on their money? Perhaps verifying that there was enough money to do what was needed?

As events continue to develop and the uncertainty of the future leadership of Egypt, one has to now wonder why President Obama feels that the MB should be a part of the process in developing a new government. From Globes:

“The option to approach the Muslim Brotherhood came during a meeting of over a dozen foreign policy experts at the White House on Monday. The meeting, led by deputy national security adviser for strategic communications Benjamin Rhodes, and two other National Security Council officials, Daniel Shapiro and Samantha Power, examined unrest in the region, and the potential for the protests to spread.

“The New York Times” quotes participants as saying that White House staff members said that Mr. Obama believed that Egyptian politics needed to encompass ‘non-secular’ parties: diplomatic-speak for the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Where we go from here is up in the air but at least we know that we should be more focused on the events unfolding in Egypt. I hope a few more eyes will be on President Obama and his connections to the Muslim Brotherhood from here on out. The ripple effect could be catastrophic if not.

*I have left out the perceived global ramifications on what could happen if the MB does gain control in Egypt. No one knows for sure but they have already had a few calls for shutting down the Suez Canal as well as attacking Israel. Should either situation play out, we will inevitably be pulled into some sort of large-scale conflict. I hope we can count on better policies than the appeasement tactics we’ve seen so far from President Obama. It should also be considered that “the Muslim Brotherhood has branches throughout the Arab/ Islamic world including Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinian territories, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya and Sudan as well as Eurasia and Africa.” and based upon the unrest in Tunisia, Libya, Jordan, Sudan, Syria, and Algeria, the MB may play a significant role in reshaping the political climate of the Middle East.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Corruption, Current Issues, Ethics, Government, President Obama and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Muslim Brotherhood, Obama, and Egypt

  1. Honestly, I don’t think there is much to worry about with the MB. The military wouldn’t allow them to take over. Most of the fear of its radicalism was perpetuated by…Mubarak. Not too surprising. 🙂

    • You’re on your own with that synopsis of the Muslim Brotherhood being non-relevant or non-violent when you say not much to worry about with them. Their own words speak for themselves. Did you read the quotes that come specifically from the MB? That’s not Mubarak telling us what they are, that’s them telling us what they are.

    • I’m sorry to seem like I’m coming down hard on this one. I decided to come back to this and give you the benefit of the doubt… I’m thinking that maybe what you mean is that we shouldn’t worry about the MB gaining a foothold and not that we shouldn’t worry about them specifically as an organization of terror. If that’s what you meant, I hope you’re right. 🙂

      In my opinion, the only way for their role to be mitigated is for the US and other global leaders to call for them to stand down. The vaccuum created by the collapsing government will allow for a well-financed, well-organized group backed by outside forces to seize the power through domination… it doesn’t matter what group that is. For that reason alone, there needs to be a call for intervention to prevent intrusions by dangerous factions into the creation of a democratic government. In lieu of that call, President Obama has proffered his support for the MB and that of course causes great concern for the rest of the world… imagine how the Christian Copts feel about that? Or imagine how the Mubarak supporters feel about that?

      • Yup, I don’t believe they’ll gain a foothold if the Mubarak regime goes down. The military won’t let them. Obama is not supporting the MB. If anything, he wants the status quo – but with concessions to the people.

  2. bunkerville says:

    Yepper… rose colored glasses will not shade a coming insurrection. Thanks for the linky. Great post… check out Michael Savage and his new post on Obama and his part in this mess. Have a link at my place.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s