Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood May Be Model for Islam's Political Adaptation

IkhwanWeb.com ^ | 2-5-06 | Daniel Williams

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking the keyword Israel.

---------------------------

[Mercat]

OK, this is scary. Denmark is on the ecoterrorists' hit list because of whaling and now this. Any one want to expand on the guess that the ecoterrorists and the islamofascists are working together?

[SandRat]

Remember your history Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood learned at the feet of the NAZI's building it's ideals in a weird mix of Islam and Mein Kampf, fostered by the Mahadi of Palestine even going so far as to actually join the NAZI's in forming a Muslim Corps as an adjunct to the Waffen SS to fight on the Eastern Front.

Add to that Hussain of Syria, as Hussein of Iraq a both part of the Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood as was Arafat.

[starbase]

Well, Hitler said the only way to destroy democracy was with the weapons of democracy. As more Nazis were elected they threw up road blocks to every procedure, gummed up the works and brought the legislature to a standstill. And, of course, surrounded it with hundreds of SS to force passage of the Enabling Act, the act which gave newly appointed Chancellor Hitler absolute power. The SS threatened to kill anyone who didn't vote for the Enabling Act.

Actually the Nazis never won more than 36% of any vote, if I recall correctly. But judging from his ultimate success in taking over Germany, it is clear Hitler's comment about the weapons of democracy destroying democracy was accurate.

[A. Pole]

Democracy on the march in Middle East.

[A. Pole]

Well, Hitler said the only way to destroy democracy was with the weapons of democracy.

Hitler used the Wilsonian principle of self-determination (Sudeten Germans, Austria, Danzig/Gdansk)to expand his rule. US soldiers died in WWI to provide him with such tools.

[starbase]

Hitler used the Wilsonian principle of self-determination (Sudeten Germans, Austria, Danzig/Gdansk)to expand his rule. US soldiers died in WWI to provide him with such tools.

Please forgive my ignorance, but I don't catch your point at all. If you're saying that Americans are responsible for Chamberlain's failings then I'm sure you'll have a hard time proving that Americans are responsible for everyone's choices everywhere!!!

[A. Pole]

Please forgive my ignorance, but I don't catch your point at all.

My point is that sacrificing lives of American soldiers to promote democracy in others lands might be a losing enterprise.

If you're saying that Americans are responsible for Chamberlain's failings

I am not sure about "Chamberlain's failings" because UK at that times was not prepared or able to face Hitler. It was only after Hitler attacked Soviet Russia and failed to conquer it when he became vulnerable.

then I'm sure you'll have a hard time proving that Americans are responsible for everyone's choices everywhere!!!

One is reponsible for the things one puts on the plate. Now Americans own Iraqi problem and are responsible for it.

Without Wilson, Hitler would not get into power.

[starbase]

My point is that sacrificing lives of American soldiers to promote democracy in others lands might be a losing enterprise.

Yes I agree with you here. When is the "right" time? I don't know.

I am not sure about "Chamberlain's failings" because UK at that times was not prepared or able to face Hitler. It was only after Hitler attacked Soviet Russia and failed to conquer it when he became vulnerable.

This I don't agree with, because it was before Hitler became powerful that he should have been restricted. On this point I had an argument with some Brits, I said to them, "look, we're not God-Almightly coming to save you!" Naturally they wanted to deny everything, but sitting there beside Adolf Hitler and not doing anything to get in his face is a failing of manhood, no matter how you look at it. And needing other men to come from afar to save the situation, well, all I can say is I, my father, my grandfathers, nor their grandfathers ever chose such a course of action.

[A. Pole]

And needing other men to come from afar to save the situation, well, all I can say is I, my father, my grandfathers, nor their grandfathers ever chose such a course of action.

US troops did not save Europe from Hitler. When US army was marching toward Germany, Germans were already losing war because of defeat on the eastern front.

What US troops accomplished was saving Western Europe from Communism. Soviet Army would take whole Germany, then would be joined by French, Spanish and Italians Communists (who were very strong at that time).

[starbase]

US troops did not save Europe from Hitler.

Yes, I'm familiar with this idea, but it is not true. Without US global power, the Reich would have regrouped and destroyed Russia.

There were 29 Nazi (and I stress Waffen SS) divisions in Western Europe which, if directed to the East, would have obliterated the Russian units. Plus the fact the US support allow the 1000 bomber raids against Germany industry. So this is a myth that Europeans like to believe in, that great Russia was saving them from Hitler's Reich.

In fact, without US ground support (and of course, stopping Japan from Eastern attack) and of course again, bombing German factories, there is no mathematical way backwards Russia could have defeated the evil Third Reich. Anything else is a nationalistic lie.

[A. Pole]

There were 29 Nazi (and I stress Waffen SS) divisions in Western Europe which, if directed to the East, would have obliterated the Russian units.

Why they did not obliterate Soviet Russia in 1941 and 1942?

[starbase]

Why they did not obliterate Soviet Russia in 1941 and 1942?

Because, my friend, they were in the West controlling all of Germany's victories up until that time. If there had been no pressure from America, they could have been easily transfered to the East, instead they were destroyed in the West by the US.

[A. Pole]

In fact, without US ground support (and of course, stopping Japan from Eastern attack) and of course again, bombing German factories, there is no mathematical way backwards Russia could have defeated the evil Third Reich. Anything else is a nationalistic lie.

I am not sure how nationalism gets into it? Are your national feelings as American offended?

We do not know what could happen if Japan did not attack USA. The world is a big place - Japan could be bogged down in huge China (where Soviet supported Communism was gaining ground), there was also India, Indo-China where Communism was also spreading.

Remember that Communism was strong in Europe and that German occupation was not very popular there.

[A. Pole]

they were in the West controlling all of Germany's victories up until that time.

You mean in France and Norway? How large part of the German army was there?

[starbase]

You mean in France and Norway? How large part of the German army was there?

No my friend, I mean Europe, as in all of it, which Germay controlled at that time. As to your other post of what would happen if Japan had not attacked the US I'll say this. You can change many variables in WWII and get many results, but there is only one you can change and always get the same result, that is, if the US is not in the war, Japan and Germany win. That is true, and no matter how you calculate it, it happens every time.

[A. Pole]

You can change many variables in WWII and get many results, but there is only one you can change and always get the same result, that is, if the US is not in the war, Japan and Germany win.

Assuming that they manage to defeat Soviet Russia and then manage to control the vast eurasian space filled with Communist movements (Russia, China, India, Western Europe and more) and that they do not start to fight one another and that there is no internal revolt/coup in "victorious" countries.

[starbase]

Assuming that they manage to defeat Soviet Russia and then manage to control the vast eurasian space filled with Communist movements

Yes, and that assumption is quite easy, with an attack from the East and no Western resistance against Germany, Russia would have been smeared off the map. The residual communist movements would not have meant anything against such power.

[A. Pole]

Yes, and that assumption is quite easy, with an attack from the East and no Western resistance against Germany, Russia would have been smeared off the map. The residual communist movements would not have meant anything against such power.

When the German army got stuck at the gates of Moscow, what Western resistance caused it in 1941, maybe French Vichy regime? And Germans gained less than Napoleon - he at least took Moscow before his defeat.