Sharia on Tour

Ryan Mauro is a fellow with the Clarionproject.org, the founder of WorldThreats.com and a frequent national security analyst for Fox News Channel. He can be contacted at ryanmauro1986@gmail.com.


Siraj-WahhajIf you live near Baltimore, Houston, Atlanta or Rochester and want to see a Sharia-promoting show, you’re in luck. The Islamic Circle of North America and Muslim American Society, two groups linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, have announced four conferences featuring rock stars of the Islamist movement.

ICNA is identified as one of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends” in a once-secret 1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memo. It explicitly states the network’s “work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within…”

The organization is a derivative of the Jamaat-e-Islami group in Pakistan. One of ICNA’s former leaders, Ashrafuzzaman Khan, was recently sentenced to death in Bangladesh for his involvement in Jamaat-e-Islami’s war crimes. Unsurprisingly, ICNA is upset at the ruling.

The 2010 ICNA handbook advocates a gradualist strategy that culminates in a “united Islamic state, governed by an elected khalifah in accordance with the laws of shari’ah (Islamic law).” The Islamist leaders that the handbook looks to for guidance include the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Brotherhood’s current spiritual leader and the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami.

MAS was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America,” according to federal prosecutors in a 2008 case. Last year, a former U.S. Muslim Brotherhood leader testified that “everyone knows that the MAS is the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Both groups have held rallies to protest the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood and President Morsi in Egypt.

Houston is the first stop on the ICNA-MAS Sharia tour. From November 29 to December 1, they will be holding their joint South Central Convention at a JW Marriott Hotel. The overall theme is, “Blueprint for a Lasting Legacy.”

One of the speakers is Imam Khalid Griggs, the chairman of the ICNA Council for Social Justice. Former CIA case officer Clare Lopez found out that he used to be involved with the Islamic Party of North America, a group that explicitly preaches “a revolutionary Islam.” Its inspirers include Khomeini, Qutb, Qaddafi and Maududi, the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami.

Another speaker is Sheikh Omar Suleiman. According to his bio, he studied under Sheikh Salah As-Sawy and Dr. Hatem al-Haj. These are two Salafist clerics that lead the very radical Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America. The closest the organization can bring itself to foreswearing violent jihad is to oppose it because “the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time [emphasis added].”

On November 30, ICNA is holding its first conference in upstate New York at Rochester Riverside Convention Center, themed as “Islam: The Pursuit of Happiness.”

Speakers include the notorious Imam Siraj Wahhaj, whose version of “pursuing happiness” includes violent jihad and replacing Western democracy with Sharia Law.

Wahhaj has an undeniable, documented record of extremism that would make any genuinely “moderate” Muslim group sprint away from him. He’s had to tame down his anti-Americanism and support for violent jihad and theocracy in the post-9/11 atmosphere, but that doesn’t mean his beliefs have changed.

At the 2011 ICNA-MAS national convention, he advised Muslims to avoid talking to non-Muslims about Sharia because “we are not there yet.” More recently, the NYPD revealed that it had evidence that the security team at Wahhaj’s mosque was involved in illegal weapons trafficking, anti-police martial arts training and paintball trips described as preparation for jihad. Of course, Wahhaj and his allies accuse the NYPD of “racial profiling.”

Another speaker in Rochester is Jamal Barzinji, one of the founding fathers of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network. His home was raided in 2003 because he “is not only closely associated with PIJ [Palestinian Islamic Jihad]…but also with Hamas.” The Justice Department reportedly cancelled a planned indictment of him in 2011.

If you live in the Atlanta area, you can get your dose of Islamist indoctrination at the joint ICNA-MAS Southeast Annual Convention on December 27-29 at the Renaissance Atlanta Waverly Hotel. Its preachers include the aforementioned Wahhaj, Suleiman, Griggs and many others.

ICNA and MAS also announced that their 39th annual convention will be held on May 24-26 at the Baltimore Convention Center in Maryland. Its speakers have not been decided yet but if the convention’s past content is any indication, then be ready for some subtle and not-so-subtle Islamist preaching.

As mentioned above, the 2011 convention included Wahhaj’s message to avoid conversations about Sharia for the time being. His recommendation was similar to another speaker at the 2002 convention who said, “We may all feel emotionally attached to the goal of an Islamic state…[but] we mustn’t cross hurdles we can’t jump yet.”

At last year’s convention, radical cleric Zaid Shakir preached that the U.S. Constitution had failed and Islam (meaning Sharia) provides a superior model of governance because it denies equality. He said:

“Secularism says we keep religion out. Why? Because if we have religion and religion is the basis of membership in the community, we can’t have perfect equality. We can’t have perfect equality. If Islam is the basis, the kafir won’t be equal with the Muslim. The Christian or the Jew will be a dhimmi. They won’t be equal with the Muslim.”

The Islamists are going on tour but if you miss them this time around, don’t worry—they won’t be retiring anytime soon.

The Institute on Religion and Democracy contributed to this article.

*

Don’t miss Ryan Mauro on The Kelly File discussing: American Student Brutally Beaten by Muslim Gang in London:

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • celador2

    How disgusting that they are allowed to promote terror related groups. Islam is soft on terror, and remember how easy it is to become a US citizen–be born here is all.

    • defcon 4

      Islam’s holiest man, muhammad, stated: “I have been made victorious through terror”.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      It’s not that they’re soft on terror. What we see as terror they see as “freedom fighters” and most crucially they see sharia as freedom.

      This is crucial to understand when you hear someone denounce “terror” because even though they might not be literally crossing their fingers, the deception or doublespeak might be the same as if they had. Bush was the terrorist in their minds. OBL was just a misunderstood freedom fighter.

      • defcon 4

        Yep, muslime “freedom fighters” are fighting to take away the freedoms of the najjis kaffir and women. That’s the kind of freedom islam offers.

  • solidspine

    Muslims and Negroes should both be kept out of the US

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Loyal productive citizens belong here. Disloyal aliens don’t. Racists belong on the left side of the aisle.

  • Hass

    Yup, that’s about it, you get one option, you either convert or you die.

  • Texas Patriot

    Muhammad was a man of war who was determined to conquer and subjugate the entire world in the name of Islam. The more closely a Muslim follows the teachings and life example of Muhammad, the less moderate he or she is likely to be.

    • defcon 4

      Where is this “moderate” islam being practiced? Which muslime states don’t have enforced blasphemy and heresy laws (the cornerstones of Sharia law)? Why aren’t these “moderate” muslimes protesting the persecution of the najjis kaffir that is SOP in every islamic state on the face of this earth today?

  • leelongchamp

    Contributors here are letting their anger prevent them from suggesting anything to combat the real threat of Islamists to Western civilization.
    Islam is both a religion and a political entity. The goal of jihad is ummah, a world dominated by islam ruled by shariah law.

    The greatest weakness in Islam is it’s, religious aspects that are uncivilized but are entwined in Muslim culture and thinking and enforced by politics in the form of law and violence. The result of thoughtless anger will be war.

    The religious weakness can and is being addressed by missionaries throughout the Muslim world. They should be supported , as I do. Domestically we need to recognize the civilized aspects, of Islam, the goal of which is not much different from Christianity. I know Muslims who pass my test. They are willing to subordinate Shariah law to secular law. And they agree that”my religion is right for me, and your religion is right for you”

    Politically we need to support countries that have secular governments and where Christians and other minorities are protected. This is the more. Difficult task

    • Texas Patriot

      LLC: “The goal of jihad is ummah, a world dominated by islam ruled by shariah law.”

      You left out the part about the world being conquered by the sword. That’s part of Islam as well. What we are seeing in the West is the prescribed behavior for Muslims when Muslims are in the minority. There is a different set of rules when Muslims are in the majority, and that’s what you are seeing in Egypt, Syria, and Libya.

      LLC: “The result of thoughtless anger will be war.”

      The result of thoughtless denial will be submission or subjugation to Islam.

      LLC: “The religious weakness can and is being addressed by missionaries throughout the Muslim world.”

      Are you saying that the teachings and life example of Muhammad are a “religious weakness”?

      LLC: “Domestically we need to recognize the civilized aspects, of Islam, the goal of which is not much different from Christianity.”

      There are many positive aspects of Islam. Islam changed Malcolm X from being a dope dealer in prison to one of the greatest orators of the 20th Century. With the discipline he gained from Islam, he taught himself to read by reading and writing down every work of the dictionary, starting with the letter and the word “a”. The differences between Islam and Christianity are legion. Islam favors conquering and subjugating enemies by the sword. Christianity favors forgiving and praying for enemies. Islam favors praying in public five times a day. Christianity condemns public prayer in favor of private prayer. Christianity condemns the hypocrisy of pretending to be a sheep while in fact being a wolf. Islam counsels pretending to be the friend of non-Muslims but secretly despising them. There is hardly anything at all alike between Christianity and Islam, except that both require a disciplined life, albeit with diametrically opposed goals.

      LLC: “I know Muslims who pass my test. They are willing to subordinate Shariah law to secular law.”

      Perhaps you need to refine your test. Most Muslims are willing to subordinate Sharia law to secular law, for only so long as they are in the minority demographically wherever they may be. Once they reach majority status (and usually quite sooner) they will begin to demand the right to be governed by Sharia law.

      • leelongchamp

        Patriot . . Good points but what do they have to do with defeating Islamists short of war? In case you haven’t noticed, Islam is in a civil war. Most of the victims of Islamist terrorists are other Islamists. We should take advantage of this abomination by publicly and politically. Syria is a good example. I believe the US policy should be to let the Syrian Muslims kill each other and offer security to refugees especially Christians. On the religious side my church and others has missionaries in Lebanon offering sanctuary mostly to Muslims.

        Egypt is a hopeful situation, notwithstanding Obama’ blunders. We saw an anti Muslim brotherhood government take control. The government recently passed legislation that protected Christian’s who were persecuted and church’s burned. Our government should take notice rather than question the style of egypts democracy.

        • Texas Patriot

          LLC: “Patriot . . Good points but what do they have to do with defeating Islamists short of war?”

          The war on the West is already on, we just haven’t been aware of it. It started with the attack on the Israeli athletes ad the Munich Olympics in 1972, and it has been followed by a relentless series of heinous attacks on innocent civilians ever since.

          The key to winning any war is understanding the enemy, and until very recently, Islam has been regarded as a “religion of peace”. The first step back from the edge of the cliff to which we have all been driven by this incredible charade is recognizing Islam for what it is.

          Only then will we be able to deal with it justly and appropriately.

          • leelongchamp

            Again trying to expose Islam will further inflame and solidify Muslims against our interests. We must first separate political Islam from religious Islam. I recognize dr. Jassar as a leader in using Islamists to describe the real enemy of western civilization

          • Texas Patriot

            LLC: “Again trying to expose Islam will further inflame and solidify Muslims against our interests.”

            Islam speaks for itself by the teachings and life example of Muhammad and the entire history of Islam. It can’t be concealed. It’s plain for all to see.

            LLC: “We must first separate political Islam from religious Islam.”

            From my point of view, separating Islam from the teachings and life example of Muhammad is an impossible task, especially for non-Muslims. Muslims immigrated into the West under the guise of being a religion of peace. Now we all know that is not true. If Muslims want to remain in the West, it is their task to conform to our laws and our philosophical ideals.

            LLC: “I recognize dr. Jassar as a leader in using Islamists to describe the real enemy of western civilization.”

            I wish Dr. Jasser all the luck in the world, and he may have some success with that, especially with Muslims who either don’t fully understand Islam or don’t want to live their lives under a legal code formulated in the 7th Century. But he’s got his work cut out for him.

            Our task as Westerners is not to “reform” Islam to suit our civilization, but rather to protect our civilization from those who are committed to destroying it in the name of a 7th Century ideology of violent conquest and submission.

          • kikorikid

            That’s just it! Who gives a s–t about Muslim anger?
            I don’t. Muslims really,really need to be concerned
            about American anger. I just know the Islamist
            are going to pull off a WMD attack,killing big numbers of American/Isrealis, and the 7th Century culture
            they love so much will turn into glass, good riddance.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That’s just it! Who gives a s–t about Muslim anger?
            I don’t.”

            I think this person is talking about Christian evangelism and is perhaps a little too worried about ruffling feathers. In actually what needs to happen is that everyone needs to develop thicker skin.

          • defcon 4

            “Thicker skin”?

            Is that your answer to the worldwide spread of islam0fascism? This is your answer to the enslavement,
            ethnic cleansing and persecution of people of other faiths
            that is SOP across the muslime world today?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            No, that’s my “minimum requirement” for people who want to claim they’re aligned with a peaceful movement.

            Obviously jihadis are using fake outrage and deception.

            It’s complicated. But that’s my answer to the Christian evangelist who objects to us being rhetorically confrontational.

          • defcon 4

            Peace only works when the aggressors want it — clearly there is a religious group in the world today that doesn’t want peace, except on terms that involve the practical enslavement of everyone not of their death cult.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I agree. Remember that most of the time we are generalizing but some times we must look at nuanced situations. In the context of the evangelists. they’re not out to wage holy war or counterrevolutionary conquest. They’re fighting battles of ideas. Rather than caving in to Muslim expectations of non-Muslim submissiveness, they should challenge their prospects with stronger, undiluted ideas and expect Muslims to grow thicker skin rather than crying about being insulted from hearing something that conflicts with their religious worldviews.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Again trying to expose Islam will further inflame and solidify Muslims against our interests.”

            That might be true in some cases, but certainly not all. It sounds like you’re actually for political correctness if you want to promote the idea that we must adapt to sharia sensibilities for what criticism is out-of-bounds.

        • Texas Patriot

          LLC: “Patriot . . Good points but what do they have to do with defeating Islamists short of war? In case you haven’t noticed, Islam is in a civil war. Most of the victims of Islamist terrorists are other Islamists. We should take advantage of this abomination by publicly and politically. Syria is a good example. I believe the US policy should be to let the Syrian Muslims kill each other and offer security to refugees especially Christians. On the religious side my church and others has missionaries in Lebanon offering sanctuary mostly to Muslims.”

          The Shia-Sunni conflict is almost as old as Islam itself, emerging shortly after Muhammad’s death in the form of a struggle for power to control Islam. It is the backdrop of everything that happens in the middle east, and that is not likely to change. Personally I think it is a human tragedy that it has gone on for so long and so viciously, and I am not sure that there is any way we can stop it altogether. One bright spot may be that both sides hate Israel. Ironically, the descendants of the Biblical Israel have been placed between the perpetually warring descendants of the Biblical Ishmael. Maybe the descendants of Israel can act as a buffer to keep the descendants of Ishmael from killing each other.

          • leelongchamp

            Yet our political correctness doesn’t enlighten the world by highlighting the Islamic sects and the fact that they are at war. I cannot understand why.

            Islam has never been a religion of peace. Muslims regard Muhammad as a warrior and a conquerer. The liberals who called US troops in Iraq “occupiers ” inflamed Muslims . . Islam justifies everything when ther is “mischief in the land” (from Koran)

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Yet our political correctness doesn’t enlighten the world by highlighting the Islamic sects and the fact that they are at war. I cannot understand why.”

            Because that is one of the objectives of political correctness; deception and stifling of discourse (through “shaming”) that advances leftist causes.

        • Texas Patriot

          LLC: “Egypt is a hopeful situation, notwithstanding Obama’ blunders. We saw an anti Muslim brotherhood government take control. The government recently passed legislation that protected Christian’s who were persecuted and church’s burned. Our government should take notice rather than question the style of egypts democracy.”

          Egypt is an incredibly hopeful situation, and I am amazed how the Egyptian people rose up en masse to renounce and reject the Muslim Brotherhood. Very positive development, but we’ll have to see how it plays out. After studying the long and tortured history of Judaism and Islam, one gets the impression that this situation is not likely to be resolved overnight.

          From my standpoint the best solution to the entire dilemma is for Israel to get strong and remain strong and to respond to every attack with a relentless policy of defensive conquest. If land in neighboring countries is used to launch rocket attacks against Israel, let that land be forfeited and confiscated by Israel, and let the attackers be expelled from it. Even if it’s only a small bit of land, the attackers will get the message that if they do not wish to lose any more land, it would probably be a very good idea to stop the attacks.

          • leelongchamp

            I appreciate your point on Egypt. Obama failed to stand for real democracy and the Protection of minorities. The recent protection of minorities was a enormous advance and is largely ignored bu and the media. I believe that the destruction of Church’s and persecution of Christians during the MB rein was a factor in the overthrow of the MB.

            Israel and Saudi are. Allied in their position on Iran. I think that Israel would do the western world a favor by attacking the new nuke factory in Iran. That would be a far better approach than reducing the sanctions.

          • hiernonymous

            ” If land in neighboring countries is used to launch rocket attacks against Israel, let that land be forfeited and confiscated by Israel, and let the attackers be expelled from it.”

            They already tried that. It almost cost them their existence in 1973 when defending the Sinai stretched the IDF to the breaking point. It also directly led to the creation of Hizballah. Try another prescription.

          • defcon 4

            I’m sure your “prescription” includes the continued bombardment of Israel by rocket and mortar rounds from the peaceful islam0nazi paleswine.

          • hiernonymous

            You seem to be sure of many things you don’t know. At any rate, the tail end of your post veered into gibberish, so it’s hard to say just what position you’re actually attributing to me.

          • defcon 4

            They still beat down your islam0nazi brethren in ’73′ lying Hajji.

          • hiernonymous

            You should probably spend some time reading about the ’73 war before thumping your chest about it.

