New York Times Shills for Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood

Pages: 1 2

This is distorted on several levels: First, he focuses on “American hostility to Islamist movements,” not “Islamist hostility to America”—which is what prompted “American hostility” to the Islamists in the first place.  Nor does he mention why U.S. foreign policy has traditionally been supportive of dictators: they are simply the better of two evils. A secular dictator is better than an Islamist one who has an ideological agenda rooted in the 7th century.  Yet reading the NYT article, everything is in a vacuum: the impression is that America was, for no good reason, inexplicably hostile to the Islamists, and inexplicably supportive of the dictators—dictators who in reality kept a lid on those who would violate both U.S. interests and the humanitarian rights of those Egyptians who do not wish to live under Sharia law.

As one reads on, it becomes clear that Shane’s distorted views are based on the distorted views of the “experts” he quotes.  He writes that Morsi’s “move on Sunday to revive the dissolved Parliament had Western experts scrambling to understand his strategy.”  Is it really hard to understand what Egypt’s Islamist president was trying to do?  Having won the presidency, and despite all his talk of rule of law, pluralism, etc., once president, he thought he could—as only the Muslim Brotherhood is notorious at doing—break his word and flagrantly return his Islamist friends to power.  If “Western experts [were] scrambling to understand” this move, rest assured that virtually all Egyptian analysts, who are as realistic as only an Egyptian living in Egypt can be, saw Morsi’s blunder for its sheer simplicity.

Shane closes his article with several assurances that “Experts on the Middle East” suggest that “Americans should not assume that the rise of Islamists puts the United States in greater danger from terrorists. The opposite may well be the case, they say.”

He quotes the assurances of one Stephen McInerney, executive director of the Project on Middle East Democracy: “I would say people should not be too alarmed by the anti-American rhetoric”; McIlnerney adds that the end of Mubarak’s rule in Egypt last year “is an important step in combating terrorism in the region and undermining its appeal.”  Go figure what this means.  Anti-American rhetoric?—don’t worry about it.  Ousting the man who kept Islamic terrorists in prison?—this is “an important step in combating terrorism.”

He also quotes one “Michele Dunne, an Egypt expert at the Atlantic Council, a Washington research institution,” who confirms the same old line: “’The major Egyptian terrorists, including the [blind] sheik and the current leader of Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahri, were shaped by their rage against the Mubarak dictatorship.’ The movement of Islamists into mainstream politics should reduce the terrorism threat, she said.”

This is simply absurd, as it does not at all take the Islamists’ own words, which consist of fatwas, treatises, and entire books unequivocally making clear that hostility for infidels—whether a secular regime or the United States—is a doctrinal matter, and not based on this or that grievance.

Worse, Shane closes with Dunne’s warning: “If Islamist groups like the Brotherhood lose faith in democracy that’s when there could be dire consequences.”

Not quite.  The Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists do not have any “faith” in democracy—which they always portray as an infidel practice to be exploited to empower Sharia.  When it comes to the U.S., the only thing they likely have faith in is the continued compliance of the Obama administration.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Pages: 1 2

  • Advocatus

    Excellent analysis. Thank you for this, Mr. Ibrahim.

    Those of us who have followed, however sporadically, Scott Shane's outpourings in the NYT should not be surprised that he is engaged in advocacy journalism, not in any honest appraisal of the facts. He reports developments in the Middle East as he'd like them to be seen, not as they really are and what they truly mean. Such is the gold standard of journalism at the Old Grey Lady. I expect a Pulitzer prize to be coming his way one of these days….

  • Anamah

    The spectacle name is Treason, and we know main personages….

  • mrbean

    I know I am not the only one who sees how the mainstream media and entertainment industry sides with our enemies. Their propoganda deliberately keeps many of the American people ignorant through selective and dishonest reporting of both domestic and foreign news and events. The MSM fails to provide the truth critical to health, safety, and welfare of the American people and the nation because they have a leftis agenda.

  • Ar'nun

    Well the mystery of why no one reads the NYT anymore is once again solidified in Scott Shane's fairytale of friendly Jihad. MY Brothers/Sisters and I under the American flag fought against al Qaeda in Iraq. We fought against them and the Taliban in Afghanistan. When the Arab Spring begun in Egypt Obama and his lapdogs immediately supported them even after their leader (Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi) was quoted as saying he and his men fought against the USA on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama and his lapdogs are entertaining discussions with the reemergence of the Taliban as they re-rise to power in Afghanistan. Of all the horrible nightmares I brought home with me, this is the worst. And as the Republicans sit idly by and do nothing about it, my anger grows. Treason is not an accurate descriptor. He was never on our side and never will be. Espionage would be more accurate. He has always been on their side and an enemy of this state. He infiltrated our government and is destroying us from within. And our Law Enforcement officials have known since 2004.

  • Ar'nun

    This would be like if in 1948 the US helped the NAZI's come back to power in Germany.

  • Schlomotion

    Mr. Ibrahim, who routinely publishes hoax stories on the internet, now asserts that there is a Muslim conspiracy controlling the New York Times causing it to write articles biased in favor of Muslims. If one claimed that there is a Jewish conspiracy controlling the New York Times and causing it to write biased articles in favor of Jews, that person would be laughed offstage. Similarly, Mr. Ibrahim should be laughed offstage.

    Typical of this loopy conspiracy theorizing, Mr. Ibrahim takes on the whole newspaper, one writer, and everybody the writer cites. What a vast and inclusive tapestry this hallucination is. I am amused reading this man who is my same age and who meticulously and anonymously cultivates his own Wikipedia biography, which of course copiously refers to the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

    I want to contend with any of the less wild claims in this article, but even his claim (that American schools hammer an ideology into students that violence is linked to goals) is so wild a grasp at a straw that it assumes no Americans who went to American schools would read this article and then make a crazy circle next to their head with their finger.

    • Amused

      Gosh you're so lame, Schlomo — so tedious, like a broken record. Give it up, already.
      Oh yea, since youre so fond of the "hoax" excuse, why don't you amuse us by responding to this piece by Ibrahim?


      Happy Eternal Nakba Schlocky!

    • eddie

      Schlomo, once you read the Quran and understand it, you will appreciate every word, Mr. Ibrahim wrote on this subject.

  • Fred Dawes

    All part of the Globalists plan to take down this country and make it into some third world hell on earth, the muslim is one tool in this evil plan and the mulism understand with monkeys like obama you can take parts off the USA One city at a time.

  • Ghostwriter

    To me,"The New York Times" is among the same group of people living in a fantasy world that believes that Islamists are decent people. They're not. I also count President Obama and Schlockmotion in that same category. We need people and that includes the media who live in the real world not the fantasy one of Schlomind,President Obama,and Secretary Clinton.

  • RUI

    Can we return Obama to the Muslim brootherhood and get our money back?

  • eddie

    Great job Raymond of exposing this dangerous stealth Jihad.
    This is not only treason, but dangerous continuous tactics to de-focus our attention on the most dangerous ideology against humanity (not only the west). It serves to mislead public opinion, white wash Islam, play down the threat of Jihad, till we wake up one day and it is too late.
    No one in our government is willing to learn from history, and look at the consistent track record of Islamic ideology wiping out civilizations, and ethnic-cleaning one nation after the other.

    What NYT's Shane, needs to think about: Is the Muslim Brotherhood charter going to change, and they will denounce the Quran 100 plus verses, and all all the hadith, now that they are embracing democracy????

    • JAson

      Sadly no one believed that hitler was up to no good until it was too late. How many more planes have to fly into buildings before people wake up to ISHMAEL