Posts Tagged ‘muslim brotherhood’

Pam’s site has the most comprehensive coverage here and here and here and here but I took a few films myself:

City Counselor Daniel Halloran

Nelly Braginsky.

Sally Regenhard

I have some stills as well:

Ilario Pantano

Ilario Pantano didn’t speak long but her got a roaring reception

Eileen Walsh

Eileen Walsh lost a son

Nelly Braginskaya

I would have very much liked to have known Nelly Braginskaya before she lost her son, she struck me as a person who was full love life.

Sally Regenhard

Sally also lost a son.

Rosaleen Tallon flanked by Joyce Boland and Eileen Walsh

It always seem to be the women who persists when other falter

Rosaleen at the podium

Rosaleen spoke first and I think her presentation was the strongest

A side panel shot

Also speaking was Rosa Leonetti of Smart Girl Politics. I don’t have film or photos but she raised important points such as:
“The Ground Zero mosque is not a political football.”
“Two Imans were replaced but they persist and so will we”
She also noted that people of the left have no problem trying to trace tea party funding but they don’t try to find where the money for the ground zero mosque is coming from.

One of the things that really shocked me was the statement that city counselors apparently said they opposed the Mosque privately but couldn’t support the 9/11 families publicly. I asked about this during the Q & A:

This event was scheduled at the same time as a Ron Paul event directly across of it. I don’t think this was a coincidence. Pamela fearlessness in speaking openly about things that others would like to forget makes some uncomfortable (just as Reagan’s calling the soviets an evil empire annoyed many) as she reports Salon.com being salon painted things a tad differently. I think it is significant that Pam embedded Elliott’s film and linked to it yet Salon didn’t deem it worthwhile to link to the video of Pam’s event so readers could see for themselves.

For the life of me I can’t understand Mayor Bloomberg support for these guys. As a man as comfortable as he is I don’t see what there is to gain.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Pam Geller is a national treasure I was proud to have her on my show and I’d be happy to have her back again. Like many others who have sounded warnings in times of crisis we ignore her at her peril, Luke 4:24 could be written about her.

Rubin Reports continues to note what is going on with the Muslim Brotherhood and peace:

On Russian television, one Brotherhood leader, Rashad al-Bayoumi, said that when they came to power they will abolish the treaty altogether.

Another, former spokesman Doctor Kamel Helbaoui, explains one way they might get out of it. It is also a good example of how they avoid embarassing questions, and usually get away with it. Clearly, Brotherhood leaders have been warned to avoid extremist statements as it tries to sell itself to the Western audience and (insert adjective) media as moderate and cuddly.

One of the amazing things about the left is how they treat the right as not being “cosmopolitanism” yet we are noticing stuff from Russian and French TV and they are not. We are also noting what the Brotherhood says in Arabic:

You have to understand the bizarre situation here. Every speech in Arabic of Brotherhood leaders and cadre and articles in their publications are full of anti-Jewish hatred, anti-American hatred, and support for violence. Yet in the Western media all of this simply is never mentioned, in part because reporters take the group’s word on its credentials.

In other words, the Brotherhood will end the peace with Israel and return to a state of war.

And of course “violence” is defined in a different way:

Morsy also said the Muslim Brotherhood opposed violence. “We do not use violence against anyone,” he said. But what was happening on “Palestinian land,” however, he said, was not violence but “resistance. And resistance is acceptable by all mankind. And it is the right of people to resist imperialism,” he said.

So violence against Jews is not “violence” so that doesn’t count.

Israel Matzav thinks the media is engaged in wishful thinking, I disagree. I think given the coverage of the middle east that we have seen I’m becoming increasingly of the opinion that the media considers war and terror against Israel as “just deserts”.

And I think both the Muslim Brotherhood and the left understands that an administration that will sell out its oldest ally will not bother to defend Israel. In fact they are counting on it.

The Egyptian people have the right to a government of their choosing, they have the right to decide their future, and they have the responsibility to live with and suffer the consequences of decisions of a free government, freely made. If they choose a government that decides it doesn’t want peace, then the responsibility and the consequences of war are on them. If they choose to peacefully co-exist then they should reap the benefits of it as well.

It’s up to them.

Update: Lets remember the words of their supporters on the left in America and exactly what these guys are.

Yglesias links and quotes Ayaan Hirsi Ali on what is coming in Egypt

Ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali warns us to be very afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power in Egypt. And maybe she’s right. But it’s difficult to take her word for it. After all, she thinks that Islam in general needs to be extirpated from the planet:

He then quotes her piece, bolding certain bits:

“I’ll tell you why: because Islam is the new fascism. Just like Nazism started with Hitler’s vision, the Islamic vision is a caliphate – a society ruled by Sharia law – in which women who have sex before marriage are stoned to death, homosexuals are beaten, and apostates like me are killed. Sharia law is as inimical to liberal democracy as Nazism. Young Muslims need to be persuaded that the vision of the Prophet Mohammed is a bad one, and you aren’t going to get that in Islamic faith schools.”

