Militants kill more than 230 at Sinai mosque in Egypt's deadliest attack

[Morch]

1 hour ago, nausea said:

Duh! Yeah, and Sufis are Islamists, go figure. So looking on Sufis as our friends rather than our enemies is bad, yes? All Islamists are bad, yes?

 

Sufism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism#Perception_outside_Islam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufi–Salafi_relations

 

Is Sufism answer to extremism in Egypt?

https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/04/egypt-sufism-tolerance-radical-islam.html

 

Can Sufism Defuse Terrorism?

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1912091,00.html

Edited November 25, 2017 by Morch

[khunken]

18 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That's a very good read. It does not, however (as you pointed out) actually support the claim made by the other poster. If anything, it presents a rather complex picture, with less definitive pronouncements with regard to direct ties.

You're at it again, making false accusations. I did not say it supported other posters opinions, but that it outlines an indirect method of Saudi export of their extremist dogma, rather than a direct one (which was Dexterm's post) . Those exports are sure recruiting grounds for individual & group brainwashing of those involved in terrorist activities in the US, Europe, N Africa and the Indian sub-continent.

 

 

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, khunken said:

It would also be better if you would not take seleted bits of articles in links to justify your apparent defence of Saudi Arabia. Hypocrisy that is, as you accuse others of doing the same to justify their opinions.

 

The Saudi government may or may not support IS but it's support for extremist Islamic groups is well documented. In addition turning a blind eye to Saudi citizens' contributing to IS & others is definitely not non-support.

 

Yes, Saudi has gone after IS inside the country but has never made any attempt to go after them elsewhere and only used its modern weaponry against Shias - in Bahrain & Yemen. Saudi support for Al-Sisi's dictatorship is correct but the attack in the Op was not directly against the Egyptian rulers but against Sufi 'apostates' which Wahhabi-ism promotes.

 

I am not "defending" Saudi Arabia, but rejecting a specific view which I consider not strongly supported (especially to the extent it was claimed). I have not "selected bits of articles" as you claim.

 

I agree completely with your second paragraph - which, in my opinion, still falls short of what the other poster was on about. There is a difference between a country (or rather, a government) actively perusing a clear policy, and the way things are with regard to Saudi Arabia's relations with ISIS. Not nearly as neat as "conclusive" generalized claims often made.

 

There was not intention of portraying Saudi Arabia as standing in the forefront of opposition to ISIS. It ain't. Just that it isn't quite in bed with ISIS as well. When it comes to other extremist outfits, yes (and these do not, as a rule, carry out attacks within Saudi Arabia).

 

With regard to the current attack, there is no way which it can be construed as supportive of Saudi Arabia's interests. The ongoing Islamic insurgency is a threat to al-Sisi's regime and its legitimacy. Any such attack reflects negatively on the Egyptian government and its security forces. Destabilizing Egypt, rather than keeping it a stable partner, is not one of Saudi Arabia's present goals.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, khunken said:

You're at it again, making false accusations. I did not say it supported other posters opinions, but that it outlines an indirect method of Saudi export of their extremist dogma, rather than a direct one (which was Dexterm's post) . Those exports are sure recruiting grounds for individual & group brainwashing of those involved in terrorist activities in the US, Europe, N Africa and the Indian sub-continent.

 

 

 

At it again, how? Your post started of with "Absolutely correct", in response to the other poster's view. Don't know that there was an "accusation", but uncalled for drama seems to be a thing with these topics.

[khunken]

18 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

At it again, how? Your post started of with "Absolutely correct", in response to the other poster's view. Don't know that there was an "accusation", but uncalled for drama seems to be a thing with these topics.

Apologies - I mis-read your post & take back the 'false accusation' accusation.

[khunken]

29 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I am not "defending" Saudi Arabia, but rejecting a specific view which I consider not strongly supported (especially to the extent it was claimed). I have not "selected bits of articles" as you claim.

 

I agree completely with your second paragraph - which, in my opinion, still falls short of what the other poster was on about. There is a difference between a country (or rather, a government) actively perusing a clear policy, and the way things are with regard to Saudi Arabia's relations with ISIS. Not nearly as neat as "conclusive" generalized claims often made.

 

There was not intention of portraying Saudi Arabia as standing in the forefront of opposition to ISIS. It ain't. Just that it isn't quite in bed with ISIS as well. When it comes to other extremist outfits, yes (and these do not, as a rule, carry out attacks within Saudi Arabia).

 

With regard to the current attack, there is no way which it can be construed as supportive of Saudi Arabia's interests. The ongoing Islamic insurgency is a threat to al-Sisi's regime and its legitimacy. Any such attack reflects negatively on the Egyptian government and its security forces. Destabilizing Egypt, rather than keeping it a stable partner, is not one of Saudi Arabia's present goals.

Well you've done a pretty extensive job in attempting to pick holes in posts making it clear about Saudi-exported extremism. And, yes, by picking holes you've selected the bits to support your view. That makes me wonder: are you deliberately just arguing for the sake of an argument or really attempting to counter opinions & articles that certainly paint Saudi as the main culprit (aka defending Saudi)?

 

I don't think anyone (certainly not me) would argue that the attack was in Saudi's interests. But when one sets off on a mission to export a poisonous dogma all around the world and that dogma influences groups & individuals to do dirty work based on that dogma, both friends & enemies are liable to get hit as direct control is lost. I don't think anyone would say that IS-linked atrocities in the US or Europe are in Saudi's interest either.

 

The attack is not a serious threat to the army-run Egyptian dictatorship. In fact it gives them an excuse to become more oppressive as well as lash out at non-combatants. Al-Sisi has tacit & open support from Saudi, the US, Israel & parts of the EU. Egyptians know better than to threaten the army for any reason.

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, khunken said:

Well you've done a pretty extensive job in attempting to pick holes in posts making it clear about Saudi-exported extremism. And, yes, by picking holes you've selected the bits to support your view. That makes me wonder: are you deliberately just arguing for the sake of an argument or really attempting to counter opinions & articles that certainly paint Saudi as the main culprit (aka defending Saudi)?

 

I don't think anyone (certainly not me) would argue that the attack was in Saudi's interests. But when one sets off on a mission to export a poisonous dogma all around the world and that dogma influences groups & individuals to do dirty work based on that dogma, both friends & enemies are liable to get hit as direct control is lost. I don't think anyone would say that IS-linked atrocities in the US or Europe are in Saudi's interest either.

 

The attack is not a serious threat to the army-run Egyptian dictatorship. In fact it gives them an excuse to become more oppressive as well as lash out at non-combatants. Al-Sisi has tacit & open support from Saudi, the US, Israel & parts of the EU. Egyptians know better than to threaten the army for any reason.

 

I have no idea what you're on about. There was no denial offered with regard to Saudi Arabia "exporting extremism". There wasn't even a denial or a rejection that Saudi Arabia does support extremist Islamic organizations. Rather, my comments were specifically about clear and direct Saudi state support for ISIS.

 

You can keep claiming "I've selected the bits to support my views". That doesn't make it so. My comments repeatedly addressed that the sum of the links, bits and summaries offered do not support the assertions made. Where there were specific "bits" pointed out, it was in response to them being quoted by another poster. The links I provided were to illustrate that things are not as straightforward as asserted. Once more, no idea what you're on about.

 

Most of what was posted does not align with the claim that Saudi Arabia provides direct state-level support to ISIS. It does so with regard to other organizations, yes. It promotes a whole lot of things which generally create a favorable ground for extremism to flourish, yes. There was nothing said which absolves Saudi Arabia for the part it played and plays, with regard to spreading its brand of Islam, promoting and supporting extremism etc. Just that it isn't quite the claim I responded to.

 

The threat the attack represents for the Egyptian regime is that it may broadcast it doesn't control the situation. If this becomes a prevalent point of view, it would play to the benefit of such extremist organizations, and demoralize those fighting them. The current regime's main theme is that it provides stability and security - if it can't deliver, it will effect public perception. You may call al-Sisi's regime dictatorial, but if the alternative is anything resembling how things panned out in Iraq and Syria, perhaps it's not the worse option.

[khunken]

40 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I have no idea what you're on about. There was no denial offered with regard to Saudi Arabia "exporting extremism". There wasn't even a denial or a rejection that Saudi Arabia does support extremist Islamic organizations. Rather, my comments were specifically about clear and direct Saudi state support for ISIS.

 

You can keep claiming "I've selected the bits to support my views". That doesn't make it so. My comments repeatedly addressed that the sum of the links, bits and summaries offered do not support the assertions made. Where there were specific "bits" pointed out, it was in response to them being quoted by another poster. The links I provided were to illustrate that things are not as straightforward as asserted. Once more, no idea what you're on about.

 

Most of what was posted does not align with the claim that Saudi Arabia provides direct state-level support to ISIS. It does so with regard to other organizations, yes. It promotes a whole lot of things which generally create a favorable ground for extremism to flourish, yes. There was nothing said which absolves Saudi Arabia for the part it played and plays, with regard to spreading its brand of Islam, promoting and supporting extremism etc. Just that it isn't quite the claim I responded to.

 

The threat the attack represents for the Egyptian regime is that it may broadcast it doesn't control the situation. If this becomes a prevalent point of view, it would play to the benefit of such extremist organizations, and demoralize those fighting them. The current regime's main theme is that it provides stability and security - if it can't deliver, it will effect public perception. You may call al-Sisi's regime dictatorial, but if the alternative is anything resembling how things panned out in Iraq and Syria, perhaps it's not the worse option.

Well if you've no idea about your selective extracting of bits & pieces of what various posters say, you've argued an awful lot about nothing or just for the sake of argument. Additionally most articles in this thread have pointed to direct Saudi support for IS-style terrorism - Saudi meaning various individuals not necessarily state support. As there are scores of various clans directly & indirectly related to the ruling dynasty, the opaque dealings Saudi has with it's extremist friends is difficult to pinpoint. Most of the articles support that view so it's no surprise that the government allies are primary culprits. I doubt that many, if any, of the links & comments used the state sufffix which you seem to base your claims on.

 

The current military dictatorship has no threats to it's rule. Public perception is not anything that worries them - all other potential power bases have been brutally crushed with the dead buried & the jails full.

 

The alternative in Egypt was a democratically elected government resulting from an uprising against a prior military dictatorship. They were far from perfect but were not allowed to perform - being of the wrong group for the military and their foreign supporters including Saudi & the US. Iraq & Syria are off topic and do not interfere in other countries affairs nor do they have terrorist affiliates overseas.

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.  

[dexterm]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

It would be better if you carefully read the posts you respond to, and while at - the content of the links your provide.

 

If you need it spelled out: there was no general claim Saudi Arabia doesn't sponsor extremist Islamic organizations - but that with reference to ISIS, and direct Saudi Arabian state support, things are less conclusive.

 

First link: Conveniently failing to quote the first line of the same paragraph, which reads "While Saudi Arabia is often a secondary source of funds and support for terror movements who can find more motivated and ideologically invested benefactors (e.g. Qatar),...". Obviously that doesn't sit well with previously opinionated posts made, hence dropped. As pointed out above, most of the direct references of government support refer to other extreme Islamic organizations. This was not denied, but is not quite what you claimed, nor a whole lot to do with the topic at hand.

 

 Second link: Essentially the same, even in the bit quoted in your post.

 

Now, you may want to take the time and consider what was further pointed out on my post - that ISIS does carry out attacks within Saudi Arabia, that Saudi Arabia's security services do carry out operations against ISIS operatives, and that Saudi Arabia is a major backer of al-Sisi's regime, with little interest of destabilizing it. None of these resonate all that well with your point of view.

As usual your posts are couched in weasel words and litotes full of fence sitting demonstrating Morchspeak for..
...yes, the Saudis sponsored terrorist ISIS and Al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria as a counter to Iran, but the Frankenstein monster they created has come back to bite them in their own unstable backyard.

 

Most of your posts are written in this quasi objective style giving the semblance of being balanced and objective, but are in fact quite one sided.

 

Your post when stripped of the weasel hedging language admits
...yes there is a claim that Saudi Arabia sponsors extremist Islamic organizations and that with reference to ISIS, and direct Saudi Arabian state support, some things are conclusive.

 

Here is further evidence of Trump's hypocrisy in condemning the terrorist attacks while supporting their sponsors.

