The Egypt Mess and Beyond

[Selene]

Gentlemen:

We have no clue what is going on at ground level in Egypt. I do not think any of us could accurately identify the top ten (10) key personnel in the Egyptian Democracy Movement right now.

We should be supporting, generically, the conceptual democracy elements rhetorically. Other than that. we should be silent as a policy.

Covertly, we should have infiltrated the damn movement by now so we can have some idea as to who is who and which way this movement's momentum is taking itself.

By infiltrate, I mean as an objective recorder and transmitter of the facts on the ground. It is called gathering intelligence. Someone up the chain of command will have to evaluate and decide on the policy to develop to advance freedom which should be our goal as a country.

Yes, it is idealistic, but that is the path I chose.

Adam

[Richard Wiig]

I do wonder if Glen Beck is a bigot. He's saying nothing other than what the likes of Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller have been drawing to peoples attention for years.

[Richard Wiig]

You talk of democracy, Adam, as if it is a good thing. Democracy doesn't equate to freedom, or to a freedom movement.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/crisis-in-egypt/poll-shows-egyptians-favour-democracy-and-stoning-for-adultery/article1892414/

Edited February 4, 2011 by Infidel

[Selene]

You talk of democracy, Adam, as if it is a good thing. Democracy doesn't equate to freedom, or to a freedom movement.

http://www.theglobea...article1892414/

Richard:

I reference "democracy" and the "democracy movement" in Egypt because that is how they and the media refer to it.

Democracy is a better form of organizing society than a dictatorship, but the dictatorship of the majority is just as deadly.

So, stating that the "movement" in Egypt is a democracy movement, may not be true at all. I do not know.

I do not know if you are an American, but we are not a democracy either. We are a representative Republic. Huge difference between that and a democracy.

Adam

Post Script:

82%: Believe adulterers should be stoned - I have no fear of this because I have been watching Al Jazeera for almost a week and these Egyptian men all throw like girls and could not hit the broad side of an adulterer's barn!

[Richard Wiig]

Richard:

I reference "democracy" and the "democracy movement" in Egypt because that is how they and the media refer to it.

Democracy is a better form of organizing society than a dictatorship, but the dictatorship of the majority is just as deadly.

Or more deadly, depending on what you've got. I don't think the victims really make the distinction that you do. Democracy doesn't necessarily equate to better at all. It just so happens that we live in times in the West when it is better, but that doesn't mean it will always remain so.

[Richard Wiig]

I'm a New Zealander, Adam.

[Selene]

I'm a New Zealander, Adam.

Richard:

I did know that, sorry I had forgotten.

This just hit my e-mail, our idiot boy President Obiwan...

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is discussing with Egyptian officials a proposal for President Hosni Mubarak to resign immediately, turning over power to a transitional government headed by Vice President Omar Suleiman with the support of the Egyptian military, administration officials and Arab diplomats said Thursday. Enlarge This Image

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

President Barack Obama on Thursday. The White House is in discussions to find a way out of the crisis in Cairo.

Even though Mr. Mubarak has balked, so far, at leaving now, officials from both governments are continuing talks about a plan in which Mr. Suleiman, backed by Lt. Gen. Sami Enan, chief of the Egyptian armed forces, and Field Marshal Mohamed Tantawi, the defense minister, would immediately begin a process of constitutional reform.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/world/middleeast/04diplomacy.html?hp

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I do wonder if Glen Beck is a bigot. He's saying nothing other than what the likes of Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller have been drawing to peoples attention for years.

Of course Glenn Beck (not Glen Beck) is not a bigot because he appreciates some things from Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller.

He thinks for himself, not according to prejudice.

Hell, he even believes in a difference between Islam and radical Islamism. I once saw him offer to help--out of his own pocket--a Sufi lady build a mosque near ground zero. That's on tape. She would never do that, but Beck said if she wanted to, he was all for it. (As opposed to Rauf.)

I wonder what Spencer or Geller would think about that...

btw - I don't think Pamela Geller is a bigot. I do think she's way over the top, but she's from New York. They do that there.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

I do wonder if Glen Beck is a bigot. He's saying nothing other than what the likes of Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller have been drawing to peoples attention for years.

I once saw him offer to help--out of his own pocket--a Sufi lady build a mosque near ground zero. That's on tape. She would never do that, but Beck said if she wanted to, he was all for it. (As opposed to Rauf.)

I wonder what Spencer or Geller would think about that...

This makes me laugh. Jihadwatch has a muslim on its board, and Mr Spencer has muslim friends, and it wouldn't surprise me if Pamela Geller does to. They are not opposed to mosque building, nor to muslims, nor to Islam. They are opposed to Islamic supremacism and Shariah, a difference that you appear unable to fathom.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

They are opposed to Islamic supremacism and Shariah, a difference that you appear unable to fathom.

Richard,

This isn't what you normally say. You normally say that the problem is Islam. You are on record countless times saying this.

Once again, though, your lack of reading makes you talk crap. I am on record against Islamism and sharia. I am not against Islam. (I believe I have even said that to you a gazillion times.)

You actually come across as someone who does not know the difference between Islam as a religion and Islamism as religion+politics.

They are not opposed to mosque building, nor to muslims, nor to Islam.

You believe they would not object to building a mosque right next to Ground Zero? Even if it were spearheaded by a more benign person?

Really?

On what planet?

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

They are opposed to Islamic supremacism and Shariah, a difference that you appear unable to fathom.

Richard,

This isn't what you normally say. You normally say that the problem is Islam. You are on record countless times saying this.

I know you are against those things (Islamism and Shariah) but you don't tie those things to Islam. In doing so you act as your own worst enemy. If the problem is not Islam, then Islam does not need reforming. The fact is, the problem is Islam. It is specifically Shariah and the political aspects of Islam that are the problem. They are as much a part of Islam as any benign part, and for you to pretend otherwise is less than honest. Do you really think that Robert Spencer, and Pamela Geller, and myself for that matter, has a problem with any parts of Islam that are benign? You could only think that if you are ignorant of what they say, or if you havne't taken the time to truly understand what they say.

Once again, though, your lack of reading makes you talk crap. I am on record against Islamism and sharia. I am not against Islam. (I believe I have even said that to you a gazillion times.)

If you are against Shariah and Islamic supremacism, then you are against those aspects of Islam that are causing the problems. The muslim faithfull who believe in and support those aspects of Islam would certainly class you as anti-Islam for your views.

You actually come across as someone who does not know the difference between Islam as a religion and Islamism as religion+politics.

The politics are part of Islam. Unlike you, I do not sever them. I look at Islam for the whole that it is, rather than try to separate pieces and say this part is and this part isn't.

They are not opposed to mosque building, nor to muslims, nor to Islam.

You believe they would not object to building a mosque right next to Ground Zero? Even if it were spearheaded by a more benign person?

Really?

On what planet?

Michael

I don't believe a benign muslim would build a mosque right next to ground zero. I think a large number of people are sensitive to a mosque being built next to ground zero regardless of who's building it, and Mr Spencer and Pamela Geller would be just as sensitive. It's understandably an emotional thing. But in regards to not objecting to the building of mosques in general, absolutely, and they are on planet Earth. You dont' even read Robert Spencer, because you are so biased against him, yet you have him pegged. What he's fighting against is the aspects of Islam that are supremacist and opposed to, and a threat to, individual rights, equality before the law and between the sexes, freedom of conscience and speech, etc. All the things that you, supposedly, are fighting for. You need to look at yourself and see what it is that's messing with your ability to see clearly.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Infidel

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I know you are against those things (Islamism and Shariah) but you don't tie those things to Islam.

Richard,

This is BS.

I tie the parts of Islam-politics to the parts of Islam-religion that are correctly identified. All you have to do is read my stuff, starting from my very first essay in 2006: Initial Understanding of Islam on Fundamental Intellectual Issues.

I also tie in another highly toxic ideology (Nazism) that you--and Islam haters--like to ignore, no matter how many facts are put in front of your faces.

It's like a Venn diagram where the Muslims in the left circle do not have Nazi ideology embedded in their teaching and understanding, and surprise, surprise, those Muslims are peace-loving. (Just look.) Then you have the Muslims in the right circle who do have Nazi ideology embedded in their teaching and understanding. Surprise, surprise, there you find terrorism, rabid antisemitism, the production of suicide bombers and a whole host of ills. (Just look.) Then you have where the circles overlap. Those Muslims flop one way or the other depending on the time of day. They are generally less violent, but they generally support it. (Just look.)

What's more, the left circle is many times larger than the right circle in number of Muslims. (Just look.)

When people point all this out to you, you ignore it and say the whole problem is "Islam." You lump the good with the bad, give no reason on earth why the peaceful Muslims ignore or reinterpret the violent passages in the Qur'an (other than to say they are hypocrites), and pretend you are doing some kind of intellectual whatever.

When something that basic is left out, I call that a gross oversimplification. When there is a lot of bashing going on based on that oversimplification--when the majority good is equally bashed with the minority bad, I call it bigotry.

You asked, "Do you really think that Robert Spencer, and Pamela Geller, and myself for that matter, has a problem with any parts of Islam that are benign?" You say you don't. But your equal opportunity bashing tells a far different story.

When there is a difference between what a person says and what a person does, I go with what he does as a better indicator of his intentions.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If anybody is interested and wants to spend a whole ten minutes reading an article, the following is a pretty good overview (written in 2007) of some of the essentials of leftover Nazi influence in Islamism:

Hitler's Legacy: Modern Islamo-fascism and its Nazi Origins

by Dr Carlo Kopp

Here's a quote from that article about Sayyid Qutb (one of the most influential and nastiest of the Islamic intellectuals behind Islamism):

Qutb is often regarded as the father of modern Islamo-fascism, as he fused fundamentalist Islamic ideology with the Nazi propaganda model, his stated aim being to produce a movement which rivalled Nazism in the West and Communism in the East. To creat this ideological model, Qutb essentially 'remapped' the Nazi model into a Middle Eastern equivalent, replacing 'German racial purity' with 'Islamic religious purity', and adopting the tenets of Nazi anti-Semitism and rejection of Western capitalism and liberal democracy. Key elements of Nazi propaganda, such as the ideas of a world Zionist conspiracy, centred in the US, were rolled into this toxic mix, together with the idea of propagating Islam by the sword.

There's a whole lot more and Kopp shows Nazi lineage with all the major Islamist players: Wahhabism, Al Qaeda, Taliban, al-Banna, Muslim Brotherhood, al-Zawahiri, bin Laden, Khomeini, al-Husseini, Arafat, Ba'ath movement, Saddam Hussein, and Hezbollah. (He left out Hamas, but that's OK in this context--it's a short article.) Kopp shows Nazis, too, not just Nazi ideology, directly tied up with all this: Hitler, Goebbels, Eichmann, Brunner, Däumling, Dirlewanger, Gleim and Selimann.

From my other readings, I know everything I just read here can be easily documented.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

I know you are against those things (Islamism and Shariah) but you don't tie those things to Islam.

Richard,

This is BS.

I tie the parts of Islam-politics to the parts of Islam-religion that are correctly identified. All you have to do is read my stuff, starting from my very first essay in 2006: Initial Understanding of Islam on Fundamental Intellectual Issues.

I also tie in another highly toxic ideology (Nazism) that you--and Islam haters--like to ignore, no matter how many facts are put in front of your faces.

It's like a Venn diagram where the Muslims in the left circle do not have Nazi ideology embedded in their teaching and understanding, and surprise, surprise, those Muslims are peace-loving. (Just look.) Then you have the Muslims in the right circle who do have Nazi ideology embedded in their teaching and understanding. Surprise, surprise, there you find terrorism, rabid antisemitism, the production of suicide bombers and a whole host of ills. (Just look.) Then you have where the circles overlap. Those Muslims flop one way or the other depending on the time of day. They are generally less violent, but they generally support it. (Just look.)

What's more, the left circle is many times larger than the right circle in number of Muslims. (Just look.)

First of all, your "right circle" is rather large - in Egypt at least - 70% of men, 62% of Women (Just look.)

Secondly, let's run with your argument for a bit and say that Nazism and Islamism are intimately tied together and the latter arose from the former (a little difficult considering the latter pre-dates the former by a millenium or two, but who's counting?) but for the sake of the argument let's run with it and say the same fundamental processes are at work.

What did Nazism ultimately produce?? Well, from your source, it produced:

"The Nazis perfected the model of complete ideological seduction of the populace"

Look at how small that circle is - "complete ideological seduction of the populace". Tiny isn't it???

And, from your source:

"This is why German troops fought with such blind fanaticism during the latter phase of the Second World War – most truly believed, en masse, in the regime and its view of the world."

"en masse" - Is that an high-brow intellectual word for a couple of kooky fanatics? Or is that German for "small circle" ?

How was Nazism defeated? Did we "try to encourage" the good Nazis?

It was defeated because, and only because:

1) They lost militarily.

2) Nazism was shunned, discredited, and denormalized.

Did you hear that?? That was the sound of the complete self-implosion of your own argument by your own hand (Just look.)

Bob

Edited February 4, 2011 by Bob_Mac

[BaalChatzaf]

If anybody is interested and wants to spend a whole ten minutes reading an article, the following is a pretty good overview (written in 2007) of some of the essentials of leftover Nazi influence in Islamism:

Hitler's Legacy: Modern Islamo-fascism and its Nazi Origins

by Dr Carlo Kopp

Here's a quote from that article about Sayyid Qutb (one of the most influential and nastiest of the Islamic intellectuals behind Islamism):

Qutb is often regarded as the father of modern Islamo-fascism, as he fused fundamentalist Islamic ideology with the Nazi propaganda model, his stated aim being to produce a movement which rivalled Nazism in the West and Communism in the East. To creat this ideological model, Qutb essentially 'remapped' the Nazi model into a Middle Eastern equivalent, replacing 'German racial purity' with 'Islamic religious purity', and adopting the tenets of Nazi anti-Semitism and rejection of Western capitalism and liberal democracy. Key elements of Nazi propaganda, such as the ideas of a world Zionist conspiracy, centred in the US, were rolled into this toxic mix, together with the idea of propagating Islam by the sword.

There's a whole lot more and Kopp shows Nazi lineage with all the major Islamist players: Wahhabism, Al Qaeda, Taliban, al-Banna, Muslim Brotherhood, al-Zawahiri, bin Laden, Khomeini, al-Husseini, Arafat, Ba'ath movement, Saddam Hussein, and Hezbollah. (He left out Hamas, but that's OK in this context--it's a short article.) Kopp shows Nazis, too, not just Nazi ideology, directly tied up with all this: Hitler, Goebbels, Eichmann, Brunner, Däumling, Dirlewanger, Gleim and Selimann.

From my other readings, I know everything I just read here can be easily documented.

Michael

Sayid Qutb's vicious screed -In the Shade of the Q'ran- is almost the exact counterpart of Hitler's -Mein Kampf- Wretched minds run in parallel.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited February 4, 2011 by BaalChatzaf

[bmacwilliam]

Wretched minds run in parallel.

Yeah, that too.

[Richard Wiig]

Very nicely put, Bob.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I find it hard to discern an intelligent thought in your posts above.

I do discern a lot of taunting, so it is probably nothing more than a Tarzan yell.

The closest meaning I can discern is that you believe Nazism does not have any leftover influence in the Islamist world and that Islam itself is the evil. But even that's not clear.

Whatever.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

Bob,

I find it hard to discern an intelligent thought in your posts above.

I do discern a lot of taunting, so it is probably nothing more than a Tarzan yell.

The closest meaning I can discern is that you believe Nazism does not have any leftover influence in the Islamist world and that Islam itself is the evil. But even that's not clear.

Whatever.

Michael

Michael, read the post.

What's clear is that your connection to Nazism skewers your position.

Taunting? Sure, but accurate. Don't pretend you didn't understand.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I might peel these posts off and put them into another thread. This is turning into one of those other endless threads of:

Yes it is

No it isn't

Yes it is

No it isn't

Yes it is

No it isn't

Yes it is

No it isn't

Yes it is

No it isn't

Yes it is

No it isn't

Yes it is

No it isn't

... regarding Islam being the source of all evil.

This has nothing to do with Glenn Beck.

Let's see how it goes...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What's clear is that your connection to Nazism skewers your position.

What on earth are you talking about?

God knows I don't.

Do you have any idea you want to discuss?

The taunting qua taunting is getting really tiresome.

This is a discussion forum, not a kindergarten.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sayid Qutb's vicious screed -In the Shade of the Q'ran- is almost the exact counterpart of Hitler's -Mein Kampf- Wretched minds run in parallel.

Bob (Baal),

I just went through some overviews of Qutb's life to see what changes a man into something like that. Two points stand out:

1. He memorized the Qur'an when he was around 11 years old.

2. He was viciously tortured by Nasser's goons.

He seems to have been a normal above-average Muslim writer with a few radical leanings until the torturing. Then he went whole hog into seeing blood.

From what I have read, he was interested in being good. His whole approach was to seek virtue in Allah, not evil, as the meaning of life.

His problem--for the rest of the world--was embedding hatred within that misguided idealism. (He also used to listen to a lot of Nazi radio broadcasts, so that probably helped.)

I believe his work is so powerful to a certain kind of Muslim mentality because he was sincerely seeking the good (or better, what he perceived as the good) and he was a martyr for real who did not sell out at the end, despite widely publicized offers to sell out.

That's powerful medicine. If one is to refute it, it needs serious attention.

I'm just now skimming over Milestones.

Michael

[Selene]

How was Nazism defeated? Did we "try to encourage" the good Nazis?

It was defeated because, and only because:

1) They lost militarily.

2) Nazism was shunned, discredited, and de-normalized.

Did you hear that?? That was the sound of the complete self-implosion of your own argument by your own hand (Just look.)

Bob

Bob:

Your argument concerning encouraging the "good Nazis" and representing this as Micheal's argument of encouraging the "non-radical Islamo-Nazi jihadist Muslims" is not comparing the same groups.

Nazi's Germans and Germans

Islamist-Jihadist-Sharia Muslims and Muslims

Your argument does not relate the proper comparative groups to form your conclusion. It is a fallacious comparative.

However, I still understand what you are attempting to assert.

Adam

constructive argumentation critic

[william.scherk]

Here's today's show:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fiRK0Q_7oxA" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

I'll probably put up the rest of this week, too, as it happens. Glenn has announced that this week is devoted to looking into this stuff.

What did you find unconvincing in this video, if anything?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

To be honest, this is like asking what you disagreed with in a TV news show you saw a couple of days ago. You have to stop and think and try to remember stuff that you do not normally process. Beck's show to you is a novelty, but to me, it is something regular.

This doesn't mean I tune out the stuff from Beck I disagree with. It means that I have a series of points where I disagree with him that have evolved over time, so when he goes into those areas, I make leeway for them. But trying to recall individual instances is tough since this is an almost automatic filter. I would have to see the show again to say.

Here's an example. Beck always says that God is the answer. In my filter, I translate this (for my life) as "honestly seeking to be a good person" is the answer. (Or maybe something like "thinking through and choosing your moral principles" is the answer.) I don't agree with his notion of God. I am pretty sure that he would not object to my meaning--for my life. But not for his. He would definitely disagree with me there. In short, I can't tell you the details of each time this kind of thing happens without reviewing the show.

Beck does not deal with the Nazi stuff in his treatment of Islamism. That's a biggie for me and it is one dot I have not seen him connect. But the dots he connected between the left and Islamism are definitely there. (Just look for Tides Foundation or any other Soros group as sponsor on pertinent Islamist project websites.)

When he did deal with Nazism, his depiction of how they intellectually invaded the churches under a ruse while gaining power--before physically shutting them down after obtaining power--was pretty informative.

In the particular show you mentioned, I really like the some of the dots Beck connected (such as Islamic Socialism). That impressed me far more than the points where I don't agree with him.

Michael