Subj : Current events
To   : BOB KLAHN
From : Richard Webb
Date : Wed Feb 09 2011 13:38:58

HI Bob,

On Tue 2039-Feb-08 14:44, BOB KLAHN (1:123/140) wrote to RICHARD WEBB:

 RW>> OF course, and one must remember that wahhabism, which is
 RW>> the root of al qaeda also has close ties to the muslim
 RW>> brotherhood in Egypt.  I've had much the same thoughts.

BK>>  Except this arose so fast Al Qaeda didn't have time to set it  up.
BK>> And the secularists are behind it in Egypt, the MB is
BK>>  keeping a relatively low profile.

 RW> Mmmm, so far what I"ve been able to glean from various
 RW> sources have mentioned muslim on Christian violence as one
 RW> of the catalysts that set all this off in Egypt, and that
 RW> points directly to the MB and the Qaedas.

BK>  I haven't seen that. Do you have a link? I did see Islamic
BK>  clergy gathering around Christian churches to protect them. 

sOme of that noted in this article too.  Sorry no link, came from MEmphis 
Commercial appeal, iirc wire story, a Sunday
edition when this first started a couple weeks ago.

BK>>  The Caliphate would be another dictatorship, and the people want
BK>> democracy.

 RW> Many do, but there's the mb fly in the ointment.

BK>  I suspect the MB would not like a Caliphate, that would mean  they
BK> are ruled from somewhere else, probably Saudi Arabia. Oh,  and until
BK> a few decades ago Egyptians denied they were Arabs,  they called
BK> themselves Egyptians.

This is also true.  I'd like to come right out and support a democracy movement 
over there, meaning that whole part of
the world, but so far what I"ve seen with "popular"
revolutions is something like Iran.  THIs libertarian did
*not* support the Bush doctrine, I don't support in any way
propping up repressive governments with troops or money.
Not a dime, not a drop of American blood.  LET those people
all kill each other in the name of their religion.

<snip>

 RW> Acknowledged and agreed.  You notice in the joint committee
 RW> report of congress a bunch of information suppressed,
 RW> because they don't really want to acknowledge that publicly.

 RW> Anybody who's read on the subject a bit knows what was
 RW> being obliquely referenced in the joint committee report,
 RW> but heavily redacted from the public version.

BK>  Just read Greg Palast.

DOn't think I ever have, but read widely on the subject over the years, the 
history is quite plain to anyone who bothers
to acquire real information.

 RW>> Sayyid Qutb and some of the
 RW>> founders of modern wahhabism were directly tied to the
 RW>> Muslim brotherhood in Egypt.  IT all is of a piece, and our
 RW>> so-called experts missed it.  They missed it because they
 RW>> chose to ignore it.

BK>>  They missed it because it's Saudi, and the Saudis have the oil.
BK>> Therefore they buy the politicians.

 RW> NOt even all of the FBI counterterror folks were aware of
 RW> it however.  See above.

BK>  With Saudis involved they wouldn't be allowed to be.

OF course not, and that's why I have my doubts about this
"groundswell for democracy" even though articles I've read
just yesterday, NEw YOrk TImes large type weekly dated iirc
last Friday stated the MB wants to see Mubarak ousted first
then see what comes from there.  The question is what
they'll do if they get their wish.  WIll they work with
secular leaders to actually govern in the interest of all
the people or settle for nothing less than rule by their
ISlamic law?  That's the question we should be asking, and
keep on asking before we pour in any support at all.


Regards,
           Richard
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+
 * Origin:  (1:116/901)

.