 

Limited in my quotes to the 3 sentences forum rule. But the whole thing worth reading.

 

"A third Wikileaks file appeared to show a private speech that Hillary Clinton made in 2013. In it, she said: “The Saudis and others are shipping large amounts of weapons – and pretty indiscriminately – not at all targeted toward the people that we think would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems in the future.”

Indeed, the former US vice president, Joe Biden, once spoke off-message by accusing Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states of pouring “hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad.” He explained: “The people who were being supplied were al-Nusra, and al-Qaeda, and the extremist elements of jihadis who were coming from other parts of the world …

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-qa-is-saudi-arabia-funding-isis

[craigt3365]

19 hours ago, steven100 said:

It's a very twisted society in Egypt,  if muslims want to kill each other while praying then go for it.

The Egypt government has never been known for it's retribution to these killings that reoccur every few years.

I say they can go hell for leather ....  idiots.

Most people in Egypt just want to live a good life and take care of their family. Sadly, a radical minority is ruining that.

 

Sad times when supposedly intelligent people support massacres like this.

[craigt3365]

7 hours ago, khunken said:

The alternative in Egypt was a democratically elected government resulting from an uprising against a prior military dictatorship. They were far from perfect but were not allowed to perform - being of the wrong group for the military and their foreign supporters including Saudi & the US. Iraq & Syria are off topic and do not interfere in other countries affairs nor do they have terrorist affiliates overseas.

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt as a result of British involvement there. They've had problems for a long time.

 

Syria previously supported IS. So not off topic. The big problem in the ME is the conflict between SA and Iran. And it's not necessarily all about religion.

[Morch]

8 hours ago, khunken said:

Well if you've no idea about your selective extracting of bits & pieces of what various posters say, you've argued an awful lot about nothing or just for the sake of argument. Additionally most articles in this thread have pointed to direct Saudi support for IS-style terrorism - Saudi meaning various individuals not necessarily state support. As there are scores of various clans directly & indirectly related to the ruling dynasty, the opaque dealings Saudi has with it's extremist friends is difficult to pinpoint. Most of the articles support that view so it's no surprise that the government allies are primary culprits. I doubt that many, if any, of the links & comments used the state sufffix which you seem to base your claims on.

 

The current military dictatorship has no threats to it's rule. Public perception is not anything that worries them - all other potential power bases have been brutally crushed with the dead buried & the jails full.

 

The alternative in Egypt was a democratically elected government resulting from an uprising against a prior military dictatorship. They were far from perfect but were not allowed to perform - being of the wrong group for the military and their foreign supporters including Saudi & the US. Iraq & Syria are off topic and do not interfere in other countries affairs nor do they have terrorist affiliates overseas.

 

No, that's just you repeating nonsense claims regarding my posts without substantiation. Been there done that. My point stands, and it is not really all that complicated - that there is a difference between alleging direct state support and elements within a country providing such support. That you wish to move the goal posts so that my position would fit your criticism can be attributed either to yourself misunderstanding my posts (again) or being intentionally dishonest. 

 

I agree that there are elements within Saudi Arabia which do support (or supported) ISIS. I agree that Saudi Arabia's authorities sometimes turn (or turned) a blind eye to such practices. At the same time, Saudi Arabia did come under attacks by ISIS, and security forces do conduct counter-terrorism operations against ISIS. Hence, the wide brush claim that Saudi Arabia supports ISIS is inaccurate. Most of the articles cited do not actually detail clear connections to state or government level support. Once more, you may feel that the difference is immaterial - guess we will have to disagree on this point.

 

You can make whatever claims you like with regard to the al-Sisi's regime, but haven't really read any serious analysis or commentary portraying the attack as a non-issue, or a non-threat as far as Egypt and al-Sisi's regime go. Not one. When placed in the context of ongoing insurgency, terrorist attacks and the armed forces failure to deal with them, the implications could be dire if no solution is found. The comment regarding public opinion being "not anything that worries them" is patently untrue, based more on your apparent bias then an acquaintance with how things are. Doubt that in the wake of the so-called Arab Spring, any ME ruler dares a wholesale disregard of domestic public opinion and sentiment.

 

Without getting into a futile debate regarding the past - the comment regarding an "alternative" referred to the present and the future. As in if the al-Sisi's government (for all its faults and sins) fails to get a handle on the situation, things could deteriorate further. The mention of Iraq and Syria in this instance was, obviously, nothing to do with them being potential sponsors of terrorist organizations, but as a reference and reminder as to how things in Egypt might become. Nothing remotely off topic about it.

[simple1]

7 hours ago, dexterm said:

As usual your posts are couched in weasel words and litotes full of fence sitting demonstrating Morchspeak for..
...yes, the Saudis sponsored terrorist ISIS and Al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria as a counter to Iran, but the Frankenstein monster they created has come back to bite them in their own unstable backyard.

 

Most of your posts are written in this quasi objective style giving the semblance of being balanced and objective, but are in fact quite one sided.

 

Your post when stripped of the weasel hedging language admits
...yes there is a claim that Saudi Arabia sponsors extremist Islamic organizations and that with reference to ISIS, and direct Saudi Arabian state support, some things are conclusive.

 

Here is further evidence of Trump's hypocrisy in condemning the terrorist attacks while supporting their sponsors.

 

Limited in my quotes to the 3 sentences forum rule. But the whole thing worth reading.

 

"A third Wikileaks file appeared to show a private speech that Hillary Clinton made in 2013. In it, she said: “The Saudis and others are shipping large amounts of weapons – and pretty indiscriminately – not at all targeted toward the people that we think would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems in the future.”

Indeed, the former US vice president, Joe Biden, once spoke off-message by accusing Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states of pouring “hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad.” He explained: “The people who were being supplied were al-Nusra, and al-Qaeda, and the extremist elements of jihadis who were coming from other parts of the world …

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-qa-is-saudi-arabia-funding-isis

Al Qaeda & ISIS in their various manifestations are a direct threat to the Saudi regime. The Saudi regime has taken direct action against Islamists within the Kingdom and killed / arrested hundreds, though I would guess authorities would have to walk a very fine line against the extremist ideologues. As your link highlighted there does not appear to be credible evidence of KSA official funding. What is known is mosques receive donations and in some cases do re-direct funds to terror groups, as do individuals via the nearly untraceable Hawala networks.

 

In the early days of the Syrian Civil War I believe I recall correctly that the Saudis and Qataris, for example, were receiving formal assistance from the US for weapons transfers to the 'rebels'. Again I recall such transfers later had the plug pulled by the US as the recipients were identified as Islamists, but some people never take into account policy changes and repeat allegations ad nauseum. 

 

Personally I am of the opinion 'Morch' has extensive understanding and knowledge of the politics of the various M.E. regimes.

 

I find it appalling some posters sneer about the murders covered by the OP, which currently includes the cold blooded murder of 25 children. In addition many murdered were from a tribe resisting IS presence in the Sinai. IMO some members have lost all sense of decency.

 

 

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

The routine barrage of false allegation regarding my posts is usually an indication you cannot support whatever careless wide brush "argument" presented. Maybe easier than actually addressing the comments made, or deploying a less bombastic argument.

 

How are my posts "one-sided"? Do tell. What, if it comes to that, are them imaginary "sides" here? There is no denial offered when it comes to Saudi Arabia supporting extremist terrorist organizations, there's no denial of Saudi Arabia promoting its own brand of extreme Islam, and there's not even denial of elements within Saudi Arabia supporting ISIS. The point made was simply with regard to state support. Like the other poster, you seem to feel the difference is immaterial (which, as an aside, is pretty much shooting your own foot when it comes to positions on other ME topics).

 

Almost too funny citing Bob Pitt in the service of countering your post and link:

 

Quote

Channel 4’s FactCheck is usually a good source of objective information on controversial issues. So it’s disappointing that a recent article by Martin Williams, which presents an assessment of the evidence behind the widespread accusation that the Saudi government is funding ISIS, is poorly researched and quite misleading. The article has been cited on social media as a reliable study, so it’s worth subjecting Williams’ analysis to a point-by-point examination to see if it holds up. (Short version: It doesn’t.)

‘Is Saudi Arabia funding ISIS?’ Fact checking FactCheck

https://medium.com/@pitt_bob/is-saudi-arabia-funding-isis-fact-checking-factcheck-f4af7c005888

 

Edited November 26, 2017 by Morch

[craigt3365]

This is an excellent article about IS and Saudi Arabia. A must read for several here.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35101612

Is Saudi Arabia to blame for Islamic State?

[Morch]

@craigt3365

 

It would also do to recall that the topic is not even about Saudi Arabia.

[khunken]

7 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt as a result of British involvement there. They've had problems for a long time.

 

Syria previously supported IS. So not off topic. The big problem in the ME is the conflict between SA and Iran. And it's not necessarily all about religion.

Apart from your first sentence - rubbish.

The Muslim Brotherhood - like others in Egypt - have been under military rule for many years and won an election after an uprising against the military rule of Mubarak. The MB is not the problem, it's military rule and Saudi-created extremists of AQ & IS, particularly IS.

 

Syria did not previously or any time support IS - this one comment displays total ignorance. The big problem in the ME is not the conflict between Saudi & Iran, it's a complex mess of invasions, destroying countries and western countries choosing the worst regimes based on which ones they can sell lucrative weapons deals to.

 

Religion is a major part too as the Saudi extreme version of Islam - exported to far too many countries to fuel the extremists - treats all non-Sunnis as apostates.

 

[simple1]

2 hours ago, khunken said:

Apart from your first sentence - rubbish.

The Muslim Brotherhood - like others in Egypt - have been under military rule for many years and won an election after an uprising against the military rule of Mubarak. The MB is not the problem, it's military rule and Saudi-created extremists of AQ & IS, particularly IS.

 

Syria did not previously or any time support IS - this one comment displays total ignorance. The big problem in the ME is not the conflict between Saudi & Iran, it's a complex mess of invasions, destroying countries and western countries choosing the worst regimes based on which ones they can sell lucrative weapons deals to.

 

Religion is a major part too as the Saudi extreme version of Islam - exported to far too many countries to fuel the extremists - treats all non-Sunnis as apostates.

 

With due respect, you may wish to carry out further research on how the Assad regime used Sunni Islamists and eventually IS, in their quest to retain power, even before the Syrian Arab Spring uprising.

 

Regards Egypt, Morsi, representing the Muslim Brotherhood,  morphed into a fool who bought about his own demise and his party's loss of power. I assume you're aware the ideologues originating from the Muslim Brotherhood, eventually spawned the ultra violence of the likes of AQI, methods picked up by IS. 

 

One can critique el Sisi, but at least he is endeavouring to lead the debate for a more tolerant Islam, together with political actions to reinforce policy, not just a talking head.

Edited November 26, 2017 by simple1

[khunken]

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

With due respect, you may wish to carry out further research on how the Assad regime used Sunni Islamists and eventually IS, in their quest to retain power, even before the Syrian Arab Spring uprising.

 

Regards Egypt, Morsi, representing the Muslim Brotherhood,  morphed into a fool who bought about his own demise and his party's loss of power. I assume you're aware the ideologues originating from the Muslim Brotherhood, eventually spawned the ultra violence of the likes of AQI, methods picked up by IS. 

If you have information regarding how the Assad regime used IS, I'll be glad to peruse it.

 

Morsi maybe was a fool but the Egyptian nascent democracy could have continued but for the military and their outside supporters. Yes I'm aware of the Muslim Brotherhood and also aware that they did nothing of the sort regarding AQ & IS. MB is not a touter of the Wahhabi doctrine which is what AQ & IS is based on. I very surprised that you, usually a more sensible poster, can attempt to put the blame on the wrong culprits.

[simple1]

43 minutes ago, khunken said:

If you have information regarding how the Assad regime used IS, I'll be glad to peruse it.

 

Morsi maybe was a fool but the Egyptian nascent democracy could have continued but for the military and their outside supporters. Yes I'm aware of the Muslim Brotherhood and also aware that they did nothing of the sort regarding AQ & IS. MB is not a touter of the Wahhabi doctrine which is what AQ & IS is based on. I very surprised that you, usually a more sensible poster, can attempt to put the blame on the wrong culprits.

Don't know how you conclude Morsi was creating a nascent democracy, bet their are others who hold the opposite POV, including me.

