Muslim Brotherhood is Secular Says Obama DNI

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Oh, and I did say Catholics which is in error so my apologies on that.

[houndawg]

This meaning the military?

Sorry hound, I was in concert with what you were saying and shouldn't have quoted that post.

Got it. Wasn't sure who you were addressing.

[dbackjon]

Question Native - can ANY adherent of a religious be secular?

IE if a Christian Group, like Focus on the Family, has a member in Congress, are you saying that they are incapable of being secular and religous? Or that their sole purpose will be to establish a Christian Dominion in this country?>

[native]

Question Native - can ANY adherent of a religious be secular?

IE if a Christian Group, like Focus on the Family, has a member in Congress, are you saying that they are incapable of being secular and religous? Or that their sole purpose will be to establish a Christian Dominion in this country?>

Thousands of religious elected officials around the world execute their duties in accordance with some sort of secular standard, including some Europeans, lots of Turks and 99.9% of religious American elected officials.

In the short term, even members of the Muslim Brotherhood could behave in a secular fashion. In the long term, there is nearly zero chance that a Muslim Brotherhood political ascendancy will be good for liberty or democracy.

As noted in Wikipedia, secularism "does not necessarily imply hostility to God or religion, though some use the term this way ... Martin Luther used to speak of secular work as a vocation from God for most Christians."

[kalm]

Question Native - can ANY adherent of a religious be secular?

IE if a Christian Group, like Focus on the Family, has a member in Congress, are you saying that they are incapable of being secular and religous? Or that their sole purpose will be to establish a Christian Dominion in this country?>

Thousands of religious elected officials around the world execute their duties in accordance with some sort of secular standard, including some Europeans, lots of Turks and 99.9% of religious American elected officials.

In the short term, even members of the Muslim Brotherhood could behave in a secular fashion. In the long term, there is nearly zero chance that a Muslim Brotherhood political ascendancy will be good for liberty or democracy.

As noted in Wikipedia, secularism "does not necessarily imply hostility to God or religion, though some use the term this way ... Martin Luther used to speak of secular work as a vocation from God for most Christians."

Only .1% of American elected officials oppose gay marriage?

[native]

Thousands of religious elected officials around the world execute their duties in accordance with some sort of secular standard, including some Europeans, lots of Turks and 99.9% of religious American elected officials.

In the short term, even members of the Muslim Brotherhood could behave in a secular fashion. In the long term, there is nearly zero chance that a Muslim Brotherhood political ascendancy will be good for liberty or democracy.

As noted in Wikipedia, secularism "does not necessarily imply hostility to God or religion, though some use the term this way ... Martin Luther used to speak of secular work as a vocation from God for most Christians."

Only .1% of American elected officials oppose gay marriage?

Now we come down to the real issue. Opposition to gay marriage is your definition of non-secularism.

[houndawg]

Question Native - can ANY adherent of a religious be secular?

IE if a Christian Group, like Focus on the Family, has a member in Congress, are you saying that they are incapable of being secular and religous? Or that their sole purpose will be to establish a Christian Dominion in this country?>

Thousands of religious elected officials around the world execute their duties in accordance with some sort of secular standard, including some Europeans, lots of Turks and 99.9% of religious American elected officials.

In the short term, even members of the Muslim Brotherhood could behave in a secular fashion. In the long term, there is nearly zero chance that a Muslim Brotherhood political ascendancy will be good for liberty or democracy.

As noted in Wikipedia, secularism "does not necessarily imply hostility to God or religion, though some use the term this way ... Martin Luther used to speak of secular work as a vocation from God for most Christians."

You're preaching to the choir, nate. We've already seen first-hand the damage religious fundamentalists can wreak on liberty and democracy in our great secular nation..

[kalm]

Only .1% of American elected officials oppose gay marriage?

Now we come down to the real issue. Opposition to gay marriage is your definition of non-secularism.

Oh, I'm sorry, they must be opposing it out of guilt.

[dbackjon]

dbackjon, kalm, houndawg - 1,000
Native - 0

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

In the short term, even members of the Muslim Brotherhood could behave in a secular fashion. In the long term, there is nearly zero chance that a Muslim Brotherhood political ascendancy will be good for liberty or democracy.

As noted in Wikipedia, secularism "does not necessarily imply hostility to God or religion, though some use the term this way ... Martin Luther used to speak of secular work as a vocation from God for most Christians."

I still am not getting the point though really. Let's concede that this is correct and leave that point behind.

What does it really matter if they are or not? If we are talking about Egypt and I'm pretty sure we are then they were not the crux of the movement. The movement is by the people (some MB) against a dictatorship that they felt was oppressing them.

They have made their wish come true in a fairly peaceful manner and now have the task of electing people they trust to move the country forward and help the populace achieve some freedom economically and socially.

We weren't steering this thing, we let it happen fairly naturally and stayed out of it. This wasn't about us and still isn't even though we may have concerns about the future with the new leadership that may not want to be as beholden to our interests but it is what it is at this point.

I just don't understand what focusing on the MB which was a very small part of a large machine at work is gonna get for us. It's about them making it better for themselves but it seems we're talking about the small points that we can latch onto and make it about us. It has happened, we can't change that, so I don't get it?

[ToTheLeft]

In the short term, even members of the Muslim Brotherhood could behave in a secular fashion. In the long term, there is nearly zero chance that a Muslim Brotherhood political ascendancy will be good for liberty or democracy.

As noted in Wikipedia, secularism "does not necessarily imply hostility to God or religion, though some use the term this way ... Martin Luther used to speak of secular work as a vocation from God for most Christians."

I still am not getting the point though really. Let's concede that this is correct and leave that point behind.

What does it really matter if they are or not? If we are talking about Egypt and I'm pretty sure we are then they were not the crux of the movement. The movement is by the people (some MB) against a dictatorship that they felt was oppressing them.

They have made their wish come true in a fairly peaceful manner and now have the task of electing people they trust to move the country forward and help the populace achieve some freedom economically and socially.

We weren't steering this thing, we let it happen fairly naturally and stayed out of it. This wasn't about us and still isn't even though we may have concerns about the future with the new leadership that may not want to be as beholden to our interests but it is what it is at this point.

I just don't understand what focusing on the MB which was a very small part of a large machine at work is gonna get for us. It's about them making it better for themselves but it seems we're talking about the small points that we can latch onto and make it about us. It has happened, we can't change that, so I don't get it?

1. Obama is a Muslim
2. Obama is a Kenyan
3. Obama is a D student.

I think that sums it up.

[native]

In the short term, even members of the Muslim Brotherhood could behave in a secular fashion. In the long term, there is nearly zero chance that a Muslim Brotherhood political ascendancy will be good for liberty or democracy.

As noted in Wikipedia, secularism "does not necessarily imply hostility to God or religion, though some use the term this way ... Martin Luther used to speak of secular work as a vocation from God for most Christians."

I still am not getting the point though really. Let's concede that this is correct and leave that point behind.

What does it really matter if they are or not? If we are talking about Egypt and I'm pretty sure we are then they were not the crux of the movement. The movement is by the people (some MB) against a dictatorship that they felt was oppressing them.

They have made their wish come true in a fairly peaceful manner and now have the task of electing people they trust to move the country forward and help the populace achieve some freedom economically and socially.

We weren't steering this thing, we let it happen fairly naturally and stayed out of it. This wasn't about us and still isn't even though we may have concerns about the future with the new leadership that may not want to be as beholden to our interests but it is what it is at this point.

I just don't understand what focusing on the MB which was a very small part of a large machine at work is gonna get for us. It's about them making it better for themselves but it seems we're talking about the small points that we can latch onto and make it about us. It has happened, we can't change that, so I don't get it?

This is not rocket science. The MB is really fvcking dangerous.

Brother bear, you have provided only your opinion, and not one piece of evidence or analysis as to the level of involvement of MB in the Egyptian uprising or their capacity to influence future events with Mubarak out of the picture.

[houndawg]

I still am not getting the point though really. Let's concede that this is correct and leave that point behind.

What does it really matter if they are or not? If we are talking about Egypt and I'm pretty sure we are then they were not the crux of the movement. The movement is by the people (some MB) against a dictatorship that they felt was oppressing them.

They have made their wish come true in a fairly peaceful manner and now have the task of electing people they trust to move the country forward and help the populace achieve some freedom economically and socially.

We weren't steering this thing, we let it happen fairly naturally and stayed out of it. This wasn't about us and still isn't even though we may have concerns about the future with the new leadership that may not want to be as beholden to our interests but it is what it is at this point.

I just don't understand what focusing on the MB which was a very small part of a large machine at work is gonna get for us. It's about them making it better for themselves but it seems we're talking about the small points that we can latch onto and make it about us. It has happened, we can't change that, so I don't get it?

This is not rocket science. The MB is really fvcking dangerous.

Brother bear, you have provided only your opinion, and not one piece of evidence or analysis as to the level of involvement of MB in the Egyptian uprising or their capacity to influence future events with Mubarak out of the picture.

Brother nate, you have provided only your opinion and not one piece of evidence or analysis...........


You are improving though, you say nothing still, but much more concisely.........

[native]

1. Obama is a Muslim
2. Obama is a Kenyan
3. Obama is a D student.

I think that sums it up.

Not what I said, TTL, but since you brought it up...

1. If Obama says he is a Christian and not muslim, that is fine with me. What we know from his own autobiographical writings and from observing him in public office is that he was brought up as a muslim for a portion of his childhood, that his rhetorical accommodation of Islam is unprecedented, that he has bowed down to muslim kings, and has refused to rhetorically confront radical Islam.
2. I assume Obama is an American, but even his buddies Chris Matthews and Neil Abercrombie are asking to see the original birth certificate. There is no legal or moral reason not to provide it. It is weak and shameful that he continues to hide his original birth certificate. Even if Obama is not a Kenyan, his father most certainly was, and Obama has obviously been strongly influenced by his father's misguided anti-colonial radicalism and communism.
3. There is no legal or moral reason for Obama to hide his transcripts from Occidental and Columbia. It is weak and shameful that he continues to hide his transcripts.

[native]

This is not rocket science. The MB is really fvcking dangerous.

Brother bear, you have provided only your opinion, and not one piece of evidence or analysis as to the level of involvement of MB in the Egyptian uprising or their capacity to influence future events with Mubarak out of the picture.

Brother nate, you have provided only your opinion and not one piece of evidence or analysis...........


You are improving though, you say nothing still, but much more concisely.........

Ursus has stated several times that the MB are definitively "not the crux of the movement." His proposition is unknowable and unprovable.

My proposition, that the MB are "really fvcking dangerous," is much easier to observe and prove.

[ToTheLeft]

1. Obama is a Muslim
2. Obama is a Kenyan
3. Obama is a D student.

I think that sums it up.

Not what I said, TTL, but since you brought it up...

1. If Obama says he is a Christian and not muslim, that is fine with me. What we know from his own autobiographical writings and from observing him in public office is that he was brought up as a muslim for a portion of his childhood, that his rhetorical accommodation of Islam is unprecedented, that he has bowed down to muslim kings, and has refused to rhetorically confront radical Islam.
2. I assume Obama is an American, but even his buddies Chris Matthews and Neil Abercrombie are asking to see the original birth certificate. There is no legal or moral reason not to provide it. It is weak and shameful that he continues to hide his original birth certificate. Even if Obama is not a Kenyan, his father most certainly was, and Obama has obviously been strongly influenced by his father's misguided anti-colonial radicalism and communism.
3. There is no legal or moral reason for Obama to hide his transcripts from Occidental and Columbia. It is weak and shameful that he continues to hide his transcripts.

I was just being childish. I meant no point by what I said.

[native]

Not what I said, TTL, but since you brought it up...

1. If Obama says he is a Christian and not muslim, that is fine with me. What we know from his own autobiographical writings and from observing him in public office is that he was brought up as a muslim for a portion of his childhood, that his rhetorical accommodation of Islam is unprecedented, that he has bowed down to muslim kings, and has refused to rhetorically confront radical Islam.
2. I assume Obama is an American, but even his buddies Chris Matthews and Neil Abercrombie are asking to see the original birth certificate. There is no legal or moral reason not to provide it. It is weak and shameful that he continues to hide his original birth certificate. Even if Obama is not a Kenyan, his father most certainly was, and Obama has obviously been strongly influenced by his father's misguided anti-colonial radicalism and communism.
3. There is no legal or moral reason for Obama to hide his transcripts from Occidental and Columbia. It is weak and shameful that he continues to hide his transcripts.

I was just being childish. I meant no point by what I said.

Ooops! Sometimes I miss the humor/sarcasm.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

I still am not getting the point though really. Let's concede that this is correct and leave that point behind.

What does it really matter if they are or not? If we are talking about Egypt and I'm pretty sure we are then they were not the crux of the movement. The movement is by the people (some MB) against a dictatorship that they felt was oppressing them.

They have made their wish come true in a fairly peaceful manner and now have the task of electing people they trust to move the country forward and help the populace achieve some freedom economically and socially.

We weren't steering this thing, we let it happen fairly naturally and stayed out of it. This wasn't about us and still isn't even though we may have concerns about the future with the new leadership that may not want to be as beholden to our interests but it is what it is at this point.

I just don't understand what focusing on the MB which was a very small part of a large machine at work is gonna get for us. It's about them making it better for themselves but it seems we're talking about the small points that we can latch onto and make it about us. It has happened, we can't change that, so I don't get it?

This is not rocket science. The MB is really fvcking dangerous.

Brother bear, you have provided only your opinion, and not one piece of evidence or analysis as to the level of involvement of MB in the Egyptian uprising or their capacity to influence future events with Mubarak out of the picture.

I already said let's concede all that shit and get that out of the way. I ain't arguing that they are or they are not. Doesn't fucking matter at this point because the revolution has happened.

I'm applying some relatively simple logic to what I've seen that says they are not a big part of this overthrow.
1. If they are extremely dangerous then why was the resistance so ill armed to fight back with force when they were being shot at and the Mubarek supporters were flinging Molotov's at them?

2. If they are powerful and dangerous then you'd think that they'd be able to get some sort of arms for their side to fight back other than smuggling in bread helmets to protect them.

3. Why were Christians working with them? Why were there so many women & children in there protesting? Why didn't they own this thing as THEIR movement from the very beginning?

That is how I come to my opinions and I don't need to give you hard facts as to whether it is not a MB movement. I've kept a close eye on what is being reported by people on the ground over there and formed it based on that.

Let's say we all buy into whatever fear you are putting out there. Let's assume that there are no cracks at all in what you are saying.

It is then what those people wanted right? They fought peacefully against a government that the majority of them didn't vote for and were beaten and jailed for voting against him.

I'm asking why you are focusing on a shiny spot that is very unlikely as the major part of this story? Nothing can be done about it now anyway even if you were 100% correct about who was behind this and who is going to be in power.

This was not in our control. We can hope that we get the chance to help steer this in a mutually favorable way for both them and us but that is it.

The only evidence either one of us has is what we've seen and I just can't watch the right wing bullshit anymore because it's as much of a fucking joke as the left wing entertainment shows.

Don't deride my evidence while putting forth none of your own my friend cuz I think you know that's pretty fucking weak.

If it turns out that the MB is running Egypt in the next year and they are doing all the bad that they can muster then I'll tell you that what you saw was better than what I saw but until then it's pretty up in the air.

[native]

Take your panties out of your crack, Ursus! The future of Egypt is all "up in the air!" I am not deriding your evidence and I really like your three points, above! Thank you for making them!!!



I can be hopeful about the future of Egypt and celebrate with you and everyone else the Egyptian awakening while remaining clear headed and vigilant about the clear and present danger of the Muslim Brotherhood. Doing so does not make me or anyone else a **** joke, or anti-Ursus, or pro-Mubarak.



As in any other situation, major changes involve both risks and opportunities. You can't have one without the other. We would both be foolish to close our minds or our hearts to either. Agreed?



