Islam and fascism (split from IS thread)

[caketastydelish]

He can mention 9/11 (and all other terrorist attacks against westerners in the past 20 years combined).

I'll mention that somewhere between 151,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqis died in the Iraq war alone. Good luck beating me.

 

[r16]

I believe there are a few Muslim practitioners in the Civ community and I would also be very interested in hearing what they have to say in defense of their religion.

this half_ssed almost never practising Muslim sees no need to defend Islam , not because the "attackers" are so few in number in CFC but actually it's kinda a core belief of Faith . So what if they feel Islam equates Fascism ? Would say many "Muslims" actually using the Nazi experience for control but it's just daily life ; Turkey would have been exactly in the same spot had it been "99%" Christian . Because people can manage to find reason no matter what ...

Was already looking for any threads on the "stampede" in Mekke to say this . Which is by the way a Saudi speciality and kinda follows their anger at failing to make an impression when they killed those hundred plus people with their crane , the one they might have smashed onto the Kabe itself and people kinda attribute to wind . Well , the Pilgrimage is specifically intented to bring people together , out of the the isolation of their homelands which kinda breeds bigotry . Malcolm X arrived as a politician re-inventing himself out of the morass he was so instrumental to empower and discovered there were lots of blue eyed devils , humble in the presence of so many coloureds and yet all equal except the strength of belief and that to be measured on the Judgement Day . Malcolm X left as a man who was even more burning to correct his actions , to undo what he had done . Malcolm X with a carbine in hand was no danger ; Malcom X the Pilgrim was . Islam will survive the Saudis ; ı have no need to lose sleep over a thread on the web .

 

[Funky]

The great difference between militant Islam and fascism is: fascism or Nazism requires control of national governments to carry out atrocities, militant Islam does not. Basically fascism is more advanced, and militant Islam is more primitive. An advanced machine of Nazism can mow down millions of civilians, a primitive Islamic terrorism can only (organized) kill tens of thousands, as we can see in Northern Nigeria, ISIS etc.

This distinction is one of technological advancement, not one of ideology. Imagine ISIS having the weapon technology and the amount of forces Germany had in 1939 related to today's standards. Everything we know about their aims suggests that they would make use of these forces to conquer and overthrow other countries, starting with their neighbours and continuing with Europe. Imagine they had nuclear weapons and longe-range missiles. Does anyone think they wouldn't use them?

The other parallel between Islamic theocracy (Saudi, Iran, Taliban) and fascism cannot be drawn because those theocracies lack social mobilization levels in fascistic countries, thus it cannot achieve national unity as fascist and Nazi once succeeded.

It seems to me that the belief in jihad as a divine command, coupled with the belief in martyrdom and paradise, is a very effective incentive to participate in the violent spread of Islam.
While there is obviously no "nation" of Muslims in the terrestrial sense of the word, the umma certainly features some crucial elements of nations, like its exclusiveness or the solidiarity of Muslims to one another, who in conflict will often side with other Muslims for the sole reason that they are Muslims.

The only real difference I see between Christianity and Islam is that Islam treats women worse.

While this is a crucial difference, there are many more. Most notably the concepts of holy war and martyrdom, which do not exist in the bible, and the relation towards violence, which I touched on two pages ago.

the bottom line is "Christians" have the United States military to carry out what they want, and all of its overwhelming force. Which is why Muslims have to use domestic terrorism for their political activism to be even remotely relevant to the world, by comparison. There is a reason you see a lot more Muslim terrorists than Christian terrorists. Christians don't need crappy, second-class garbage like a shoe bomber or whatever. This is the same side has by far the best bombers, planes, aircraft carriers, etc and can bomb the **** out of anyone they don't like. Then there's the CIA on their side as well, the NSA, and also that they can and have tortured anyone they're "suspicious" of. It's like being mad at Palestinians for throwing rocks, and praising the Israelis for not throwing rocks. The Israelis have an actual army and overwhelming infrastructure to back them up, the Palestinians do not. Which is why the Israelis have no need to throw rocks, whereas the other side does.

US foreign policy has nothing to do with Christianity. And while they can be criticised for several of their missteps, the US and Israel do not intentionally kill civilians. This is not on their agenda. In fact, they usually try to avoid killing innocent people if possible. Compare that with Muslims terrorism, which in most cases has the sole purpose of killing civilians. It is not hard to see who has the moral highground here, regardless of their differing levels of military power.

 

[Tahuti]

For me this isn't about terrestrial or ethnic dominance. It's about defending and promoting liberal principles, which as I mentioned earlier, are not tied to the West. These principles have to varying degrees spread to non-Muslim parts of Asia and Africa and to South America and have done tremendous work in helping some of these countries catch up with modernity. I'd argue that this is no longer about the West versus other cultures, it is about the intercultural conversation of which ideas we need to adopt as a global civilisation to build a stable society.

Inadvertently, you have done so: Liberalism is very particular to the West and primarily the Anglo-Saxon countries and the Netherlands. Eastern Europe has a very weak liberal tradition. Japan relies on a form Liberalism heavily infused with Confucianism which was very Japonised after it was imported to Japan. Likewise, Maoism wasn't exactly the same kind of Marxist ideology Marx himself had devised and had a lot of newly added elements to fit in China's agricultural economic state.

 

[Agent327]

It seems to me that the belief in jihad as a divine command, coupled with the belief in martyrdom and paradise, is a very effective incentive to participate in the violent spread of Islam.

IS isn't spreading Islam though. In the areas where IS and its would-be supporters operate Islam is already very much present.

While this is a crucial difference, there are many more. Most notably the concepts of holy war and martyrdom, which do not exist in the bible, and the relation towards violence, which I touched on two pages ago.

First, as already pointed out, it isn't a difference. Second, there are a lot of things in Christianity that are not in the Bible, but violence isn't one of those.

Inadvertently, you have done so: Liberalism is very particular to the West and primarily the Anglo-Saxon countries and the Netherlands. Eastern Europe has a very weak liberal tradition. Japan relies on a form Liberalism heavily infused with Confucianism which was very Japonised after it was imported to Japan.

Liberalism infused with Confucianism? I'm curious to know when and where that happened.

 

[Flying Pig]

Inadvertently, you have done so: Liberalism is very particular to the West and primarily the Anglo-Saxon countries and the Netherlands. Eastern Europe has a very weak liberal tradition. Japan relies on a form Liberalism heavily infused with Confucianism which was very Japonised after it was imported to Japan. Likewise, Maoism wasn't exactly the same kind of Marxist ideology Marx himself had devised and had a lot of newly added elements to fit in China's agricultural economic state.

A large part of that was down to Lenin et al, who faced the problem of launching a revolution against capitalism in a mostly pre-capitalist country.

 

[Tahuti]

Liberalism infused with Confucianism? I'm curious to know when and where that happened.

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

A large part of that was down to Lenin et al, who faced the problem of launching a revolution against capitalism in a mostly pre-capitalist country.

The circumstance of China prior the founding of the PRC were radically different than from Russia: Its Confucian traditions and an even lesser degree of industralisation to name a few. The Russian cities by contrast were moderately industrialised and also support bases for the Bolsheviks.

 

[Formaldehyde]

He can mention 9/11 (and all other terrorist attacks against westerners in the past 20 years combined).

I'll mention that somewhere between 151,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqis died in the Iraq war alone. Good luck beating me.

But that clearly isn't Christian "fascism", even though there are far more parallels than there are with Islam. Ironically, the very people who support this utter nonsense would label anybody who claimed this as being "anti-Christian", and rightly so. But for some hypocritical reason, the very same logic doesn't apply to their own views.

IS isn't spreading Islam though. In the areas where IS and its would-be supporters operate Islam is already very much present.

Today, two adjoining and overwhelmingly Islam countries. Tomorrow, the world!

After all, they must have at least tens of thousands of combatants fighting for ISIL. Why isn't that clearly a threat to us all to inflict their own version of fascism on us instead of our own, which is advocated by so many authoritarian conservatives?

 

[caketastydelish]

US foreign policy has nothing to do with Christianity. And while they can be criticised for several of their missteps, the US and Israel do not intentionally kill civilians. This is not on their agenda. In fact, they usually try to avoid killing innocent people if possible. Compare that with Muslims terrorism, which in most cases has the sole purpose of killing civilians. It is not hard to see who has the moral highground here, regardless of their differing levels of military power.

Are you kidding me? FAR more innocents have died in the Iraq war than all the Islamic terrorists attacks in the past 20 years combined. Even if you 100% insist that US troops/ private security contractors (with Blackwater being the most famous) weren't "trying" to... Which I frankly would find to be partially true, anyway. The US is the side with all these "precision smart" weapons and have "mistakenly" ended up bombing civilian targets many, many times. This is the side that declared war on Iraq and even early on in the war bombed IRAN "by mistake".

There's also the time that the US shot down an Iranian aircraft carrier (which wasn't doing anything wrong) and after the controversy, awarded the us militaryman which did it a medal of honor. There are so many examples.

And either way. You cannot deny that:

a) the solid majority of the christian/evangelical fanbase in the US (and possibly in Europe as well) support these foreign policies, and put politicians into office to make them happen and

b) there are also lots of individual Christians that are very influential and/or rich that make it happen.

Again, the Iraq war alone where so many more Iraqi civilians died. You argue that we weren't "trying" to kill any civilians which I'm somewhat skeptical of already. Besides that, why did we go to Iraq to begin with? Iraq is the biggest example. Although they're hardly the only Muslim country we've bombed/had troops in in the past 20 years. Our desert storm operations easily outnumber islamic terrorism against us, by a point of no comparison. You cannot dismiss this as irrelevant.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It wasn't so much "intentional", except in some notable cases you alluded to above, as they merely didn't care one bit that so many Iraqi civilians would also die from the well-known blast radius of the standoff weapons. Weapons they used so frequently to keep themselves from any possible harm in urban and suburban areas with a high density of civilians known to be present.

After all, many of them claimed they were on a mission from their own god who they openly claim also committed an untold number of similar atrocities in the past. So what could possibly be wrong with that?

 

[Tahuti]

Are you kidding me? FAR more innocents have died in the Iraq war than all the Islamic terrorists attacks in the past 20 years combined. Even if you 100% insist that US troops/ private security contractors (with Blackwater being the most famous) weren't "trying" to... Which I frankly would find to be partially true, anyway. The US is the side with all these "precision smart" weapons and have "mistakenly" ended up bombing civilian targets many, many times. This is the side that declared war on Iraq and even early on in the war bombed IRAN "by mistake".

The point wasn't that Iraq II was worse than what radical Muslims did, rather, whether the US is motivated by the proliferation of Christianity. However, the US is a secular state. And occasionally allies with radical Muslim states like Saudi Arabia who persecute Christians. If the US attempted to bring Christianity or had a Christian inspired foreign policy, Saudi Arabia would be a target too. Yet the truth is that the US puts its national interests above Christianity, which is good, at least from the perspective of the US.

 

[Formaldehyde]

If the US is a secular state, why are so many Republican presidential candidates running on a clearly theocratic platform?

What possible "national interest" was there in invading and occupying a sovereign country on the basis of blatant lies and deceit?

What give you the impression that the US is not "motivated by the proliferation of Christianity"?

Why aren't predominately Muslim countries similarly engaging in warmongering, imperialism, and hegemony if Islam is a "religion of violence" and that their practitioners are in the least bit "fascist"?

 

[caketastydelish]

The Christian voter blocks disagree with our alliance with Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan etc. Yet they overwhelming support our wars in the middle east, and it would be impossible for these wars to continue with them, otherwise the politicians would all be voted out of office.

You cannot deny the republican party are overwhelmingly christian, unlike the democrats. You also have atheists who aren't left wing, but then a lot of them end of being libertarians (who are even more anti-interventionalist than dems).

Anyway besides all of that, it could easily be argued that these "Islamic" terrorists attacks against the west (and the US, in particular) isn't just because of "islam" even if they happen to be done by mostly Muslims. The west is bombing the hell out of countries that happen to be Muslim, and the people in those countries get their frustrations out by chanting "death to america, death to the west" etc and then go commit terrorism. Muslim is what they happen to be, so naturally they use Islam to help justify their terrorism.


tldr; You can hardly call it irrelevant that almost all Islamic attacks happen against western countries, and not so much other parts of the world. Because the other parts of the world are not bombing Muslims countries.

 

[Funky]

Inadvertently, you have done so: Liberalism is very particular to the West and primarily the Anglo-Saxon countries and the Netherlands. Eastern Europe has a very weak liberal tradition. Japan relies on a form Liberalism heavily infused with Confucianism which was very Japonised after it was imported to Japan. Likewise, Maoism wasn't exactly the same kind of Marxist ideology Marx himself had devised and had a lot of newly added elements to fit in China's agricultural economic state.

The point is that liberal principles have proven to be conducive to the health of societies everywhere they have grasped ahold. They are not developed to the same level in every place and there may be minor differences how they are applied. But by and large we know what is good for us. We know what causes societies to flourish. And with "we" I mean rational, secular people around the globe who are interested in a prosperous and peaceful future.

FAR more innocents have died in the Iraq war than all the Islamic terrorists attacks in the past 20 years combined.

Excuse me? In Iraq alone Islamic extremists and insurgents have killed dozens of times more people than the US did in its invasion of the country. The invasion is estimated to have cost between 3,200 and 7,500 lives of civilians. It wasn't the US forces who after the invasion proceeded to go on an insane death rampage around the country, suicide bombing, blowing up hospitals, and ruthlessly killing the Iraqi people. The hundreds of thousands of people killed after the invasion largely died as a result of the internal conflicts and struggles for power of the various religious and political groups in Iraq, which the US forces tried to contain!

But that is beside the point. My comment was directed at the moral equivalence you were seeming to make between the USA and Israel on the one hand, and terrorists on the other, which is really a quite repellent stance to take. Removing an abhorrent dictator who killed over a million people, used chemical weapons and violated human rights ad nauseum, is not the same as people intentionally slaughtering civilians in the name of their religious ideology. It is not even on the same spectrum. This is coming from someone who was against the war, took part in the peace rallies here in Germany, and still thinks that going to war was a terrible idea. The lack of a post-invasion plan and especially the gross underestimation of the degree of tribalism and religious fervor lingering under Hussein's brutal regime have proven to be mistakes of catastrophic proportions. But that doesn't mean we can just blame the US for the insane violent behaviour that the Iraqis have displayed towards each other for over a decade.

And putting the Palestinian terrorists, who want to eradicate the Jews, who target Israeli civilians all the time, and who indoctrinate their children with hatred and drill them to become killers from the earliest ages, on the same level as Israel, which has turned a strip of desert into a flourishing democracy and is trying to protect itself from its Jew-hating neighbours, is simply obscene.

 

[caketastydelish]

Excuse me? In Iraq alone Islamic extremists and insurgents have killed dozens of times more people than the US did in its invasion of the country. The invasion is estimated to have cost between 3,200 and 7,500 lives of civilians.

I'll be impressed by this argument when you give me citations to prove it. Until then, probably not.

It wasn't the US forces who after the invasion proceeded to go on an insane death rampage around the country, suicide bombing, blowing up hospitals, and ruthlessly killing the Iraqi people. The hundreds of thousands of people killed after the invasion largely died as a result of the internal conflicts and struggles for power of the various religious and political groups in Iraq, which the US forces tried to contain!

None of this would have happened if the US hadn't destroyed their country to begin with. But again: you drastically underestimate the amount of civilians that died as a direct result of our occupation of their country while we were actually there. As of right now they are in chaos, so that's more of indirect. Nonetheless, it's at least partially our fault.

But that is beside the point. My comment was directed at the moral equivalence you were seeming to make between the USA and Israel on the one hand, and terrorists on the other, which is really a quite repellent stance to take. Removing an abhorrent dictator who killed over a million people, used chemical weapons and violated human rights ad nauseum, is not the same as people intentionally slaughtering civilians in the name of their religious ideology. It is not even on the same spectrum. This is coming from someone who was against the war, took part in the peace rallies here in Germany, and still thinks that going to war was a terrible idea. The lack of a post-invasion plan and especially the gross underestimation of the degree of tribalism and religious fervor lingering under Hussein's brutal regime have proven to be mistakes of catastrophic proportions. But that doesn't mean we can just blame the US for the insane violent behaviour that the Iraqis have displayed towards each other for over a decade.

Saddam was an SOB, no doubt. He was hardly responsible for terrorism against the United States, and none of the 9/11 terrorists (for example) were from Iraq. Saddam was an individual, powerful man who used religion to grasp people under his control. In any case, I live in a world where it's possible to criticize Saddam and the US BOTH. Your argument is like saying since Hitler was evil, Stalin was guaranteed to be a good guy just for fighting him.

edit: in particular, you cannot be serious if you're saying the US went to Iraq for humanitarian reasons (and even in a fantasy world where that were the case they utterly failed considering how many Iraqi civilians died and what a mess the place has become), rather than out of self-interest.

And putting the Palestinian terrorists, who want to eradicate the Jews, who target Israeli civilians all the time, and who indoctrinate their children with hatred and drill them to become killers from the earliest ages, on the same level as Israel, which has turned a strip of desert into a flourishing democracy and is trying to protect itself from its Jew-hating neighbours, is simply obscene.

Far more Palestinians (specifically, innocent civilians) have died from Israel than the other way around. Absolutely no contest.

 

[Funky]

You can hardly call it irrelevant that almost all Islamic attacks happen against western countries, and not so much other parts of the world. Because the other parts of the world are not bombing Muslims countries.

What? Muslim terror attacks are happening everywhere around the globe. The overwhelming majority is not directed against the West.
And where is the West bombing Muslim countries? You mean the airstrikes against ISIS, which even Iran and Saudi Arabia condone?

Islamic terror by and large has nothing to do with Western foreign policy. This is such a self-centered view, as if only the all-mighty West had the power to influence the actions of other people. Boko Haram slaughtering thousands and eradicating entire villages has nothing to do with Western foreign policy. ISIS butchering Yezidis has nothing to do with it. Muslims avenging the prophet by killing French cartoonists for blasphemy has nothing to do with it. Muslims should be respected enough that they can act on their own behalf. They don't need the missteps of Western countries as permission for their behaviour.

 

[caketastydelish]

What? Muslim terror attacks are happening everywhere around the globe. The overwhelming majority is not directed against the West.

Again: citation needed.

And where is the West bombing Muslim countries? You mean the airstrikes against ISIS, which even Iran and Saudi Arabia condone?

Nope. Like I said, how about all the desert storm operations in the past 20-30 years. ISIS is one of the few times which the US's involvement has been rather minimal. Which probably also explains why there is some legitimate chance the US is doing it for humanitarian reasons than self-interest. Although even then, I'm sure there's something we're not seeing/considering.

Islamic terror by and large has nothing to do with Western foreign policy. This is such a self-centered view, as if only the all-mighty West had the power to influence the actions of other people. Boko Haram slaughtering thousands and eradicating entire villages has nothing to do with Western foreign policy. ISIS butchering Yezidis has nothing to do with it. Muslims avenging the prophet by killing French cartoonists for blasphemy has nothing to do with it. Muslims should be respected enough that they can act on their own behalf. They don't need the missteps of Western countries as permission for their behaviour.

People of other religions do all those same things. The only real exception is the case of the French cartoonist, in which case I would (mostly) agree with you that people of other religions don't get as offended as Muslims do.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The invasion is estimated to have cost between 3,200 and 7,500 lives of civilians.

Not only were vastly more killed during the "invasion", hundreds of thousands needlessly died during the subsequent occupation that never should have occurred in the first place!

It wasn't the US forces who after the invasion proceeded to go on an insane death rampage around the country, suicide bombing, blowing up hospitals, and ruthlessly killing the Iraqi people. The hundreds of thousands of people killed after the invasion largely died as a result of the internal conflicts and struggles for power of the various religious and political groups in Iraq, which the US forces tried to contain!

You mean which the US directly caused as a result of completely dismantling the Iraqi army and even the police force while doing nothing to provide for adequate security?

Not only do your statements reflect a complete misunderstanding of Islam, you also don't appear to know anything at all about the Iraq War other than the sheer nonsense found on some authoritarian reactionary blogs and "sources" like Fox News which try to rationalize and defend the indefensible.

Islamic terror by and large has nothing to do with Western foreign policy.

You mean other than 9/11 and virtually every single other terrorist attack in the US and Europe?

I see you continue to completely disregard the famous University of Chicago study that found that 95% of all suicide terrorist attacks since 1980 were not motivated by religion.

 

[Funky]

"NGO-based reports and official figures to measure civilian casualties, approximately 7,500 civilians were killed during the invasion phase.[181] The Project on Defense Alternatives study estimated that 3,200–4,300 civilians died during the invasion."
(Wikipedia)

List of terror attacks 2015

Study particularly the second source to assess whether your claims that Islamic terror is largely due to Western foreign policy and that people of other religions do the same things are sustainable.

 

[Tahuti]

Far more Palestinians (specifically, innocent civilians) have died from Israel than the other way around. Absolutely no contest.

The problem of this reasoning is that one doesn't see the deaths of those who are still alive thanks to such actions. One could easily imagine a scenario in which a fairly liberal government decides to take very strong measures against radical political groups, who are then viewed as a repressed minority who could just as well have become a mindlessy brutal government if left unchecked.

So the question moves to whether it is better to be liked and succumb to petty tyranny or a state of nature, or be disliked yet free.

I see you continue to completely disregard the famous University of Chicago study that found that 95% of all suicide terrorist attacks since 1980 were not motivated by religion.

I'm curious who comprise those 95%. It would certainly include the Tamil Tigers, to name one.