 

You can do your own research - info easily available - if it's a struggle for you let me know - not via PM. Again reach back as to the names and background of the ideologies referenced by the leaders who spawned Al Qaeda etc, the path will lead you to those originating from Muslim Brotherhood, among others. A lead for you...

• The Sahwa blended Salafi concepts with revolutionary ideas from political Islam in a broad sense, but primarily currents influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood. The intermarriage polarized and produced new and unpredictable religious currents.

 

http://carnegieendowment.org/2016/06/13/sectarianism-of-islamic-state-ideological-roots-and-political-context-pub-63746

Edited November 26, 2017 by simple1

[metisdead]

Off topic, inflammatory and offensive posts and replies have been removed.  This topic is about an attack on a mosque in North Sinai, Egypt, lets please stay on topic. 

[khunken]

34 minutes ago, simple1 said:

You can do your own research - info easily available - if it's a struggle for you let me know - not via PM. Again reach back as to the names and background of the ideologies referenced by the leaders who spawned Al Qaeda etc, the path will lead you to those originating from Muslim Brotherhood, among others. A lead for you...

• The Sahwa blended Salafi concepts with revolutionary ideas from political Islam in a broad sense, but primarily currents influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood. The intermarriage polarized and produced new and unpredictable religious currents.

 

http://carnegieendowment.org/2016/06/13/sectarianism-of-islamic-state-ideological-roots-and-political-context-pub-63746

I will look into that link when I have time. There are some others that require perusing too. Thanks for your posts.

[steven100]

23 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Most people in Egypt just want to live a good life and take care of their family. Sadly, a radical minority is ruining that.

 

Sad times when supposedly intelligent people support massacres like this.

sorry , you must have inteperated my comment incorrectly, I didn't say ' support ' in any of my wording.

I agee it's a radical minority problem which the Egypt government seems to lack in surpressing.

But as many would say ....  It's not my concern as they're muslim.

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, steven100 said:

sorry , you must have inteperated my comment incorrectly, I didn't say ' support ' in any of my wording.

I agee it's a radical minority problem which the Egypt government seems to lack in surpressing.

But as many would say ....  It's not my concern as they're muslim.

We live in a global community now. What happens in one country can, and does, have an impact on us all. Religion is irrelevant. Every one has it's fanatics.

[simple1]

1 hour ago, steven100 said:

sorry , you must have inteperated my comment incorrectly, I didn't say ' support ' in any of my wording.

I agee it's a radical minority problem which the Egypt government seems to lack in surpressing.

But as many would say ....  It's not my concern as they're muslim.

 

You posted "I was sad about this for .......   1 millisecond ...".

 

When 27 children were murdered in cold blood and hundreds of tribal members resisting IS in the Sinai were also murdered in the incident. Your comments and others who 'like' is repulsive and contrary to any respect for humanity.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 27, 2017 by simple1

[steven100]

5 minutes ago, simple1 said:

contrary to any respect for humanity.

Tell that to IS, Saudi's & Iran.  ....   and most of the ME.

[bert bloggs]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

We live in a global community now. What happens in one country can, and does, have an impact on us all. Religion is irrelevant. Every one has it's fanatics.

Every religion has its fanatics ? please let us know which other ones kill worldwide , bomb and maim children , run inoccent holidaymakers down and gun down people . and please dont come up with the usual IRA ,or one off killing sprees etc ,but which other Religion kills worldwide ,oh and now ,not in the middle ages . 

[simple1]

28 minutes ago, steven100 said:

Tell that to IS, Saudi's & Iran.  ....   and most of the ME.

I am talking about YOU. You emulate the propaganda of Islamists, go join them, don't pollute TV with your poison.

[craigt3365]

26 minutes ago, bert bloggs said:

Every religion has its fanatics ? please let us know which other ones kill worldwide , bomb and maim children , run inoccent holidaymakers down and gun down people . and please dont come up with the usual IRA ,or one off killing sprees etc ,but which other Religion kills worldwide ,oh and now ,not in the middle ages . 

How about the one who kills innocent doctors? Burns down mosques? Rape and burn innocent people in Myanmar?

 

No denying Muslims are committing the most amount of violence currently. But none are 100% innocent.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism