Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[palsch]

The real problem with attacking Muslim Brotherhood, who are the biggest "mainstream" Sunni Islam islamic group is that they are a publicly announced group with politicians and the like. By taking them out, you just radicalize things more because you drive everyone underground - basically into the arms of ISIS. ISIS are a rival to the Muslim Brotherhood for the same eyes and ears. Taking them out is dumb.

It's more that the Muslim Brotherhood are an umbrella group, if even that. These days it is almost more of a term for a collection of groups that originated from the Egyptian brotherhood, many of which are mainstream political parties, some of which are illegal groups in countries that have banned them, and which all embrace different tactics and goals according to their situation.

This is what would make any designation of them as a terrorist organisation illegal.

The short answer is that the Brotherhood is not in a meaningful sense a single organization at all; elements of it can be designated and have been designated, and other elements certainly cannot be. As a whole, it is simply too diffuse and diverse to characterize. And it certainly cannot be said as a whole to engage in terrorism that threatens the United States.

The designation would be in terms of the material support statute, which would make it illegal to knowingly provide "material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization" or conspire/attempt to do so with extremely harsh penalties. It could also have serious diplomatic consequences with a number of countries. From the Lawfare piece;

Other Brotherhood chapters have not been so antagonistic toward their local rulers, especially in countries where they have been allowed to participate in electoral politics. Brotherhood parties have fielded candidates and hold seats in parliament in several countries, like Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan, Yemen, and Israel. The vice president of Iraq during the American occupation was also a Brotherhood member. And the Brotherhood-associated party in Morocco led the last government and is slated to lead the next one. As is true with Hizballah ministers and parliament members in Lebanon, an terrorist designation of the Brotherhood would thus forbid the U.S. government from engaging with foreign officials who hail from these parties; this could severely constrain U.S. government partnership with the Moroccan government, which is a major counterterrorism partner.

[Loud Whispers]

Clearly they're going to have a "Trump Fan Only" immigration policy.

The real problem with attacking Muslim Brotherhood, who are the biggest "mainstream" Sunni Islam islamic group is that they are a publicly announced group with politicians and the like. By taking them out, you just radicalize things more because you drive everyone underground - basically into the arms of ISIS. ISIS are a rival to the Muslim Brotherhood for the same eyes and ears. Taking them out is dumb.

EDIT: It's sort of hard to tell where a party stands when in Bahrain, the local Muslim Brotherhood people in parliament demands a government crackdown on Sorcery and Soothsayers.

Oh yeah, the people who want to subjugate all other religions for being dhimmi infidels who opposed all efforts by the government at Cairo to provide equality for all religions, they're really progressive
They're rivals because they're trying to be the sole source of authority over their followers and is already terrorist in the eyes of Bahrain, Egypt, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates, countries which have had to deal with them trying to force shariah law upon their country by any means available. The one time they got legal power through democracy they used it to support jihad completely undone their constitutional limits on presidential power so if you're not Sunni, you're fucked.

Their very existence is a radicalizing factor. Destroying ISIS is meaningless if you merely replace one great jihadi movement with another

*EDIT
I hope this isn't going to turn into another one of those things where people support things they hate because Hitler wore trousers

[palsch]

Timely.

Characterizing the Muslim Brotherhood as akin to violent extremists like the Islamic State and al-Qaeda is not only factually wrong, it is likely to be counterproductive. If the Trump administration is going to “eradicate Islamic radicalism,” it first needs to understand it. At a bare minimum, that means recognizing that the Muslim Brotherhood, like Islam as a whole, defies monolithic categorization; it’s an organization that is sometimes problematic and sometimes a U.S. partner. The terrorist designation for the Muslim Brotherhood must be rejected for what it is—an unfounded generalization that undermines our objectives abroad.

[Sheb]

Well, the question is not to know whether we disagree with them but wether they are terrorists. I guess the current approach of designating Brotherhoods chapters as terrorist organization individually (like Hamas) makes more sense than trying to designate all of it.

[TempAcc]

I tend to treat organizations that harbor terrorists as also part of terrorism, so if the Muslim Brotherhood gets shafted, I'm ok with it. The Muslim Brotherhood really is an umbrella group that tries to appropriate any expression of sunni islam (they're not very fond of shia AFAIK) and bring it under its authority, seemingly with the purpose of taking power and then using it for their leadership's goals.

[smjjames]

Yeah, as I and others have posted articles to, declaring the Muslim Brotherhood as a whole would be counterproductive because it's an umbrella organization. Basically, it's like any large mostly decentralized organization like say, Masons maybe, or the Greek Fraternities*. There are many branches and 'chapters', so, some of them will have bad reputations, but that doesn't neccesarily mean the entire organization is bad.

*I know the Greek Fraternity system is troubled, but it doesn't neccesarily mean 100% of them are bad.

Well, the question is not to know whether we disagree with them but wether they are terrorists. I guess the current approach of designating Brotherhoods chapters as terrorist organization individually (like Hamas) makes more sense than trying to designate all of it.

Yeah, it's more the approach that they are taking rather than whether or not to call them a terrorist organization. Also, I thought Hamas was an Iranian splinter group, or Iran funded proxy anyway.

[palsch]

Yeah, as I and others have posted articles to, declaring the Muslim Brotherhood as a whole would be counterproductive because it's an umbrella organization. Basically, it's like any large mostly decentralized organization like say, Masons maybe, or the Greek Fraternities*. There are many branches and 'chapters', so, some of them will have bad reputations, but that doesn't neccesarily mean the entire organization is bad.

*I know the Greek Fraternity system is troubled, but it doesn't neccesarily mean 100% of them are bad.

From the link in the first article I posted, this is an even better overview, with a better (IMO) comparison;

At a global level, the Brotherhood is no Mafia. Nor is it a rigid and disciplined Stalinist-style Comintern. It most closely resembles today’s Socialist International: a tame framework for a group of loosely linked, ideologically similar movements that recognize each other, swap stories and experiences in occasional meetings, and happily subscribe to a formally international ideology without giving it much priority. There is every reason to be interested in the Brotherhood’s myriad (and surprisingly diverse) country branches, but there is no reason to fear it as a menacing global web.

They also touch on the Hamas question there, where the group is a non-Brotherhood organisation that has assimilated a group that had merged with a Brotherhood founded splinter group, and so can be said to still have some ties.

[Frumple]

I tend to treat organizations that harbor terrorists as also part of terrorism, so if the Muslim Brotherhood gets shafted, I'm ok with it. The Muslim Brotherhood really is an umbrella group that tries to appropriate any expression of sunni islam (they're not very fond of shia AFAIK) and bring it under its authority, seemingly with the purpose of taking power and then using it for their leadership's goals.

Good to see you think the US is a part of terrorism, too. So is this a matter of not caring how two groups that sporadically harbor terrorists tear into each other or what?

[wierd]

The US *IS* responsible for a very, VERY great deal of the terror going on in the Middle East.

Through a series of very destructive, short-sighted, and downright stupid actions, including but not limited to:
1)Installing and supporting puppet dictatorships
2)Being the enforcers for extremist regimes
3)Backing "favorable" regime changes
4)Continuing an ongoing campaign of terror via very poorly implemented air strikes on civilian population centers
5)Actively training "resistance" groups (like they didnt learn about the fucking taliban from their roots in the 70s... When the CIA trained them!)
6)Turning a blind eye to Israel's bullshit, which ranges from relatively benign illegal settlement of the West Bank, to downright war crimes of using white phosphorus shells

etc

Acknowledging that the USA does not have clean hands is very fundamental in PROPERLY addressing this problem.

[misko27]

The US *IS* responsible for a very, VERY great deal of the terror going on in the Middle East.

I approve of the use of the word "terror" here instead of "terrorism". The argument that "America is the real terrorist" is old-hat and boring, but the reminder that America engages is terror is distinct from and separate from hiring people to blow themselves up in Yemen or Syria or whatever it is Iran or Saudi Arabia do with their free time. Although putting "let's Israel do X" next to the other things given that Israel is an independent, sovereign state responsible for their own actions both legally and morally is kind of silly. Otherwise, you could just say that anytime the US doesn't intervene somewhere it is, itself, complicit in any terror committed anywhere.

Acknowledging that the USA does not have clean hands is very fundamental in PROPERLY addressing this problem.

Debatable. Acknowledging mistakes and bad policy is essential, but I don't think just stating that really does much of anything.

[sluissa]

The US *IS* responsible for a very, VERY great deal of the terror going on in the Middle East.

I approve of the use of the word "terror" here instead of "terrorism". The argument that "America is the real terrorist" is old-hat and boring, but the reminder that America engages is terror is distinct from and separate from hiring people to blow themselves up in Yemen or Syria or whatever it is Iran or Saudi Arabia do with their free time. Although putting "let's Israel do X" next to the other things given that Israel is an independent, sovereign state responsible for their own actions both legally and morally is kind of silly. Otherwise, you could just say that anytime the US doesn't intervene somewhere it is, itself, complicit in any terror committed anywhere.

Acknowledging that the USA does not have clean hands is very fundamental in PROPERLY addressing this problem.

Debatable. Acknowledging mistakes and bad policy is essential, but I don't think just stating that really does much of anything.

The israel point is fair when you consider we continue to give them billions of dollars in military support each year despite knowing what they do.

[PTTG??]

~5 deaths a year.

Terrorism, that is.

We must prioritize bigger threats than terrorism. Like improperly secured water heaters.
And cell phones while driving. And non-hypoallergenic-socks.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

~5 deaths a year.

Terrorism, that is.

We must prioritize bigger threats than terrorism. Like improperly secured water heaters.
And cell phones while driving. And non-hypoallergenic-socks.

...source?

[Frumple]

The US *IS* responsible for a very, VERY great deal of the terror going on in the Middle East.

I approve of the use of the word "terror" here instead of "terrorism". The argument that "America is the real terrorist" is old-hat and boring

To an extent, but the point was more than the US is at least as much of a real terrorist as the more peaceful bits of the stuff claiming the title of muslim brotherhood. You okay with them getting painted as a terrorist group on the whole, even the parts that aren't and have no meaningful association with one, then you've got a hell of a lot better grounds to be calling the US the same thing. US houses, has trained, and has supported folks that have engaged in straight up terrorism, even in recent years. Some of that is incidental or more part of less bloody political maneuverings or whatever -- your "terror" rather than "terrorism", more or less -- but other bits involve our personnel training death squads in SA and shit. Some of the stuff we've got up to ain't just mistakes and bad policy.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The israel point is fair when you consider we continue to give them billions of dollars in military support each year despite knowing what they do.

A good portion of that is the aid that is matched with Egypt as a part of the Camp David accords. It's one of the few positive things the US has managed for the Middle East, in spite of Israel's other actions.