            By having to defend the Suez line, the Israelis put themselves into the position of having to defend on two fronts that were too far apart to rapidly shift reserves from one to the other. The IDF was too small and too reliant on reservists to support such a concept. The Israelis won that war, and good thing, too, but you should consider that the Syrians lost their nerve in the north at a point when they had effectively broken Israel’s last armored formation on that front – the Syrians just didn’t know that.

            If you think that the Yom Kippur War in any way validates the concept of “defensive conquest” as something that promotes Israeli security, you simply don’t understand what you’re talking about.

            As for “lying Hajji,” is that your Tourette’s acting up, or can you support either term?

          • defcon 4

            They only had to defend two fronts because the islam0nazis attacked them. Maybe that’s the salient point you’re not seeing here Hajji.

          • hiernonymous

            “Maybe that’s the salient point you’re not seeing here Hajji.”

            No. The number of fronts didn’t increase from 1967, nor was that the ‘salient’ point. The issue under discussion is whether ‘defensive conquest’ actually contributes to Israel’s security. We have two concrete illustrations of cases in which it has done exactly the opposite. Hope that’s clear enough for you.

            I notice you didn’t address the question posed to you.

          • Texas Patriot

            H: ” The issue under discussion is whether ‘defensive conquest’ actually contributes to Israel’s security.”

            Defensive conquest is a tool available to any nation which is subjected to violent attack by its neighbors. It provides an option to the nation attacked of seizing, confiscating, and expelling all hostile forces from the lands of the attackers. How much land is seized, or whether any land is seized, is within the discretion of the nation attacked.

            Your example of the Sinai illustrates how it is not always in the best interest of the party attacked to acquire the land of the attackers. Whether Israel may at some point in the future choose to acquire the Sinai in response to some future attack by its neighbors remains a matter of conjecture.

            If nothing else, it is perfectly clear that the cycle of attack and counterattack is one of long-standing in the middle east, and is not likely to end soon.

          • hiernonymous

            Bottom line: ‘defensive conquest’ was offered in the context of Israel’s security, and has in that specific context already at least twice proved damaging to Israel’s security.

            And if you understand that the cycle of attack and counterattack is one of long standing in the Middle East, you probably also understand that every actor in the Middle East has worn each hat at some point. Not sure that “defensive conquest” is a particularly useful concept here, but no matter.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You have to be clearly and consistently stronger to make defensive conquest work, no doubt about that. Please remember that “peace” doesn’t come from anarchy or some kind of vacuum. It comes from a strong sovereign and strong hegemony, if those powers are peaceful and inclined towards justice that the people can appreciate.

            Israel was stronger when aligned with the USA. But POTUS can change at each election and presidents have in many cases been fickle.

            The lessons of the cold war include that there will always be cold wars and therefore also cold war considerations, even when the details change.

          • hiernonymous

            “The lessons of the cold war include that there will always be cold wars…”

            Nonsense. Cold Wars are bipolar power struggles a la U.S.-USSR or Athens and Sparta, and warp nearly every aspect of international relations and diplomacy from a more normal multipolar pattern. They turn nuanced issues into zero-sum dominance games in which optimal outcomes are abandoned for “are you with us or agin’ us?” The current frothing about Islamism appears to be as much an attempt to prop up the Islamists as the other pole of just such a struggle, but the actual power relationships in the world today don’t support such a view. We’re returning to a more normal multipolar world, which seems to disturb many old Cold Warriors.

            As for what “peace” comes from, it seems to be an evolutionary process, and we don’t seem to be constrained to choose between a Pax Romana and anarchy.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Nonsense. Cold Wars are bipolar power struggles a la U.S.-USSR or Athens and Sparta, and warp nearly every aspect of international relations and diplomacy from a more normal multipolar pattern.”

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cold%20war

            Full Definition of COLD WAR

            1: a conflict over ideological differences carried on by methods short of sustained overt military action and usually without breaking off diplomatic relations; specifically often capitalized C&W : the ideological conflict between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the second half of the 20th century — compare hot war

            2: a condition of rivalry, mistrust, and often open hostility short of violence especially between power groups (as labor and management)

          • hiernonymous

            You truncated this bit: “a conflict or dispute between two groups that does not involve actual fighting.”

            Even if you want to draw your understanding of political terminology from a dictionary, the implications of “two groups” are clear.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You truncated this bit: “a conflict or dispute between two groups that does not involve actual fighting.””

            You’ll have to show me in context what you’re talking about. I didn’t’ truncate anything.

            “2: a condition of rivalry, mistrust, and often open hostility short of violence especially between power groups (as labor and management)”

            “Even if you want to draw your understanding of political terminology from a dictionary, the implications of “two groups” are clear.”

            Are you claiming that the example “labor and management” is only 2 groups and therefore all cold wars are bipolar? Really?

            Why not just say that wars are only between 2 factions? What does “cold” or “war” have to do with quantity?

            So specialized political terminology limits the use of words or phrases we also find in the dictionary? I think if we wisely use context we can handle distinguish what is being said. I know I can.

            I guess the dictionary is wrong. I can’t see how you can separate war from politics. I guess I’m just not smart enough.

          • hiernonymous

            Ah, the Merriam-Webster game again. The definition #2 you’re quoting is a metaphorical use, based on characteristics typical of relations in the Cold War (and not the definition one would select when analyzing a sentence that began with “the lesson of the cold war…” – invoking the more traditional usage we attribute to Bernard Baruch (drawing on Orwell for the phrase, but giving it a much more specific meaning). You don’t always find that sort of thing in dictionaries, which makes them good places to start, and pretty poor places to finish. But I digress.

            The Cold War, and by extension analogous situations, derived its character from its nature as a bipolar confrontation. Its essential character derived from the number of groups involved: much like Athens and Sparta, the bipolarity of the conflict was essential in a couple of ways: it accounted for the “coldness” of the war, in that it made the prospect of a hot war far more dangerous than might otherwise be the case. It also forced every actor to choose one side or the other, and made such choices appear to be part of a high-stakes zero sum game. Neither superpower would lightly allow any player to remain neutral; a defection from one camp to the other was seen as a harm far more significant than details about the nature of a particular government or the morality of its actions.

            (This is also why Thucydides spoke to those us who served during the Cold War in ways he simply doesn’t for those commissioned after the Fall of the Wall.)

            “I guess I’m just not smart enough.”

            That’s one possible explanation, though it’s not the most likely.

            At any rate, the very dictionary you linked to, and whose powers of definition you hold in awe, defined ‘cold war’ as being between two groups. (The bit you truncated, by the way, is to be found by following the dictionary link you provided and reading the sentence immediately above the bit you cut and pasted.)

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “At any rate, the very dictionary you linked to, and whose powers of definition you hold in awe, defined ‘cold war’ as being between two groups. (The bit you truncated, by the way, is to be found by following the dictionary link you provided and reading the sentence immediately above the bit you cut and pasted.)”

            I’d appreciate you showing me rather than telling me.

            By the way, when I refer to “the cold war” or “the Cold War” in modern context you can be sure I’m talking about the Soviets vs. NATO etc. If I use “cold war” in lower case in the common sense, I’m probably not.

            I honestly didn’t expect anyone to be confused.

            So let’s look:

            He’s the abbreviated definition:

            cold war noun

            the Cold War : the nonviolent conflict between the U.S. and the former U.S.S.R. after 1945

            : a conflict or dispute between two groups that does not involve actual fighting

            Here’s the full definition:

            Full Definition of COLD WAR

            1: a conflict over ideological differences carried on by methods short of sustained overt military action and usually without breaking off diplomatic relations; specifically often capitalized C&W : the ideological conflict between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the second half of the 20th century — compare hot war

            2: a condition of rivalry, mistrust, and often open hostility short of violence especially between power groups (as labor and management)

            I see. So if you’re correct, the not-so-awesome dictionary is more clear and specific in their abbreviated definition. Or maybe you just got lucky.

            I think you need to loosen up with your rules about language that are more strict according to “certain thought schools” than in the rest of the English speaking world. I’ve never in my life heard that a “cold war” must be bilateral.

            We’ve had similar conversations about language and word use, so maybe we should use your preferred dictionary rather than my less-than-awesome version.

            Also, proper nouns are capitalized. That’s always a clue.

          • hiernonymous

            “Also, proper nouns are capitalized. That’s always a clue.”

            The selection of article – definite or indefinite – is also a clue. In your case, you wrote about the “lesson of the cold war.” Your use of the definite article left not doubt about which cold war you meant, but your use of capitalization was not consistent with your final comment here. At any rate, regardless of what you’ve heard before, if you are going to draw lessons from thecold war, a good start might be in mulling over what its essential characteristics were. Bipolarity is right up there.

            At any rate, one must return to the context of your original comment, in which you mentioned that there would always be cold wars, and thus always “cold war considerations.” If by “cold war” you mean nothing more than general competition short of open hostility, the observation becomes nearly empty of meaning, and “cold war considerations” simply become Realist national interest considerations.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The selection of article – definite or indefinite – is also a clue. In your case, you wrote about the “lesson of the cold war.” Your use of the definite article left not doubt about which cold war you meant, but your use of capitalization was not consistent with your final comment here.”

            Correct. In that case I was speaking about “the cold war,” or “the Cold War.”

            “At any rate, one must return to the context of your original comment, in which you mentioned that there would always be cold wars, and thus always “cold war considerations.” If by “cold war” you mean nothing more than general competition short of open hostility, the observation becomes nearly empty of meaning, and “cold war considerations” simply become Realist national interest considerations.”

            I could have been more specific but then the message changes slightly. I think some times you are confused when I deliberately use language intended to show connections, which is not conflation.

            Just as we had “the Cold War” we will always have similar but maybe not as urgent “Realist national interest considerations.” That’s less elegant and less effective in my opinion. But I wouldn’t have a problem with you wording it that way.

            I suppose I’m worried about the large number of people who think that the end of the “Cold War” was the end of the need for vigilance about enemies. We may never see the end of enemies that want to infiltrate and deceive us, just as the Soviets did. And some of these enemies were in fact trained by the Soviets.

          • hiernonymous

            My problem with your language is that, while you epxress concern about complacency, I am concerned about hypervigilance and the genuine Cold War mentality of elevating the “us vs. them” mentality to the forefront of international relations. As I mentioned in my original comment on cold wars, the Cold War distorted all relations. We supported savage dictators and committed heinous acts in the name of not falling behind in the zero-sum game; we regularly betrayed our professed values because, after all, our ‘survival’ trumped less pressing concerns.

            Whatever you think of such rationalization, the same situation does not obtain today. However, there is no shortage of people who wish it did, who long for the artificial and deceptive clarity of the Cold War, and who thus actively pursue someone or something to fill the shoes of the Soviet Union. Some try to put the Muslim world in that role; some China; but whoever it is, it’s nonsense: there is no implacable foe out there who will pose an existential threat for as long as we both exist, for whom this hyar world ain’t big enough fer the both of us.

            We have competitors, sure. We have challenges. I’m all for remaining alert and ready for them. But when we identify someone as an existential threat, what we’re really trying to do is turn them into an existential threat, a justification for a course of action that lacks only the right excuse. In the case of the Muslim world, I return to the general observation that we are hyperactive in the Middle East, and that Occam’s Razor suggests that the correlation between our interventionism in the Middle East and the rise of terrorist activity against the U.S. is a more compelling starting location for understanding our tense relations in the region than is looking for some sort of Huntingtonian clash of civilizations.

            Notice how much less fraught our relations with Panama became once we started building our Navy around carriers too big to fit through the Panama Canal. While we maintained SOUTHCOM in Panama, the nationalist backlash against our presence was a constant irritant and, eventually, a casus belli.

            Bottom line: pointing out the bipolar and distorting nature of the Cold War wasn’t a case of pedantry or being pointlessly argumentative – it’s highlighting a significant and unhealthy characteristic of the Cold War that went far beyond healthy vigilance to a sort of pervasive paranoia that changed who we were, and not for the better. It’s not a mentality we would be well-served by trying to nurse.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “My problem with your language is that, while you express concern about complacency, I am concerned about hypervigilance and the genuine Cold War mentality of elevating the “us vs. them” mentality to the forefront of international relations.”

            You should simply go directly to the argument rather than object to my wording when you object to my idea.

            Now think about what you’ve done. You’ve already agreed that we need to be vigilant about enemies but you object to my use of a phrase that was simply intended to remind people that the end of the Cold War is not the end of all enemy covert actions against us. This is reality. This is not hyper-vigilance in any sense.

            You’re (some times) trying to control the language because you want to control the ideas even when you don’t have a rational basis to do so, or at least you don’t have confidence in your rational presentation of your counter-arguments. This might be instinctual. You need to think a little about this.

            “As I mentioned in my original comment on cold wars, the Cold War distorted all relations. We supported savage dictators and committed heinous acts in the name of not falling behind in the zero-sum game; we regularly betrayed our professed values because, after all, our ‘survival’ trumped less pressing concerns.”

            I think you need to reflect on what I said and what the context was. I’m speaking to or about people who have a naive understanding of the world. You immediately begin to think that by mentioning any vigilance at all that suddenly people will become unglued and start “othering” people.

            This is an instinctive reaction rather than a rational one. You only rationalized it after you took the time to do so. I didn’t “other” anyone person or group. Vigilance is good, but I’ll agree that it should be pragmatic rather than fear-based.

            Let’s work on a rational middle ground rather than treating everyone like children that can’t be exposed to certain realities like hostile enemies of our constitution and practical interests.

          • hiernonymous

            “You should simply go directly to the argument rather than object to my wording when you object to my idea.”

            I’m assuming that your words are carefully chosen, and respond to them on that basis.

            “You’re (some times) trying to control the language because you want to control the ideas even when you don’t have a rational basis to do so, or at least you don’t have confidence in your rational presentation of your counter-arguments.”

            I’m going to recommend that you not descend into metaconversation again. It’s beside the point, unproductive, and off target. In this case, the conclusions implied by your choice of the cold war imagery are significant, and objecting to those implications is hardly “controlling the language.” This isn’t the first time you’ve chosen terminology with very strong implications, then objected when those implications are pointed out. If you’re not fully aware of the implications of the terms you’re using, it’s simply unreasonable to expect me to respond on the assumption that you are attempting to use the language tabula rasa. I don’t plan on indulging you in further diversion into that vein.

            “You immediately begin to think that by mentioning any vigilance at all that suddenly people will become unglued and start “othering” people.”

            It’s you who need to read more carefully; it wasn’t “any” mention of vigilance, but your invocation of the Cold War, that drew my response. The Cold War was not simply a case of normal readiness, nor, by implication, would other situations found analogous to it.

            “This is an instinctive reaction rather than a rational one.”

            You’re veering into empty posturing again. You’d been doing pretty well until this post.

            “Let’s work on a rational middle ground…”

            This post is a poor departure from that path. Again, when you veer into the metaconversation, you veer into pointless posturing. I don’t plan on having another fifty-post exchange on that sort of nonsense.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m assuming that your words are carefully chosen, and respond to them on that basis.”

            OK. You’re aware that I can follow it, but it’s disrespectful to any others that might be also trying to follow. That’s why I continue to make comments analyzing anything I see as relevant, regardless of how useful you might consider it to be for yourself personally.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Whatever you think of such rationalization, the same situation does not obtain today. However, there is no shortage of people who wish it did, who long for the artificial and deceptive clarity of the Cold War, and who thus actively pursue someone or something to fill the shoes of the Soviet Union. Some try to put the Muslim world in that role; some China; but whoever it is, it’s nonsense: there is no implacable foe out there who will pose an existential threat for as long as we both exist, for whom this hyar world ain’t big enough fer the both of us.”

            You read way too much in to what I said. And if you think about it, the Cold War injected a lot of problems in to the Middle East that continue to this day. All I said was that cold wars will never end and cold war implications won’t either. And residual implications from the Cold War continue to this day, particularly in the Middle East and for Israel. There can be no question about the truth of these statements.

            I don’t mind you making your statements of concern when you do it directly. Don’t do it by trying to argue that certain language is not acceptable or doesn’t make sense to you when it’s the idea you object to rather than the wording.

          • hiernonymous

            “Don’t do it by trying to argue that certain language is not acceptable or doesn’t make sense to you when it’s the idea you object to rather than the wording.”

            Thanks for the suggestion. Your wording carried significant implications that you don’t appear to have recognized when you wrote it. My comments stand.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I do understand the implications. If you don’t understand, you might find more direct ways of seeking clarity. Since you don’t like long and pointless exchanges.

            Go for fully articulated and balanced discussions rather than trying to obscure the other guy’s ideas.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Bottom line: pointing out the bipolar and distorting nature of the Cold War wasn’t a case of pedantry or being pointlessly argumentative – it’s highlighting a significant and unhealthy characteristic of the Cold War that went far beyond healthy vigilance to a sort of pervasive paranoia that changed who we were, and not for the better. It’s not a mentality we would be well-served by trying to nurse.”

            It’s valid after you make a smooth transition to explain your point. You weren’t actually addressing what I said. You simply reacted emotionally to your concerns about the topic of discussion, and you did it…well at least you came clean and I’m fine with that.

            Some people need to be more vigilant, and a few need to be less vigilant. The “hyper-vigilant” ones get all the attention. The deluded ones vote for idiotic politicians. The deluded ones are collectively far more dangerous than the loudmouths.

          • hiernonymous

            “You simply reacted emotionally to your concerns about the topic of discussion, and you did it…well at least you came clean…”

            You’re veering off-topic into metaconversation. It’s unbecoming and pointless.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “As for what “peace” comes from, it seems to be an evolutionary process, and we don’t seem to be constrained to choose between a Pax Romana and anarchy.”

            I agree. But I also claim that “Pax Americana” is not morally equal to Pax Romana.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Cold Wars are bipolar power struggles a la U.S.-USSR or Athens and Sparta, and warp nearly every aspect of international relations and diplomacy from a more normal multipolar pattern. They turn nuanced issues into zero-sum dominance games in which optimal outcomes are abandoned for “are you with us or agin’ us?” The current frothing about Islamism appears to be as much an attempt to prop up the Islamists as the other pole of just such a struggle, but the actual power relationships in the world today don’t support such a view. We’re returning to a more normal multipolar world, which seems to disturb many old Cold Warriors. ”

            You’re conflating 2 entirely separate issues. The Soviet Western Cold War was seen as bipolar and often it was because of the sense of urgency. But that didn’t mean there were no currents beyond those questions about loyalties for or against Soviet communism.

            But the other separate issue is that a cold war is simply a state of war that exists on any level below what one would classify as a “hot war.” Cold wars do not have to have some kind of bipolar aspect unless you impose it in order to better understand it. When people do that, it’s usually in order to compromise for the sake of urgency.

            Islam is treated that way not because Islamophobes are stupid, but because if you bring out the nuanced arguments all the time, people fall asleep. You must first wake someone up and explain why you need their attention before you check for comprehensive or appropriate levels of details.

            Sleeping people just fall asleep more deeply if you get stuck on the nuanced views.

            But rambling on, if you like bipolar cold wars, we could break them down that way. Islam vs. non-sharia compliant societies or capitalism vs. socialism. Those are the 2 major bipolar ideological cold wars these days.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The whole situation is much too complicated to play out what-if scenarios on a comments section.

            It was part of the cold war, where Egypt and Israel were both trying very hard to impress the USA for a number of reasons. Cold war politics definitely drove the start and end to that war. What if scenarios are pretty useless without at least getting in to those factors.

            Israel’s military probably expected to immediately reply to belligerence at the border with their air forces. But when war came, politics played a bigger role than they had planned for.

            That’s about all I can say with confidence about “what if.”

            What does that tell us about today and Israel’s ability to defend itself? Well, they probably paid a lot more attention to any of those lessons than any of us have. And the political situation is very different today, and more blatantly against them. That in many ways makes their planning more straightforward.

            But the bottom line is that Israel’s biggest challenges are in PR in a world full of cynical liars leading pseudo democratic sovereigns that want to either destroy it or sell it out for some political advantage. Put another way, without the complex geopolitical considerations, I do think Israel could use their military to punish blatantly aggressive, hostile sovereigns and bring more stability to the region. But in reality that’s never been a possibility.

          • Texas Patriot

            There is no question that the kaleidoscopic wheel of change is now a’turning in the world. As a result, actions that would have been considered unthinkable just a few years ago could now be regarded as indispensable and absolutely necessary for survival.

          • hiernonymous

            “The whole situation is much too complicated to play out what-if scenarios on a comments section.”

            That may well be true, but there’s no “what if” at the heart of this observation. It’s a rather concrete observation that the IDF forces in the Sinai and on the Golan were too far apart to be mutually reinforcing, and Israel’s defense policy and force structure relied on that ability to rapidly refocus effort for its viability.

            Israel’s difficulties in the Yom Kippur War were not primarily political nor of a public relations nature; they were centered on intelligence and military doctrine, and both, to some extent, centered on underestimating their enemies. That said, my comment was not intended to try to summarize all of the problems of the war, but to focus on one key element: namely, that it’s a common misconception that pushing one’s borders further out necessarily makes a country more readily defended. The ‘defensive conquest’ under discussion did not contribute to Israel’s security.

            “I do think Israel could use their military to punish blatantly aggressive, hostile sovereigns…”

            Without becoming a blatantly aggressive, hostile sovereign subject to punishment?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It’s a rather concrete observation that the IDF forces in the Sinai and on the Golan were too far apart to be mutually reinforcing, and Israel’s defense policy and force structure relied on that ability to rapidly refocus effort for its viability.”

            My point is that you didn’t mention the biggest reason this cost them so much; politics. They’re circumstances led them to plan to use their vastly superior air force to respond rapidly in events such as this. If I recall correctly this conversation came up in response to Texas Patriot’s call for a “defensive conquest” doctrine. You need to add more context if you want to show how the problems they faced in 1973 point to problems in employing a doctrine of defensive conquest.

            I think you can make your case, but you didn’t articulate it very well. In the end you simply portrayed Israel as weaker than it really is. And the biggest reasons for turning away from defensive conquest as I see them have more to do with politics than with limitations of their military but obviously both are factors to consider. Israel is not weak, but it is already encircled. OTOH its air force is one of the best. We don’t really know how it would play out, but their biggest problems come from political considerations.

            Carter destroyed defensive conquest as a doctrine when he forced them to come to the “international peace table” and then later US presidents screwed them over.

          • defcon 4

            65 years of unending islam0nazi terrorism are all the justification they need Farid Al Taqiyya.

          • hiernonymous

            One wonders how your posts would read if you managed to shake the Tourette’s. Is there a coherent thought lurking in there?

          • defcon 4

            Why don’t you go teabag muhammad?

          • hiernonymous

            “Why don’t you go teabag muhammad?”

            Perfect answer. “No” would have been shorter, but this way is more you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Israel’s difficulties in the Yom Kippur War were not primarily political nor of a public relations nature; they were centered on intelligence and military doctrine, and both, to some extent, centered on underestimating their enemies.”

            My understanding is that they hesitated to respond due to the need to appease Kissinger. Nixon and Kissinger didn’t want Israel to look like a “colonial bully” in the region by pulling off another devastating air strike that would later be painted as “offensive.”

            It took them days (and massive resources) to recover from this compromise. It’s hard to see how cold war considerations didn’t effect this war from before it even started.

          • hiernonymous

            That interpretation is not consistent with what we know of both Israeli and American intelligence analyses of Egyptian movements prior to the war. The Israelis had become complacent in two respects: they thought the Egyptians cowed, and they thought that the 6 Day War so validated their tactical superiority that they had no real reason to fear. If you are suggesting that Israel did not launch a pre-emptive strike because it was trying to placate Kissinger, the historical record suggests that Israel did not, in fact, believe that a pre-emptive strike was yet called for.

            Note that the employment of both their air and armored forces in the first days in the Sinai betrayed a complete lack of appreciation for what al Shazli could accomplish with the new anti-air and anti-tank missiles. Bottom line: Israeli military officials did not appreciate that the Egyptians had learned from the ’67 disaster and had adapted. Although the same cannot be said of Syria and its plans, the Egyptian concept of operations was one of warfare’s masterpieces.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That interpretation is not consistent with what we know of both Israeli and American intelligence analyses of Egyptian movements prior to the war. The Israelis had become complacent in two respects: they thought the Egyptians cowed, and they thought that the 6 Day War so validated their tactical superiority that they had no real reason to fear.”

            It’s not inconsistent. They did become complacent as well. But as the war started, they were warned before the crossing began. They held off for…I can’t remember how long. It was more than a few minutes or hours. They waited for the crossing to occur.

            “If you are suggesting that Israel did not launch a pre-emptive strike because it was trying to placate Kissinger, the historical record suggests that Israel did not, in fact, believe that a pre-emptive strike was yet called for.”

            In the period between the 2 wars, you’re correct. They didn’t spend the entire period planning to counter any major attacks. They weighed the possibilities and predicted that they would not have to worry, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t have any such contingency plans at all. It doesn’t mean they put their attack jets in storage. They were still prepared for many contingencies. But it’s also true they expected to have a longer respite.

            So sure, you’re correct in the claims about preparedness that you’re adding but that doesn’t undo my argument that Israel would have fared quite a bit better if they had responded immediately rather than worried about instructions or caveats from Washington.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Note that the employment of both their air and armored forces in the first days in the Sinai betrayed a complete lack of appreciation for what al Shazli could accomplish with the new anti-air and anti-tank missiles.”

            That’s also true, which actually supports my argument that a faster strike would have been more helpful when they could have attacked from higher altitudes, before the crossing. Being on the defensive is never an advantage, and the further back you are…the worse it gets.

            “Bottom line: Israeli military officials did not appreciate that the Egyptians had learned from the ’67 disaster and had adapted.”

            That’s true, but it doesn’t undo my argument.

            “Although the same cannot be said of Syria and its plans, the Egyptian concept of operations was one of warfare’s masterpieces.”

            That’s an understatement. But it’s also true that Egypt needed better coordination with Syria if they had any plans of improving on what they did accomplish.

            America sort of screwed Israel and then Syria screwed Egypt, then Sadat screwed Shazli (maybe). Then the USA helped Israel and eventually Egypt as well.

            So there you go. There’s your bipolar cold war. But today we don’t have a dominant cold war that everyone is aware of and sensitive to. We have many smaller ones.

          • hiernonymous

            While we’ve wandered far afield from ‘defensive conquest,’ I’ll offer one more comment here: a pre-emptive strike may well have hurt the Syrians, and thus relieved pressure in the Golan, but would have done no good against the Egyptians. Shazli’s concept was to cross the Suez and stop, and allow the Israelis to batter themselves against a defensive belt of missiles. The initial Israeli airstrikes were decimated by the new SAMs, and the SAM belt was up and operational long before operations began. In fact, the Israelis enjoyed success against the Egyptians only when Sadat overruled Shazli and ordered the army to advance further into the Sinai in order to relieve pressure on the Syrians. (That wasn’t necessarily the wrong decision, and doesn’t imply Sadat didn’t understand the consequences; such is the nature of coalition warfare…) This opened up a window of vulnerability that hadn’t existed before.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The initial Israeli airstrikes were decimated by the new SAMs, and the SAM belt was up and operational long before operations began.”

            But the Israeli jets must get closer to the targets once the Egyptians have crossed the water. They must come in lower. And by waiting, the lost control of the timeline and for that reason alone could not take as much care in dealing with the new SAMs. It’s possible they could have destroyed quite a bit in those critical hours.

            And forgetting all of the technical arguments, simply arriving at the battle a number of hours earlier can rarely be a disadvantage. We don’t know how much it would have helped, but at the very least they would have understood what was in store for them that much earlier and would have pivoted to the winning tactics against the SAMs that much earlier.

            “In fact, the Israelis enjoyed success against the Egyptians only when Sadat overruled Shazli and ordered the army to advance further into the Sinai in order to relieve pressure on the Syrians. (That wasn’t necessarily the wrong decision, and doesn’t imply Sadat didn’t understand the consequences; such is the nature of coalition warfare…) This opened up a window of vulnerability that hadn’t existed before.”

            On the ground, yeah. But in the air it took them some time to adapt to the new SAM capabilities and they were dealing with an enemy that moved swiftly across the water barrier that they were counting on as a barrier more than they should have. Earlier air sorties would have revealed that earlier too.

            None of these things are certain, but it’s just very hard for me to imagine that an earlier reaction would have hurt them militarily at all. But really there are too many variables to have any confidence in any suggested possible what if scenarios.

            All I was really saying was that the politics of the Cold War were as much a part of the picture as anything else. And as far as overconfidence, that’s a problem that came from the top, not the soldiers and tactical planners. It’s interesting conversation but not that useful here talking about what Israel should do today and going forward. The Yom Kippur War didn’t reveal any big weaknesses that could not be addressed and remedied.

            I guess what makes it interesting for the discussion is that it represented the only major war during Israel’s largest control of territory. I don’t think it was that much a matter of scale, but scale was a crucial factor in the event. They had to shift arms from one end of the country to the other and obviously the larger distances makes that a problem. It could be overcome though.

            One last comment…we don’t even truly know what Sadat wanted to accomplish. It seems like he got what he wanted even if it didn’t fully conform with his greatest wishes. I don’t think Assad knew what Sadat really wanted and neither did Shazli. Therefore we don’t really know how Sadat would have reacted to an early Israeli attack, especially a clearly successful one. Maybe Sadat himself didn’t even know what he really wanted more than winning some pride back after 1967.

            The Middle East is a very complicated place.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That said, my comment was not intended to try to summarize all of the problems of the war, but to focus on one key element: namely, that it’s a common misconception that pushing one’s borders further out necessarily makes a country more readily defended. The ‘defensive conquest’ under discussion did not contribute to Israel’s security.”

            Well sure. Of course it’s not a given that such a doctrine is workable at all. But it’s certainly plausible that a nation with vastly superior military can accomplish its goals with such a doctrine. Deterrence being the main objective rather than say, suckering others in to losing sovereignty.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Without becoming a blatantly aggressive, hostile sovereign subject to punishment?”

            Details matter. It’s not simple, but it’s not impossible either. That’s 1 reason why wise and capable leaders are crucial.

            And that’s also why US hegemony is crucial to world peace rather than placing too much hope on institutions like the UN.

    • defcon 4

      “Islamist” that really says it all. Only islam0nazi apologists and islam0nazis use terms that whitewash away the fact that islam is fascism.

  • leelongchamp

    I agree nixy . . But what do we do about it. Do we declare war on 1.5 billion people?

    • http://www.teaparty.org/about-us/ Nixys

      I would suggest we start by absolutely refusing to give in to sharia. Defile the Qur’an. Insult Muhammad. Speak about Islam in the way that people regularly speak about and criticize Christianity. Smash their double standards. Don’t let them censor you and intimidate you. If enough of us do it, they won’t be able to stop us. Islam is too cowardly to face true debate, anyway.

      • leelongchamp

        That would inflame 1.5 billion people against us.

        • Texas Patriot

          If Muslims are already committed to global jihad for purposes of conquering and subjugating non-Muslims throughout the world, it is hard to imagine that they could become any more “inflamed”. But so what? It’s not our problem that they want to immigrate into our nations to conquer and subjugate us and overthrow our civilization. It’s their problem.

          • leelongchamp

            TP they have been at it for 1400 years and are now far from their peak of world occupation. we need not welcome them with open arms, but neither should we dump on Muhammad. I see Muslims violence when Islam is threatened as weakness and that is what should be exploited. But for oil, Muslim nations live in poverty and under uncivilized laws.

          • Texas Patriot

            It doesn’t matter to me at all who Muhammad was, except that his followers today are bent on world conquest and subjugation and following in his footsteps. All that needs to be shut down in the West and rolled back to where it started from.

          • leelongchamp

            That’s easy. The hard part is ‘how”.
            Do you advocate going to war against all Muslim nations?

          • defcon 4

            Why shouldn’t I “dump on Muhammad”? Because he’s your holey prophet?

        • http://www.teaparty.org/about-us/ Nixys

          Maybe we’d better just give up and convert to Islam then, huh?

        • defcon 4

          Who cares? If you love the islam0nazis so much why don’t you move to an islamic state?

          • Texas Patriot

            LLC: “That’s easy. The hard part is ‘how”.Do you advocate going to war against all Muslim nations?”

            Not at all. My view is that we should leave Muslim nations alone and stay out of them altogether if at all possible. Otherwise, as to the Muslims who have already immigrated into the West, let them formally reject and renounce the aggressive policies of Islamic jihad, conquest, and submission against non-Muslims, or let them leave the West and go elsewhere.

          • leelongchamp

            We agree on something . . let the Muslim kill each other. We need a national discussion on the issue however.

            Everyone must “Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands” or go home.

          • defcon 4

            They can renounce all they want — and lie about it to your face, because that’s what muslimes do, they lie.

          • Texas Patriot

            I think there are many Muslims who would prefer to leave the West rather than to reject or renounce even the tiniest iota of the teachings and life example of Muhammad.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV710c1dgpU

            Yet, those who are willing to reject and renounce the Islamic duties of jihad, conquest, and subjugation of non-Muslims should be permitted to remain in the West, subject of course to Ronald Reagan’s maxim “trust but verify.”

          • defcon 4

            How would you verify such a thing? Anyone can take an oath, taking oaths isn’t the problem (Major Hassan took the oath to support the Constitution, as did Sgt. Hasan Akbar {of the 101st Airborne]), it’s the keeping of the oaths that are the problem.

          • Texas Patriot

            I understand the concern, and there is always a risk of false swearing and false oaths in order to conceal true intentions. At the same time, I think it is obvious that there would be considerable risk to any Muslim who made a public declaration of rejection and renunciation of any portion of the teachings or life example of Muhammad. That alone, I think, would lend credibility to any such statement.

            Otherwise, the ability to monitor the activity of all citizens, including Muslims, non-Muslims, former Muslims, is increasing all the time. In the electronic world in which we live, there is really no such thing as privacy and no chance of putting oneself beyond the reach of government surveillance. Major Hasan Nadal is a good example of someone who leaned toward a life of Islamic jihad, and with proper surveillance, his violent tendencies could have easily been predicted.

            Under all of these circumstances, and in the interest of fairness and human decency, I think it is the right thing to do to allow all those who wish to renounce the violent and discriminatory aspects of Islam to remain in the West indefinitely subject to good behavior. Others may disagree, but that’s where I stand.

            If it turns out that there are those who falsely and insincerely rejected and renounced the teachings and life example of Muhammad for purposes of remaining in the West to continue a life of jihad, conquest, and subjugation, they can always be required to leave as well.

          • defcon 4

            Sorry, but “fairness and decency” doesn’t work w/totalitarian, genocidal, Jew hating, supremacist death cults. Just ask any of the hundreds of thousands (or millions?) of Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Christians, Baha’i, Zoroastrians and Buddhists ethnically cleansed from every islam0nazi hellhole on the face of this earth.

          • Texas Patriot

            They’re human beings, created in the image of God, just as much as anyone else. They deserve a chance to distance themselves from this hateful and anti-human ideology.

          • defcon 4

            Before or after they have the knife to your throat?

          • Texas Patriot

            As Ronald Reagan said, “Trust but verify.” ;-)

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “That would inflame 1.5 billion people against us.”

          You don’t need to do it in each person’s face. Treat the person with any deserved respect. But don’t revere evil ideology.

          Lots of judgment calls need to be made along the way. Nobody said it would be easy.

    • defcon 4

      What the hell do you think muslimes are doing to anyone non-muslim in their various islam0nazi pigocracies? It’s not unicorns, rainbows and lollipops for the unbelieving kaffir in ANY muslime state. It’s persecution, murder, rape and forcible conversion to islam.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Do we declare war on 1.5 billion people?”

      The ideological war started almost 14 centuries ago. You’re choice is to deal with reality or to ignore it.

  • leelongchamp

    What everyone is missing here is President Bush’s victory in Iraq. He deposed a dictator, facilitated the formation of a democratic (secular) government and he was committed to making it work. Obama and the left wasted all that and they aren’t in the frame of mind to admit their mistakes. If we really want to do something to prevent the spread of Islamist control, we should respond to Iraq’s recent call for help, rather than just ignore it. Troops would do more good there than in Afghanistan.

    • Texas Patriot

      Hopefully that comment was intended ironically and satirically. The only thing Bush accomplished in Iraq is to destabilize the entire region and permit the forces of Islamic jihad to overthrow largely secular dictators in Iraq, Libya, and Egypt. At this point in time, Iraq is a seething cauldron of Shia-Sunni violence, and the historically large Christian population of some two million in Iraq has been reduced to maybe ten percent of what it was. If there was any “victory” in this equation it was a victory of deception by the forces of Islamic jihad and involved the seduction and inducement of the President of the United States into the fool’s errand of deposing one of the biggest enemies of Islamic jihad in the region.

      • leelongchamp

        absolutely not, History will prove me right (I have taken this position for some time and events are proving me right. Imagine if there was a functioning “democratic” government in the ME.

        Egypt is a good example. the MB overthrew a government and in turn were replace with a secular government . . and restored rights to Christians. The Christians in Iraq were persecuted far more under Sad Man than the present overnment. I .corresponded with the “Bishop” of Baghdad who said that 12 of his parishioners had been kidnapped in the last month, under Saddam). I admit their plight today in the Arab world and American Aid should go Christians being persecuted.

        You obviously have changed your position that every Muslim is a Jihadist.

        It is time for US policy to add Christians and Women’s rights as a demand before giving aid. Protecting Christians is more important for the time being.

        • Texas Patriot

          LLC: “Imagine if there was a functioning “democratic” government in the ME.”

          Given the current level of Shia-Sunni violence in Iraq, it is impossible to imagine that.

          LLC: ” The Christians in Iraq were persecuted far more under Sad Man than the present government.”

          That is a false statement.

          LLC: “You obviously have changed your position that every Muslim is a Jihadist.”

          That has never been my position. My position is that anyone who is committed to following the teachings and life example of Muhammad is by definition a jihadist. Although every Muslim may potentially be a jihadist, I don’t think that every Muslim is an active jihadist. Many are, but most probably aren’t.

          • leelongchamp

            THE LEVEL OF violence has grown since Obama abandoned Iraq. They want us back in order to reduce the violence. one who follows the teaching of Muhammad is by definition a Muslim. I agree that every Muslim is a potential jihadist. Most here seem to disagree that there are “moderate Muslims” I know of at least 50 in the US. They are the best hope to convince Americans of the threat of radical Islam.

          • defcon 4

            “radical” islam, the delineation without a difference.

          • defcon 4

            “radical” islam, the delineation without a difference.

          • Texas Patriot

            LLC: “THE LEVEL OF violence has grown since Obama abandoned Iraq. They want us back in order to reduce the violence. “

            The Bush forces were able to enlist the Sunni forces on their side because the Sunnis were facing virtual extermination by the Shia. That situation has not changed, except for the fact that the Sunni have been revitalized by radical elements affiliated with forces in Syria. The Sunnis may want us back in Iraq, just as the Al Qaida affiliated Sunnis want us on their side in Syria. But it’s not for the purpose of establishing democracy in either place. It’s for the purpose of exterminating their enemies, the Shia, in both places.

            The best hope that the Shia and Sunnis will stop killing each other is the fact that the descendants of the Biblical Israel are now in their midst in the form of the state of Israel. And if there is one thing that the descendants of the Biblical Ishmael hate more than each other it is the descendants of the Biblical Israel, and that feud has been going on a lot longer even than the beginning of Islam.

            The truth is that after the hugely expensive but ultimately indecisive wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the United States is close to bankruptcy, and we don’t have enough “blood and treasure” to waste chasing the ideal of peaceful coexistence of human beings anywhere but within our own borders. And that’s going to be hard enough in and of itself.

          • leelongchamp

            Al Qaida has not interest in Democracy nor does any Islamist
            group from any Muslim sect. I fought in
            Korea and am proud of our efforts and bringing South Korea into the 21st
            Century. Afghanistan is a waste and we
            should get out now. Yes war was a cause of
            us being broke, but the fact that under Obama our debt has gone from $10T ro
            $17T. not all of which went to Iraq or
            Afghanistan.

        • Texas Patriot

          LLC: “absolutely not, History will prove me right (I have taken this position for some time and events are proving me right.”

          What we did in Iraq is the rough equivalent of kicking an ant bed. Who would have thought that the ants would start devouring each other and everyone else around them?

        • hiernonymous

          “…the MB overthrew a government and in turn were replace [sic] with a secular government…”

          This is blatant spin, of course. The MB didn’t overthrow any government. One can perfectly reasonably make the case that Morsi overstepped his authority, and that the MB was trying to shape the new constitution to favor itself. What they were actually doing was something that needed to be noted and resisted, but it could have been resisted by legitimate methods. Spinning this as an overthrown government seems to be implicit acknowledgment that the coup was an overreaction.

          Carefully referring to a military coup as “replace[d] with a secular government” is also spin. The military dictatorship in Egypt was the underlying cause of its problems; seeing the democratically elected government – however one might disapprove of those who were elected – overthrown in a coup is not something to celebrate or approve. It’s hard to see how anyone’s “rights” have been restored under yet another general ruling under emergency order.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “What they were actually doing was something that needed to be noted and resisted, but it could have been resisted by legitimate methods.”

            Are you talking about Morsi’s opposition? What legitimacy did they need? What was the “legitimate” method of recall according to the Egyptian constitution?

            “Carefully referring to a military coup as “replace[d] with a secular government” is also spin. The military dictatorship in Egypt was the underlying cause of its problems; seeing the democratically elected government – however one might disapprove of those who were elected – overthrown in a coup is not something to celebrate or approve. It’s hard to see how anyone’s “rights” have been restored under yet another general ruling under emergency order.”

            There’s a lot of spin going on because people want to sort black from white when in reality there are mere shades of gray when discussing politics and movements. Some times that’s necessary to do (choosing sides) when one must decide who to support, but it’s better to remain clear about those decisions. It’s not Republicans vs. Democrats over there.

            The military might be part of the underlying problems, but at the same time they’re a stabilizing influence. My assessment is that Morsi absolutely had to go, but that doesn’t then convert anyone else in to saintly people.

            “…however one might disapprove of those who were elected – overthrown in a coup is not something to celebrate or approve. It’s hard to see how anyone’s “rights” have been restored under yet another general ruling under emergency order.”

            It’s nothing to celebrate, I’d agree. But a subtle golf clap might be in order for getting rid of Morsi and the MB. It remains to be seen if more clapping will be called for.

            As far as “rights” being restored, we don’t know about that either. I’ll just close by saying that I don’t see any downside at this point to what the military did, but the potential certainly exists for things to get worse than they appear now.

          • hiernonymous

            “What was the “legitimate” method of recall according to the Egyptian constitution?”

            The legitimate form of any sort of policy change in any democracy is at the ballot box in the next election. Protests are also legitimate. Coups are not.

            “The military might be part of the underlying problems, but at the same time they’re a stabilizing influence.”

            The pursuit of “stability” is how Egypt got into this mess in the first place. After three decades of rule by emergency decree, ‘stability’ could no longer be the primary objective.

            “My assessment is that Morsi absolutely had to go…”

            Why? On what timetable? What, exactly, do you think Morsi was going to accomplish that was both unacceptable and unanswerable at the ballot box? Political parties the world over use their time in power to attempt to cement their incumbency – witness the extent of gerrymandering in the U.S. – but that doesn’t justify resort to military dictatorship.

            “I’ll just close by saying that I don’t see any downside at this point to what the military did…”

            Apart from the return to the military government against which the whole Egyptian Revolution was conducted?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The legitimate form of any sort of policy change in any democracy is at the ballot box in the next election. Protests are also legitimate. Coups are not.”

            Was Egypt living under democracy? I don’t think people saw it that way. What constitution protected their rights to be represented? What ensured any elections would take place?

            Egypt lived through a “democratic (electoral) coup” or a self-destructing democracy. That’s what happens when you hold elections before establishing a constitution.

            If what Morsi engineered was a coup, then what?

            “The pursuit of “stability” is how Egypt got into this mess in the first place. After three decades of rule by emergency decree, ‘stability’ could no longer be the primary objective.”

            There are worse things than stability. Like I keep saying, these things are not what I’d wish for. I’m simply saying that I understand the reactions and don’t paint the “reactionaries” as the bad guys. Not in this case.

            “Why? On what timetable? What, exactly, do you think Morsi was going to accomplish that was both unacceptable and unanswerable at the ballot box?”

            It looked from here as if Morsi had created a sharia dictatorship through manipulation of the election process and the international institutions that are supposed to monitor these fledgling “democracies.”

            What timetable? That’s for Egyptians to determine, which they did. An election doesn’t sanctify any government that follows it as “democratic.” Only a constitution can do that. The constitution is what ensures the next election will happen, which is what ensures that the people are heard and empowered, which is what democracy is.

            “Apart from the return to the military government against which the whole Egyptian Revolution was conducted?”

            They want a do-over apparently. They should start with a constitution.

            And remember that the military cooperated with ousting Mubarak, so this seems to be as close to democracy as the Egyptians can manage. It’s not my choice. It’s just better than supporting Morsi. So far as I can tell today.

            Things could be so much worse. And in many places things are a lot worse.

          • hiernonymous

            “I don’t think people saw it that way.”

            On what basis do you say that?

            The government was unquestionably elected, and I don’t think there’s any serious dispute that the MB victory accurately represented the vote.

            Nothing Morsi had said or done suggested that there was not going to be a next election. You may recall that democracy in the independent United States predated the Constitution by several years, and there was considerable – and bitter – dispute over who should hold what powers under the Constitution. You’ll note that rather than employing military forces to ensure the desired outcome, the Founders wages political battle instead – such as publishing the Federalist.

            “It looked from here as if Morsi had created a sharia dictatorship…”

            Stuff and nonsense. It looked like nothing of the sort. Morsi exceeded his brief, but a dictatorship? Please.

            “What timetable? That’s for Egyptians to determine, which they did.”

            Well, no, they didn’t. The Egyptian Army did.

            “And remember that the military cooperated with ousting Mubarak…”

            What I remember is that the military allowed Mubarak to be ousted, then promptly stepped in and attempted to ensure that Tantawi, Suleiman, and the ‘supreme council’ retained effective control of the country. The lesson from that incident – and the current coup – is that any single personality is expendable, but military control of the state is not.

            “It’s just better than supporting Morsi.”

            In what way? Morsi outraged people when he employed even the slightest tactics of the decades-long military dictatorship. He cracked down on criticism in the press in a manner that approached but did not reach that under Mubarak or Nasser and was properly excoriated for it. What he did not do was employ mass detentions and torture to break the back of his political enemies. Nothing Morsi actually did begins to approach the abuses of the military regime – yet, apparently because it is the Muslim Brotherhood, it’s taken as an article of faith that whatever it did would be Bad.

            “Things could be so much worse. And in many places things are a lot worse.”

            No doubt. And? Things could be so much better, as well, and having lived in Egypt, I take a personal interest in hoping for – and advocating – the best possible outcome – and a return to dictatorship is a firm step in the wrong direction.

            And, frankly, if a dictatorship is the only possible next step, an Islamist dictatorship would have been preferable in the long run. Nothing pulls the teeth of religious fanatics like having to keep the streets clean and the bureaucracy paid. King Hussein understood that when he de-fanged his religious opposition by putting them in his cabinet. That said, Morsi was by no stretch of the imagination a dictator; he was a democratically elected president who clearly was trying to stack the constitutional process to favor his party, which, well, is pretty much how most democracies behave.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            On what basis do you say that?”

            http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/timeline-one-year-rule-egypt-s-morsy

            2012 –

            JUNE
            - 30: Morsy, elected with 51.7 percent of the vote, is sworn in, becoming Egypt’s first civilian and Islamist president.

            AUGUST
            - 12: Morsy scraps a constitutional document that gave sweeping powers to the military and sacks Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi who ruled after Hosni Mubarak’s ouster in February, 2011.

            NOVEMBER
            - 22: Morsy decrees sweeping new powers for himself.

            - 30: Islamist-dominated constituent assembly adopts a draft constitution despite boycott by liberals, Christians.

            DECEMBER
            - 8: Morsy annuls decree giving himself increased powers.

            - 15 and 22: 64 percent of voters in a two-round referendum back the new constitution.
            Egypt plunges into political crisis, with sometimes deadly demonstrations by Morsy supporters and opponents.

            – 2013 –

            JANUARY
            - 24: Violence between protesters and police on the eve of the second anniversary of the uprising that toppled Mubarak. Nearly 60 people die in a week.

            JUNE
            - 2: Egypt’s highest court invalidates the Islamist-dominated Senate, which assumed a legislative role when parliament was dissolved, and a panel that drafted the constitution.

            - 29: The Tamarod (“rebellion”) campaign which called rallies for June 30 says more than 22 million have signed a petition demanding Morsi’s resignation and a snap election.

            - 30: Huge numbers of Egyptians take to the streets nationwide determined to oust Morsy on the anniversary of his turbulent first year in power.
            - A military source tells AFP: “It is the biggest protest in Egypt’s history.”
            - The health ministry says at least 16 people die in nationwide protests.

            JULY
            - 1: Tamarod gives Morsi a day to quit or face civil disobedience.
            Egypt’s army warns that it will intervene if the people’s demands are not met within 48 hours.
            - Morsy’s office rebuffs the army’s ultimatum.

            - 2: Morsy holds talks with army chief General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.
            - Opposition groups choose dissident Mohamed ElBaradei to represent them in talks called for by the army.
            - Clashes between the rival sides leave 23 people dead, including 16 killed by gunmen at a Cairo rally supporting Morsy.

            - 3: As the army deadline passes, Morsi proposes a consensus government.
            - Army chief Sisi ousts Morsy, who is placed in detention, and declares the head of the Supreme Constitutional Court caretaker leader.
            - Morsy denounces the move as “a coup” and in a prerecorded speech says: “I am Egypt’s elected president.”
            - Police round up key Morsy aides and leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood.
            - Ten people are killed in clashes.

            - 4: Egypt’s chief justice Adly Mansour is sworn in as interim president.
            - Overnight clashes bring the overall casualty toll to around 57 dead.

          • hiernonymous

            You stopped the timeline too soon; you left out the weeks of protests, suppressed by increasingly violent means, of demonstrators demanding the return of the elected president.

            And, by the way, you might want to consider that perhaps the single most courageous – and pro-democratic – act by any of the players at any point was Morsi standing up to Tantawi.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You stopped the timeline too soon; you left out the weeks of protests, suppressed by increasingly violent means, of demonstrators demanding the return of the elected president.”

            Amend the timeline if you think it helps your case. Of course the jihadis were pissed.

            “And, by the way, you might want to consider that perhaps the single most courageous – and pro-democratic – act by any of the players at any point was Morsi standing up to Tantawi.”

            Morsi is a savvy politician. In the end he will be known by his works and results and not merely his words.

          • hiernonymous

            “Morsi is a savvy politician.”

            You think so?

            “In the end he will be known by his works and results and not merely his words.”

            Whatever you mean to imply by this, I’ll point out that standing up to Tantawi and retiring him was action, not simply words. I’m not particularly sympathetic to Morsi’s party, and I think he made many unnecessary gaffes, but that act took courage and was potentially the point at which Egypt could have broken the political ascendancy of the military.

            “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is a philosophy that has brought us to grief often enough that you’d think we’d stop falling for it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You think so?”

            I do. I think he understands Islam and Western politics and culture probably better than most any other prominent leader. certainly better than any other elected head of state. As far as his actions can be read here. He certainly knows how to play both sides but he was also entering uncharted territory in many ways.

            “Whatever you mean to imply by this, I’ll point out that standing up to Tantawi and retiring him was action, not simply words.”

            What I’m saying is that maybe in the future we’ll have a better idea, but maybe not. Right now it looks like a failure because he attempted to pull off something unprecedented and got his ultimate calculations wrong.

            “I’m not particularly sympathetic to Morsi’s party, and I think he made many unnecessary gaffes”

            From a purely secular perspective he looked like an idiot but he was trying to pull off sharia democracy, which doesn’t actually exist.

            “but that act took courage and was potentially the point at which Egypt could have broken the political ascendancy of the military.”

            I understand that you were impressed. If you consider it “pro democracy” I guess I’ll stipulate that I understand your point, but I am skeptical that he did it for the sake of democracy as we define it. He did it to increase his own power. And since he was elected, I guess we can say in theory that it was a step in the right direction. But then after his other moves it starts to look a little different from here.

            But all of the analysis changes if you see the MB as “largely secular” and victims of Egyptian military political manipulation.

            I understand where you’re coming from and how you arrived at those conclusions. As you know I’m a lot more skeptical about “Islamic democracy” not because I “hate” or “fear” “Muslims” but because organizing a government around the principals of sharia is contradictory to democracy, no matter how good anyone’s intentions are.

          • hiernonymous

            Nearly anything any politician does in a democracy is intended to increase his own power, from running for office, to gerrymandering his district, to soliciting funds, to dickering over the rules of order in his chamber. Trying to stack the deck is typical of all democracies. This is why I favor Przeworski’s functional definitions of democracy, as he points out that the essence of democracy is that any actor in any given policy fight can lose; it’s not necessary that they all have equal chances of winning.

            It’s not at all necessary to attribute to Morsi a love for or commitment to secular democracy to see his overthrow as a blow to secular democracy. Nor is it necessary to attribute his stand against Tantawi to a commitment to secular democracy to admire the courage it took, or to recognize its value for secular democracy.

            “…organizing a government around the principals of sharia is contradictory to democracy…”

            Rather by definition, any revealed religion is antithetical to the idea of democracy. One can’t really reconcile “the people are the ultimate source of legitimacy and authority” with “God is the ultimate source of legitimacy and authority.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Rather by definition, any revealed religion is antithetical to the idea of democracy.”

            Rather by definition, organizing a government strictly around the texts of any revealed religion is likely to be antithetical to the idea of democracy. Unless God revealed to that you must organize a secular constitutional democratic republic.

            “One can’t really reconcile “the people are the ultimate source of legitimacy and authority” with “God is the ultimate source of legitimacy and authority.””

            Very few Christians complain about the US constitution. But because a few do, I guess we’re not a democracy. But in any case, there is no conflict with the US constitution and any other religion, except for those religions that want to replace it.

            Maybe that should be an area of special focus? Religions that explicitly reject laws not found in its own texts…could be a problem?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Nearly anything any politician does in a democracy is intended to increase his own power, from running for office, to gerrymandering his district, to soliciting funds, to dickering over the rules of order in his chamber.”

            That’s generally true, but if it’s absolutely true why are you arguing that Morsi was courageous to do anything? He was simply playing the game.

            But I say that some times leaders come forward for objectives that are not purely self-centered. Some people are driven by ideals along with other materialistic or selfish motives.

            The US Constitution actually inspires many people to believe that it’s worth preserving not as a mere matter of self-interest but because of its ideals. Are you aware of this?

          • hiernonymous

            “That’s generally true, but if it’s absolutely true why are you arguing that Morsi was courageous to do anything? He was simply playing the game.”

            What makes you think it can’t require courage to “play the game?” Morsi took a real risk.

            “But I say that some times leaders come forward for objectives that are not purely self-centered.”

            That’s not inconsistent with what I said. Even the True Believers act to extend their own power and that of their party. Nothing I said suggests that the only motivation for doing so is some sort of personal lust for power.

            “The US Constitution actually inspires many people to believe that it’s worth preserving not as a mere matter of self-interest but because of its ideals. Are you aware of this?”

            Of course I’m aware of it; unlike some, I spent nearly my entire adult life personally dedicated to the protection of the Constitution, and it certainly wasn’t the fat paycheck that motivated me. It’s a rather odd question, though; as I noted, nothing about the behaviors I noted is confined to those motivated by power for power’s sake.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “What makes you think it can’t require courage to “play the game?” Morsi took a real risk.”

            According to you it must have been mere temptation of the “real reward.”

          • hiernonymous

            I’m sorry, I don’t follow the meaning of your comment. Could you put it another way?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That’s not inconsistent with what I said. Even the True Believers act to extend their own power and that of their party. Nothing I said suggests that the only motivation for doing so is some sort of personal lust for power.”

            Fair enough. You admire his courage, I admire his wiliness. Enough about the trivia.

            “Of course I’m aware of it; unlike some, I spent nearly my entire adult life personally dedicated to the protection of the Constitution, and it certainly wasn’t the fat paycheck that motivated me.”

            That’s an interesting comment by the time we harmonize all of your statements about yourself.

            “It’s a rather odd question, though; as I noted, nothing about the behaviors I noted is confined to those motivated by power for power’s sake.”

            I was referring to your dismissal of McCarthy as a source of writing that would lead you to evidence to analyse yourself, and perhaps even some of his own analysis might resonate with your own thoughts. Or you could take his publications and critique them, discredit him, and strike a blow for your cause.

            You claim that he’s biased as a prosecutor. Prosecutors are interested in law and order. They might be “biased” once committed to a certain direction that they’re then obligated to take up as partisan, but assuming that all prosecutors are biased in all of their analysis is a really dumb conclusion. Concluding that he’s biased because he’s employed might be just as dumb. Concluding that he’s biased because he, like me, believes that the US Constitution happens to be superior to all others as of this moment, does not make either of us unreliable for objective observations and analysis.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The government was unquestionably elected, and I don’t think there’s any serious dispute that the MB victory accurately represented the vote.”

            Any single election doesn’t sanctify anything the winner does after that. They’re usually bound by a constitution, at the very least. If not, they’ve used “democratic” elections as a mere gateway to dictatorship.

            I’m not saying that my perspective is the only one. I’m giving you the perspective of those who participated in and supported the coup.

            If mob rule counts as democracy, then the mobs reacted accordingly and it’s still a form of democracy. They held a “snap” election. I can think of 10,000 ways to improve on the situation, but I won’t cry for Morsi.

          • hiernonymous

            The ‘mobs’ didn’t overthrow Morsi. To date, the indications are that the military approached the secularists and suggested that if they could deliver a sufficiently large demonstration, the military would deliver a coup. That’s democracy in nobody’s conception.

            I don’t cry for Morsi, per se; I lament the opportunity to cement electoral processes as the means by which Egyptians defeat political opponents.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I lament the opportunity to cement electoral processes as the means by which Egyptians defeat political opponents.”

            Hopefully they’ve learned from this. We’ll see.

          • hiernonymous

            Why would you expect them to learn from it when you apparently haven’t? Or have you come to agree that the coup was wrong?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Why would you expect them to learn from it when you apparently haven’t? Or have you come to agree that the coup was wrong?”

            It wasn’t the best idea. It wasn’t something I supported, but neither do I condemn it yet because I think I understand why it happened. I’d be happiest if it never happened again. Coups are certainly not ideal and not my vision of democracy. My key point was the Egypt was a mere pseudo-democracy. I didn’t see it as trying to be legitimate and from their reactions, many in the Egyptian public didn’t see it as a legitimate democracy either.

            It was wrong. But so was Morsi. I hope for better things for Egyptians and all other people.

          • defcon 4

            A democracy of islam0nazis, isn’t.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “What I remember is that the military allowed Mubarak to be ousted, then promptly stepped in and attempted to ensure that Tantawi, Suleiman, and the ‘supreme council’ retained effective control of the country. The lesson from that incident – and the current coup – is that any single personality is expendable, but military control of the state is not.”

            I understand that. And many or possibly most Egyptians as far as we know accept that as a legitimate recall process because that’s the only one they know. Many want better, but aren’t willing to tolerate worse.

            It’s a mess. My only clear position is that Morsi was not helping anyone but the MB and their jihad.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “In what way? Morsi outraged people when he employed even the slightest tactics of the decades-long military dictatorship. He cracked down on criticism in the press in a manner that approached but did not reach that under Mubarak or Nasser and was properly excoriated for it. What he did not do was employ mass detentions and torture to break the back of his political enemies. Nothing Morsi actually did begins to approach the abuses of the military regime – yet, apparently because it is the Muslim Brotherhood, it’s taken as an article of faith that whatever it did would be Bad.”

            Basically most of the victims of military rule are MB. This is a war between MB and all others, and the military is simply the only strong player that can control them. I disagree with some of your analysis but I understand that you have different views about “political Islam” and you’re more willing to take victim narratives at face value than I am.

            Does the military like using the MB to justify itself? Maybe. Is there a way out of this choice between 2 evils? I don’t know. But it’s not through Morsi. Egypt has a better chance under the military, especially if they keep their promises as they did before.

            We could have possibly done more to help Egypt become more democratic during the cold war and early post cold war years. Clinton was extremely naive about jihad. The Bushes didn’t really have as much opportunity. Reagan was busy too.

            What else can I say? History unfolds slowly some times. We need patience with Egypt right now.

          • hiernonymous

            “Basically most of the victims of military rule are MB. This is a war between MB and all others…”

            That must have come as a surprise to Ayman Nur.

            “Egypt has a better chance under the military…”

            You keep saying that, but in reality, we have the real abuses of the military, and only the imagined abuses you fear from the MB.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “…and only the imagined abuses you fear from the MB.”

            It’s all my imagination. I’m sure Morsi was a great guy, and much better for the people than the evil military rulers.

            Go and convince the Egyptians.

          • hiernonymous

            What makes you think they need convincing? I don’t know about Morsi being a great guy, but there’s no shortage of Egyptians who believe he was better than the evil military rulers.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Go and convince the non-MB Egyptians.

            Or wait and see if another election is organized. Then we’ll have more to analyze.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That must have come as a surprise to Ayman Nur.”

            Ask him. It probably would not surprise him but maybe he’s naive.

          • hiernonymous

            How, exactly, does he fit into your two-actor vision of Egypt’s politics?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            My vision is that the military coup that overthrew the last “king” had one primary sustained challenger; the Muslim Brotherhood.

            The regime used the MB to justify it’s stranglehold on power. Others lost too, but it was MB activities that provided justification and pretext for much of what the regime did.

            Does that answer your question?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “And, frankly, if a dictatorship is the only possible next step, an Islamist dictatorship would have been preferable in the long run. Nothing pulls the teeth of religious fanatics like having to keep the streets clean and the bureaucracy paid.”

            Right. So they can focus their jihad on external enemies. Guess who that is?

          • hiernonymous

            Given that the Egyptian MB pursues jihad only in Pipesian caricatures, I couldn’t begin to guess who. Nothing the MB has done indicates that its desire for political power in Egypt has anything to do with engaging in holy war.

            That said, I’m not in the least interested in yet another round of “The Muslims are Coming!” Knock yourself out on that one.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Given that the Egyptian MB pursues jihad only in Pipesian caricatures, I couldn’t begin to guess who. Nothing the MB has done indicates that its desire for political power in Egypt has anything to do with engaging in holy war.”

            It’s not clear what each person intended, but most MB constituents are interested in a new caliph. That’s the concern.

            It’s funny that I seem to recall you advocating us in the West promoting secular constitutional democracy. Do I have that right? But sharia is no problem? Hmm.

            Maybe my memory is failing me again.

          • hiernonymous

            I do advocate secular democracy. I’m no fan of the MB or its agenda – but then, I wasn’t a fan of the Moral Majority.

            I don’t think “most MB constituents” could care less about a caliph or a caliphate, which is a different concern from the U.S. being a target of some sort of jihad.

            As for imposing shari’a (a third issue, distinct from the caliphate or jihad), I’m no fan. But the coup in Egypt actively undermined the democratic process. You can’t promote secular constitutional democracy by supporting coups d’etat. The cure is decidedly worse than the disease. It’s not your memory that’s failing you, but your application of the concept to the situation.

            And, as a matter of tactics, again I point out that the fastest way to discredit religious government is to put its advocates in charge.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I do advocate secular democracy. I’m no fan of the MB or its agenda – but then, I wasn’t a fan of the Moral Majority.”

            So saying that you’re “no fan” is practically meaningless if you oppose both MB and MM on the same basis. You wouldn’t vote for either but you think they’re more or less the same thing.

            The MB rejects our constitution. The MM as far as I know reveres the US constitution, but (I guess) finds that organizing around Christian morality is consistent with our laws. It’s hard to argue with that point given how many Christians were involved in the founding of our nation. Not only that but it would be more accurate to describe them as a political action group rather than a party that tried to win election with their own candidates.

            So, no totalitarian agenda, no religious law…unless you think “though shall not kill” has only a religious basis.

            Any religious group that is clearly in favor of following the constitution should be welcomed. Groups that specifically attack our constitution as infidel should not be. You lumping them together could lead someone to question your integrity. They don’t have much in common. I’d sure like to know if you have any evidence that they ever planned anything subversive to our constitution. But I think I know the answer.

          • hiernonymous

            “You lumping them together could lead someone to question your integrity.”

            And my patriotism, sanity, and personal hygiene, no doubt. What drivel.

            “I’d sure like to know if you have any evidence that they ever planned anything subversive to our constitution.”

            I don’t have any evidence that either group has planned anything subversive to our Constitution.

            “The MB rejects our constitution.”

            As our constitution doesn’t apply to Egypt, their position on the Constitution is moot. They’ve certainly not indicated that they intend to attack or change our Constitution.

            “So saying that you’re “no fan” is practically meaningless if you oppose both MB and MM on the same basis.”

            Why is that? In both cases, the groups suggest that revealed truth is the proper basis for the rules and laws under which we should live. Both seem (well, seemed – the MM is defunct, but its spiritual descendants live on) committed to using lawful and peaceful means to extending that influence. Those seem to be pretty significant points of congruence.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Why is that? In both cases, the groups suggest that revealed truth is the proper basis for the rules and laws under which we should live.”

            The MM believes in our constitution as it is, the MB wants to overthrow it.

            The MM believes (or believed when they existed) in the established separation of church and state and rejects those who call for additional “separation” like throwing out traditional signs, statues and so forth. They’re not trying to change anything other than laws on abortion, which hardly threatens rule of law or the US Constitution.

            There is not one member if the MM that you will find who would claim that the US Constitution does not apply to them.

            Now as to the MB, even you admit that they want to create a constitution that is not merely compatible with sharia, but entirely based on sharia. Sharia demands integration of faith and government.

            That alone is reason enough to question how you can present that pair is roughly parallel, or at the very least you should have qualified your statement to show you understand important distinctions. But you actually deny the distinctions.

            As to why this matters in Egypt is that the MB is a transnational movement that is not at all interested in limiting their influence to a single nation. Egypt is simply their home base or origin. The MB is very interested in the Egyptian constitution and the American one as well.

          • hiernonymous

            “…the MB is a transnational movement…”

            It is far more accurate to say that there are offshoots of the MB in other countries that have gone their own way – which is precisely why I am commenting on the Egyptian Muslim Brothers, which are a distinct organization from the Syrian MB, etc.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It is far more accurate to say that there are offshoots of the MB in other countries that have gone their own way – which is precisely why I am commenting on the Egyptian Muslim Brothers, which are a distinct organization from the Syrian MB, etc.”

            Kentucky Fried Chicken has distinct franchise operators in various states and various nations, but most of the menu is shared. The MB is not out to profit from selling pressure-cooked chicken.

          • hiernonymous

            “The MB is not out to profit from selling pressure-cooked chicken.”

            What do you understand the relationship of the MB in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and the Sudan to be? Who is the MB equivalent of David Novak, and where is the MB equivalent of Louisville?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m guessing it would be Mohamed Badie as far as the public is concerned. Behind the scenes we don’t really know. Do you?

            The MB is not a publicly held corporation looking for investors and does not submit to rule of law other than sharia, so their disclosure methods are not quite so open. And it’s based on ideology for the most part, so even within the organization there might be some contention about who is leading what, because there is no central authority to work out every dispute (yes they have protocols but it’s not strictly coherent).

          • hiernonymous

            Muhammad Badie is the supreme guide of the Egyptian MB. Do you have some reason or evidence for believing his authority extends beyond Egypt? When you invoked the KFC analogy, presumably you intended to imply a unity of direction and purpose and the existence of an analogue to the corporate headquarters. I’m curious if you have some reason to make such an analogy, or if it’s simply conjecture on your part.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “When you invoked the KFC analogy, presumably you intended to imply a unity of direction and purpose and the existence of an analogue to the corporate headquarters.”

            I don’t know of any (global) “corporate headquarters” because the MB is not engaged in the exact same enterprise. It’s not in their interests to disclose every aspect of their operations. Just like the 11 herbs and spices are “secret” so are many aspects of MB. And the MB also has a higher need to keep those secrets than a publicly held corporation selling chicken.

            How about if KFC were owned by the Sicilian Mafia? Is that a better analogy?

            But at its core, there is unity of purpose; to sell pressure-cooked religion and to monopolize each market segment in a systematic manner. We don’t know how much freedom franchise operators have. There are lots of details about the “KFC Mafia” that we may never hear about.

          • hiernonymous

            We actually know a pretty fair amount about how the mafias function and are organized. So far, you’ve presented exactly nothing to suggest that there is an international governing or coordinating body, or that the various MB organizations share anything more than a common origin.

            “But at its core, there is unity of purpose; to sell pressure-cooked religion and to monopolize each market segment in a systematic manner.”

            Absent coordination or control, there’s no unity of purpose. When we talk about the Taliban, we can discuss specific shura councils and how Pakistani and Afghani Talibans coordinate; we can do the same for AQ and its affiliates; yet, somehow, we can’t seem to begin to describe, even in the vaguest terms, how these various MB offshoots are supposed to be a transnational organization with unity of purpose.

            There’s probably no point in pursuing this further until you have some idea of what this organization is supposed to look like and have some credible evidence for its operation.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “We actually know a pretty fair amount about how the mafias function and are organized. So far, you’ve presented exactly nothing to suggest that there is an international governing or coordinating body, or that the various MB organizations share anything more than a common origin.”

            After many decades of international investigations prosecutions, yeah. And who knows what would have happened if they had established a religion first and hid behind that?

            “There’s probably no point in pursuing this further until you have some idea of what this organization is supposed to look like and have some credible evidence for its operation.”

            These aren’t the droids you’re looking for, eh? Whatever.

            http://www.amazon.com/Willful-Blindness-A-Memoir-Jihad/dp/B0096JF6FA

            http://www.clarionproject.org/category/tags/holy-land-foundation

            Just a bunch of xenophobes…

          • hiernonymous

            “After many decades of international investigations prosecutions, yeah. And who knows what would have happened if they had established a religion first and hid behind that?”

            Easy enough to answer – there’s also a pretty good idea of how Scientology is organized and operates.

            “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for, eh? Whatever.”

            The KKK started comprised largely white Southern conservatives. When it was founded, and for its first century of existence, this meant that the party affiliation of its membership was largely Democrat. After the great shift of the mid-late 20th century, white Southern conservatives by and large abandoned the Democratic Party for the Republican. It’s a pretty fair bet that the bulk of KKK members today are likely affiliated with the Republican Party.

            Why do I bring this up? Because by your logic, this would imply that the Republican Party, having members in common with the KKK, and in the broadest senses a unity of purpose, is somehow responsible for the racist activities of the KKK. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course; it’s perfectly normal for legitimate political organizations to have a high degree of overlapping membership with members of fringe groups. Correlation is not causation; membership overlap is natural, not an indictment of the more general organization. If that example offends you, one could make the same sort of argument concerning the ELF; its membership is more likely toward the left of the political spectrum, and it’s likely that there are many more members of ELF who belong to the Democratic Party than to the Republican. Again, this doesn’t in any way suggest that the Democratic Party is affiliated with eco-terrorism – but it would, by the logic you’re trying to apply to the MB.

            “Just a bunch of xenophobes…”

            I won’t argue with you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Easy enough to answer – there’s also a pretty good idea of how Scientology is organized and operates.”

            Evidently you missed the point.

            “The KKK started comprised largely white Southern conservatives. When it was founded, and for its first century of existence, this meant that the party affiliation of its membership was largely Democrat. After the great shift of the mid-late 20th century, white Southern conservatives by and large abandoned the Democratic Party for the Republican. It’s a pretty fair bet that the bulk of KKK members today are likely affiliated with the Republican Party.”

            I doubt that. But the fundamental shift came from a shift in the laws and a shift in what racists could get away with. The racists are still primarily associated with the Democratic Party but they have to change how they are perceived if they want to be successful after the change in laws and attitudes.

            As far as KKK members go, I suppose a garden variety racist would be more attracted to an agenda that advocates strong borders and enforcement of the law than to the opposite agenda.

            But what does this really tell us about the MB and plausibility of my theories? The MB chose to have a stealth approach to violent jihad, just as Democratic Party racists had to go underground. They didn’t just go and change parties or beliefs. They changed strategies and that includes painting the other party as the “true” racists.

            See, for your analogy to really work you have to show that your superficial assessment (Democrats were racists, now Republicans are racists) as a valid paradigm. I’m saying it’s BS and deliberately simplified in order to push a specific illicit agenda.

            Therefore in the end it was a useful example to understand what the MB has done vis-a-vis violent jihad.

          • hiernonymous

            “But what does this really tell us about the MB and plausibility of my theories?”

            It tells us that membership overlap doesn’t imply what you seem to be implying it means.

            “I’m saying it’s BS…”

            Yes, of course you are. A glance at voting patterns and results in the South over a period of 4 decades suggests, though, that in order for your explanation to obtain, there’d have had to have been some pretty bizarre demographic shifts that run counter to what we know. Most simply, if you look at detailed breakdowns of voting patters, during the shift from Democratic to Repubican dominance in the overall South, you see major urban centers and black-majority districts consistently voting Democratics, while the districts previously dominated by white Southern conservatives were suddenly and consistently voting Republican. That’s consistent with the traditional view of the great party shift, but not with your odd vision of the white conservatives remaining Democratic but “changing tactics.”

            “Therefore in the end it was a useful example to understand what the MB has done vis-a-vis violent jihad.”

            It’s useful to understand the tortured logic of conspiracy theories, at any rate.

            So far, evidence of MB support for violent jihad that you’ve presented: none.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It tells us that membership overlap doesn’t imply what you seem to be implying it means.”

            Which is what specifically? I’ve been pretty specific but these passages are long and maybe you’ve missed key points. What do you infer specifically that you object to?

          • hiernonymous

            You seem to be implying an unspecified degree of MB approval of, support for, and complicity in AQ operations. If you don’t feel that captures your feelings, this would be an excellent opportunity to spell out precisely what you mean.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You seem to be implying an unspecified degree of MB approval of, support for, and complicity in AQ operations.”

            I’m saying explicitly that the evidence that does exist is sufficient for further serious investigation. Which is opposed by most people in power. Not only the connections (whatever they are) with AQ but all of the networks operating in the USA and running counter to our interests abroad.

          • hiernonymous

            “I’m saying explicitly that the evidence that does exist is sufficient for further serious investigation.”

            Evidence of what? I’m not sure what makes you think the MB isn’t already subject to scrutiny and investigation, so let’s be clear: what, exactly, do you believe the evidence you have supports by way of conclusion?

            Was my interpretation of your comments incorrect? Do you not imply MB approval of, support for, and complicity in AQ operations?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Evidence of what? I’m not sure what makes you think the MB isn’t already subject to scrutiny and investigation, so let’s be clear: what, exactly, do you believe the evidence you have supports by way of conclusion? ”

            That AQ and similar movements are not some anomalous fringe movement(s) but have broad support from supposedly “secular” Islamic organizations, some of which operate here in the USA and in many cases receive direct support from our naive Western politicians.

          • hiernonymous

            Okay, so my characterization of your comments was accurate.

            So where does that leave us? For starters, we have a very large and active military and non-military intelligence community dedicated primarily to identifying where and how AQ gets its support. It beggars belief that this community would engage AQ and its supporters so persistently and violently as it has everywhere in the world, but for political reasons that you haven’t specified, hesitates to look too closely at the MB.

            Stuff and nonsense. The Holy Land case is actually a pretty good example of how fanatically we do pursue anything that remotely smells like support for terrorism. In the Holy Land case, the issue is fiscal support for Hamas. This is a pretty intricate issue, because, as you’ll recall, Hamas won a legitimate election for leadership of the Palestinian Authority. Hamas has conducted and, for all I know, still conducts, terrorist operations in Israel. I wouldn’t dispute that. But Hamas is not simply a terrorist organization; it is also a legitimate political movement and, for a period at least, a government. This is significant in that it was a matter of strongest policy dispute in both the U.S. and Israel to decide whether the aid which both were obligated to provide the Palestinians to keep its government functioning should be continued or not. Providing money to Hamas in that timeframe was not simply indicative of support for terrorism, as the McCarthys would assert. Bottom line: a relatively innocuous fund supporting an organization that had many legitimate functions was investigated and conluded, in the U.S., in the most unfavorable light possible. My point is not to dispute that finding, but to show that it disputes your contention that the MB is somehow not properly and fully scrutinized.

            Bottom line: our DNI doesn’t agree with your characterizations; our DoS doesn’t agree; and we’ve clearly had no lack of investigation.

            That doesn’t prove that the MB hasn’t done anything wrong; what it does suggest is that you need something far more concrete than anything you’ve offered to level accusations. Again, what you’re engaging in is simply innuendo.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “For starters, we have a very large and active military and non-military intelligence community dedicated primarily to identifying where and how AQ gets its support. It beggars belief that this community would engage AQ and its supporters so persistently and violently as it has everywhere in the world, but for political reasons that you haven’t specified, hesitates to look too closely at the MB.”

            They are aware. They are following different theories of law and order that are largely influenced by Marxism. The Muslims are oppressed victims. Rather than “further oppress” (prosecute law breakers and threats to our security) them, we must empower them through the political process. That’s from POTUS on down to every institution he controls.

            They KNOW the MB is involved but they believe exactly as you do that it’s all about grievances and so forth. They live so much in the “victim narratives” that they forget to examine which ones are true, and to assign relevance. They simply believe that past injustices (and even present day injustices against us) are less relevant than their plans to engineer the future society by “solving” these problems that are derived from Marxist theories.

            They’re freaking collectivists that are applying principals of “social justice” rather and the US Constitution. It’s just that people don’t realize social justice is in almost every way other supra constitutional or anti-constitutional in the USA.

            That’s why it is so important talking about ideology and POTUS background and connections. He comes form 2 incompatible worlds. That alone doesn’t make him unqualified, but when he tries to “transform” anything in an unconstitutional manner, or with unconstitutional results, it helps to explain the entire picture.

            But folks bring out charges of racism and xenophobia long before they even comprehend the entire related narratives.

            The short version is that Bush was duped by savvy Saudis and should have woken up. It didn’t look that radical then when 0′Bama began to embrace groups like the MB, but it is very radical when we look at the known evidence.

            That’s why the true salient in America today is not about whether or not “the Muslims are coming” but whether or not we can accept and thrive after being transformed by Marxist thinkers (by that I might those are accept uncritically ideas and theories promoted by Marx) who are depending on Marx’s theories to “build a better tomorrow.” They might be sincere and they might consider themselves true patriots, but as collectivists, they are enemies of our constitution even if they are not aware of this conflict. No matter how nice their rhetoric sounds. Now that they have so much power, the deadly consequences of these incompatibilities are starting to become apparent. And a lot of it has crossed the threshold of legality. And the victories of the collectivists are built largely on deception and propaganda that begins with grade school children, through textbooks and unionized teachers.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Bottom line: a relatively innocuous fund supporting an organization that had many legitimate functions was investigated and conluded, in the U.S., in the most unfavorable light possible. My point is not to dispute that finding, but to show that it disputes your contention that the MB is somehow not properly and fully scrutinized.”

            They were scrutinized and under different leadership would not have been invited in to the halls of power so easily before 2009. We do take it seriously, but some in power have decided for a different approach in the last few years. And Bush was not that aggressive because he didn’t want the “War on Terror” to appear to be a “War on Islam.”

            The Republicans were treading lightly but taking it relatively seriously and the Democrats are embracing them as comrades.

            It’s part of what “transformation” means in Washington DC.

          • hiernonymous

            “They were scrutinized and under different leadership would not have been invited in to the halls of power so easily before 2009.”

            By whom? The MB was elected in Egyptian elections. Are you under the impression Morsi became president because he was selected or approved for the position by a U.S. administration? Or did you mean something entirely different here?

            “And Bush was not that aggressive because he didn’t want the “War on Terror” to appear to be a “War on Islam.””

            Huh? The Bush administration pushed hard for constitutional reform in the immediate wake of the Iraq War, but when it became clear that we’d botched that mission and were in deep kimchi, the pressure came off and Bush enlisted Mubarak as an ally in our Iraq entanglement. At that point, the military and intelligence communities had exactly no reason to “tread lightly” in re the MB – Mubarak wanted to suppress them, and we wanted to cultivate Mubarak. That we could not find a credible excuse to do so speaks volumes.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Are you under the impression Morsi became president because he was selected or approved for the position by a U.S. administration? Or did you mean something entirely different here?”

            That’s not what I said. No wonder you see false conspiracy theories everywhere. You help propagate them.

            The Cairo speech, “A New Beginning” certainly was delivered in circumstances that promoted the idea that the Muslim Brotherhood could hope to become a mainstream political party with full recognition by America. We don’t even know what happened behind the scenes but in the public spaces we can see that 0′Bama was indeed reaching out to them actively.

            “Huh?”

            What’s confusing about that statement you’re responding to?

            “The Bush administration pushed hard for constitutional reform in the immediate wake of the Iraq War, but when it became clear that we’d botched that mission and were in deep kimchi, the pressure came off and Bush enlisted Mubarak as an ally in our Iraq entanglement.”

            You seem to be implying that Bush would have pushed Mubarak to include the MB. It’s possible that he would have. But the way in which 0′Bama handled the entire sequence of events favored the MB above all other groups in Egypt. Certainly Bush would not have turned on Mubarak so acutely and publicly.

            I do think Bush would have of course pushed Mubarak, but towards a constitutional democracy that more closely mirrored our values. That alone would have made it more difficult for the MB to pull some of their nonsense.

            But that’s neither here nor there. Bush did not go to Cairo and basically tell everyone that America wants to reset everything we said and that only arrogance led us to push our values on to others. If you think he can talk like that to the public and not send special messages to certain favored parties, you’re a rube.

            And it’s not even clear that you’re following the narratives clearly. But you think that the Moral Majority (political action group active only in America where Christians wrote most of the early founding documents) and the Muslim Brotherhood operating internationally are more or less the same thing with the same agenda for America. Somehow the MB in Egypt cherishes sharia as their constitution but the MB here in America worships our constitution.

            That alone tells me quite about about what to expect from your analysis. You are extremely partisan, and not in favor of the US constitution as a quasi-sacred document. I can infer that you think multiculturalism is progressive. And that progressive in this context is a good thing.

            This is why I say that you are not patriotic to the US Constitution as it exists, no matter what you pledged. You’re patriotic to your own ideals. You are patriotic to YOUR American dream, not “The American Dream.”

            You’re patriotic to what you hope America will become for the sake of your ancestors and probably because you hope you can claim some personal credit for being “on the right side of history.”

            You’re a typical progressive in many ways. That’s not an insult. But progressives are largely deluded about reality. It’s a requirement. They are idealists that will be less effective if they pay too much attention to reality. They care more about effectiveness than they do about being right in any objective sense.

            You’re intensely interested in being right about supporting your narratives and then simply attacking anything that conflicts with your worldviews. The way that you treat religions as more or less fungible is the most blatant tell you have.

            Before you blow your stack and react emotionally, please consider if there’s anything I’ve said that might be useful in your search for objective truths. Because you might be more useful for mankind if you become more grounded in the full scope of observable reality.

            Best example: For you the Muslim Brotherhood is more complicated and salient narratives are more nuanced than the entire history of Christianity. Because that is what it takes to hold your worldviews together. You have to make “Christians” an artificially amplified threat in order to counter the legitimate concerns people raise with Islam and compatibility with the West.

            In your future multicultural global government it will all be rectified. I’m sure. Focus too much on salient history, the wrong history, and your worldview might fall apart. Then you’ll lose focus on progress towards our Utopian future.

          • hiernonymous

            “Huh?”

            What’s confusing about that statement you’re responding to?

            Its incompleteness and failure to account for key elements of the U.S. approach to Egyptian policy during that time frame, which I discussed immediately afterward.

            “Are you under the impression Morsi became president because he was selected or approved for the position by a U.S. administration? Or did you mean something entirely different here?”

            That’s not what I said. No wonder you see false conspiracy theories everywhere. You help propagate them.

            The last sentence in my comment that you quoted very explicitly noted that I was unsure if my comment accurately captured what you were trying to say, and asked for clarification. If that’s not what you said, then the question “or did you mean something completely different” provided you an excellent opportunity to clarify what you meant.

            Instead, we get another meandering and rather bizarre metaconversational diatribe on patriotism, etc.

            “Before you blow your stack and react emotionally…”

            No worries. The only emotional response this inspired was mild curiosity concerning how a discussion of the last administration’s handling of the MB inspired a lengthy diatribe on your perceptions and misperceptions concerning the nature and shortcomings of my worldview and patriotism, but no matter. One trusts you found it therapeutic.

            “Best example: For you the Muslim Brotherhood is more complicated and salient narratives are more nuanced than the entire history of Christianity.”

            If that’s your best example, it’s a pretty good indication that your flailing. Of course, nothing I’ve written suggests any such thing.

            “You’re a typical progressive in many ways. That’s not an insult. But progressives are largely deluded about reality. It’s a requirement.”

            And you presumably recognize the same tired informal fallacies. It’s this sort of banality that drives me to implore you to stick to the topic and not veer into the metaconversation. Far be it from me to suggest that you’ve ignored your own advice about responding emotionally, but, well, the emotional content of this last post was distastefully high. Perhaps we need to take a break while you refocus. Regards.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “And you presumably recognize the same tired informal fallacies.”

            We’re going in circles because rather than trying to test the developing theories rationally you kick the pieces apart before trying to assemble them coherently. You’re like a kid that kicks at a complex jigsaw puzzle to prove that the whole project can’t ever work. Keep kicking it and you’ll never see how all the pieces fit together, or not.

            I’m just trying to figure out why you do that. Why not patiently make a good faith effort to assemble the puzzle first before you start to tear down the coherent product? It might be less coherent or incoherent to you because of your habits.

            Consider that.

          • hiernonymous

            You can’t construct a sound argument out of flawed components.

            “We’re going in circles because rather than trying to test the developing theories rationally you kick the pieces apart before trying to assemble them coherently.”

            It’s not clear what this bit of vagueness is even supposed to mean. If you have an argument to make, make it. It must withstand two kinds of scrutiny: its overall structure must be sound, and its components must be accurate. A failure in either is a fatal flaw.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You can’t construct a sound argument out of flawed components.”

            You reject the components prematurely as not fitting, not relevant, not possible etc. all before you should even be certain you’re qualified. You often completely mischaracterize the “component” as you reject it.

            It’s a clear agenda that you have to destroy the structure before understanding it, whether or not you truly understand some or any of the components.

          • hiernonymous

            Five posts back, I explicitly invited your clarification of one of these components, and you’ve spent the ensuing time, not clarifying your point, but discussing shortcomings in my patriotism, politics, understanding, and debating style.

            “You often completely mischaracterize the “component” as you reject it.”

            If you see that as a bad thing, this conversation has not been a total waste. Still, it would be better if you remembered that I am not the subject of the conversation. Unless, of coure, that is the structure I’m failing to understand…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Evidence of what? I’m not sure what makes you think the MB isn’t already subject to scrutiny and investigation, so let’s be clear: what, exactly, do you believe the evidence you have supports by way of conclusion?”

            http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3672/muslim-brotherhood-us-government

            And in response:

            http://www.minnpost.com/dc-dispatches/2012/07/bachmann-investigate-reach-muslim-brotherhood

            http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/07/rep-gohmert-pleads-for-media-investigation-into-muslim-130242.html

            How did that work out?

          • hiernonymous

            Ah, the Huma Abedin story. She has relatives with MB affiliation; therefore, the MB has penetrated the U.S. government.

            What raving paranoia.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It’s raving paranoia to dissect each element and attack it in an empty vacuum absent of context.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “A glance at voting patterns and results in the South over a period of 4 decades suggests, though, that in order for your explanation to obtain, there’d have had to have been some pretty bizarre demographic shifts that run counter to what we know.”

            Racism is not the single driving factor for joining 1 or 2 major political parties. Come on now. Those that shifted to the Republicans probably are anti-federalist. That was the big change. Democrats in some cases simply supported stronger state rights, and then when the Democrats pivoted to using the federal government to manage their racism, it meant supporting big government. Most racism is more akin to paternalism than to what we see acted out in the KKK in popular history books. Trying to use the KKK to smear the modern Republican Party is weak at best.

            There are all kinds of plausible alternative theories to yours. Most of them make a lot more sense than the one you suggest, which also happens to feature in numerous leftist talking points smear campaigns.

            “…there’d have had to have been some pretty bizarre demographic shifts that run counter to what we know…”

            It’s just amazing how YOUR suspicions become knowledge and anything counter to your faith is viewed with extreme skepticism.

          • hiernonymous

            “Those that shifted to the Republicans probably are anti-federalist.”

            That’s probably true. And, just as was the case in the Civil War, that anti-federalism had a primary single manifestation; there was one primary issue on which the Federal government was making itself an irritant.

            I’m not sure how old you are, but I’m old enough to remember fights over school integration, etc. The racial issues absolutely dominated federal-state relations during that time-frame.

            I’m not really interested in trying to fence about “which party is more racist.” I’m not a member of either party, and there’s probably a reasonable argument that many of the left’s approaches to race are insidiously racist, or at least racist in outcome. That’s not really the point. The issue here is the degree to which one can lay responsibility for the actions of violent fringe groups on the larger pools from which their membership is drawn. I believe I offered you the example of the ELF, if you found the KKK-Republican link too distasteful or controversial for your taste. Bottom line: the MB represents a very broad and inclusive political movement based on religious conservatism; it is only natural that those who would be attracted to violent religious extremism would be more likely to originate in that pool than in, say, an urban secular elite. That doesn’t imply anything about the pool’s or the larger organization’s propensity for or support of violence.

            “It’s just amazing how YOUR suspicions become knowledge and anything counter to your faith is viewed with extreme skepticism.”

            It’s pretty straightforward demographics; your interpretation is simply not consistent with the actual detailed district results. WHen I say that there’d have to have been some pretty bizarre demographic shifts, I mean that precisely: you’d have to show that counties that had been overwhelmingly black had, somehow, become bastions of white Southern conservatives, and vice versa. There’s nothing in the record to suggest any such thing – and, in fact, it would have to happen for just a few months every few years and reverse itself in order to remain consistent with both voting patterns and census results. Not sure where you read ‘faith’ into that.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That’s probably true. And, just as was the case in the Civil War, that anti-federalism had a primary single manifestation; there was one primary issue on which the Federal government was making itself an irritant.”

            I’ll stipulate that it was the most salient issue. But you should also concede that the fed shifted from being the irritant to the biggest opportunity for the next best way to employ paternalistic doctrines and policies. They lost a battle front, but didn’t give up the war. The front shifted and so the tactics also had to shift.

            From another angle, what in the heck makes you think that the Republican Party suddenly became more attractive to the racists other than they’re pre-existing law and order positions? Why would racists want to shrink the government that controlled civil rights legislation rather than trying to steer it, even after they lost the greatest battle against it?

            “I’m not sure how old you are, but I’m old enough to remember fights over school integration, etc. The racial issues absolutely dominated federal-state relations during that time-frame.”

            That’s not being disputed. The question is which suggestion makes more sense, yours that racists suddenly want to run to the north pole because the south pole dissapointed them, or that they shifted tactics and the lunatic fringe abandoned the party of paternalistic racism because they didn’t agree with the softer strategy, or more likely didn’t understand it?

            Maniacal racists aren’t for the most part known for being too sophisticated in their thinking abilities.

            “The issue here is the degree to which one can lay responsibility for the actions of violent fringe groups on the larger pools from which their membership is drawn.”

            But I already agreed with you that it takes more than mere association. It takes evidence. But you should not justify ignore the evidence and accusing people of making faulty guilt-by-association accusations.

            And I expanded on it because your simple suggestion might have even been a good example of a bogus cover story that plays out well in the minds of some.

            There’s strong evidence that the DP is racist. Some might argue it’s irrefutable. But we must fight each battle as they come along. It’s difficult to fight an entire party even if you can reasonably come to a conclusion that after all requires more subjective analysis than anything else. And it all boils down to one’s reading of the constitution. Does our constitution guarantee equality under the law, or equality of standing and results (egalitarianism)? Because many of the DP positions are about collectivism and theories about victim classes. Racism features strongly in those theories. But it’s deemed acceptable racism because it’s “anti-racism” if such a thing could exist.

            But to summarized the key to all of this; it gets complicated and we can’t follow every accusation, even with evidence, unless that evidence points to lawbreaking. There are a few examples of lawbreakers on the DP but I don’t consider that a party conspiracy. There is evidence that the MB is a party that is conspiring to attack our constitution and civilization against our interests and using deception to cover it up. And it rises to the level of calling for serious investigations. Politicians seem to be interfering with this process at nearly every level of government, most of them from the party of paternalistic racism. But Republicans are definitely dependent on Muslim votes and OPEC funding too. So most of them are not taking the altruistic and courageous route either.

            It has to come from grass roots demands. Voters have to spend time investigating rather than taking the word of this guy or that hack writer from within their own favorite echo chamber.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It’s pretty straightforward demographics; your interpretation is simply not consistent with the actual detailed district results.”

            It’s not consistent with your analysis of…

            “WHen I say that there’d have to have been some pretty bizarre demographic shifts, I mean that precisely: you’d have to show that counties that had been overwhelmingly black had, somehow, become bastions of white Southern conservatives, and vice versa.”

            Whites were often perceived as being racists no matter what their reasons for supporting states rights. And as I said, it’s possible for racists to think that the Republicans would be the best bet if they believed the new salient for the “race wars” shifted to the border. Those are your typical KKK members or true racists who really object to skin color and loose borders on the basis of xenophobia rather than having a more sophisticated understanding of sovereignty and culture.

            It’s a lot more complicated than trying to figure out why a political party would renounce violence in order to appeal to a broader constituency, because that’s not unprecedented. And when an offspring group crops up to fill the apparently abandoned void, you have to look at the relationship and see what investigations are called for. It could be a truly discrete split, it could be purely for PR, or it could be something in between. I think it’s something in the middle.

          • hiernonymous

            “It’s a lot more complicated than trying to figure out why a political party would renounce violence in order to appeal to a broader constituency…”

            No, it’s not, not really. It’s all a matter of how deeply you really want to try to understand the issues. For example, your generalization of the MB as a political party that renounced violence in order to appeal to a broader constituency is full of unsupported assumption and assertion. It’s ‘simple’ if you ‘simply’ accept your characterization of their motivations, and if you buy into your characterization of AQ as a group that shares goals and differs only in tactics. Keeping in mind, too, that AQ is not a direct offshoot of the MB, but a third-generation organization created by groups created after their founders’ departure from the MB. Again, the simplicity lies in the observer’s willingness to gloss over such issues. (Though, of course, when it comes to abortion, the Pope and Eric Rudolph shared the broad goal and differed substantially in tactics; I’m not sure that this is as insignificant a distinction as you are implying.)

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “No, it’s not, not really. It’s all a matter of how deeply you really want to try to understand the issues.”

            OK, it’s not more complicated. You must have a simple paradigm to explain all of this.

            “It’s all a matter of how deeply you really want to try to understand the issues.”

            So if I really want to try to understand the issues deeply, the complexity disappears? What’s the reason for understanding issues deeply if there is no depth or complexity?

            “For example, your generalization of the MB as a political party that renounced violence in order to appeal to a broader constituency is full of unsupported assumption and assertion.”

            I deduce that if they publicized it they must care what people think. They want to be popular. If they thought it was incidental they wouldn’t bother defending this position as genuine. The question is how sincere and concrete is the renunciation in terms of actions beyond the words. They don’t actively denounce others that use violence, unless there is another reason.

            “It’s ‘simple’ if you ‘simply’ accept your characterization of their motivations, and if you buy into your characterization of AQ as a group that shares goals and differs only in tactics.”

            Wait. I said it was complicated. You disagreed. Maybe you didn’t read carefully.

            “(Though, of course, when it comes to abortion, the Pope and Eric Rudolph shared the broad goal and differed substantially in tactics; I’m not sure that this is as insignificant a distinction as you are implying.)”

            Some times mean and end game are both a problem. Some times it’s one or the other. I really don’t understand how bringing the pope in to it helps anything. Eric Rudolph’s actions are illegal and his ideology is not viral as far as we can tell. But you can be sure that if there is any sign whatsoever that any Christian organization is contemplating anything the left doesn’t like, they’ll be called out as terrorists. Meanwhile guys like Nidal Malik Hasan are just poor victims of workplace stress. Not anything to worry about.

            How could anyone get the idea that Nidal Malik Hasan was influenced by some viral ideology? What a bunch of xenophobes.

          • hiernonymous

            “So if I really want to try to understand the issues deeply, the complexity disappears?”

            On the contrary; you argued that A was much more complicated than B. I’m suggesting that this is simply because you haven’t examined B closely enough to expose yourself to its complexities. It seems simpler to you because you haven’t bothered yourself with it to the same extent.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It seems simpler to you because you haven’t bothered yourself with it to the same extent.”

            Sure, in theory that can happen. I just have no idea what you’re referring too because I usually argue that things are far more complex than we have time to fully articulate. Maybe it was poor phrasing on my part. I just don’t recall asserting that any of this was simple except for that fact that usually people are concerned about evidence pointing to risks. It’s not simple to carry on after that but it’s simple understanding that finding the right balance between negligence and (excessive) hyper-vigilance is important to do.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I won’t argue with you.”

            You mean you want argue with yourself when you accuse people of xenophobia. You’re consistent about the position that xenophobia is the root cause of these accusations.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Again, this doesn’t in any way suggest that the Democratic Party is affiliated with eco-terrorism – but it would, by the logic you’re trying to apply to the MB.”

            If the only thing that separates the groups is that the parent group denounced violence (which is a politically advantageous position to take) and the offspring group just happens to fill that role, it’s certainly something that one can easily see might be a matter of managing brand image and public relations rather than being a true discrete split.

            OTOH it’s also possible for a genuine split to occur. But most of the surrounding evidence suggests that the MB love AQ and similar groups (or stealth cells) but does not want to be accountable for unpopular violent attacks. They don’t denounce terror against Western targets. Courageous Morsi should not have made noise about getting Omar Abdel-Rahman out of prison, etc. There are many examples of this.

            But it’s also possible that any particular politician is sincere about nonviolence and feels the need to placate the violent jihadis. I’m not indicting any individuals. I’m saying that these guys are collectively a threat to our values and going to sleep and dismissing criticism as xenophobia is anti-American behavior. It’s very popular from international leftists who’ve been raised and bred on collectivist dogmas.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Absent coordination or control, there’s no unity of purpose.”

            That’s a fatal fallacy. In addition, unknown coordination is not the same as no coordination existing. The Boston Bombers didn’t need permission or explicit instructions to carry out what they assumed was jihad according to AQ doctrine and the MB certainly has far more sophisticated networks and messaging than AQ does.

            Wait, is AQ also a benign political organization with legitimate grievances and some materialistic and pragmatic objective?

            If by unity of purpose you mean tightly controlled from a single command, the way that the USA prosecutes wars? I doubt it. It’s more like the Mafia with unity of purpose, yet local franchises are given a degree of autonomy because it’s an acceptable compromise to them for the sake of stealth and other political and security concerns. If the Mafia also taught from religious texts that it should rule the world as well after taking resources from non-members.

            That’s a combination of organized crime and religion, not organized crime or religion.

          • hiernonymous

            “In addition, unknown coordination is not the same as no coordination existing.”

            In terms of justifying public accusations, it is. Until you know what you’re talking about, you’re simply engaging in speculation.

            “…and the MB certainly has far more sophisticated networks and messaging than AQ does.”

            Could you be more specific? What sorts of networks and messaging does the MB have, what sorts do AQ employ, and how is the former more sophisticated than the latter?

            “It’s more like the Mafia with unity of purpose, yet local franchises are given a degree of autonomy…”

            By whom?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “In terms of justifying public accusations, it is.”

            It depends on the accusation. The accusation is that this smoke should be more thoroughly investigated.

          • hiernonymous

            And that would require accepting your contention that there is “smoke.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “And that would require accepting your contention that there is “smoke.””

            Which requires opening your eyes and or ears.

            http://www.clarionproject.org/category/tags/holy-land-foundation

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “By whom?”

            That is one of the questions that might be answered by further investigations.

          • hiernonymous

            If you don’t have a preliminary answer and a reason for that answer, you have no basis for “further investigations.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If you don’t have a preliminary answer and a reason for that answer, you have no basis for “further investigations.””

            I gave you answers that you rejected when you refused to follow the leads I gave you. People that are “biased” towards law and order are unacceptable *writers* to you, especially if they can be perceived or painted as “Islamophobic” by CAIR, one of the very institutions suspected of being an outright MB front group. Or worse if they’re paid.

            So, if someone is a paid specialist that disagrees with us, we must infer that it’s about the money. If they’re not paid, we can’t trust amateurs that disagree with us because hey, they’re just amateurs.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “What are you even talking about? When has the MB suggested overthrowing the U.S.constitution?”

            http://www.clarionproject.org/category/tags/holy-land-foundation

          • hiernonymous

            You’re going to have to be more specific – what, in that article, are you specifically pointing to, and what conclusion are you drawing?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            We’ve discovered and documented enough evidence to warrant much more aggressive investigations than have been happening to date.

          • objectivefactsmatter
          • hiernonymous

            Before we dig too deeply into the “Explanatory Memorandum,” can you clarify who wrote the memorandum, what that person’s role in the MB was, what MB body approved the document, and how one concludes that it accurately reflects the goals and objectives of what elements of the MB?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m sure it was written by an Islam-o-phobe.

            Go ahead and go deeply and explain how all of this smoke is nothing. I’d like to hear something comprehensive rather than simple sniping.

            I already told you my theory. The MB is welcome because in Marxist collectivist thinking, the MB might be anti-constitutional, but so are they. And crimes against particular laws aren’t as important as “oppression” and “social justice.”

            These threats are trivialized and hidden because the threats are not being managed according to our laws but according to a “transformed” vision of social justice rather than constitutional justice.

            Social justice trumps constitutional law to virtually everyone on the left. That’s the problem. They just don’t know how delusional they are and how things will play out because they’re very stupid and assume that virtually every politically active Muslim MUST BE willing to participate in democracy and therefore concerned about preserving American values once our society is perfected by the principals of social justice.

            Anyone that disagrees is “biased.” And it’s true, I and others that think like me are biased towards the US Constitution. Others are “patriots” of delusional fantasies about what the patria “should be” in their Marx-tainted dreams and not what exists in reality.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I don’t think “most MB constituents” could care less about a caliph or a caliphate, which is a different concern from the U.S. being a target of some sort of jihad.”

            The purpose of jihad is to make Islam dominant. The caliph is supposed to organize the jihad. What in your mind is the key appeal to joining the MB? Just another modern brand with no connections to the past, organized around the idea that one must emulate the prophet of Islam?

            And these guys are more or less like the Moral Majority, a law-abiding (as far as I know) American political action group?

            Hmmm…

          • hiernonymous

            I would say that the key appeal to joining the MB in most cases is that it is the most effective and least corrupt social organization available. It’s particularly strong in middle Egypt, in places such as Asyut and Minya, and in the Delta, where the populations are largely marginalized. For many years, the MB has provided assistance with education, getting jobs, disaster, relief, etc.

            Egypt is also similar to most countries in that the rural population tends to be somewhat less educated, more conservative, and more religious than the urban population; this part of the population is comparatively larger in Egypt than it is in the U.S.

            Is the caliph supposed to organize “the jihad?” I suppose you could say that, in the same sense that the U.S. President is supposed to organize the world war. To wit: if a jihad were necessary (and most Muslims believe that it is necessary when the umma comes under attack, not to simply spread the diin), and there were a caliph, he would be responsible for organizing it. Having a caliph is not a necessary precondition to waging a jihad, and waging jihad is not a caliph’s primary responsibility.

            “Just another modern brand with no connections to the past, organized around the idea that one must emulate the prophet of Islam?”

            I don’t know about “just another modern brand,” but the Egyptian MB has certainly undergone some significant changes since its founding in 1928.

            “And these guys are more or less like the Moral Majority, a law-abiding (as far as I know) American political action group?”

            Well, yes, in many ways. The MB is also a law-abiding (as far as you know) political action group. Its methods of gaining influence have, since the 1960s, been peaceful and within the system: they provide economic assistance, educational assistance, they have stood for parliament (as Independents; the sole exception to “law-abiding” that I can think of is that the military dictatorships sometimes use emergency decrees to ban the organization, and members were not openly allowed to represent the MB, so they did so as independents). Both groups thought that society would be improved if laws reflected the socially conservative religious teachings of their respective religions.

