« | »

NYT: Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood Not Radicals

From Walter Duranty’s spiritual heirs at the New York Times:

In Egypt, No Alliance With Ultraconservatives, Islamist Party Says

December 1, 2011

CAIRO — The Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm on Thursday distanced itself from a more conservative Islamist party as early vote tallies indicated that the two factions would claim the two largest roles in the first Parliament elected since the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak.

Responding to reports that the two Islamist parties together could form a majority of the new Parliament, the Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party denied that there was any “alleged alliance” with the ultraconservative party, Al Nour, to form “an Islamist government.”

The statement appeared to be aimed at quieting the anxiety of Egyptian liberals and Western governments about the unexpectedly large share of the vote apparently won by Al Nour, which was formed by the ultraconservative Islamists known as Salafis. It also reflected the fine line that the Muslim Brotherhood is walking as it tries to hold together its most ardent Islamist supporters in the streets without provoking a backlash at home or internationally

This statement also represents just another in the endless stream of lies that we have been told by the Muslim Brotherhood and our own news media, to sugarcoat what is actually happening in Egypt and the rest of the Middle East under the guise of the ‘Arab Spring.’

But the truly laughable part is how the New York Times pretends the Muslim Brotherhood is not itself a "conservative Islamist party" that wants "an Islamist government."

Emboldened by its success [in the first round of elections], the Brotherhood’s party has said that Parliament should try to wrest the power to name a new prime minister from Egypt’s interim military rulers — an assertion of authority that the military council has so far rebuffed.

But on Thursday the party also reiterated, as it has throughout the campaign, that it hoped to form a unity government with the more liberal parties in Parliament. The elections, it said in another statement, “will most likely lead to a balanced Parliament that reflects the various components of the Egyptian public.”

In other words, as soon as the Muslim Brotherhood got a a majority of votes in a few cities in a preliminary round of voting, they insisted that they be handed control of Egypt.

And when the military resisted out of fear of their radicalism, the Muslim Brotherhood said they has nothing to worry about. They just want to form a government with the "liberal parties" in Parliament.

And we are supposed to believe them.

Liberal Egyptians have become increasingly afraid that that will not be the case; they were surprised by the unexpected success of the Salafis. In contrast to the Brotherhood’s emphasis during the campaign on tolerance and pluralism, the Salafis often talk about moving quickly to put in effect Islamic religious code on matters like banking, alcohol, women’s dress or entertainment.

Many male Salafi candidates refuse to shake hands with women and in interviews require female journalists to wear a veil. Egyptian law requires all parties to nominate at least one woman on each roster of candidates, but because many Salafis oppose putting women in leadership roles, they put their female candidates’ names last on each list. Often, the women’s campaign posters displayed flowers instead of their faces…

The Salafis are just being honest about their intentions. Meanwhile, the Brotherhood is also promising to put Egypt under strict Sharia Law. But they are too sophisticated to spell out what that will mean. They want to string the West along until they can gain total power.

By the way, notice how this conflict is being described as the ‘conservative’ bad guys versus the ‘liberal’ good guys, in the long and subtle tradition of American journalism. When, in fact, it is the liberals like Obama and his minions in the news media who are handing Egypt over to the radical Muslims on a silver platter.

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, December 2nd, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

2 Responses to “NYT: Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood Not Radicals”

  1. GetBackJack says:

    Apparently no one remembers the Muslim Brotherhood was created as a tool for the Nazis by Otto Skorzeny, the man the Nazis termed their most dangerous crazy.


    Two reasons – to open a fourth front against the Jews, and to organize a bunch of bassackward goat lovers into a fighting force that could dislodge and eliminate the Rashid family from control of Arabia so the oil could be exploited by American interests instead of British.

    Skorzeny convinced the apostate clan of Saud that he would put them on the throne if they would wield their particularly hateful brand of Islam – Wahhabi – long denounced by both Sunni and Shiite – in the pay of American oil interests and the Nazi Party. Thus, the Brotherhood was born.

    America’s Nazi Secret: An Insider’s History, John Loftus – Loftus is a former U.S. government prosecutor, a former Army intelligence officer, and the author of numerous books, including The Belarus Secret; The Secret War Against the Jews; Unholy Trinity: How the Vatican’s Nazi Networks Betrayed Western Intelligence to the Soviets; and Unholy Trinity: The Vatican, the Nazis, and the Swiss Banks.

  2. P. Aaron says:

    Obama better get there & bow. Time is running out!

« Front Page | To Top
« | »