Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Grey Squirrel
Joined
·
22,780 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/02/11/leftist-dupes-from-the-communist-brotherhood-to-the-muslim-brotherhood/

It's a rather long read but well worth it, so when you get the time take a look at the rest of the article in the link.

Leftist Dupes: From the Communist Brotherhood to the Muslim Brotherhood
Posted By Paul Kengor On February 11, 2011

As President Obama encourages an immediate “transition” from Hosni Mubarak to whatever might replace him in Egypt, hope again springs eternal among the American Left. The president has made clear that he supports the presence of the Islamofascist Muslim Brotherhood in the new government, and it appears that no one in the halls of power has sense to persuade him otherwise. Even his director of national intelligence, James Clapper, “clarified” for the Congress on Thursday that the ultra-Islamic Brotherhood is “largely secular” with no “overarching agenda.” The progressive dream, clearly, is that the Muslim Brotherhood will take power and build yet another revolutionary anti-American utopia — which will ideally follow in the footsteps of other recent great Muslim Sharia paradises, from Hamas to the Ayatollah. Forgive me for not sharing in the optimism.

Instead, I thought I’d offer a walk down memory lane, recalling the Left’s pattern of judgment regarding other leading “revolutionaries” of the past 100 years. Who are some of these dictators, these monsters? Join me, if you will.
A fitting to place to start is Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, first communist dictators of a truly Evil Empire. From the outset, numerous American “progressives” were enchanted with the “Great Experiment” in the Soviet Motherland. I could fill a book with examples. (In fact, I have.) Here, I’ll offer just a few.

Corliss Lamont, ACLU member, Columbia University professor, leading atheist/”humanist,” who embraced every leftist cause under the sun from the 1920s to the 1990s, made an early pilgrimage to Moscow. He loved what he saw, recording his observations in a book he co-authored with his wife. Probably nothing moved the Lamonts quite as much as their moment near the rotting breast of Lenin, who, by the time the Lamonts arrived in Moscow, had been dead and encased in a glass-covered box for eight years. They recorded:

Lenin’s face is strong, calm, and refined in the fundamental sense. His hand rests on a red pillow and his hands, clasped on his chest in a tranquil way, appear delicate and intellectual. The short yet forceful beard is reddish. We have to keep moving, though we want to stop and look longer and more carefully…. t is not enough.

No, it was not enough; the Lamonts ached for more, and so they got in line again to revisit Lenin. They paid “homage,” “taking strength from [Lenin’s] impersonally beautiful and resolute face,” which was “perfectly natural and wholly desirable.”

In general, the Lamonts returned home to America to report the “great deal of happiness,” the “new human nature” they had discovered in communist Russia. “[T]he new world of the twentieth century is the Soviet Union,” they glowed to their progressive comrades. “And no one who is seriously interested in the progress of the human spirit can afford to miss it.”

Some “progress.” As the Lamonts wrote those words, Stalin was ramping up his forced famine, his Great Purge, and launching his annihilation of tens of millions of human spirits. Few in the USSR would miss it—the mass murder and criminality, that is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
Wow. George Bernard Shaw was all for the Soviet Union because it "humanely and expeditiously liquidates a handful of exploiters and speculators to make the world safe for honest men". Sounds like an excerpt from one of Dune's posts.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,241 Posts
Funny how conservatives like to add 'ist' to everything, as though it makes it sound more sinister. Better than being coherently descriptive, I suppose.
 

·
Grey Squirrel
Joined
·
22,780 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Funny how conservatives like to add 'ist' to everything, as though it makes it sound more sinister. Better than being coherently descriptive, I suppose.
I'll put you down for "I didn't read the article"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Even his director of national intelligence, James Clapper, “clarified” for the Congress on Thursday that the ultra-Islamic Brotherhood is “largely secular” with no “overarching agenda.”
I heard this interview... and could do nothing but shack my head in amazement. This is the same dude that had no clue of the London arrests of terrorists planning multiple attacks. He's the director of national intelligence...

Holy ****!

Ineptitude... piled on top of ineptitude... directed by the inept.

(Well, at least I didn't say inept-ist)



3:30 seconds...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,146 Posts
Funny how conservatives like to add 'ist' to everything, as though it makes it sound more sinister. Better than being coherently descriptive, I suppose.

I think Capitalist sounds pretty nice:thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,607 Posts
Wow, really? That article is nothing more than Mccarthyism wrapped around muslims. Muslims are scary! We cant let them win a democratic election! We have to pick someone to represent the people of Egypt.

The US needs to support 100% free democratic elections. Following that election, we must push to maintain free democracy and prevent any group from subverting the will of the people. Why is it so hard to give Muslim's a chance at participating in a democratic government?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
Wow, really? That article is nothing more than Mccarthyism wrapped around muslims. Muslims are scary! We cant let them win a democratic election! We have to pick someone to represent the people of Egypt.

The US needs to support 100% free democratic elections. Following that election, we must push to maintain free democracy and prevent any group from subverting the will of the people. Why is it so hard to give Muslim's a chance at participating in a democratic government?
I agree with you completely. I think what is mostly being voiced is fears, not calls for intervening. There really isn't much we can do to impact anything anyway. The real power force here is the military. They will have say on how much democracy takes root, and because the upper echelons have such a vested financial interest in the status quo, the odds are they will try to make a show of democracy without giving up too much power. That will lead to more conflict, and possibly clamping down by the military. Interesting times over there, but very little we can do to impact it. :cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Wow, really? That article is nothing more than McCarthyism
Brother, I don't know how you come to this conclusion. First and foremost, it does not fit the definition in the least. The world knows who and what the brotherhood is, regardless of their claims of moderation and secularism. Secondly... This country pays that country and all the countries around that country... not to attack each other because it is in our best interest. Intervention is called for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
Brother, I don't know how you come to this conclusion. First and foremost, it does not fit the definition in the least. The world knows who and what the brotherhood is, regardless of their claims of moderation and secularism. Secondly... This country pays that country and all the countries around that country... not to attack each other because it is in our best interest. Intervention is called for.
I'm going to sit on the fence here and ask you how we should intervene? Other than bribery to the military, which we are already doing, what can we do?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,607 Posts
Brother, I don't know how you come to this conclusion. First and foremost, it does not fit the definition in the least. The world knows who and what the brotherhood is, regardless of their claims of moderation and secularism. Secondly... This country pays that country and all the countries around that country... not to attack each other because it is in our best interest. Intervention is called for.

The author uses the spector of communism to slam liberals, not for their support of democracy, but for their perceived support of the Muslim Brotherhood. The author is bashing liberals, not the Muslim Brotherhood while ignoring any facts pertaining to egypt or the Brotherhood.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Remove the director of national intelligence... he is a liability to both the US and the people of Egypt. Keep the lines of information open to the world and the people of Egypt. At the slightest (as in now) hint of a military coop... threaten to remove all funding and to replace them with sanctions. Meet with potential leaders. Pick the one that are the most sympathetic to democracy and the US. Instruct them on how to form a democracy. Instruct them on how to win elections (nobody is as good at both, then we are). Enrich them.

This administration could be doing these things, right now. They aren't anything you would want to advertise. In fact, the director of national intelligence comments may be a rouse meant to hide our involvement.

I doubt it thought...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
The author uses the spector of communism to slam liberals, not for their support of democracy, but for their perceived support of the Muslim Brotherhood. The author is bashing liberals, not the Muslim Brotherhood while ignoring any facts pertaining to egypt or the Brotherhood.
You and I, read that very differently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
Remove the director of national intelligence... he is a liability to both the US and the people of Egypt. Keep the lines of information open to the world and the people of Egypt. At the slightest (as in now) hint of a military coop... threaten to remove all funding and to replace them with sanctions. Meet with potential leaders. Pick the one that are the most sympathetic to democracy and the US. Instruct them on how to form a democracy. Instruct them on how to win elections (nobody is as good at both, then we are). Enrich them.

This administration could be doing these things, right now. They aren't anything you would want to advertise. In fact, the director of national intelligence comments may be a rouse meant to hide our involvement.

I doubt it thought...
While I don't disagree with your strategy, it goes against logic a little bit. The military is probably our best chance at keeping stability in Egypt and, therefore, Israel. If the military is removed from power, there is a very good chance that a virulent anti-Israel group will fill the vacuuma and try to cement their leadership with anti-Israeli rhetoric and/or action. I'm not saying the military are good guys in this, but compared to everyone else over there, they are OUR guys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
It may end up being a military leader. But, for now... their rule and suspension of rights is the danger. One over zealous action toward the protesters... and the brotherhood or some other faction could rise to power from that incident. The people are not at all happy with the military's rule.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
The author uses the spector of communism to slam liberals, not for their support of democracy, but for their perceived support of the Muslim Brotherhood. The author is bashing liberals, not the Muslim Brotherhood while ignoring any facts pertaining to egypt or the Brotherhood.
I think the article was pointing out that liberals have a track record of being naive when it comes to the stated goals of revolutionary groups. These groups, whether communist or Islamist, always say they exist to further equality and foster peace through shared prosperity. In fact, they virtually always end up being power mongers who use violence to eliminate the old leaders followed by all perceived opponents. Then they hang on to power with the constant threat of force on those who are left.
Any time a group rises up against rich oppressors, liberals hear the rosy talk, and love to rub elbows with the revolutionary leaders. This often makes them blind for years to the violence and corruption of the revolutionaries, because they applaud their stated goals.
The U.S. Revolution has no resemblance to these economic revolutions. It was led by the aristocracy, whereas economic revolutions are run, generally, by the poor, but intellectual, against the aristocracy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
It may end up being a military leader. But, for now... their rule and suspension of rights is the danger. One over zealous action toward the protesters... and the brotherhood or some other faction could rise to power from that incident. The people are not at all happy with the military's rule.
I understand that. But if totally free elections are held, those friendly to the military and the rich will not do well. At that point, the military will either give in to the will of the people, or they will crack down on democracy. I'm betting on the latter since they have been the basic power since 1952. And unfortunately, if you are only looking to the interests of the U.S., that is probably for the better, because the alternative will be much less stable, although less democratic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Solid view point that I can make no argument against.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,109 Posts
I think the article was pointing out that liberals have a track record of being naive when it comes to the stated goals of revolutionary groups. These groups, whether communist or Islamist, always say they exist to further equality and foster peace through shared prosperity. In fact, they virtually always end up being power mongers who use violence to eliminate the old leaders followed by all perceived opponents. Then they hang on to power with the constant threat of force on those who are left.
Any time a group rises up against rich oppressors, liberals hear the rosy talk, and love to rub elbows with the revolutionary leaders. This often makes them blind for years to the violence and corruption of the revolutionaries, because they applaud their stated goals.
The U.S. Revolution has no resemblance to these economic revolutions. It was led by the aristocracy, whereas economic revolutions are run, generally, by the poor, but intellectual, against the aristocracy.


:agree:


You and Double Take, both have excellent points.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
:agree:


You and Double Take, both have excellent points.
Thank you. BTW, got any pictures of you shovelling snow in flip-flops and shorts? That's hard to imagine. :laughing:
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top