• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Egypt protests: Muslim Brotherhood 'to join talks

Donc

Donc

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
9,796
Reaction score
2,590
Location
out yonder
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
What’s your thoughts on this? Myself I believe I would bring them to the table just to get a handle on their ideas. kinda get an idea if they are a true enemy or whatever.



<Egypt's most influential opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood, says it will enter talks with officials on ending the country's political crisis.

The group told Reuters the talks would begin on Sunday and would assess how far the government was "ready to accept the demands of the people".

The negotiations would be the first ever to be held between the government and the officially banned Brotherhood.

President Hosni Mubarak has rejected protesters' demands that he quit now. >

<Mr Mubarak has blamed it for the unrest and said that if he leaves, the group will exploit the ensuing political chaos. >


BBC News - Egypt protests: Muslim Brotherhood 'to join talks'
 
I don't think you can say they can't show up. I think though the groups involved would have to be pretty defensive and not show all the cards. Just listen and not show any emotion one way or another.
 
President Jug ears called for this. He gave them the green light, our American blessing.

It took three years for Iran to go radical. How long for Egypt?

MB assassinated Sadat.
 
soccerboy22 said:
I don't think you can say they can't show up. I think though the groups involved would have to be pretty defensive and not show all the cards. Just listen and not show any emotion one way or another.
Click to expand...

I have read that they are officially banned on holding any political office, yet they have somehow managed to get themselves elected to around 20% their parliament offices or whatever they call it their.
 
Ed Gein said:
President Jug ears called for this. He gave them the green light, our American blessing.

It took three years for Iran to go radical. How long for Egypt?

MB assassinated Sadat.
Click to expand...


Care to explain how "President Jug ears "called for this?
 
Does anyone remember the name Ayman al Zawahiri? He's no. 2 in Al Qaeda. He is Egyptian and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Americans have such short memories.
 
donc said:
I have read that they are officially banned on holding any political office, yet they have somehow managed to get themselves elected to around 20% their parliament offices or whatever they call it their.
Click to expand...

Interesting, so do they just not fill those seats or what. Either way, I think that is just even more important to have them there simply to listen and like I said not show anything to them.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
Does anyone remember the name Ayman al Zawahiri? He's no. 2 in Al Qaeda. He is Egyptian and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Americans have such short memories.
Click to expand...

Yet after Al Qaeda got organized they denounced the brotherhoods for reforming as a nonviolent organization and accused them of "betraying the cause of Islam and abandoning their 'jihad' in favor of forming political parties and supporting modern state institutions.Kinda odd wouldn't you say Al?
 
donc said:
Yet after Al Qaeda got organized they denounced the brotherhoods for reforming as a nonviolent organization and accused them of "betraying the cause of Islam and abandoning their 'jihad' in favor of forming political parties and supporting modern state institutions.Kinda odd wouldn't you say Al?
Click to expand...

I don't agree. I think the Muslim Brotherhood is like Hezbollah. Hezbollah has a charitable wing and an armed wing. One organization with two divisions.

Edit: Strike the word "armed" and replace it with the word "Islamist."
 
Last edited:
Ed Gein said:
It's all there. Can't help you if you choose ignorance.

ta ta.
Click to expand...

Ok, then explain to me how president Obama gave the brotherhood the green light?
 
Obviously, it wouldn't be a good thing if they got too much say in a new Egyptian government.

But I don't see how they can be possibly excluded. They are an important group in the opposition. Oppression is what caused these revolts in the first place.

And I guess it's too early to become alarmist anyways. IIRC, the Muslim Brotherhood would hardly win more than 10% to 15% in free elections. That means they may become part of a new government, but hardly the dominant part -- or could they? I may be wrong, but I trust the Egyptian people and their love for freedom enough to assume they don't want to replace secular tyranny with theocratic islamist tyranny. Or at least a sufficient share of them.
 
The Brotherhood & co are only 1/6th of the Parliament but the largest single party among many factions.
This despite being Suppressed by Mubarak.

I posted an estimate the other day (mine and a secular opposition leader) that this would Double without that suppression.

So they can't leave out what is the largest single party by far at app 1/3 of the electorate; 'The Hood'.
 
Last edited:
Is the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood in some capacity in a new Egyptian govt. a positive development from the standpoint of the interests of the American people?
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
Is the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood in some capacity in a new Egyptian govt. a positive development from the standpoint of the interests of the American people?
Click to expand...

Isn't freedom in the interest of America?

You could argue that free elections and an end to Mubarak's tyranny is a cause Americans should appreciate, because that's the essense of Western values. America even invaded Iraq to advance these very values of freedom. That the Muslim Brotherhood gets influence once authoritarian rule ends, is an unfortunate side effect.

If America kept supporting a tyrant, just because this tyrant is friendly towards the US and its interests, could damage America's interests by damaging America's credibility -- especially when this tyrant uses violence to oppress or even strike down a mass protest supported by a majority of the population.

The problem is just that freedom is risky in this case.
 
German guy said:
Isn't freedom in the interest of America?

You could argue that free elections and an end to Mubarak's tyranny is a cause Americans should appreciate, because that's the essense of Western values. America even invaded Iraq to advance these very values of freedom. That the Muslim Brotherhood gets influence once authoritarian rule ends, is an unfortunate side effect.

If America kept supporting a tyrant, just because this tyrant is friendly towards the US and its interests, could damage America's interests by damaging America's credibility -- especially when this tyrant uses violence to oppress or even strike down a mass protest supported by a majority of the population.

The problem is just that freedom is risky in this case.
Click to expand...

The one thing that is certain is that freedom for the American people is the only thing which is in the interest of the American people. Everything else depends on all of the facts and circumstances.

There is a dichotomy between American ideals and American national interests. The Bush Democracy Agenda was formally abandoned by Obama. Iraq has discredited the idea of American involvement in the aspirations of other peoples. America must never get involved again in the spread of democratic ideology. The cost is too high.

The question I posed did not inquire about the ideals of the American people. Rather it asked about the interests of the American people.

America should have no further involvement with Egyptian politics. That having been said, there are only two realistic outcomes stemming from rapid democratization of Egypt. The first is an Egypt which resembles Iran in its hostility to America. The other possible outcome is an Egypt which is duplicitious and unreliable like Turkey under Erdogan. Both outcomes represent a setback for the national interests of the American people.

In retrospect it would have been advisable to have pursued a Democracy Agenda peacefully starting in the 1990s under Clinton so that democracy could have incubated. Now whatever springs forth will be full grown and will represent a setback for Americans.
 
donc said:
I have read that they are officially banned on holding any political office, yet they have somehow managed to get themselves elected to around 20% their parliament offices or whatever they call it their.
Click to expand...

It's because they run as, "independents". The same thing is going on in Germany with the Neo-Nazis.
 
German guy said:
Isn't freedom in the interest of America?

You could argue that free elections and an end to Mubarak's tyranny is a cause Americans should appreciate, because that's the essense of Western values. America even invaded Iraq to advance these very values of freedom. That the Muslim Brotherhood gets influence once authoritarian rule ends, is an unfortunate side effect.

If America kept supporting a tyrant, just because this tyrant is friendly towards the US and its interests, could damage America's interests by damaging America's credibility -- especially when this tyrant uses violence to oppress or even strike down a mass protest supported by a majority of the population.

The problem is just that freedom is risky in this case.
Click to expand...

Is it legal in Germany for members of the Nazi Party to run for office? Hell, is it even legal to be a member of the Nazi Party?
 
apdst said:
It's because they run as, "independents". The same thing is going on in Germany with the Neo-Nazis.
Click to expand...

Sorry for going off-topic, but: It's interesting to say that, because I've never seen any neo-Nazi running as "independent" winning an election in Germany. Or any independent for that matter, except a few on local level. Usually, neo-Nazis are running on the platform of the party NPD. There were just cases when members of an established party, after having been elected into the state parliament, were expelled from their party after Nazi remarks and thus remain in the respective parliament as "independents" until the next election.

But if you know more than me, enlighten me, please.
 
apdst said:
Is it legal in Germany for members of the Nazi Party to run for office? Hell, is it even legal to be a member of the Nazi Party?
Click to expand...

Yes. Do a search on the "National Democratic Party of Germany" NPD.

It's true that such parties can be banned, but the hurdles are very high. Nazi ideology alone is not sufficient. The court must prove they have an "active-fighting attitude towards the free democratic basic order", which means they must support violence, revolutionary thoughts or something of that kind. The highest court rejected a ban on the NPD in 2001 (IIRC), because this attitude could not be proven.

The NPD has won 1.5% of the votes in the 2009 election (1.6% in 2005) and thus failed to reach the 5.0% necessary to get representation in the national parliament. But the NPD scored two success d'estime in two East German states (Mecklenburg, where they entered the parliament in 2006 with 7.3% of the votes, and in Saxony, where they won 5.6% in 2009).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom