The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report
U.S. National Intelligence Director Cites Muslim Brotherhood As Bulwark Against Al-Qaeda
In his statement for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper appears to endorse the concept Muslim Brotherhood involvement in the Mideast political process will serve as some kind of bulwark against Al-Qaeda and other such groups. He writes:
If, over the longer term, governments take real steps to address public demands for political participation and democratic institutions—and remain committed to CT efforts—we judge that core al-Qaeda and the global jihadist movement will experience a strategic setback. Al Qaeda probably will find it difficult to compete for local support with groups like the Muslim Brotherhood that participate in the political process, provide social services, and advocate religious values. Nonviolent, pro-democracy demonstrations challenge al Qaeda’s violent jihadist ideology and might yield increased political power for secular or moderate Islamist parties.
Pete Wells, the newly appointed restaurant critic of the Times has a serious problem. The thick- necked, double-chinned man who prefers the “just folks” appellation of Pete must be in a constant state of cognitive dissonance as the audience for whom he writes are people he clearly cannot stand. In Wednesday’s review of an upper east side restaurant named Crown, 99 percenter Pete leads with words of disdain for the 1 % millionaires with “identical teeth, hair with an amethyst tint, an unyielding tightness in the flesh around the eyes ….people whose 40th birthday was celebrated in a previous century….locals who’ve given the cook the night off….families who eat wordlessly, girls ballerina-straight, boys slumped in their blazers, parents plodding their way through a cozy Burgundy.”
Last Thursday night I was on BBC TV’s Question Time in Plymouth, which you can view here.
The last question on the show came from a woman who asked whether, ‘since Israel has many more nuclear weapons than Iran’, we should agree with President Obama’s statement that no option (in other words, war with Iran) should be ruled out.
The woman who asked this question was doubtless a reasonable, moderate person with a benevolent and kindly approach to humanity, who would be astonished to be told there was anything shocking about her basic premise.
But the equation she made was of course obnoxious. There is no reasonable equation to be made between Israel and Iran over their possession of nuclear weapons. Israel’s nuclear weapons – like those in the possession of every true democracy – are intended solely for the country’s defence against attack.
Israel, moreover, is in the unique position of being threatened with extinction by most of its neighbours — of which the most terrifying is Iran, which regularly announces its intention to wipe Israel off the map and is racing to develop nuclear weapons with which to realise that infernal aim. To equate Israel’s nuclear weapons with those of Iran is thus to equate the prospective perpetrators of genocide with the prospective victims of that genocide.
Behind this astonishing failure to grasp the fact that if the Iranian regime is not stopped a second genocide of the Jews is in the making lies the corresponding failure of the British public to understand the scale of the evil and the threat, not only to Israel but to the west and to the peace of the world, represented by the fanatical and apocalyptic Iranian regime.
The historical precedent for the Iranian crisis is not, as the audience seemed to believe, that ‘we were taken to war in Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction which never existed’ (which I don’t believe was the case either, but let that pass for now). The proper analogy is with the 1930s, when Britain supported the appeasement of Nazi Germany on the basis that the threat posed by Hitler was much exaggerated.
|Was there ever a more perverse and self-destructive society than the contemporary West? In its attitude to the Middle East and the Islamic world, it appears to suffer from the political equivalent of auto-immune disease: turning on its allies while embracing its enemies.
One year ago, the US and Britain helped street protesters to overthrow president Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. Hailing the revolutionary tumult of the “Arab Spring” as the equivalent of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the West went on to help armed Libyan rebels remove president Muammar Gaddafi by military force.
This regional strategy was promoted even though it was obvious from the start that the people who were best organised to take advantage of any elections in the Arab world were Islamists of one stripe or another – religious extremists all, united by their hostility to the West.
THE SUPERANNUATED AMONG US REMEMBER HOW RONALD REAGAN WAS REVILED FOR HIS “STAR WARS” INITIATIVE….WHAT THEY HAVE FORGOTTEN IS THAT NEWT IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE HEIR TO RONALD REGAN’S TORCH…..RSK
If anyone thinks that the Obama administration space policy has been successful, he should simply read this tweet from the well-known astrophysicist and Director of New York’s Hayden Planetarium, Neil Degrasse Tyson: “Has the first person to set foot on Mars been born yet, you ask? Yup. In Beijing.”
If the next President does decide to build a space-based missile-defense system, he will, as usual, be faced with a huge political uproar from people who, in a disconnect of logic, somehow believe that if the US is undefended, no-one will then wish to attack it. He will also be faced by the question of how to deploy a large number of orbital interceptors at a reasonable cost. But if the US is to stay defended, it is necessary to deploy them quickly — at the very most within four years.
In an interview in December 2011, Republican Presidential candidate, Governor Mitt Romney, called his fellow Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s ideas on space policy “zany”– in particular two concepts Gingrich has embraced over the years: “mirrors to light highways at night” and a lunar colony.
What Gingrich understands — most of the time at least — and what Romney has yet to learn, is that NASA’s civil program and the US military’s space programs are intertwined technologically, politically and financially.
It seems strange that a newspaper as well-respected as the New York Times would publish an article, “In Police Training, a Dark Film on U.S. Muslims,” by Michael Powell that calls a documentary, The Third Jihad, Islamophobic without discussing its contents — preferring instead to paint NYC law enforcement as Islamophobes for simply watching the film, and its producers as pro-Israeli bigots.
“The Third Jihad,” narrated by an American-Muslim physician, Zuhdi Jasser, who practices in Arizona. From the documentary, it seems that Dr, Jasser simply wants American-Muslims to know the difference between a moderate Muslim – an individual who sees his or her faith as a personal matter — from an individual who practices political Islam, or “Islamism.” Proponents of Islamism desire to “Islamicize” social, legal and political institutions with their interpretations of Islamic doctrine through non-violent legal means – political parties, indoctrination of future generations through the educational system, and governmental institutions.
The Islamists’ agenda is as socially coercive, though not as extreme, as say the Taliban. As a result, their actions are likely to mimic the Islamist AKP party now in power in Turkey, whose leaders have detained countless journalists in the past year for speaking against the government. On a smaller scale, Islamist activity might resemble other religious groups which have been heavily criticized in the media such as the Haredi in Israel for their harassment of women, or evangelical Christians in the US for their political position on abortion thereby inciting the killing of abortion doctors in the US. Why Powell’s double-standard?
NO URL….E-PAL ED ZIEGLER IS AUTHOR OF MANY GOOD COLUMNS
Most people do not appreciate how powerful a weapon, propaganda can be. Our enemies the Islamists, the Jihadists, the Muslim Terrorists, definitely realize how powerful. They take full advantage of its power here in the USA and around the world.
There are variations of propaganda such as implication, distortion, brain washing and outright lies. At times they blame others, in particular Israel and America, for imaginary misdeeds. They have blamed others for antagonizing Muslims who in turn have rioted, become violent, destructive and even murdered infidels (non Muslims). Such as in December of 2011when a crowd of Muslims in Assiut, Egypt attacked and burned three Christian homes after a Christian allegedly published cartoons, mocking Islam, on Facebook.
Assyrian International News Agency reported that on January 27, 2012 a mob of over 3000 Muslims attacked Christian Copts in the village of Kobry-el-Sharbat (el-Ameriya), Alexandria. Coptic homes and shops were looted before being set ablaze. The violence started after a rumor was spread that a Coptic man had an alleged intimate photo of a Muslim woman on his mobile phone. The Coptic man, Mourad Samy Guirgis, surrendered to the police for his protection.
Muslim Fanatic violence always seems to happen more than a little too easily, once again suggesting a rampage waiting for an excuse. And any old excuse will do.
This press release can be viewed at: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18924.xml. Center for Security Policy Releases Reports on Potential Economic Impacts of Proposed Defense Cuts Washington, DC February 1, 2012 – The Center for Security Policy today released their “Defense Breakdown Economic Impact Reports,” a collection of 2,750 online detailed reports and 51 Summary Reports presenting a “National [...]
GOLAN HEIGHTS — Surveying the live minefields, cratered roads and mortar-pocked concrete buildings along the border here between Syria and Israel, it is hard not to be reminded of the historic and monumental disappointment President Obama has been.
When he was campaigning to become the most powerful man in the last standing superpower on Earth, he spoke passionately about changing the world, restoring America’s greatness and bringing more peace and fairness to everyone.
In both foreign and domestic matters, Mr. Obama had unique credibility to change things as few presidents ever had.
Despite his background as a liberal street organizer, he campaigned on tax cuts and personal responsibility and preached that the government simply cannot be the answer to every problem. Republicans would have no choice but to go along with an agenda to shrink the tax burden and get the federal government out of our everyday lives.
http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/19084-Will-Contraception-Abort-ObamaCare.html Will Contraception Abort ObamaCare? The mandate by the Obama administration that contraception must be provided by religious hospitals even if contrary to their religious doctrine may influence the Supreme Court’s decisions on ObamaCare.On a fundamental level, the mandate exhibits the intrusiveness of Obamacare into aspects of private belief, its practice, and freedom of choice. [...]