The Muslim Brotherhood for Beginners

[ScottSA]

You said it yourself, if someone was on your property demanding to do something that you did not approve of, you'd call the police. You knew full well that the analogy was referring to international politics when you made that statement.

Bemused giggles.

The analogy was unserious and I treated it accordingly.

And it seems that not only do you make up things about what I believe in, you also like to make up things about why I post what I post. You are on a roll. Please don't stop. It does provide some mild form of entertainment.

The analogy was meant to show you that some things are non-negotiable. Apparently you agree that some things are non-negotiable. Do you feel that democracy is negotiable? Do you feel that your way of life is negotiable?

[jbg]

The analogy was meant to show you that some things are non-negotiable. Apparently you agree that some things are non-negotiable. Do you feel that democracy is negotiable? Do you feel that your way of life is negotiable?

Some people prefer dhimmitude to any kind of assertion of rights. Same as some people don't pledge allegiance to their flag or country.

[ScottSA]

Here's someone who thinks we ought to think some things are negotiable...quite entertaining too...

http://www.snappedshot.com/archives/976-Is...dy-Roundup.html

[Mad_Michael]

The way the US is built as a practical matter, treaties may often go down to defeat. That's different from the situation with non-governmental groups (read, terrorists) like the PLO or Muslim Brotherhood, where the leaders will represent that they possess authority that they do not have.

So, on the off-chance that engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood cannot guarentee a treaty resolution, you have decided that the engagement is useless?

That's rather sweeping and reveals your bias. You just don't want to see any engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood. You are just going to keep on posting 'technical' objections as a way to hide the fact that you just don't like it.

Not particularly surprising. I expected your line of argument as the most likely one that Bush policy supporters would take.

Who says you have to make treaties? You make treaties that are likely to be honored and in mutual interest. Do you think the US and Canada really need treaties, for example, to prevent a shooting war across the border? On the other hand, treaties like Versailles were worthless scraps of paper almost on signing. Treaties are not good for the sake of treaties.

So, lets see if I understand your argument correctly here...

Engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood is a bad thing (or useless) because the Muslim Brotherhood cannot guarentee their side in a treaty negotiation. However, treaty negotiation with the Muslim Brotherhood is not necessary because treaties are useless.

Very interesting - and entirely circular. And you wonder why I keep saying that the reasons you give are not your real reasons?

You appear to have decided you don't like the idea and are grasping at various justifications trying to make your bias appear justified.

[Mad_Michael]

The analogy was meant to show you that some things are non-negotiable.

The analogy failed to do this. It spoke of some absurd situation occuring on my doorstep.

Apparently you agree that some things are non-negotiable.

Apparently you are wrong.

Do you feel that democracy is negotiable?

It is by definition.

Do you feel that your way of life is negotiable?

It is to me.

[ScottSA]

Apparently you agree that some things are non-negotiable.

Apparently you are wrong.

Do you feel that your way of life is negotiable?

It is to me.

So, you have no objection to the rape of your sister then? Or should it be negotiated first? Perhaps you can counter with an offer of simply pulling her pants down?

What you are doing here is flaunting your inability to distinguish between analogy and reality. The concepts are the same, and your inablity to transfer the analogy to concrete example is a startling failure for someone billing himself as at least moderately intelligent. But hey...we can't all be smart I guerss...

[Mad_Michael]

So, you have no objection to the rape of your sister then? Or should it be negotiated first? Perhaps you can counter with an offer of simply pulling her pants down?

Like I said above, this analogy is unserious and unworthy of reply.

And it is now becoming vulgar.

What you are doing here is flaunting your inability to distinguish between analogy and reality.

This is very colourful.

... for someone billing himself as at least moderately intelligent.

Please cite.

But hey...we can't all be smart I guerss...

You said it, not me.

[ScottSA]

So, you have no objection to the rape of your sister then? Or should it be negotiated first? Perhaps you can counter with an offer of simply pulling her pants down?

Like I said above, this analogy is unserious and unworthy of reply.

An analogy doesn't have to be serious in order to convey an idea. Either some things are negotiable or they are not. You claim all things are negotiable; I'm showing you that all things are not negotiable, even to you. You either willfully or stupidly refuse to see the point, and choose to flippantly dismiss it...painting yourself more as a spiteful child than the clever wit you seem to think you are. But whatever...

[Rue]

As usual I just don't get many of the responses.

In Israel the Muslim Brotherhood has two branches. One will have nothing to do with Israel. The other has been elected and sits in the Knesset.

Gosh imagine that.

Here is the point. The Muslim Brotherhood is an organization with many entities, some terrorist, some are not.

Its quite simple. If the Muslim Brotherhood wants to denounce violence and participate in democracy, then it should take its rightful place in democractic governments.

if it wishes to believe in terorism then no it is a criminal organization that is entitled to NOTHING. Terrorists have no rights.

Only a fool would suggest to anyone they should sit with a terrorist whose charter says, I will kill you and I won't stop until I do that. That is ludicrous. What is there to negotiate-would you like to kill me slowly or quickly, with a bomb or a knife or a gun?

The Muslim Brotherhood is made up of many factions. Some have openly renounced terror and so they can be spoken to as Israel has done. Other factions remain terrorist in nature and so until they denounce terror and put down their weapons are not entitled to any support or understanding.

You can't have it both ways-oh you hoo stand still so I can blow you up-and by the way I have the right to sit at a table and tell you to sit still so I can blow you up...

The only person who would suggest negotiating with a terrorist is someone who is completely and utterly removed from the reality of what a terrorist is. Oh Mr. Terrorist you aren't such a bad guy. Come give me a hug. We can work it out.

[ScottSA]

Only a fool would suggest to anyone they should sit with a terrorist whose charter says, I will kill you and I won't stop until I do that. That is ludicrous. What is there to negotiate-would you like to kill me slowly or quickly, with a bomb or a knife or a gun?

What about those times in which a stated intent is NOT a real intent?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/...,491925,00.html

[ScottSA]

This is not about the Muslim Brotherhood, but it is about Islamic Organizations that are not what they seem.

It is an innocent looking semi-detached property in the university city of Cambridge from where an Islamic charity, dedicated to peace and interfaith friendship, operates.

The leaders of the Islamic Academy are so moderate that they were recently invited to share a platform with Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Yet there are growing suspicions that this suburban house is where the origins of the suspected London and Glasgow bomb plots may lie, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...08/nterr308.xml

[jbg]

Only a fool would suggest to anyone they should sit with a terrorist whose charter says, I will kill you and I won't stop until I do that. That is ludicrous. What is there to negotiate-would you like to kill me slowly or quickly, with a bomb or a knife or a gun?

*snip*

You can't have it both ways-oh you hoo stand still so I can blow you up-and by the way I have the right to sit at a table and tell you to sit still so I can blow you up...

The only person who would suggest negotiating with a terrorist is someone who is completely and utterly removed from the reality of what a terrorist is. Oh Mr. Terrorist you aren't such a bad guy. Come give me a hug. We can work it out.

As Marc Steyn once said, re: the topic title "Religion of Peaces activist", "Take my advice and try not to be standing too near the Hamas activist when he activates himself." (link)

[Mad_Michael]

As usual I just don't get many of the responses.

In Israel the Muslim Brotherhood has two branches. One will have nothing to do with Israel. The other has been elected and sits in the Knesset.

Gosh imagine that.

Here is the point. The Muslim Brotherhood is an organization with many entities, some terrorist, some are not.

Its quite simple. If the Muslim Brotherhood wants to denounce violence and participate in democracy, then it should take its rightful place in democractic governments.

if it wishes to believe in terorism then no it is a criminal organization that is entitled to NOTHING. Terrorists have no rights.

Only a fool would suggest to anyone they should sit with a terrorist whose charter says, I will kill you and I won't stop until I do that. That is ludicrous. What is there to negotiate-would you like to kill me slowly or quickly, with a bomb or a knife or a gun?

The Muslim Brotherhood is made up of many factions. Some have openly renounced terror and so they can be spoken to as Israel has done. Other factions remain terrorist in nature and so until they denounce terror and put down their weapons are not entitled to any support or understanding.

You can't have it both ways-oh you hoo stand still so I can blow you up-and by the way I have the right to sit at a table and tell you to sit still so I can blow you up...

The only person who would suggest negotiating with a terrorist is someone who is completely and utterly removed from the reality of what a terrorist is. Oh Mr. Terrorist you aren't such a bad guy. Come give me a hug. We can work it out.

If all terrorists were never to be talked to, how did Israel become a State? That required Western nations negotiating with terrorists.

[jbg]

If all terrorists were never to be talked to, how did Israel become a State? That required Western nations negotiating with terrorists.

