|
In this mailing:
by Valentina Colombo
• May 28, 2014 at 5:00 am
"Political
and religious terrorism began with the birth of the Muslim
Brotherhood..." — Farag Foda, Egyptian intellectual murdered by
Islamists in 1992, in Terrorism [al-Irhab]
Islamist
movements have different tactics... but their goal is always the same:
Get in and impose sharia law to establish an Islamic state.
The problem
is not so much the Muslim Brotherhood as the schizophrenia of governments
that one day condemn them and the next day work with them.
"The
objective, then, is to strike terror into the hearts of God's enemies,
who are also the enemies of the advocates of Islam..." — Sayyid
Qutb, chief ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s and 1960s.
"What I think is important about the Muslim Brotherhood,"
British Prime Minister David Cameron said on April 1, while announcing a
long-overdue investigation of the activities of Muslim Brotherhood in the
UK and its involvement in February's terror attack at the Egyptian resort
of Taba, "is that we understand what this organisation is, what it
stands for, what its beliefs are in terms of the path of extremism and
violent extremism, what its connections are with other groups, what its
presence is here in the United Kingdom. Our policies should be informed
by a complete picture of that knowledge. It is an important piece of work
because we will only get our policy right if we fully understand the true
nature of the organisation that we are dealing with."
The Egyptian Brotherhood's reaction, published on its English
website, was immediate:
by Peter Huessy
• May 28, 2014 at 4:00 am
Supporters
of a deal with Iran assume three things, all questionable.
An
Iranian long-range missile test in 2012. (Image source: FARS)
The clandestine production of nuclear weapons by rogue states
promises to create what Yale Professor Paul Bracken terms an
"exceedingly volatile poly-nuclear Middle East."[1]
Against the backdrop of negotiations between the United States,
Russia, China, France, Great Britain and Germany, (known as the P5+1), on
the one hand and Iran on the other, his warning is particularly
important.
In 1961, a leading defense analyst, Fred Ikle, wrote, "In
entering into an arms-control agreement, we must know not only that we
are technically capable of detecting a violation but also that we or the
rest of the world will be... in a position to react effectively if a
violation is discovered."
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment