Support NeoGAF

[Instro]

No loss there. Kind of surprised it wasn't already really.

 

[Palette Swap]

Defending Muslim Brotherhood is really not a hill worth dying on. There are no saving graces.

Yeah. No knee jerk anti-Trumpism on my part here.

 

[BrutishMrFish]

It might end up being one of the few decent things he ever does as president.

 

[sangreal]

I am embarrassed for the posters earlier in this thread that automatically defended this organization without (apparently) knowing anything about it.

Are you embarrassed for the state department (both previous and current) and NSC that also think this is a bad idea?

 

[gutter_trash]

Morsi' tenure was a disaster:

Coptic Christians getting killed, having their homes ransacked.
Female journalists getting gang raped.
and the creation of a ''morality brigade'' bullying people who were not being ''moral'' enough.

Egypt suffers from high illiteracy and the Muslim Brotherhood took advantage of this situation by bribing the voters with foodstock and favors for votes.

Yeah, Egypt is still stuck in a military dictaroshop under Sisi and that sucks too. But Morsi was the wrong way forward.

I invite you to listen Mohamed Fahmy on the lack of education in Egypt being the core problem with it's politics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iipk_Je-nIg

 

[sazzy]

Just get it over with and call every Muslim a terrorist.

 

[radios shipping overview]

Good article on the current state of the Muslim Brotherhood and the debate over whether it's a terrorist organization or not:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tion-or-a-firewall-against-violent-extremism/

Prior to the Arab uprising, I argued that mainstream Islamists served as a firewall against more violent extremists. The Brotherhood publicly articulated an ideology of nonviolence and democratic participation. It competed with al-Qaeda for recruits and for public influence, and kept its members tightly embedded within its institutional structures. The Brotherhood could compete with al-Qaeda and other extreme groups in ways that liberals and state elites could not.

The competing view held that the Brotherhood was a facilitator of violent extremism, serving not as barrier but as a step along the path toward radicalization. This “conveyor belt” theory suggests that even if the Brotherhood itself did not sanction violence, it set individuals on the path toward extremism and thus increased the net volume of potential terrorists. They pointed to inconsistencies in the Brotherhood’s rejection of violence, such as the continuing place of jihadist thinkers, such as Sayid Qutb, in their literature or their support for violence in arenas such as Palestine or Iraq.

tl;dr

The Muslim Brotherhood’s firewall against extremism, therefore, was a very real thing in the decade following 9/11. It was sustained by the seeming success of the strategic choices by the leadership, a robust organizational structure able to enforce internal discipline and the socialization of its members into the organization’s norms.

All three of the key mechanisms by which the firewall operated have now dramatically eroded.

This does not mean that the Brotherhood has been or is becoming a terrorist organization. It does mean that earlier assessments of its ability to play a role as a firewall against violent extremism need to be updated. And that is just what the scholars systematically rethinking the new Islamist politics for the Rethinking Islamist Politics project are doing.

 

[radios shipping overview]

This will put organizations like CAIR in danger.

Yes, this is something that could be used to dismantle Muslim NGOs and Muslim civil society as it exists in the US, weakening Muslims as a moderate interest group, yet encouraging association via religion, which could breed extremism.

Egypt has used links to the Muslim Brotherhood to dismantle many NGOs locally.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-...n-government-is-waging-a-war-on-civil-society

 

[Pusherman]

Defending Muslim Brotherhood is really not a hill worth dying on. There are no saving graces.

I don't see why people shouldn't fight the haphazard application of the terrorist label to organisations that are merely islamic and conservative. There is no real proof that the Muslim Brotherhood engages in terrorist activity and as the WP article above illustrates, going along with regional powers and branding the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist movement might actually further violent extremism. If islamists feel like they're excluded from democratic politics and in danger of being violently repressed they will understandably take to violent means themselves. Just because we don't agree with their politics and ideology doesn't mean we can designate them as terrorists.

Spoiler

I mean, obviously Western governments can and often do designate movements or organisations as terrorists just because it suits their political agenda but that doesn't mean we shouldn't speak out against it.

 

[WaffleTaco]

Defending Muslim Brotherhood is really not a hill worth dying on. There are no saving graces.

Not exactly true. They have some redeeming qualities.

 

[leakey]

I don't see issue with this considering how the brotherhood operates and its record.

 

[jakonovski]

I'm pretty sure "people we don't like" and "terrorists" should be two separate categories.

 

[distantmantra]

My sister-in-law works for the State Department in Morocco. She's afraid that designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization would ruin ties with "peaceful" Muslim nations who have MB members of the government, like Morocco.

 

[TedNindo]

I`m ok with this. They are an Islamist organisation with extremist views. They just don`t use violence and try to get power through political means. They are the main reason the Middle East has become more Islamist and have been getting a lot of influence in Europe too. Most major European Muslim representatives have Brotherhood ties.

 

[The Albatross]

I know we're quick to scoff at everything that Donald Trump considers, and with good reason, but the Muslim Brotherhood has always skirted the boundary between terrorist organization and a legitimate socio-political movement, not that dissimilar from Hezbollah in practical affect (though with less of a direct terrorist influence). Yes, the Brotherhood has had legitimate political movements in Egypt and elsewhere, but wings of the Brotherhood have also explicitly supported and carried out religious assassinations, targeted civilian terrorism, and widespread terror, while also opposing women's rights, targeting non-Muslims with Jew/Christian/Atheist taxes, and forbidding women, Jews, Christians, Atheists, homosexuals, and non-traditional Muslims from participating in government organizations, and endorsed blanket discrimination against atheists, homosexuals, Christians, Jews, the disabled, and any non-Muslims in Egypt.

I'm against labeling the entire Brotherhood as a terrorist organization because you have to recognize the difference between the American Muslim Brotherhood and its distant relationship to extremist, Islamist wings throughout the Middle East and Asia. But, it isn't entirely without merit.

 

[Aselith]

My sister-in-law works for the State Department in Morocco. She's afraid that designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization would ruin ties with "peaceful" Muslim nations who have MB members of the government, like Morocco.

I would think we couldn't even deal with or have relations the members that are in the MB due to their now terrorist affiliation.

 

[jph139]

Tough question. It's not an inaccurate label, but it's something that would need to be applied carefully. Condemning the politicians of friendly nations is delicate work. Not something I trust the current administration with.

Five years ago, when they were running Egypt, it would have been a mess. Today they're pretty thoroughly delegitimized in the Muslim world.

 

[distantmantra]

I would think we couldn't even deal with or have relations the members that are in the MB due to their now terrorist affiliation.

Pretty much. She's afraid that the program (and her job) would go away. They do a lot of good in the country, creating business opportunities for Moroccan youth. Basically "keeping kids out of trouble."

 

[radios shipping overview]

I'm totally okay with saying that the Brotherhood don't do great things all the time and separating that from the idea that they should be designated as terrorists. We should be wary of attempts to crack down on NGOs by using affiliations like this as a wedge.

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

You don't have to bold the whole blurb

 

[Xe4]

I know we're quick to scoff at everything that Donald Trump considers, and with good reason, but the Muslim Brotherhood has always skirted the boundary between terrorist organization and a legitimate socio-political movement, not that dissimilar from Hezbollah in practical affect (though with less of a direct terrorist influence). Yes, the Brotherhood has had legitimate political movements in Egypt and elsewhere, but wings of the Brotherhood have also explicitly supported and carried out religious assassinations, targeted civilian terrorism, and widespread terror, while also opposing women's rights, targeting non-Muslims with Jew/Christian/Atheist taxes, and forbidding women, Jews, Christians, Atheists, homosexuals, and non-traditional Muslims from participating in government organizations, and endorsed blanket discrimination against atheists, homosexuals, Christians, Jews, the disabled, and any non-Muslims in Egypt.

I'm against labeling the entire Brotherhood as a terrorist organization because you have to recognize the difference between the American Muslim Brotherhood and its distant relationship to extremist, Islamist wings throughout the Middle East and Asia. But, it isn't entirely without merit.

Right, but I think it's fair to say there are a large range of labels in between "legitimate socio-political group" and "terrorist group". Whilst I largely detest the Brotherhood and its teachings and practices, seeing it place up with the likes of al-Queda, Boko Haram, and ISIS seems extreme.

 

[Chairman Yang]

Are you embarrassed for the state department (both previous and current) and NSC that also think this is a bad idea?

Maybe? Although I'd use the word "anger" instead of "embarrassment" and I don't know what sort of geopolitical considerations are driving their decisions. Maybe there's some good reason behind everything (although I doubt it). But ordinary people shouldn't automatically defend the organization because Trump.

 

[plagiarize]

Maybe? Although I'd use the word "anger" instead of "embarrassment" and I don't know what sort of geopolitical considerations are driving their decisions. Maybe there's some good reason behind everything (although I doubt it). But ordinary people shouldn't automatically defend the organization because Trump.

Would I be okay with the BNP or UKIP being branded terrorists?

I think that's basically the question here. I'm going with no. They are very hateful, very shitty organizations, who's members have done horrible violent things, but I don't think they as organizations are planning attacks or what have you.

But I can see the appeal of saying yes.

But no. I wouldn't be okay with that. So I disagree with this.

 

[mdubs]

My friend's mother would have acid thrown on her by members of the Muslim Brotherhood when attending school because they felt women shouldn't be allowed to be educated, confident, or independent.

Disgusting

 

[nynt9]

I know we're quick to scoff at everything that Donald Trump considers, and with good reason, but the Muslim Brotherhood has always skirted the boundary between terrorist organization and a legitimate socio-political movement, not that dissimilar from Hezbollah in practical affect (though with less of a direct terrorist influence). Yes, the Brotherhood has had legitimate political movements in Egypt and elsewhere, but wings of the Brotherhood have also explicitly supported and carried out religious assassinations, targeted civilian terrorism, and widespread terror, while also opposing women's rights, targeting non-Muslims with Jew/Christian/Atheist taxes, and forbidding women, Jews, Christians, Atheists, homosexuals, and non-traditional Muslims from participating in government organizations, and endorsed blanket discrimination against atheists, homosexuals, Christians, Jews, the disabled, and any non-Muslims in Egypt.

I'm against labeling the entire Brotherhood as a terrorist organization because you have to recognize the difference between the American Muslim Brotherhood and its distant relationship to extremist, Islamist wings throughout the Middle East and Asia. But, it isn't entirely without merit.

This. The brotherhood has been designated a terrorist organization in some countries, and has known terrorist ties in many countries as well. They are an incredibly problematic organization. Not necessarily supporting the designation by the administration, but some people in here are acting like the organization is just peaceful, and they're not.

 

[theignoramus]

Branding a political party a terrorist organisation means no active USG personnel can even so much as talk to a member of this group. I dont think the USG should bar itself from keeping contacts with any middle eastern political entity, unless it's responsible for direct terror attacks against the West.

 

[Chairman Yang]

Would I be okay with the BNP or UKIP being branded terrorists?

I think that's basically the question here. I'm going with no. They are very hateful, very shitty organizations, who's members have done horrible violent things, but I don't think they as organizations are planning attacks or what have you.

But I can see the appeal of saying yes.

But no. I wouldn't be okay with that. So I disagree with this.

The Muslim Brotherhood is not remotely comparable to the BNP or UKIP. Others in this thread have posted about parts of the MB literally planning attacks, and you can read a litany of MB violence on Wikipedia.

Maybe there's an argument to be made about tactics. Like, leave the MB alone so that radical Islamists don't turn to even worse organizations. But I wouldn't go beyond that and start whitewashing them.

 

[baxter2231]

I thought they already were considered a terrorist organization, look what happened to egypt.

 

[reckless]

Wouldn't be a bad thing. The Muslim Brotherhood is not just a political party that a lot of people seem to think it is.

 

[ultratruman]

The Muslim Brotherhood are certainly not a Democratic organisation: we saw this when Morsi was in power in Egypt.

The designation 'terrorist group' seems inadequate. They are a sinister bunch, but more like Bolsheviks than ISIS. Fundamentally, they're a political organisation with political ambitions.

 

[m_shortpants]

They are going to use this to go after CAIR in the US.

I guarantee it.

 

[Ogodei]

Tough question. It's not an inaccurate label, but it's something that would need to be applied carefully. Condemning the politicians of friendly nations is delicate work. Not something I trust the current administration with.

Five years ago, when they were running Egypt, it would have been a mess. Today they're pretty thoroughly delegitimized in the Muslim world.

The problem being that they were delegitimized by fiat and non-democratic means. Didn't the Algerian Civil War happen because the military nullified the results of the country's first free post-independence election in '91?