Like it or not, the MB are a major part of the Egyptian and Middle Eastern stories, regardless of whether they have weapons or power in Egypt today, next year or never.

[Bronco]

I see that the British papers seem to get what B.O. is all about much more than the US press...wonder why?

--
The Muslim Brotherhood gets a PR makeover from the Obama administration
Telegraph Media ^ | February 11th, 2011 | Nile Gardiner

Unsavoury organisations usually pay large amounts of money to glitzy PR firms to improve their public image. In the case of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood however, the Obama administration has offered its services for free. US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper gave an extraordinary testimony on Thursday before a House Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill, where he described the Islamist group as a peaceful, “largely secular” organisation that “eschewed violence.”
...
The Muslim Brotherhood is bad news. It is a dangerous anti-American and anti-Semitic movement with a brutal Islamist ideology and extremely close links to terrorist groups such as Hamas. Clapper’s remarks were a bizarre whitewash of the organisation, and yet another embarrassing gaffe by an Administration that increasingly specialises in them.

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...

[ToTheLeft]

I don't see anyone here arguing that MB is like the Boy Scouts. The issue is, does it matter? Like UAH said, there's no proof that they're heavily entrenched in this movement. We'll see as things unfold, but I agree with UAH, they are not a factor at the moment in the grand scheme in Egypt.

[native]

I don't see anyone here arguing that MB is like the Boy Scouts. The issue is, does it matter? Like UAH said, there's no proof that they're heavily entrenched in this movement. We'll see as things unfold, but I agree with UAH, they are not a factor at the moment in the grand scheme in Egypt.

The Muslim Brotherhood are a factor and will always be a factor because a) they have a proven track record - for example, they assassinated Sadat, b) they enjoy 20-40% popular support and remain dedicated to evil, c) they are probably the best-funded opposition group, and d) they are the only well organized opposition group and captured the most opposition seats in the Egyptian parliament when they last were allowed to participate in 2000 and 2005 elections.

http://middleeast.about.com/od/egypt/a/me081006a.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4424208.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41372708" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

With food inflation at 1,000% and the MB clearly the most organized and well-funded opposition group, a great deal of danger remains. The army can probably provide a stable interlude, but does the army have the wherewithal to feed the people, establish a stable economy, or incubate genuinely free opposition parties?

http://inflation.me/?p=22" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How many revolutions started out with good intentions but were later taken over by people with bad intentions and ended in bad results? Almost all of them! Our own revolution is the exception to the rule.

Surely we are not naive enough to perceive armed resistance or opposition leadership as the only measures of danger presented by the MB? Why would they challenge the army militarily when they think they have a chance to win it all through politics? Why would minority status stop them when it has never stopped them before?

Let's all celebrate the Egyptian awakening, while we hope, pray and work for the best, but let's also keep but our eyes wide open!

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Take your panties out of your crack, Ursus! The future of Egypt is all "up in the air!" I am not deriding your evidence and I really like your three points, above! Thank you for making them!!!



I can be hopeful about the future of Egypt and celebrate with you and everyone else the Egyptian awakening while remaining clear headed and vigilant about the clear and present danger of the Muslim Brotherhood. Doing so does not make me or anyone else a **** joke, or anti-Ursus, or pro-Mubarak.



As in any other situation, major changes involve both risks and opportunities. You can't have one without the other. We would both be foolish to close our minds or our hearts to either. Agreed?



Like it or not, the MB are a major part of the Egyptian and Middle eastern stories, regardless of whether they have weapons or power in Egypt today, next year or never.

I don't take exception to any of this. I'm just saying we don't know the MB involvement but I ain't seeing it as anything but a minority so far so my fear level over it is at that same level...minority.

[native]

I don't see anyone here arguing that MB is like the Boy Scouts. ...

Thank God for small blessings! Maybe we are a step ahead of the past. Some idiots actually thought Hitler really was a Boy Scout.

[dbackjon]

I don't see anyone here arguing that MB is like the Boy Scouts. ...

Thank God for small blessings! Maybe we are a step ahead of the past. Some idiots actually thought Hitler really was a Boy Scout.

Hitler, Boy Scouts and MB - all have a common enemy