Ditto the modern Fascists of the Islamic variety.
In an interview with likely about-to-be Muslim Brotherhood leader, Mohamed Habib, the same occasional honesty is forthrightly on display.
On the upcoming election:
"[A]ny change away from the criminal practices of the current administration is a good thing, and we would be happy with whatever candidate would put a stop to it."
Well, when it comes to criminal practices, this guy would know. The Muslim Brotherhood is the grandfather of most modern Islamic terrorist groups. Among other niceties, the members of the group assassinated Sadat in 1981 for signing a peace agreement with Israel. Osama Bin Laden's second-in-command, Zawahari, was involved. It hasn't changed much since then.
The interviewer then asks:
"What are the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood?"
The answer?
The Muslim Brotherhood has an Islamic, civilized, uplifting project that is based on the idea that Egypt needs to rise again to greatness, because in its rise it will uplift the entire Arab world with it.Right. Let's skip over the contradiction between "Islamic" and "civilized" for now. As I recall, the last time Egypt was 'great' was when Pharaohs controlled every aspect of Egyptian life, with only the most visible aspect being the thousands of slaves who died while being forced to build large tombs for mystical, parasitic rulers.
He immediately follows his comment with this:
This of course requires the creation of a society that values justice, equality, and freedom, and what that entails in regards to respecting the will of the people in choosing their representatives or leaders.I can't decide whether this is too funny to be revolting or too revolting to be funny. But it does lean against my thesis that jihadist supporters are honest.
I was still unable to decide when he said this:
We have a civilized project that is very interested in education, scientific research, and the use of technology as an important element in the uplifting of nations and people.Yeah, have you noticed how interested Islamic jihadists and their supporters are in science and technology? (Other than to co-opt them for weapons of mass destruction, I mean.)
Then, in true taqiyyah fashion (the Islamic-approved doctrine of disguising one's beliefs), he deals with the organization's relationships to CAIR and Hamas, the jihad supporting groups in the U.S and Lebanon, respectively.
Who represents you in the US?
Mohamed Habib: Well, there are there those who do represent us, who do that role.
SM: But it’s not CAIR, right? The Council for American Islamic Relations?[...]
Mohamed Habib: Ehh, this is a sensitive subject, and it’s kind of problematic, especially after 9/11…
SM: For them to say that there is a relationship between you two?
Mohamed Habib: Yes. You can say that.
SM: Gotcha. What kind of relationship does the Muslim Brotherhood have with Hamas? Do you offer them support of any kind?
Mohamed Habib: Hamas, like any Muslim Brotherhood entity, is not related to the other entities. But we do support them. We support them with ideas. We support them with advice and vision.
Ok, I guess that isn't really taqiyyah, after all. It's honest. He admits they support terrorist-supporting groups. Just like the followers of Mein Kampf did, with "advice and vision." The bullets are never far behind.
3 comments:
One of the things I hold against our current President is his failure to face the problem.
He’s made it appear that we only have a problem with one particular organization of villains, al Qaeda. Thus, Muslims can say they support the ideas of virtually any jihadist organization without fearing ostracism as long as they don’t give financial support to officially designated “terrorist groups.”
It was only a few weeks after 9/11, Bush said that Arafat isn’t a terrorist because he is a head of a state. That’s when I knew Bush wasn’t serious. His business as usual with Saudi Arabia made it obvious (to some of us.)
An excellent point. But given the tunnel-vision exemplified by pragmatists, it shouldn't be too surprising.
Bush and those around him who have mostly decent values have little ability to form broad abstractions, a vital exercise in connecting the dots between two different concrete threats, especially when one of them is in chiefly philosophical form.
Others who might be influential have that ability, but because of their commitment to anti-life, anti-freedom positions will, naturally, not be inclined to connect the dots for him.
That principle has wider application.
Hence we see the majority of conservatives, who mostly have their hearts in the right place, are typically unable to think in terms of principles. Note, for example, how they harp on the price of gas but say little or nothing about the property rights of oil producers.
By contrast, the modern so-called liberals tend to be better educated and more intellectually capable, but are so vicious they are hopeless at solving our genuine large-scale problems. They are capable of understanding climatology, economics, and more, yet are perfectly content to sign everyone up for a global suicide pact.
The same idea applies to the fight against Islamic-fueled jihad.
Yes, that's it exactly. That gets to the essence of the problem. Even honorable men, without principles, will be limited in their ability to see beyond a few concretes.
Post a Comment