Now of course bolding a piece is meant to draw your eyes to the bolded section and to avoid the unbolded sections. Yglesias having a liberal audience is trying to stress Ali “intolerance”. How dare she be intolerant of Islam. Now lets look at the same piece with different words bolded:

I’ll tell you why: because Islam is the new fascism. Just like Nazism started with Hitler’s vision, the Islamic vision is a caliphate – a society ruled by Sharia law – in which women who have sex before marriage are stoned to death, homosexuals are beaten, and apostates like me are killed. Sharia law is as inimical to liberal democracy as Nazism. Young Muslims need to be persuaded that the vision of the Prophet Mohammed is a bad one, and you aren’t going to get that in Islamic faith schools.”

Now I would think that these things about Islam and Sharia law would be significant to liberals. After all if I as a believing Roman Catholic am repressive because I oppose sex before marriage, gay marriage and believe in God, how much more would they oppose Sharia, which stones women, beats (and kills) gays and slays apostates.

But we can’t stress these facts, because it promotes “intolerance of Islam”. Maybe it’s just me but I think we shouldn’t tolerate Sharia law, stoning of women, beating of gays, and killing of apostates.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali “intolerance” of Islam is based on a standard of Islam’s actions. Yglesias critique of Ali and defense of Islam is based on a standards of her thoughts.

That to me is the perfect illustration of how liberalism works.

after all that’s what Jihad means isn’t it?

In Tehrir square in Cairo, many protesters were charging and screaming at supporters of Mubarak, calling for their death and a “jihad” against Mubarak and anyone who even seems to be supporting him. This is most likely because of the radical Islamic group “Muslim Brotherhood,” which is one of the major players striving for power in Egypt.

This comes hot on the heels of upper Muslim Brotherhood officials calling for a war against Israel and the closure of the Suez Canal:

Robert Stacy McCain notes another thing:

When the “Arab street” does the same thing in Cairo that we’ve seen them do in Jerusalem and Gaza, it’s not racist to interpret today’s violence in terms of a historic pattern of mob violence. And the fact that you, Mr. Moral Superiority, are cheering for the immediate overthrow of Hosni Mubarak doesn’t make me a thought-criminal for suggesting that maybe we don’t want to be so hasty.

For crying out loud, they were actually swooping down on Tahrir Square on horses and camels! At what point do stereotypes stop being stereotypes and instead become, y’know, facts?

…and points out what the “loyal opposition” looks like:

And, honestly, I thought Obama’s speech Tuesday night was just about right: He made it clear he was angry at Mubarak, but explicitly spoke of the “aftermath of these protests.” In other words: OK, you’ve had your protest rallies, Mubarak’s on his way out, “free and fair elections,” yadda yadda — now go back home and stop distracting us the week before Super Bowl Sunday.

Trust me: The next-to-last thing I want is for Barack Obama to be able to claim credit for a foreign-policy success. But the last thing in the world I want is for Islamic extremists to take over a country with 75 million people and modern military weapons, sitting right next door to Israel — a scenario that could lead to Armageddon.

Stacy is right, we are better off for this president to do the right thing and have it work out then to score political points. Of course as Bob Belvedere points out part of that component is actually doing the right thing:

As I have said before, Julius Obamacus Nero Caesar having abandoned his role as Leader Of The Free World has fueled the ambitions of the evil forces that seek to dominate it. That fuel will continue to power more and more violence as it feeds the hubris of those who would initiate a new Dark Age.

and Newsbusters reports that even some on MSNBC are less impressed:

It was 16 degrees warmer in my upstate New York town this morning than it was in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. If any further portent of the apocalypse is necessary, consider that on his MSNBC show this evening, Cenk Uygur compared Barack Obama to Ronald Reagan . . . and clearly came down on the side of Ronaldus Maximus.

The subject was Egypt. Uygur played the clip of Reagan’s immortal “tear down this wall,” and contrasted it with Obama’s wan words on the need for “orderly transition” in Egypt.

But according to Robert Springborg it’s moot.

While much of American media has termed the events unfolding in Egypt today as “clashes between pro-government and opposition groups,” this is not in fact what’s happening on the street. The so-called “pro-government” forces are actually Mubarak’s cleverly orchestrated goon squads dressed up as pro-Mubarak demonstrators to attack the protesters in Midan Tahrir, with the Army appearing to be a neutral force. The opposition, largely cognizant of the dirty game being played against it, nevertheless has had little choice but to call for protection against the regime’s thugs by the regime itself, i.e., the military. And so Mubarak begins to show us just how clever and experienced he truly is. The game is, thus, more or less over.

And lets not forget exactly what these guys are:

He said that only America can help at this point by fully backing the demonstrators against Mubarak. “Does America stand for its ideals or does it stand for its interests?” he asked. On that score, he doesn’t like Obama. But guess what? He liked George Bush!

And apparently sometime after this interview Sandmonkey was arrested.

For myself I’ve already pointed out what is important anything that gets us there is good enough for now, but only for now.