            No analogy is perfect; the Moral Majority did not exist in a military dictatorship, so it’s hard to say what direction such groups might have taken in the U.S. if they were faced with overt tyranny.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “As for imposing shari’a (a third issue, distinct from the caliphate or jihad), I’m no fan. But the coup in Egypt actively undermined the democratic process. You can’t promote secular constitutional democracy by supporting coups d’etat. ”

            Wait a minute. I didn’t have a hand in the coup. I’m not opposing democracy and neither were those local activists. It would have been even worse if foreign actors also encouraged the coup. I agree. But it seems that many Egyptians believed that was the closes to democracy they could get.

            So I’m not promoting coups at all. I’m saying that in this rare case, it might have been the closes thing to democracy they could manage. That’s nothing at all like promoting it as a democratic doctrine. I’m just putting it all in context and saying that based on what we know…

            And we should pay attention and learn what we can so that we can support truly secular democracies that ensure democracy is authentic and perpetual rather than a superficial gateway to theocracy or tyrannical rule.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “And, as a matter of tactics, again I point out that the fastest way to discredit religious government is to put its advocates in charge.”

            AFTER you have the means to hold them accountable. Otherwise they often seem themselves on an unmitigated mission from their god.

          • defcon 4

            The 3000 dead on 9-11 say differently lying Hajji.

          • hiernonymous

            Ah – 9/11 was an Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood operation now, was it?

            “lying Hajji”

            Found anything to support either word yet? No?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “9/11 was an Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood operation now, was it?”

            There is exactly 1 degree of separation between the MB and AQ. They have the same goals. Some people might call it good cop, bad cop tactics. But it’s actually more complicated than that.

            However, the MB and AQ are not ideologically alien from each other. They disagree about tactics. And they might be coordinating at least some of their efforts.

            Which doesn’t make every MB member accountable for the WTC attacks. But trivializing these connections is not helpful at all to our interests.

          • hiernonymous

            There are over 40 years of separation between the MB and the groups that became AQ. The MB renounced violence and has stuck to it for nearly half a century; that’s not an insignificant difference.

            The nature of the relationship between the MB and AQ is, greatly oversimplified, that when the MB renounced violence, those members of the MB who disagreed rejected the MB direction and left to form a new group.

            “And they might be coordinating at least some of their efforts.”

            Evidence?

            “Which doesn’t make every MB member accountable for the WTC attacks.”

            It doesn’t make anyMB member accountable for the WTC attacks.

            “But trivializing these connections is not helpful at all to our interests.”

            Conflating disparate groups is even less helpful. It’d be a bit like declaring war on Portugal if the Brazilian navy fired on our ships.

          • objectivefactsmatter
          • objectivefactsmatter

            “There are over 40 years of separation between the MB and the groups that became AQ. The MB renounced violence and has stuck to it for nearly half a century; that’s not an insignificant difference.”

            That’s like saying there are 24 years of separation between Toyota and Lexus. Toyota “renounced” making luxury cars back in 1989 so I guess Mercedes doesn’t have to compete with them any longer.

            “Conflating disparate groups is even less helpful. It’d be a bit like declaring war on Portugal if the Brazilian navy fired on our ships.”

            I didn’t conflate them. I pointed out their 1 degree of separation. They’re different groups.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It’d be a bit like declaring war on Portugal if the Brazilian navy fired on our ships.”

            I reject your illustration for a number of reasons. The first of which is that nobody is declaring war by talking about historical connections – that by the way may continue to this day.

          • hiernonymous

            “The first of which is that nobody is declaring war by talking about historical connections…”

            And? The salient (!) feature of the analogy is the lack of validity in holding Portugal responsible for Brazil’s actions based on their former political unity, and your objection doesn’t address that.

            Portugal and Brazil have ‘connections’ to this day; nonetheless, an act of war by Brazil would not be an act of war by Portugal, or even evidence of Portugese hostility.

            If you have actual evidence that the MB is allied with and supports AQ activity, out with it! If all you have is innuendo and some vague “may continue to this days” (which would be a bit of a trick, considering that AQ did not come into existence until long after the Egyptian MB had rejected violence, and there was never a relationship to continue), feel free to offer your reasons.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If you have actual evidence that the MB is allied with and supports AQ activity, out with it!”

            I’m sorry, I thought I already gave that to you.

            http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/brotherhood-and-al-qaeda-the-connection-between-morsi-and-zawahiri/

            http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314949/understanding-muslim-brotherhood-andrew-c-mccarthy

            There’s more, but if you don’t trust those two you won’t want to look at anything else until 50 or 60 years later when all of the documents are hopefully available and then we can say more confidently who is right.

          • hiernonymous

            Neither is a particularly credible source – McCarthy’s a well-known advocate writing an opinion piece on an opinion site – and looking through the article, McCarthy was not specific about what MB organization he was talking about. Is there a link to the Egyptian MB to AQ or terrorist activity? The Raymond Ibrahim piece involves Nabil Na’im, an outspoken supporter of the anti-Morsi coup, making unsubstantiated allegations in a broadcast. Some of the allegations might make for interesting follow-up – has any credible source done so? Does anyone but Na’im support the contention that Morsi personally directed the release of M. Zawahiri from interrogation, and provide a reason for having done so that involves cooperation between the MB and AQ? Thin seems an inadequate description of this gruel.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Neither is a particularly credible source – McCarthy’s a well-known advocate writing an opinion piece on an opinion site…”

            That’s what you know about McCarthy? You know he’s a former prosecutor that ran a key investigation related to jihad in America. Who is better positioned to evaluate the evidence than he? Seriously, please name anyone who is free to publish that has better access to evidence.

            “McCarthy was not specific about what MB organization he was talking about.”

            Are you seriously unfamiliar with the accusations?

            Nidal Malik Hasan was probably not directly involved with MB that I know of. The “Boston Bombers” were probably not directly involved that we know of. That’s not the claim. The claim is that they have vast networks of front organizations that are mostly involved in PR and lobbying both openly and illicitly. They’re certainly well-positioned to support any of the terrorist activities but we just don’t know right now. We know there are connections with a lot of foreign funding, domestic politicians and with some AQ members.

            If you’re not interested, you’re not interested. Maybe if McCarthy is consulted on some future trial, we can talk about the evidence after it’s published and he can publish his opinion on the evidence. Right now there is enough evidence to demand further investigations, Which have been stalled by politicians who happen to receive lots of OPEC funding.

            Some times smoke indicates fire and it’s a good idea to check things like that out.

          • hiernonymous

            “You know he’s a former prosecutor that ran a key investigation related to jihad in America. Who is better positioned to evaluate the evidence than he?”

            As you note, he was a prosecutor. He was not and is not objectively analyzing information, he was and is a partisan.

            “Who is better positioned to evaluate the evidence than he? Seriously, please name anyone who is free to publish that has better access to evidence.”

            Not sure how or why a former prosecutor would have any better access to evidence than any number of well-respected analysts and scholars in the field. I know that Tom Friedman, for example, has excellent sources, to include personal briefings with intelligence analysts working pol-mil and CT issues in the combatant commands and IC.

            “They’re certainly well-positioned to support any of the terrorist activities but we just don’t know right now.”

            If we don’t know, then we certainly can’t behave as if we do. One doesn’t level accusations until one does know.

            “If you’re not interested, you’re not interested.”

            I’m quite interested; why I’m not is impressed, by the thought process or the supporting evidence. It’s sheer innuendo.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “As you note, he was a prosecutor. He was not and is not objectively analyzing information, he was and is a partisan.”

            Not all lawyers are amateurs that don’t understand objectivity. His role prosecuting a case becomes partisan by law. But during investigations and in virtually every other mode, objectivity is called for.

            He’s a partisan in terms of his loyalty to the US Constitution I’m sure, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be objective about evidence and analysis outside of the court. He won the case and as a human I wouldn’t expect him to be capable of looking back on the trial the way that an uninvolved observer would be capable of. But that doesn’t make him biased against every other politically active Muslim.

            Come on now. Maybe he arrived at his opinions after objectively analyzing the evidence? Do you think this is impossible? He’s not running for office as far as I know.

            “Not sure how or why a former prosecutor would have any better access to evidence than any number of well-respected analysts and scholars in the field.”

            I don’t know who you’re comparing him to so I can’t comment. Let’s just say that once your access is good enough, it’s then more a matter of objectivity and the freedom to pursue the truth wherever it leads.

            Access, objectivity, empowerment. And skills of course. But it’s not rocket science.

            If you’ve got better sources that you can share I don’t know why you’d hesitate. I have to assume that you don’t.

          • hiernonymous

            “He’s not running for office as far as I know.”

            He is, however, writing for an opinion site with a very distinct bias, and presumably being paid to do so.

            “If you’ve got better sources that you can share I don’t know why you’d hesitate. I have to assume that you don’t.”

            I’m not sure I understand what you mean by this. McCarthy isn’t a source, he’s a writer. He’s arguably a source when he discusses the cases he prosecuted.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “He is, however, writing for an opinion site with a very distinct bias, and presumably being paid to do so.”

            Whatever bias he has against say, socialism or certain government policies does not necessarily translate in to a bias for or against certain actors or organizations who are possibly enemies of our nation and our patria. His bias is in favor of the US Constitution, not “white power” or something like that. He’s not investigation his political opposition. Although certain politicians do oppose his views.

            Biases can be dealt with. There is nobody you would not accuse of bias without first knowing that they agree with you.

          • hiernonymous

            “His bias is in favor of the US Constitution…”

            No doubt every American would describe his own biases thusly.

            “There is nobody you would not accuse of bias without first knowing that they agree with you.”

            Not sure if that was intended to be the second person “you” or the indefinite “you.” If the former, wrong. One of the reasons I spend time on sites of all political bents is to avoid confirmation bias.

            At any rate, any long-term sampling of McCarthy’s work reveals a very strong and specific agenda when it comes to the issue, and that is sufficient reason to ask for altnerative sources of information when asked to accept his word and interpretation simultaneously on a matter on which he is known as an advocate.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “No doubt every American would describe his own biases thusly.”

            I’ve already stated that opinion about Americans and self-delusion. But my comments about him are based on my own independent analysis.

            “One of the reasons I spend time on sites of all political bents is to avoid confirmation bias.”

            That’s interesting. Sort of. But doesn’t mean your approach is rational.

            “At any rate, any long-term sampling of McCarthy’s work reveals a very strong and specific agenda when it comes to the issue, and that is sufficient reason to ask for altnerative sources of information when asked to accept his word and interpretation simultaneously on a matter on which he is known as an advocate.”

            You should fully analyze his data before you determine whether his bias or judgments were arrived at objectively or not. He is the “source” for his analysis. I’m sure he can point to at least some of the sources for the evidence he uses. But we’re talking about this because you rejected him before being able to refute his positions.

            I don’t accept any person’s words based on anything but my own evaluations about how they handle evidence and what that evidence is derived from. But I’m also comfortable with uncertainty if that is handled objectively as well. It seems like you are attracted to the denial side of the equation when it suits your views and you exploit the uncertainty that comes from incomplete information. You turn smoke in to atmospheric mist without evidence, or by saying the evidence of fire is not strong enough and therefore we should not worry about the mere perception of smoke.

          • hiernonymous

            Rather, I note that when dealing with an organization as large and long-established as the MB, which has been the object of intense scrutiny by the U.S. intelligence, diplomatic, and military communities, if the only indication you have in support of your conspiracy theories is the unsupported allegation of individuals with a known agenda and bias, that’s not much basis for drawing a conclusion.

            “But,” you cry,”it calls for investigation!

            Yes, well, if you can find an organization that is already being more energetically “investigated,” you’ve had to do some homework. And investigate away – but until you’ve done your investigation and come up with something considerably more substantial, it’s irrational to engage in innuendo.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Yes, well, if you can find an organization that is already being more energetically “investigated,” you’ve had to do some homework.”

            That’s quite deceptive. The energy expended is being countered by stonewalling from the subject and from their vast political allies. That’s the problem. It’s not that no interest exists but that politics in the USA are impeding a productive approach and “progress” in answering these crucial questions.

            People like you, “hyper-skeptics,” (WRT those that question leftist doctrines) are dominating the discourse with partisan views rather than objectivity.

            It sucks. It used to be that the hyper-partisans were on the fringe and now it’s mainstream to be hyper-partisan to delusion-based leftist ideas.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Raymond Ibrahim piece involves Nabil Na’im, an outspoken supporter of the anti-Morsi coup, making unsubstantiated allegations in a broadcast. Some of the allegations might make for interesting follow-up – has any credible source done so? Does anyone but Na’im support the contention that Morsi personally directed the release of M. Zawahiri from interrogation, and provide a reason for having done so that involves cooperation between the MB and AQ? Thin seems an inadequate description of this gruel.”

            I think there is more evidence, but not that much. It is thin. But it’s not trivial and it’s worth investigating further. The problem is that our elected officials seem a lot more worried about offending the likes of CAIR and hypersensitive constituents that go around slinging accusations of “xenophobia” at people who raise these concerns.

            The evidence against many Mafia operators was always thin until a few of them were finally prosecuted. It’s the nature of organized crime.

            It is what it is. Denial makes paranoid people more concerned, not less.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “…considering that AQ did not come into existence until long after the Egyptian MB had rejected violence…”

            The accusation is that the MB denounced violence as tactically unwise. Therefore the need for separate branding for illicit operations. Another theory is that AQ members are MB members who agree on everything but are merely less patient and forgiving about those who want to hold off on violent components of jihad.

            BTW do you still claim the MB themselves in Egypt are nonviolent puritans? What was all of that blood in Egypt? Who are we blaming that on?

          • hiernonymous

            “What was all of that blood in Egypt?”

            You tell me – what incidents are you referring to?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “And? The salient (!) feature of the analogy is holding Portugal responsible for Brazil’s actions based on their former political unity, and your objection doesn’t address that. ”

            The AQ MB connection was invoked in response to your statements:

            You: “Given that the Egyptian MB pursues jihad only in Pipesian caricatures…”

            And also: “That said, I’m not in the least interested in yet another round of “The Muslims are Coming!””

            Defcon 4 replied with: “The 3000 dead on 9-11 say differently lying Hajji.”

            And then you replied with: “Ah – 9/11 was an Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood operation now, was it?”

            Nobody actually said it was. But your tone seemed to suggest that it would be outrageous to draw any connections. The evidence is weak and merely circumstantial, but it’s not implausible that the MB was involved at least on some level. The MB has plenty of assets here in the USA, and mentioning the connection as I did seemed relevant for those that think AQ is somehow totally alien to the MB and that the “Islamophobes” are just picking on “the Muslims” again.

            The evidence is the evidence.

          • hiernonymous

            “The evidence is the evidence.”

            So far, the evidence is the innuendo.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “So far, the evidence is the innuendo.”

            You’re consistent in your skepticism about modern jihad threats. I understand that. So was Clinton.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That said, I’m not in the least interested in yet another round of “The Muslims are Coming!” Knock yourself out on that one.”

            It’s sharia I care about, not “Muslims coming.” Some Muslims come here to run from sharia. Don’t you care about them? I do.

          • leelongchamp

            You are correct. THE
            MB were “democratically” elected and in turn were ousted by the old
            regime. The MB is a danger to western
            civilization and the world is better off for having them out. It might have been done better, but I’ll take
            the result and I support the current Egyptian government.

            Muslim Brotherhood believes in democratic election (one that
            is). I would think that all the Muslim haters
            here are glad to see them gone. It seems
            that dictatorships do better in keeping Muslim countries in line. The rights that have been restores are those
            of Christians who’s legitimacy (once 10% of Egypt population) is restored and
            their interests protected. That is an
            achievement that should be applauded by the free world.

          • defcon 4

            Gee, Hajji, the Coptic Christians might not see it your way. Of course they’re nothing but untermenschen in islam0nazi ideology.

    • defcon 4

      Yeah, a “secular” government that has made Sharia law part of its constitution and is now ethnic cleansing Iraq of every vestige of its Christian population in the *exact* same way the Iraqi islam0nazis did to their ancient and prosperous Jewish population.

    • defcon 4

      Yeah, a “secular” government that has made Sharia law part of its constitution and is now ethnic cleansing Iraq of every vestige of its Christian population in the *exact* same way the Iraqi islam0nazis did to their ancient and prosperous Jewish population.

  • leelongchamp

    and life terms for apostates. Christians who made up 10% of many Muslim nations are fleeing those countries. the US should support the Christians in reefuge centers around the world, many of them run by Christians but serving Muslims as well as Christians.

    • defcon 4

      I’ll bet apostates from islam have been more commonly murdered in muslime states than imprisoned — it’s so much cheaper that way. A Saudi woman had her tongue cut out and was burned alive by her own father for converting to Christianity — no criminal charges were ever filed.

  • Veracious_one

    other Muslim Brotherhood front groups include….++

    Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)

    ISNA Fiqh Committee (now known as the Fiqh Council of North America)

    ISNA Political Awareness Committee

    Muslim Youth of North America

    Muslim Students Association of the U.S. and Canada

    Association of Muslim Scientists and Engineers

    Islamic Medical Association (of North America)

    Islamic Teaching Center

    Malaysian Islamic Study Group

    Foundation for International Development

    North American Islamic Trust

    Islamic Centers Division

    American Trust Publications

    Audio-Visual Center

    Islamic Book Service

    Islamic Circle of North America

    Muslim Arab Youth Association

    Islamic Association for Palestine

    United Association for Studies and Research

    International Institute of Islamic Thought

    Muslim Communities Association

    Association of Muslim Social Scientists (of North America)

    Islamic Housing Cooperative

    Muslim Businessmen Association

    Islamic Education Department

    Occupied Land Fund (later known as the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development)

    Mercy International Association

    Baitul Mal Inc.

    Islamic Information Center (of America)