I'll take your comment as ill-informed rather than malicious.

The Irgun were, by some definition, terrorists. They attacked the King David Hotel (after telephoning a warning to the Brits to "scram"). The Brits' response was "we don't take orders from Jews".

The Haganah, or regular forces, were in no way terrorists. They in fact forced the Irgun to lay down their arms when the Haganah's successors, the Labor Party, took power in 1948. All negotiations were through the Haganah. Unlike the Muslim Brotherhood, they had the power to enter into binding deals and, by disarming the Irgun, ensuuring that the deals would be kept. The Muslim Brotherhood has no such ability or intention.

[ScottSA]

If all terrorists were never to be talked to, how did Israel become a State? That required Western nations negotiating with terrorists.

I'll take your comment as ill-informed rather than malicious.

The Irgun were, by some definition, terrorists. They attacked the King David Hotel (after telephoning a warning to the Brits to "scram"). The Brits' response was "we don't take orders from Jews".

The Haganah, or regular forces, were in no way terrorists. They in fact forced the Irgun to lay down their arms when the Haganah's successors, the Labor Party, took power in 1948. All negotiations were through the Haganah. Unlike the Muslim Brotherhood, they had the power to enter into binding deals and, by disarming the Irgun, ensuuring that the deals would be kept. The Muslim Brotherhood has no such ability or intention.

Awwww and poor MM finally thought he had a real zinger...

[Mad_Michael]

Awwww and poor MM finally thought he had a real zinger...

You really ought to get a life sometime... just sayin'.

[ScottSA]

Awwww and poor MM finally thought he had a real zinger...

You really ought to get a life sometime... just sayin'.

Why thank you. I'll take it under consideration. In the meantime, I do hope you don't have academic credentials to defend...they appear to be streaming behind you in tatters at the moment.

[Mad_Michael]

If all terrorists were never to be talked to, how did Israel become a State? That required Western nations negotiating with terrorists.

I'll take your comment as ill-informed rather than malicious.

The Irgun were, by some definition, terrorists. They attacked the King David Hotel (after telephoning a warning to the Brits to "scram"). The Brits' response was "we don't take orders from Jews".

The Haganah, or regular forces, were in no way terrorists. They in fact forced the Irgun to lay down their arms when the Haganah's successors, the Labor Party, took power in 1948. All negotiations were through the Haganah. Unlike the Muslim Brotherhood, they had the power to enter into binding deals and, by disarming the Irgun, ensuuring that the deals would be kept. The Muslim Brotherhood has no such ability or intention.

"were, by some definition, terrorists"... by British legal standards certainly. I don't have figures offhand as to how many were imprisoned for 'terrorist' charges, but there are quite a few (Menachim Begin comes to mind immediately as one who served time in British jail for 'terrorist' activities - he isn't the only one).

Spin all you like to defend them, the bottom line is that some Jewish groups did engage in terrorism during the 1940's. And the Western powers had no substantive difficulty in subsequently 'engaging' with Israel or Jewish groups.

Speaking of which, we also have the example of South Africa with the ANC. Many of the ANC leadership were jailed for terrorism, including Mandela. Yet again, western countries had no substantive or moral difficulty 'engaging' with post-apartied South Africa.

And we also have the example of Britain (amongst others) acknowledging and 'engaging' with the IRA, another noted and unapolegetic terrorist organisation.

Remarkably, all of these examples involves 'engaging' with people/organisations with a known history of terrorist violence. And in all cases, remarkable and mutually beneficial results have accrued over time.

Engagement of and in itself is beneficial to the west. The process of engagement of and in itself increases the possibility of peaceful resolution of differences.

Any who oppose this general and non-commital policy of 'engagement' can only be accused of wanting a war with Islam.

Edited July 10, 2007 by Mad_Michael

[Mad_Michael]

if it wishes to believe in terorism then no it is a criminal organization that is entitled to NOTHING. Terrorists have no rights.

This is just not true.

Israel, South Africa and N.Ireland (amongst other places) provide examples of terrorism used successfully to achieve a political goal.

One may not like terrorism, but how can you deny the successful application of terrorism?

Indeed, it is arguable that the USA and Britain used 'terrorism' in WWII in their infamous 'firebombing' raids with the expressed goal of maximum civilian casualties.

Terrorism as a tactic has been used many times, sometimes successfully, sometimes not.