• 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!

Energized Muslim Brotherhood in Libya eyes a prize

I have been wondering where are the George Washington's of the Middle east in all this? Where are the spokes people, where are the folks that have the basic blueprint for their freedom? Isn't it a little odd? Why aren't CNN etc interviewing people like ElBaradei to find out what the hell they are up to, and where they want to take things?

.

Because nobody in the United States gives a **** enough to watch that interview. Ratings, man. Kim Kardashian makes more money for the network.
 
but...but...but...the Muslim Brotherhood isn't all that popular! It can't be; we've been told that they aren't!
 
The Muslim Brotherhood isn't even running a candidate for elections. While they have some influence, we need to relax and see what will happen.
 
I have been wondering where are the George Washington's of the Middle east in all this? Where are the spokes people, where are the folks that have the basic blueprint for their freedom? Isn't it a little odd? Why aren't CNN etc interviewing people like ElBaradei to find out what the hell they are up to, and where they want to take things?

.


Well, he's right here:


A crowd of people blocked Mohamed El Baradei from entering a polling station in Cairo on Saturday to cast a vote in Egypt's constitutional referendum, shoving him and smashing his car window with rocks as he left.

"We don't want you, we don't want you," a crowd of youths chanted at ElBaradei,
who has said he wants to run for president.

Egypt crowd attack ElBaradei at voting station - Hindustan Times


This wave has little to do with actual democracy, or freedom.

j-mac
 
The Muslim Brotherhood isn't even running a candidate for elections. While they have some influence, we need to relax and see what will happen.

Ah, the laissez faire approach....Good for you. Such concern, such wrenching angst over the average people in the ME....pfft!

CAIRO — In post-revolutionary Egypt, where hope and confusion collide in the daily struggle to build a new nation, religion has emerged as a powerful political force, following an uprising that was based on secular ideals. The Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group once banned by the state, is at the forefront, transformed into a tacit partner with the military government that many fear will thwart fundamental changes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/world/middleeast/25egypt.html?_r=1&bl

"There is evidence the Brotherhood struck some kind of a deal with the military early on," said Elijah Zarwan, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group. "It makes sense if you are the military — you want stability and people off the street. The Brotherhood is one address where you can go to get 100,000 people off the street."...

snip

As for not trusting "intellectuals, liberals and secularists," all of these groups have been battling for the Muslim Brotherhood in numerous Western countries - these are the very groups continually stumping for Islam and attacking critics as "Islamophobes," "racists" and "bigots." Yet, here is what a spokesman for a major global Muslim organization really thinks of its biggest pawns. Will these soon-to-be marginalized groups wake up to the fact that they've been had? In fact, as many of us have stated repeatedly, trashing these supportive groups is evidently one of the first things the MB and other Islamic supremacist organizations do when they come to power.

It is unfortunate, but these possibly well-meaning "liberal" groups fit the classic definition of a "dhimwit," a term created by TROP based on the word "dhimmi," which popularly refers to a non-Muslim who is subservient to Islamic supremacy:

A non-Muslim member of a free society that abets the stated cause of Islamic domination with remarkable gullibility or guile. A dhimwit is always quick to extend sympathy to the very enemy that would take away their own freedom, if given the opportunity.

"Yay! Egypt is free"...to be taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood


Relax, we already see what is happening, and part of it is you libs hanging Israel out to dry....Nice job.


j-mac
 
Relax, we already see what is happening, and part of it is you libs hanging Israel out to dry....Nice job.


j-mac

J-Mac.

Egypt will never be able to defeat Israel, treaty or not. :coffeepap
 
Oh you think it's Egypt alone? silly man.....


j-mac

Doesn't really matter, no nation is going to start something that would end them as a nation. The same crap that has gone on will continue to go on, and would no matter what happens in these countries.
 
Depends how you look at it. The US needs to push for more peace treaties with Israel.

It's in the how that matters. Regime change, no. Through diplomacy and winning the arguement, sure. We're not rulers of the world. We're not the world police. And we can't force our every whim.
 
It's in the how that matters. Regime change, no. Through diplomacy and winning the arguement, sure. We're not rulers of the world. We're not the world police. And we can't force our every whim.

Yet we are in Libya
 
It's in the how that matters. Regime change, no. Through diplomacy and winning the arguement, sure. We're not rulers of the world. We're not the world police. And we can't force our every whim.


Let's see, when Libyan rebels were being defeated, and Qudaffi the duck was rattling cages saying that he would go door to door to kill his opposition, who did the rebels call for? Was it England, France, China? No, it was the US wasn't it now?

j-mac
 
Let's see, when Libyan rebels were being defeated, and Qudaffi the duck was rattling cages saying that he would go door to door to kill his opposition, who did the rebels call for? Was it England, France, China? No, it was the US wasn't it now?

j-mac

Which means what? The Brotherhood is pro American?
 
