Slashdot Mirror
Alaa Has Been Detained
ahmed saad writes "Alaa (read the slashdot interview) was detained yesterday for activism while in a protest to support Egyptian judges . He's one of the most well known Egyptian activists in human rights, free software (leading Egypt LUG) and free speech in Egypt and worldwide. The Egyptian regime is currently trying to suffocate any movements that are active against it's highly inhuman and dirty practices to keep holding power in Egypt yet are trying to fool the world about their support for democracy and free speech.
Please don't let that happen! Contact to the Egyptian embassy in your country and/or your country's embassy here in egypt, tell your congressmen and thanks in advance for your support!"
The Egyptian regime is currently trying to suffocate any movements that are active against it's highly inhuman and dirty practices to keep holding power in Egypt yet are trying to fool the world about their support for democracy and free speech.
Just replace 'Egyptian' with 'Bush' and 'Egypt' with 'America'.
Kinda creepy, how well it fits.
It serves the interests of those in power. It's why Socialism, Communism, Fascism, "state Capitalism" and all other big government ideologies fail spectacularly. Every law that enacts a new police power that isn't objectively strictly needed to do basic law enforcement, every new agency, every new unneeded spending bill and especially fiat currency play into the hands of the tyrants and would-be tyrants. What has happened here should be a lesson to every Democrat or Republican who believes that if only their guy was in office, big government would work. It doesn't, it just goes after those that challenge it because the more that people start to question small excesses, the more they question their very relationship with the state.
Hadn't heard of Alaa, asked the press office for comment. They say they will get back to me later today.
"To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
While big government does not equal a police state, it does provide the dark and dank corners for the fungus to grow unchecked and unnoticed.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Because his most vocal opponents can't do anything besides make pithy comments. s/Egypt/Bush == teh insightful.
Really, really pathetic.
But then, you forget that the West has a tradition of liberalism that tempers the excesses of its big government policies. Few countries around the world have that. Egypt has no such tradition and there is no cultural barrier between big government and Fascism in countries without that liberalism.
And we do have a problem with "power brokers" in the US. The judiciary, the FCC, the FTC and other "high-level bureaucrats" frequently interject themselves into areas where they have no business. They just aren't as bad because they have public scrutiny in a country that still half-heartedly cares about these things.
Funny, that, liberals and Europe want intervention in places like Darfur and Iran but when it came to US securing itself, it was somehow unjustified, even though Saddam was a genocidal maniac and just as ruthless as anyone else in the region.
Iraq has never attacked America. Saddam's regime was no threat whatsoever to Americans. If you're going to try to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq on humanitarian grounds, then go ahead and do so, but in case you haven't been reading the papers, the total number of WMDs (the ostensible reason we attacked in the first place) discovered in Iraq remains zero.
Civil liberties in America are no different today than they were pre-9/11.
Nice astroturfing, but all a reasonable person need do to know just how many of their 'inalienable' rights have been stripped away by the current administration is to read it, your smokescreening notwithstanding.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
We need to respect Egypt's right to its culture. And these "protestors" need to get on with their lives and let Egypt rule itself. How dare they appeal to the outside world for "assistance."
Contact Egyptian embassies indeed. It is the height of arrogance to think that a bunch of foreigners should be allowed to dictate Egypt's domestic affairs.
Stupid Americans. BlackRookSix is right on.
-john
Slashdot: you'll not find a more wretched collection of villainy and disreputable types...
Look, I can't stand Bush, and I think his policies (particularly on the power of the executive branch) are a danger to the long-term health of democracy in America, but until Democrats are being arrested, beaten, and tortured for speaking out against the President and until the Republicans specifically ban certain parties from holding public office for years, then Bush can't hold a candle to Mubarak.
Honestly -- degrees, people. It's a matter of degrees.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The Muslim fundamentalists are going to be pissed about this!
The no fly zone wasn't that official - look it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones
They amounted to little more than uinternational piracy
The idea that each country can just gaze at it's own navel and ignore what happens in other countries is a persistent one, but there are so many historical examples of why it's a very bad idea that it's hard to know where to begin.
I'll skip the obvious one by just saying "Godwin's Law", you know what I mean. In the case of Iraq, for the first war when one country invades another and threatent others you can nolonger say it's an internal matter. As for the second Iraq war, you know the first war never realy ended. We were still sending planes over Iraq, still occasionaly attacking their SAM batteries and enforcing UN sanctions. People were still dying, and that situation couldn't go on forever. Again, it wasn't an internal issue regardless of what you might think about how things turned out doing nothing wasn't an option and don't believe those who say otherwise. At least if you disagree with what was done (it was completely screwed up after all), say what you think should have been done instead and don't dodge the issue.
Opression within a country inevitably has knock-on effects beyond the borders of that country. How to treat refugees? Do you extradite people who are criminals in their own country even though their 'crimes' aren't punishable in your own? What about your own companies doing business over there? What about the freedoms of your own reporters in that country? Toes are going to be stepped on, whatever you do and if the situation does spill over into violence who do you side with? Perhaps the 'terrorists' in that country have at least some legitimate complaints.
Saying "It's just their culture" also doesn't wash, the Egyptian government is highly un-islamic. They aren't even operating uder their own normal 'laws of the land'. The government has been operating using emergency laws for decades. What emergency? It's one of the government's own making!
It is our business. That doesn't mean we should invade now, or any such rubbish. It means we (I'm British) do have freedoms and rights. We can make our views known to the Egyptian Embassy. We can write letters to our democratic representatives. We can even write to the newspapers in our country, or just blog about our opinions and write about them here. Expressing our opinions can and does make a difference. Egypt in particular is highly dependent on wester tourism (I've been there for buisness and on holiday myself), and can't afford too much negative press especialy in the wake of the bombings. We can make a difference.
Simon Hibbs
Someone actually modded this post up?
Let's do that word replace, shall we?
The Bush regime is currently trying to suffocate any movements that are active against it's highly inhuman and dirty practices to keep holding power in America yet are trying to fool the world about their support for democracy and free speech.
1) I see no attempts by the administration to "suffocate" those vocal against it. Seen the approval ratings lately? For that matter...are you being suffocated for this criticism?
2) I've yet to see anything that could be described as "highly inhuman and dirty" directly attributed to the presidency.
3) Exactly how are they going to "keep holding power" after 2008?
4) "Their support for democracy and free speech" is apparent in the fact that the 2006 elections are proceeding as normal at this point and the fact that they are not stifling those who openly criticize them (myself included).
There are a lot of things wrong with our current administration, but they are NOT an oppressive dictatorship bent on holding power.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Alaa Abd El-Fatah, one of the Egyptian political activists, and one of the first bloggers in Egypt was arrested today together with around ten more activists during a peaceful demonstration in solidarity with sixty activists who were arrested over the past two weeks in a non-violent sit in, as well who were held in custody for two weeks under investigation for "crimes" that if anything would raise only mockery including, humiliating the president, possession of "publishing equipment"(graffiti spray) and blocking traffic. The first group of activists arrested two weeks ago was supposed to have their cases reviewed by prosecution today, so as to release or renew holding them under investigation. In solidarity with them 200 lawyers approached as a defense council, a number of judges, and a number of activists among whom were Alaa and his colleagues gathered around the court house. Authorities denied the activists entry to the court house, in addition to attempting to present the "detainees" files only, and not the detainees themselves to prosecution. For hours, Alaa and his fellow activists shouted slogans against the government, sang and showed solidarity with their detained fellow activists.... Read more at http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2006/05/07/promi nent-egyptian-blogger-arrested-and-several-other-a ctivists/...
Therefore we will say and commant on anything we please and any way we damn well feel like if we think basic human rights are being violated, wheter the violation is within our own borders or within the borders of a different nation. Capisca?
But fascists and oppressors will always find a ready source of enabling in useful idiots like you.
some koreans protested to support an egyptian movement calling for democracy named kifaya .. pics at http://misrdigital.blogspirit.com/files/kifaya_sko rea.htm
The rest of your post is hyper-ideological, which fails far more than any of the other things you mention. Welcome to the class of people who have given up actually thinking. I know you think you think, and think you are so wise, but you mind has gone to seed within an ideological singularity.
