Featured Post

How To Deal With Gaza After Hamas

Sunday, August 18, 2013

Are Obama's counterproductive Egyptian statements really part of a clever conspiracy?

It's possible that Barack Obama's seemingly counterproductive, idiotic statements about the current crisis in Egypt may not just be lazy blathering from the most ineffectual US President since Jimmy Carter.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a murderous gang of Ismaist fanatics. Despite winning the election in Egypt, they have no respect for democracy and like fascists before them, used the democratic process to impose their own form of dictatorial tyranny. The beliefs and principles guiding the Muslim Brotherhood are thoroughly antithetical to western values, democracy and the United States. Many in the Brotherhood have gone so far as to promise the genocide of Egypt's Christian community if they regain power, and during the current crisis, they have burned down dozens of Coptic churches.

So in response to the Brotherhood riots in Egypt following the deposition of the Islamist President Mohamed Morsi, Obama condemned the Egyptian Generals who are more friendly to the US. The American President's statements seemingly lent support to the depraved killers of the Muslim Brotherhood, whom Obama ridiculously characterized as "peaceful protesters". Barely paying lip service to the Brotherhood's attempts to slaughter Christians, Obama has gone so far as to threaten to hinder desperately-needed US aid to Egypt's government if the violent Islamists continue to be repressed.

On the surface, Obama's words make him look more like a Muslim Brotherhood plant in the White House than a President acting in the interests of the United States.

But all may not be as it seems.

One thing that many in the west forget is that Muslims in the Middle East despise the US, its government, and in particular, its President. Obama's "apology tour" at the beginning of his term did nothing to mollify that hate.  Nor did his efforts at appeasement make the Arabs hate him less, they only made them lose respect for US strength and determination.

But perhaps Obama understands the contempt he engenders in the Muslim Middle East.

After all, Obama's approbation would be reviled in the Middle East much the same way that we in the West would feel disgust towards those getting adulation from the depraved Grand Ayatollah of Iran.

Could it be Obama understands that in that tumultuous region, praise from him is more damning than the most effective curse?

According to a report in the leftist, ant-American British newspaper The Guardian, the Egyptian government's crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, while incurring the censure of Obama, is garnering widespread domestic support in Egypt. Their government has portrayed The Muslim Brotherhood as "western-backed terrorists" and the apparent aid and succor from Obama must reinforce that message.

Could it be that Obama is really a genius who is willing to sacrifice his image and credibility in order to bolster a friendly government? 

I doubt it. I doubt it very much. 

But you never know....


The Hammer said...

If it is true it would make Uncle Barry the craftiest president since Lincoln.

Richard K said...

See? Smoking weed helps you think outside the box!

Anonymous said...

Nah, Obama praises the Muslim brotherhood because he is on their side not America's side.

Mr Bilderberg said...

al-Arabiya is a good Arab news site, not pro-MB: http://english.alarabiya.net/

Totten's interview with Trager on the Brotherhood is a must read: http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/truth-about-egypt

Unknown said...

You do know that there's an act of Congress at issue here, right? Specifically, aid is supposed to be automatically cut off to any government that comes to power through a coup,

Now, if you're Obama, and you have every Tea Party shithead in all of Christendom calling you a usurper of all laws that you behold, you're probably not likely to run around asking for exceptions to the law, do you?

Richard K said...

As it happens, it's Tea Party favorite Rand Paul who is leading the charge asking for enforcement of the Act of which you wrote, Skippy.

But I think more sensible Republicans than Paul (and Democrats), of which there are many, know that if Egypt falls into complete chaos, it will ultimately cost not only more money to the US than whatever the current aid bill is, but will have catastrophic results that will cause many other problems for America.

Unknown said...

You'd make a great point if Senator Paul's foreign policy views enjoyed any support whatsoever in the GOP or even most of the Tea Party, which they don't. To call those people libertarians is laughable.

And if Egypt goes to shit, so what? If it gets aggressive beyond its borders (an unlikely eventuality given the financials), Israel is more than capable of taking care of them. I'm pretty sure both sides remember the Third Army being encircled and slowly starved in 1973.

Is there a single place in the Arab world thst's historically better off for having had an American presence? As a matter of fact, there's a strong argument to be made that superpower support for Arab tyrannies created the problems overrunning the region today.

Richard K said...

I don't think you can lay all, or even most of the internal problems in the Arab world on superpower intervention.

Adherence to Medieval beliefs and practices were responsible for their ills. From our standpoint, it wasn't a big problem over a century ago, when most of us would never have known or cared, but in a globalized world with mass immigration and instant communication, there would be no way to avoid them now, regardless.

It looks like we'll just have to disagree about whether the world is better off for the effort to prevent a country of 80 million people from being controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Unknown said...

I think I can. Wanna see?

American democracy wasn't especially democratic, at least not initially. But the isolation provided by two oceans allowed it to develop unmolested. And that still took 150 years to become what we recognize today.

That was never true in the Middle East. The British, French and Russians were never all that interested in fostering democracy, but the United States pretended that it was.

I don't much care for the Muslim Brotherhood, but the parallels I see between Egypt and Iran are chilling.

The US and UK overthrew the only democratically elected government Iran ever had in 1953, then went on to finance and train repressive secret police forces that crushed any and all democratic opposition. But it notably didn't crush ALL opposition, as we sadly learned in 1979.

When you topple Mossadegh to get the Shah, sometimes you wind up with Khomeini.

Think that won't happen again?

Richard K said...

I don`t think the cause and effect you`re suggesting are quite so direct.

There was a lot of time between 1953 and 1979, so I don`t know if you can attribute Khomeini to Mossadegh`s overthrow as much as you can to the following years of bad governance by the Shah.

The Shah who now, compared to Knomeini and what followed, isn`t looking so bad in retrospect.

The Egyptian Generals are not all that unpopular in Egypy among the half or more of the population that detests the Muslim Brotherhood.

I`m not saying they`re liberal democrats, they`re more like Nasserites, who was also antithetical to the Brotherhoodies.

In any case they extent to which Egypt is well governed and if some semblance of democracy is restored, possibly without the Brotherhood`s participation, will most likely determine the eventual outcome in Egypt.

But removing the Islamo-fascists of the Muslim Brotherhood, (and if there is anyone to whom that term properly applies, it is they,) is a good thing. It`s good for Egyptian women who don`t want to be raped for not wearing a body bag when they step outdoors, it`s good for anyone who wants to listen to music during Ramadan without getting beaten, and the list goes on...