6 Responses

  1. Interesting. For one, reading the article on foreignpolicy.com reiterates some comment I made on https://tundratabloids.com/2012/08/terror-tards-plan-to-resurrect-al-qaida-in-gulf-region.html.

    Plus, the whole issue can be corroborated in other sources I have read, particularly Gilles Kepel’s “The War for Muslim Minds: Islam and the West” and Charles Allen’s “God’s Terrorists: The Wahhabi Cult and the Hidden Roots of Modern Jihad”, both of which I’ve read about 3 months ago.

  2. When the article states “Where Ghozlan has a point, however, is that the Saudi Muslim Brotherhood is not exactly a MB branch like all others. From the days of Hassan al-Banna, the Saudi monarchy made it clear that it wouldn’t allow the Brotherhood to establish a section in the kingdom. Yet from the late 1960s onward, different groups of Saudis influenced by Egyptian and Syrian Brotherhood exiles started creating local semi-clandestine organizations claiming an affiliation to the MB. A sign that this was the result of a bottom-up dynamic, not a top-down creation, …”

    Both terms, bottom-up dynamic and top-down creation, refer to Salafi movements, primarily instigated by a self-proclaimed moral vanguard vs. institutionalized, top-down enforced Wahhabi Salafism, respectively. The distinction between both is indeed important, because the latter are considered illegitimate by the former Salafi strain.

    Qutbism (MB affiliate groups) tends to present itself as a vanguard movement of the people and thus presents a revolutionary challenge to the Saudi fiefs. The House of Saud only funds a myriad of Wahhabi-like movements abroad, who necessarily eat out of their hands, like Deobandi madrasas (from which the Taliban is recruiting) , Ahl al-Hadith (linked with Lashkar E Taiba) and Jundullah (to harass Iran’s mullah regime). Qutbism in Saudi Arabia has gradually morphed into a full-fledged Salafism (i.e.without the Western facade) that is effectively non-Saudi in origin.

  3. “He was evicted in the 1980’s because of his insistance on fighting alongside the mujahadine in Afganistan…”


    The Muslim Brotherhood creates these illusory splits with the terrorists they spawn in order to give themselves plausable deniability. Just like Sin Fein and the IRA. They wind them up and let them go, then have no further direct contact with them.

    But they are working together. They don’t just have the same goal but different methods of achieving it. They have the same goal and are working in conjunction to achieve it.

    The terrorist groups engage in terrorist attacks that directly benifit Muslim Brotherhood goals.

    Gamaa al Ishmalaya “split” from the MB before engaging in its campagn of murdering tourists. That campagn was meant to damage Egypts tourism income, damaging the economy. More poor people would need Muslim Brotherhood assistance thru their various social outreach charities. More people would be angry at the government for causing the economic problems (though it was the MB conneced terrorists). More people would be open to the MB’s argument that they were the answer to Egypts economic problems (that their terrorists caused).


    We found out years ago that Al Quada’s plan was to goad us into war. Then after several years when we were morally and materially exhausted there would be take overs all over the middle east.

    And GORSH, WILL YA look what’s been happening.

    Al Quada IS the Muslim Brotherhood. Al Quada ALWAYS HAS BEEN the Muslim Brotherhood.

    And our president is on their side.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.