The History of Muslim Brotherhood, The Mujahudeen, Sayyid Qutb, Zawahari and the Taliban outcome

I did a radio show today on the true roots of Radical Islam beginning in Egypt in the 1950s.  Sayyib Qatb sensed a certain indulgence in Greeley, Colorado when he observed the American Education system.  His opinions were formulated to a doctrine which meant that Middle Eastern countries such as his should cling to Islamic law when creating order in society.  His recommendation was that Western influence was shallow and materialistic and would not do.  He felt corruption would take hold in Islamic countries that he believed held a standard beyond carnal desires.  Eventually, his mindset led to more radicalism and he and his group attempted to plot the assassination of Nassar, the Egyptian leader.  He was imprisoned and tortured and eventually was executed by trial in 1966.  During his prison stay, he created the Muslim Brotherhood and honed his message.  After his death, Ayman Zawahiri took up his mantle to resist Western dominance in the region.  The last two weeks of my BlogTalk Radio show has been dedicated to understanding the roots of Islmaic Fundamentalism.  Their belief system and origins derive from a group of core, committed members who whole-heartedly rejected secular government, the normal rule of law and wanted to establish a theocratic, Islamic state.  Their belief system eventually transformed into acts of violence in Algeria, Egypt and Pakistan which they believed would increase the attraction to their cause.  It didn't always work in their appeal.  Many Muslims rejected outright violence against other Muslim or things that did not involve protecting Muslim territory by foreigners (fatwa).  The Muslim Brotherhood grew into the Mujahudeen who were the Afghan Freedom fighters during the Soviet war in the 80s and branched off into the Al Qaeda which become more focused on Western targets.  The Afghan holdout has always have had a singular, identifable profile as a resistance to superpowers and those trying to run over Afghanistan.  The only question which I attempted to answer on January 27, 2012 radio show is did the Mujahadeen perceive Soviets as carnal infidels the same way they targeted Americans in 2001 for entering their turf?  In a documentary by PBS, "Behind Taliban Lines," the group members stated all infidels must die...who are foreigners on their land and a threat to Islamic intent/continuity of their culture.  While conducting raids against the Soviets in the 80s, The American CIA trained and supplied the Mujahudeen.  Not until leaders like Azzam, who told Afghan fighters, that Westerners were not worthy of their alliance, did the pre-Taliban understand the nature of aligning with Westerners.  Reagan had set his mandate in the world that it was the Russians who were the sole evil doers and source of evil, meaning the nature of communism was evil in itself.  America had been equally as aggressive with the Truman doctrine by ousting the leadership of Iran's Mossadegh, a democratically elected president who nationalized Iranian oil.  Korea and Vietnam were two places America attempted to restrain the influence of communism through containment and suppressing the domino effect.  We lost 50k American men in Korea and for what?  The 38th parallel never moved and not much was accomplished except South Korea remained non communist.  With that, I am ending this description.  Listen to my show and find out more.  Below is some advertising of Sayyid Qutb's writings earlier in life.

Link to my Feb, 3, 2013 show on Historical roots of Muslim Brotherhood

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ernestradionetwork/2013/02/03/political-gravity-how-are-terrorists-made


Link to Sayyid Qutb's writings:

http://www.creighton.edu/fileadmin/user/CCAS/departments/History/profiles/calvert/JCBook.pdf

Unyielding dedication

Yes, I was pulled in again and called the Larry Elder show this a.m. to debate a topic about Reaganomics and Reagan's intent in Nicaragua & El Salvador. I was on hold one hour and 45 minutes an the super nice guy managing the phones promised to get me in. I waited thru endless Reagan jokes which were soft spoken and funny but a bit long winded; Ed Meese's interview (I think he worked for Nixon as a cabinet member during Watergate as well as Reagan). Also Nancy Reagan's archive interview with Larry where she virtually had not a thing interesting to say. Anyways, the media has currently compared Obama to Reagan. In reality, Obama had a dinner where he was brainstorming the success of previous presidents and was curious how Reagan turned over the economy. Despite party, Reagan and Obama have more things in common than not. Both were elected into broken economies except in 1982, there was double digit inflation and the aftermatn of the Oil Crisis and America was on the advent of boom technology. I was a senior in college and graduated in Dec, 1982 and took a job in a bakery after college. Secondly, Obama inherited a two front war. Reagan created a two front covert war basically in response to his fear of Soviet hegemony and influence in Central America. It was noble of Reagan to support Jose Napolean Duarte in his newly elected government in El Salvador but it was not right to oppose the Sandinistas in Nicaragua by supplying arms and traniing. The Somoza family ruled over 30 years in Nicaragua and the Sandinistas were freedom fighters. However, their military style did put citizens in harm's way. If they had solidified their government immediately, they would not have had to attempt reform by force. By Reagan meddling in Central America, it was making another second world country subjected to the Cold War Conflict and not allow their government to achieve their own autonomy. With supply of weapons, it was unfairly balancing and counter-balancing both sides. Anyways, my point is that both Obama and Reagan faced similar problems in America but how they handle the problems will be different for Obama. He does see the institution of nationalized health care as a legitimate policy endeavor. Now Larry Elder may be right in his assertion of the liberal agenda, but it is not for a negative result. After all, is funeling weapons and money into a CIA backed covert war more egalitarian than allowing every citizen access to health care? And Reagan did equal damage to the economy. Trickle down economics only gravitationally trickled up and created yuppiedom, buppiedom and rich bastards who were reckless. Reagan also allowed deregulation and gave the authority for James Watts of the Interior Dept. to deregulate commerce and leased federal lands for oil exploration and the Gulf and other places. I am not saying Reagan is horrible. But being likeable is not enough. His legacy is duel-edged, just like Clintons. Why should our nation keep glorifying past relics. Lets face the problems of today. We can draw from the past but not re-create or use phony statistics to back up our arguments. Elder said once Reagan's economy improved, the media removed his coverage by and large. The media had other things to report like Contra gate, Yuppiedom, Silicon Valley and of course, the new found fame of Madonna Ciconne.