Unless you count continued attempts to shoot down US planes patrolling the UN-sanctioned no-fly zone.
How does trying to shoot our military planes out of the sky of their territory threaten the people of the US? Not that we didn't have really good reasons for the no-fly zone and not that Iraq is some sort of innocent victim, but how does standing up for the defense of their own territory count? Any threat that posed would be eliminated by not being there.
Or the continued development of weapons that violated UN restrictions in terms of range.
The al-Samoud II missile only had a range of 183 km. This isn't enough to even reach Israel or Europe, much less the US and they were thus not enough to count as a threat to the US.
Then there's the financial support for the families of suicide bombers...
This aid was provided exclusively to Palestinian suicide bombers, and not to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist movement. In general, Saddam was wary of religious zealots as he wasn't a very dedicated Muslim himself (despite peppering his speech with religious phraseology post Gulf War) but saw the Palestinian movement as both a movement that posed no threat to him and a good way to earn political capital with other Arab neighbors. This was a threat to Israel and not the US.
But Saddam was far from a downtrodden lamb.
Saddam was a bad guy, but he was hardly a threat to the US. Heck, he was barely a threat to Israel which was the enemy within closest striking distance and provided most of that threat by easing the burdens left to their families by suicide bombers.
If we were looking to take on actual threats capable of delivering a nuclear attack on the US, topple a cruel and sadistic tyrant, and damn the consequences internationally, then why is Kim Jong-Il still in power? Why the paper tiger instead of the guy that has missles capable of reaching the US -- the guy that has nuclear warheads? Even the argument of "saving the Iraqis" pales compared to the intimidation, brainwashing, and malnourishment that the North Koreans are suffering.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
even though Saddam was a genocidal maniac and just as ruthless as anyone else in the region.
Now THAT, I can agree with. So, when do we invade Israel and Saudi Arabia?
State and local government are collectively far larger than the federal government, but when people talk about "big government" all they think about is what comes out of Washington, DC. This is really quite sad because almost all of the federal influence on your life necessarily must be filtered through state and local government--Washington just sends the checks. But, it hurts more to admit that you're too lazy to walk down to City Hall and throw a fit than it does to throw your hands into the air and complain about distant Washington, conveniently ignoring the fact that your voice in Washington is probably walking distance from your Barca-lounger.
>Egypt has no such tradition and there is no cultural barrier between big government and Fascism in countries without that liberalism.
It's not strong enough to help, but there's a tradition within Islamic practice of disapproving of absolute government. First, the Quran requires things like due process and trials(*). Second, it's considered blasphemous for a mere human to claim absolute power. Coronation rituals used to include a crowd shouting "Sultan, be not proud, for God is greater than you!". (Don't try this in the Middle East today).
(*) Years ago, some dissidents under Arab governments used to say that the US governmental system was more Islamic than their own. Human rights were what they had in mind.
"Saddam's regime was no threat whatsoever to Americans."
What the fuck?
A country with vast oil wealth, run by a tyrant, who openly hates America.
What kind of idiot would think such a place is "no threat whatsoever" to Americans?
I'm not pro war, and I'm not pro Bush, but that statement is just unrealistic in the extreme.
"What a joke. Especially since the bias has been admitted [slate.com] by Fox itself."
So because a news organiziation admits bias, that automatically moots all their points?
What a stupid position.
So because a news organiziation admits bias, that automatically moots all their points?
In a word, yes.
A news organization that is biased is no longer objective, and is therefore worth much less than an unbiased news source. Fox News is demonstrably biased, so much so that their 'news' is worthless.
Check here to see just how much Rupert Murdoch has prostituted his 'news' program in the service of his right-wing ideology.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
"The no-fly zones were illegal creations of the U.S. and Great Britain;"
and France. I notice you conveniently left them out. Why shouldn't we totally discount your opinion in light of that lie (by omission)?
"a sovereign nation shooting at hostile aircraft that violate its airspace is not creating a threat to the violating nation."
So, shooting down US pilots isn't a threat to the US? Where does this logic come from? Despite the fact the they may be the "violating nation" it's still a threat to them.
Man, a great post lingering at 1, and me with no mod points.
Since I agree on all your points, I'll just reiterate my support for your main one: "States and societies don't have rights, individuals do". A state without people does not exist. A society without people does not exist. As a result, it is ludicrous to argue that actions designed to save the state while sacrificing individuals is anything but tyranny designed to satisfy a small subgroup of people.
I've had a number of discussion with various chinese on this (including an ex-girlfriend of mine) and tried to follow the background story on this as much as possible. There are two points that invariably come up among those who support the Chinese police state: China as an idea supercedes individual rights, and there are some people who do not know what's right for them, which means that like stray children, they need to be brought back onto the right path. Quite often, the family analogy is brought up to support the second idea: "If my children to something bad, I punish them. This is no different."
Both concepts I find highly disturbing. The first one for reasons already laid out. The second because the analogy is flawed: being in a family does not give the parents the right to abuse the children. Furthermore, it assumes that one adult has some intrinsic right to control another adult's life. Maybe it's just the individualist in me talking, or maybe it's just that I got tired of learning about atrocities committed in the name of the state ever since states were created. But I cannot see through what process you can decide who is actually suited to play the role of parent, and who is to play the role of the children. In the vast majority of the cases, not only are people with control issues the ones who are attracted to these types of positions (and are therefore fundamentally the wrong people for the job), but I fail to see what the point of such a position is - unless you buy into the first argument, namely that the state is more important than individuals. In this case, it is fairly easy to determine what the role of such a parental position would be.
In short, my disagreements with people like BlackRookSix is not merely a cultural disagreement. It's one that comes from disagreements on fundamental matters of the nature of the state and the individual. I sincerely hope that they stay away from me as much as possible - because I know how they would deal with me if they ever get to design laws by which I would have to abide. And the only option I would have at that point for preserving my way of life would be to remove the state monopoly on violence.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
You see, what you've done is a classic case of using a straw man.
"If you've actually watched OutFOXed, and you still persist in defending Rupert,"
Do me a favor, quote the exact place where I defended Rupert Murdoch. Just one quote will do. No exposition, no soliloquy, no unrelated rants, just the quote where I defended Rupert Murdoch please.
Then explain how my defense of individual stories is equivalent to a defense of Rupert Murdoch.
Then explain why you insist on acting as though they are the same.
Then explain why you think anyone should pay attention to your opinion when you're incapable of telling the difference.
One last thing, a spelling error? Is that the only way you could refute me? Really man, a typo makes you think you've proven something? How sad and empty is your life that your best argument to a resounding defeat of your position is to go spell checking?
the Patriot Act hates it when you anthropomorphize it.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
"Check here to see just how much Rupert Murdoch has prostituted..."
Ok, then you can check here, and you'll understand why your point is a glaringly obvious logical fallacy.
Done."
Where in that statement is there anything even addressing Rupert Murdoch by anyone other than YOU?
What the fuck did you think you demonstrated there? I referred to a logical fallacy you were using, as evidenced by the fact that I said
"Ok, then you can check here, and you'll understand why your point is a glaringly obvious logical fallacy."
So, please explain how anyone but you can see that as a defense of Rupert Murdoch. Is he a logical fallacy? What the fuck are you talking about?
That makes no sense at all.
Really, is it so hard for you to admit you were wrong? It's pretty pathetic watching you play six degrees of defending Rupert Murdoch.
Hey, if I'm a Dodgers fan, does that mean Fox can't air unbiased stories too?
Maybe try to write a coherent post this time instead of quoting a totally unrelated point as though you demonstrated anything other than how far you'll distort reality.
Really man, you're just sad now. I never defended Murdoch. The quote you chose makes it pretty clear you know that, otherwise you'd have something by me that is even remotely related to Murdoch.
You don't. So act like a man and admit it instead of blindly flailing about, seeking anything at all that will draw attention from the fact that you're making shit up out of thin air.
Wow...the wheels have certainly come off now, haven't they? You've completely ceased making any sense at all.
Try to follow along here:
My original statement directed you to check the documentary 'OutFOXed' to see how Rupert Murdoch has prostituted his 'news' program in the service of his right-wing ideology. You claimed this as an ad hominem (whiich it clearly isn't...you might want to actually read the Wikipedia entry you so blithely linked to).
Sure sounds like a defense...although it is a particularly sloppy one.
You also defended Rupert indirectly by denying my assertion that FOX news is incapable of generating an unbiased story. As I explained in my last post, Rupert owns the network and makes the rules. He decides what airs and what doesn't. Therefore, by defending FOX news, you're defending its owner and main architect.
Again, sounds like a defense.
As for the rest of your post, nothing but sound and fury...nothing of value whatsoever.
My challenge still stands, but don't worry....no one expects you to actually accept it.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Almost as insightful as your lame ass string substitution.
Maybe I don't read the papers, but i do read the news online and in places not accessible to many here. Thousands of pounds of pre-Gulf War Stock remains in the bunkers at Al-Muthanna and Khamisayaa. Everything from mustard gas to cyclosarin to VX-2. Terrorists have used, albeit probably unknowingly, chemical munitions as IED's. Why was this not more widely reported? I leave that to your speculation. http://www.google.com/search?q=sarin+iraq+ied http://odci.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_an nxF.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/
http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=1873019&nav =EyB0NBHX ...
Have you ever googled "sarin iraq"? I'll assume not as you would find, "Gasp!", dozens of examples of chemical munitions found in Iraq. Before speaking so condescendingly, please do two and half minutes of research for yourself. one of the dozens: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01 -poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm
You should avoid feeding the GuloGulo troll. A quick look through the posting history of GuloGulo and GuloGulo2 will show that all of his/her/its posts share a common bond:
http://slashdot.org/~GuloGulo
http://slashdot.org/~GuloGulo2
Good point. I am often guilty of making the assumption that my opponent is debating me in earnest, regardless of the misguidedness of their views or the feebleness of their arguments.
You are entirely correct. I've been trolled most egregiously.
GuloGulo, feeding time is over. Hope you got your fill.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Look! Up in the sky!
It's a bird!
It's a plane!
No, it's Irony!
*cue the music*
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
"Wow...the wheels have certainly come off now, haven't they?"
At least you've finally admitted it.
"My original statement directed you to check the documentary 'OutFOXed' to see how Rupert Murdoch has prostituted his 'news' program in the service of his right-wing ideology. You claimed this as an ad hominem"
Um why are you linking to a link I provided you first? And most certainly is an ad hominem in specific
"Ad hominem circumstantial
Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, circumstantial ad hominem constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way. Such arguments are not necessarily irrational, but are not correct in strict logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic."
But if you'd read my link you'd know that.
"Sure sounds like a defense"
No, it doesn't. It sounds like you made a claim that was in fact a logical fallacy and I corrected you. Which makes it even funnier that you're still wrong about it.'
At no point did I mention Rupert Murdoch. You did that, and I didn't even address him. I understand you needed to find something, but you look pretty silly making the case that I defended Murdoch by telling you you used a logical fallacy.
It had N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with Rupert Murdoch, and everything to do with your use of the circumstantial ad hominem. The statement would not have changed if you'd put any name in there.
I realize you feel a deep need not to be wrong, but you are. I've never seen anyone try so hard to distort one statement into something totally related.
"You also defended Rupert indirectly by denying my assertion that FOX news is incapable of generating an unbiased story"
Rupert Murdoch IS NOT Fox. Rupert Murdoch IS NOT Fox. Rupert Murdoch IS NOT Fox. Rupert Murdoch IS NOT Fox.
Is that clear enough? Or are you going to continue to insist that a person is equivalent to a braodcasting company?
Is your intellect capable of differentiating, or do you nopt have the ability to understand such differences.
You know, how one is a human and the other is a fucking company?
You claimed I defended MURDOCH, not fox, not reporters, MURDOCH. Now, apparently, since you were wrong abou tthat, you have to play fox reporters=fox news=rupert murdoch. But you know that doesn't fly, no matter how much distortion you try.
And all you've done since is a silly dance, in which not a single word has demonstrated your point. Oh, and you linked to an article that refutes your insistence that you didn't use an ad hominem. That was really funny.
I appreciate that you hate being wrong. But you are, and all the pathetic word twisting in the world, all the sad, meaningless insults won't change it.
How does it feel to choke on your own link, little fella?
Shove it TripMaster. Who's your boogey man now!!!????
HA HA!!
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm
Rupert Murdoch has agreed to host a political fundraiser for Hillary Clinton this summer!
Murdoch's surprise decision to raise money for Clinton in July, on behalf of NEWS CORP., parent company of FOXNEWS and the NEW YORK POST, underlines a dramatic turn of relations between Murdoch and Clinton, who in 1998 coined the phrase "vast rightwing conspiracy" to denounce critics of her husband.
The move by Murdoch is believed to reflected his views of her as a senator, rather than as a presidential candidate in 2008.
Last week, Clinton surprised Washington and media watchers by attending a FOX NEWS anniversary party, where she toasted Murdoch.
Political powerbroker and studio head Harvey Weinstein is said to have convinced Hillary that Murdoch could be a friend, not a foe, in her ongoing political maneuvers.
Michael Kay said it was most likely to be a stray since it had nothing to mark it as non=conventional. Butler said it may even have been fired and left where it fell. To suggest that this is evidence of Saddam stockpiling WMD or pursuing WMD is lame.
If my neighbor is raping their own children I shouldn't step in to stop them because they're not threatening me or otherwise harming me? A self-centric view of the world is very short sighted and only leads to a world which is bad for just about everyone. I don't really care if Saddam had WMDs or not. He was an asshole, a dictator, and a destabalizing factor. He's like the drug dealer that lives down the block - even if he isn't an active threat he is influencing the world around him to become a threat to you. Something needed to be done and we stepped up to do it. Maybe it hasn't been handled as best as could have been done but it's been done pretty well.
I think Bush, and all our politicians mostly, has proven horrible in protecting the civil rights of Americans. Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and everyone in places of power have user the war on terror, much like the war on drugs, as a chance to make their own plays for increased power. I've yet to see anybody in a position of power in our country make a significant stand to protect the liberty of Americans. Protecting the rights of people in other countries is important but protecting the rights of people in our own country is much more important. Who will defend others when there is nobody here left with the freedom to defend even themselves? Saddam was a threat to America but not nearly the threat that our own leadership is.
Honor and responsiblity should start with the person and work their way up to all humanity. Self, Family, Neighborhood, City, State, Country, World, etc. Across America there is a break down somewere in the area between self and family so there is no chance that we can take the responsibility for the world and do it well because we lack the ability to be responsibile for ourselves and our own government. If we're going to lead we need to lead by example and look after our own affairs first.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
No part of that post was a troll. I always get a kick out of loser mods who know I'm right, but can't refute it so they mod me down.
How sad that you morons won't post your thoughts, but instead abuse your fuckingmod points.
"You are entirely correct. I've been trolling most egregiously."
Fixed that for you.
"GuloGulo, feeding time is over. Hope you got your fill."
I can never have enough of showing you you're wrong. Any time in the future you need it done again, let me know.
The Muslim Brotherhood is the same organisation which manifests itself in the US and the UK as Hizb-ut Tahrir and/or Al-Mujaharoun.
It's a banned organisation in *lots* of west Asian countries, as well as in much of Europe. In the UK it's monitored for being directly connected to fundie terrorism, including counting the July 7th London bombers among its supporters.
In most of its incarnations it follows a fascist political ideology which in the Middle-East is often bundled with Arab racial supremacism.
Among its members are Omar Sheikh, the British man of Pakistani descent responsible for the kidnap and beheading of at least five western hostages including WSJ reporter Daniel Pearl. He was recruited in London at the LSE by Hizb-ut Tahrir and proceeded directly to becoming involved with actual bona-fide fundamentalist terrorism.
There's a whole lot of crap thrown around in the west about what 'Al Qaeda' is, or whether it even exists as a descrete entity. But surely we can all get behind the Muslim Brotherhood and its international affiliate groups being a Bad Thing?
Hillary's a fucking whore for the right and always has been.