Which means what? The Brotherhood is pro American?


Gheeze Joe, sometimes, I swear..... The point was that you were making as far as I saw was that the US is not the world police force. However, when you really are honest about it, it is a dodge to use the UN as cover for sending American resources in to use against a nation state then say that 'oh it is a UN, or NATO mission'... We all know what that means, and that is that the US will be the standard bearer. But nice to see you aknowledging that the MB is really anti America....A bit at a time I suppose.

Are we? I thought the UN and Nato were bombing. Am I wrong?

Weak...As I explained above, putting these org's out there as the face of the mission only secures that American's will be running it regardless of what the liar n chief says. Tell me Joe, who is the Supreme commander of NATO? Do you know?

j-mac
 
Gheeze Joe, sometimes, I swear..... The point was that you were making as far as I saw was that the US is not the world police force. However, when you really are honest about it, it is a dodge to use the UN as cover for sending American resources in to use against a nation state then say that 'oh it is a UN, or NATO mission'... We all know what that means, and that is that the US will be the standard bearer. But nice to see you aknowledging that the MB is really anti America....A bit at a time I suppose.



Weak...As I explained above, putting these org's out there as the face of the mission only secures that American's will be running it regardless of what the liar n chief says. Tell me Joe, who is the Supreme commander of NATO? Do you know?

j-mac

The UN has no force of its own, but only that of its members. so, for the UN to act, it needs to use member nation forces. One mission the UN should have is to stop rulers from killing large numbers of its civilian population. One mission neither the UN or the US should have is regime change. I makes a great deal of difference if an action is a UN action and not simply a US action. And it makes a difference what the mission is.

Now, this mission could be clearer. And it should be limited to merely stopping the killing of civilians. But regime change is up to the people of Libya and not the US or the UN. We are not police of the world, or rulers of the world, and should never see ourselfs as the ones who decides who rules any other country.
 
Are we? I thought the UN and Nato were bombing. Am I wrong?

NATO = the U.S. is handling it.

We're doing the bombing, and we're footing the bill.

As always.
 
NATO = the U.S. is handling it.

We're doing the bombing, and we're footing the bill.

As always.

Yes, we are a member nation, and we do take a lead role far too often, but that is still not the same as stepping outside those organizations and doing it all on our own.
 
Yes, we are a member nation, and we do take a lead role far too often, but that is still not the same as stepping outside those organizations and doing it all on our own.

We went into Iraq with a "coalition", too. It was multilateral until it got hard, and everybody bailed on us.

Don't kid yourself. We're doing it, and we're PAYING oodles for it.
 
The UN has no force of its own, but only that of its members. so, for the UN to act, it needs to use member nation forces.

Thanks for the elementary lesson that is stating the obvious. So tell me, how many member nations are there in the UN?

One mission the UN should have is to stop rulers from killing large numbers of its civilian population.

Iran
Syria
Bahrain
Ivory Coast
Somalia

Why are you cherry picking? Does that mean that they aren't important?

One mission neither the UN or the US should have is regime change.

I had no idea tanks could fly.

I makes a great deal of difference if an action is a UN action and not simply a US action.

Why? you think the UN actions are noble, and the US actions are ignoble?

And it makes a difference what the mission is.

Obama at the moment says it is to remove Qadaffi duck from power. Is that what the SC voted to do?

Now, this mission could be clearer. And it should be limited to merely stopping the killing of civilians.

The beginnings of giving a pass are we?

But regime change is up to the people of Libya and not the US or the UN.

Do you think they'd have a shot in hell if it weren't for Obama taking out armor on the ground?

We are not police of the world

We are being used as such.

or rulers of the world

Who said anything about that? Not I...You should put down the far left pap.

and should never see ourselfs as the ones who decides who rules any other country.

Where are we doing that?

j-mac
 
J, pay attention, no matter how many members are in the UN that you don't like, or who don't contribute, it does not change that it is a UN mission. Nor does it change that it is different than a US mission outside the UN and NATO.

And I stated an opinion as to where our mission should not go. But, as to where have we done that, decide who rules a country or regime change, Iraq would fit that definition, as we decided it would not be Saddam. That is not our call. It was never our call. That always should ahve been up to the people of Iraq.
 
J, pay attention, no matter how many members are in the UN that you don't like, or who don't contribute, it does not change that it is a UN mission. Nor does it change that it is different than a US mission outside the UN and NATO.

And I stated an opinion as to where our mission should not go. But, as to where have we done that, decide who rules a country or regime change, Iraq would fit that definition, as we decided it would not be Saddam. That is not our call. It was never our call. That always should ahve been up to the people of Iraq.

Alright, you pay attention pal, What do you think Obama is doing in Libya right now?

j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom