No, this story is all about the Muslim Brotherhood -- presented as an innocent party with no nefarious agenda. Just pious, disenfranchised, moderate folks. The focus of the story is the general silence on the part of the U.S. regarding the behavior of its "friend and ally" in this regard.
A story about the shadiness of the Mubarak regime would be far more meaningful -- not to mention fair -- if it took up the issue of religious minorities (Copts, Baha'i, and others), and/or the persistence of female genital mutilation and other women's rights issues in Egyptian society. But, alas, all we get is a story devoid of depth and context on a group the author has clearly not investigated with any degree of diligence.
"Egypt's Crackdown: When a U.S. Ally Does the Repressing," by Abigail Hauslohner for Time, February 24:
The U.S. government has never been shy to criticize Iran over its dismal human-rights record, particularly since Tehran launched a crackdown on opposition voices following last summer's election. But the U.S. stance remains considerably more subdued when Egypt, Washington's biggest Arab ally in the region, exercises similar bad behavior. And the months ahead will test just how subdued it intends to be.
For Egypt, which receives an annual $1.3 billion in U.S. military aid, the equivalent of Iran's election drama hasn't unfolded yet. Parliamentary elections are still several months away, and presidential elections aren't slated until next year. But there are signs of an imminent crackdown on opposition groups. U.S. silence on the issue suggests that Cairo may be able to avoid the international spotlight in a way that Tehran did not.
On Feb. 8, for example, Egyptian security forces arrested 16 members of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's most popular opposition group. Those arrested included three senior members, including the deputy leader, Mahmoud Ezzat. More than 30 others had been arrested in the two weeks prior to that. "They were arrested having done nothing except calling for reform and freedom and for adopting a moderate approach which Egypt needs the most at this time," read a statement posted on the Muslim Brotherhood website on Feb. 9.
There's an exquisite demonstration of how the term "moderate" is thrown about, with the hopes that people will project their own understanding of the term onto it without further inquiry.
This isn't anything new for the Brotherhood. The group has been banned since 1954, but its popularity -- derived mainly through Islamic charity work, calls for political reform and appeals to Muslim religiosity -- makes it especially threatening to the authoritarian regime of President Hosni Mubarak. Even so, the Brotherhood has been tolerated to varying degrees over the years, the state having found a way to keep its members in check through a system of arbitrary arrests and detentions that rights groups say are illegal under international law. "It's a repeated situation," says Taha Ali, a political analyst at the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies, a Cairo NGO. "But this time, we're going to see the parliamentary election in the upcoming period, so it's a historical moment for the regime and the Brotherhood."...
"... [the Muslim Brotherhood's] popularity -- derived mainly through Islamic charity work, calls for political reform and appeals to Muslim religiosity ...."
Rather like an article from the late 1920's about the Nazis, describing them as a group calling for political reform, and appealing to German patriotism.
Well remember, if you're not a Muslim, you're not human and you don't need rights, so this story makes sense.
"For Egypt, which receives an annual $1.3 billion in U.S. military aid.."
And nearly another billion in economic aid. Why was that left out? Why not state: "Egypt, despite having received over $70 billion in American aid has a population ever-more deeply anti-American..."
It's dhimmi Time!
Nice headline - "Time magazine runs story on human rights in Egypt with no mention of Copts' or women's rights".
Of course, under Sharia law women or Copts do NOT have rights.............
At the recent FDI event in Washington, D.C., former DoD analyst Stephen Coughlin declared that self-censorship among the American mainstream media has given our enemies "a decisive victory in the information battlespace." This is the type of "journalism" to which he was referring.
I remember reading the Time magazine that appeared soon after Hitler's asssumption to power in 1933. The author reported on anti-Jewish violence being waged by nazi thugs in the street. The piece finished up with a quote from Goebbels "You have to remember the hatred that has existed here for many years.....Anti-Jewish violence here is a thing of the past. It will not happen again."
Uh, right.
Time, Newsweek, et. al. are, per usual, short on the mark.
The TIME article states, naively or disingenuously, "The Brotherhood, however, renounced violence in the 1970s and still calls for establishing a state based on Islamic law via peaceful, democratic means [oxymoron]." Sure. And let's take everything the Muslim Brotherhood says as truth, without question. The writer must know nothing about Islamic law since the concepts "peaceful" and "democratic" are meaningless in Islam, unless they can be used as a stepping-stone to shari'a law, which is totally undemocratic. Whatever could prompt TIME to run an article like this? The Muslim Brotherhood is not by any stretch moderate. There is no chance they would be democratic if they came to power. At least Mubarak, although authoritarian, is allied with the U.S.
Ignorance of the facts can only be invoked for so long. This is more MSM propaganda. Why do they keep doing it? Why are they working for Islam and against the interests of the U.S. and its allies? How much Saudi and Gulf money is going to U.S. news organizations? Foreign money to western media needs to be a subject of investigation and legislation.
Over at Ikhwanweb—the official English-language website of the Muslim Brotherhood—they quote more of the Time article:
Three senior leaders among the 16 Brotherhood members arrested earlier this month, including the deputy leader of the group, are, according to Reuters, being charged with setting up training camps to plan terror attacks as well as setting up an internal body that heeds militant Islamist ideals preached by a firebrand Brotherhood intellectual who was executed in 1966. The Brotherhood, however, renounced violence in the 1970s and still calls for establishing a state based on Islamic law via peaceful, democratic means.
.............................
Well, this is vague. It seems to imply that since the Muslim Brotherhood "renounced violence" in the 1970s, that such charges must be false.
Certainly, the corrupt Egyptian government is not above making false charges, but the allegations above are entirely in line with the practices and goals of the MB and other Islamist groups.
"Graduates" of these terror training camps have reportedly gone to Gaza to wage Jihad against Israel:
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=3.0.3327713044
Clearly, Islamic Egypt just isn't Islamic enough for the Muslim Brotherhood. That last line, about establishing "a state based on Islamic law" is a call for full Shari'ah law in Egypt.
I'm sure the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't care how they achieve Shari'ah—either through using Egypt's electoral process, as they did when they won 20% of the seats in the lower house of Parliament in 2005, or through the gaudier methods of violent Jihad.
Meanwhile—as Marisol noted above—Copts and women are oppressed and murdered in Egypt. The Egyptian state has winked at or even been involved in a wave of torture and killings of non-violent Copts. Don't expect Time magazine to run a story on this any time soon.
After a search, I found an article in Time about the Copts titled "Christians on the Nile". It dates *from 1963*:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,894597,00.html
Before referring to their "moderate" credentials, the author of the article needs to take a look at the Muslim Brotherhood's byelaws.
http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=22687
In item E, these state "The Islamic nation must be fully prepared to fight the tyrants and the enemies of Allah as a prelude to establishing an Islamic state."
The usual old demands for Islamic supremacy.
Back when it was happening Time Magazine ran a major cover story article on the grand Ibo slaughter. Long article, very shocked, concerned, and compassionate.
*** 92:8 ***
As I recall there was no mention of Islam or Moslems in the piece.
Does anyone smell Fareed Zakaria's influence.......?
John Roy Carlson saw exactly what the 'Brotherhood' in Egypt were all about, way back in 1951. He said everything that needed to be said - and that still needs to be said - in his 'Cairo to Damascus'. And he includes some astonishingly creepy mug shots of a few of the big shots, to boot. I urge anyone here who hasn't read it, to get hold of a copy by hook or by crook.
One could always photocopy some of the more hair-raising pages from Carlson's account of the Brotherhood, and send them to Ms Abigail Hauslohner, and to the editors of 'Time', with suitably blistering covering letters.
A pretty good update on Carlson's observations, with extra information, in a form similarly accessible to the layperson, may be found in Mark Gabriel, 'Islam and Terrorism'.
From 'Cario to Damascus' is available for free at this website.
http://spitfirelist.com/books/cairo-to-damascus/
When Begin was prime minister of Israel, Time did a piece that included the words "Begin, rhymes with Fagen" in an obviousely anti-Semitic reference.
I've always thought that Time rhymes with slime, crime, and grime.
Hey, JUST because TIME reported what some nazi said back then does NOT mean it agreed with WHAT the dolt said.
TIME was a much different outfit back then. mr. smartie pants!
And by the way, your use of "retards" to describe the folks here was DISGUSTING!