Islam, identity, Geopolitics – Discussion continued from Robert Lindsay’s blog

From here

There is a big difference, Mush. When Muslims kill “infidels” or kill their own women, they say they are doing it for reasons that are sanctioned by their religion (and culture).

When someone who might be (at least nominally or culturally) a Christian commits a horrific crime, they are not claiming that it was sanctioned by Christianity, or Christian culture. Christians do not come to their defense, because Christianity doesn’t sanction violence, period.

Further, the assumption that everyone in a Christian culture who is not a Muslim, Jew, or Buddhist must be a Christian, or that being born into a family that practices makes one a Christian…is ludicrous. I was baptized, I might even list my religion as Christian, but I am not really a practicing Christian. If I committed a crime, Christianity would have nothing to do with it.

  • Well Mott, you raise a good point. I’ve come to the conclusion that the current incarnation of “Islamism” has all the characteristics of 7th century Arab chauvinistic racism. Pluralistic Arab nationalism in the form of Baathism failed between the end of the colonial era(and fall of the Ottomans) and the current time. What replaced it is something far more psychotic. An ideology that obsesses over “conversion(or “reversion, as Islamo-faggots like to call it), control, jihad and insane conformity.

    Like most things in life, I blame the Arabs for it.

  • Mosh

    “There is a big difference, Mush. When Muslims kill “infidels” or kill their own women, they say they are doing it for reasons that are sanctioned by their religion (and culture).”

    Really?I’ve never heard of a Muslim man claim to kill his wife/daughter in the name Islam, although I have heard them kill due to some unwritten honor code such as pasthunwali in Afghanistan.

    The problem with western people is that they don’t distinguish between Islam and the Cultures that Muslims are from, a lot of Americans assume Muslim is some sort of race or ethnicity.

    “When someone who might be (at least nominally or culturally) a Christian commits a horrific crime, they are not claiming that it was sanctioned by Christianity, or Christian culture. Christians do not come to their defense, because Christianity doesn’t sanction violence, period.”

    Lets suppose Derek Medina’s real name was Abdul Khan, and his religion isn’t mentioned, but the moment somebody here’s a Muslim-sounding name they jump to conclusions.

    I’ve read the comment section of articles where the religion or the motives of the murderer aren’t mentioned but people still write racist and xenophobic comments just by assuming they’re Muslim because of their name,race, or appearance.

    There are many Muslims that don’t kill in the name of Islam, they’re motives are different but despite that people assume that their actions are “islamic” since they’re Muslim.

    Oh and I could say the same thing about Islam not sanctioning violence.

    “Further, the assumption that everyone in a Christian culture who is not a Muslim, Jew, or Buddhist must be a Christian, or that being born into a family that practices makes one a Christian…is ludicrous. I was baptized, I might even list my religion as Christian, but I am not really a practicing Christian. If I committed a crime, Christianity would have nothing to do with it.”

    I understand and that’s exactly what I try to tell people that just because somebody was born into a Muslim family doesn’t mean they’re necessarily Muslim.

    People in America assume that every Brown guy with a Middle eastern name is Muslim, even though they might be atheist or non-practicing Muslim.

    ” If I committed a crime, Christianity would have nothing to do with it.”

    I would say the same if I committed a crime, however society would always point out the Muslim part of my identity just to otherize me.

    BTW Oscar Pistorious murdered his girlfriend and he had verses from Corinthians tatted on his arm, yet nobody tried to link the dots.
    Had Pistorious been Muslim and if he had verses of the Qur’an tatted on his arm, people would immediately try to connect his Islamic faith with his actions.

    • Mott

      Mr. Mosh-

      You seem like a very reasonable person, If all the folks from your religious/cultural background were so reasonable, there wouldn’t be an issue.

      I can’t speak for people who are ignorant about Muslims and the different cultures, etc. Yeah, if a guy with a Muslim or Arab-sounding name commits CERTAIN TYPES of crimes, most would assume things right out of the gate. What’s wrong with that? On the other hand, if such a guy robbed a bank, no one would assume Islam had anything to do with it.

      Most people in all cultures are not very well-versed in other cultures. However, saying that the honor-killing thing has nothing to do with Islam is not telling the truth.

      I have heard about honor killings and stories of horrific treatment of women and non-believers…these stories come from ALL OVER the world- from every Muslim/Arab-plus-every-other-ethnic/cultural group.

      I have heard of Muslims of almost every ethnic background doing this…and you say it is just a Pashtun tribal thing…nothing to do with Islam?

      I actually would believe you if you said there is nothing in the Koran about honor killing (I have no clue if there is or not).

      All I can say is, people who aren’t Muslims are tired of the excuses Muslims make for way their religion is practiced by some of its adherents.

      Muslims NEVER come out and condemn their own…all other religions do not forbid this. I don’t care it it ain’t in the Koran, I don’t care if it “preaches peace.” Meaningless- actions speak louder.

      Muslims are all completely spineless when it comes to criticizing their own religion- out of fear. Which really makes it suck even more. If it was such a benevolent, peaceful religion (which maybe is what it is supposed to be), no one would have much of an issue with it.

    • Mott

      Mosh- BTW- I don’t (personally) dislike Muslims, I’m secular, and I’m not conservative or an America-firster.

      Remember Reza Aslan? The Muslim who wrote a book critical of Christianity (which I think is great). The idiots on Fox asked him why a Muslim wrote a book critical of Christianity. Idiotic question! However, the real answer is…”because if I wrote a book critical of Mohammed I’d get my head cut off!”

      The nut-job right-wingers and fanatical neo-con “Christians” have an excellent point when they ask:

      Where are all the anti-radical, moderate Muslim organizations?
      Where are all the moderate Muslim activists speaking out against stuff like honor killings and this global jihad crap?

      They must know that this stuff is actually their own worst enemy- and only sets their religion and their interests back, yet they are almost silent.

      Why not just admit that their cultures are basically about 700-1,000 years behind the times, and practice their religion accordingly.

    • @ Mott

      Your points are all very good, but as Dota and I would always argue, race/ethnicity > religion every time.

      Most of the honor killings you hear about in the Muslim world occur in South Asia or the Arab world. Also, as has been pointed out by Dota (quoting Aakar Patel) before, Punjabi peasants comprise the bulk of Pakistan’s population, and if you observe Hindu peasant behavior in certain regions of India, they’re almost as likely to commit barbaric honor killings.

      You don’t hear about honor killings in places such as Indonesia (the world’s most populous Muslim nation) or Bosnia.

      Muslim Americans, with few exceptions, also tend to be reasonably assimilated and moderate, because they are highly selected immigrants.

      That being said, at least for radical Muslims, I have noticed that they tend to believe in a sort of international Muslim solidarity to an extent that no other religious groups do.

      For example, I was in Britain during the summer of 2006 (around the time of the Heathrow terrorist scare), and the British Pakis behind the attempt were angry about Western foreign policy, and many British Pakis who were interviewed about the incident expressed anger over Israeli aggression in Lebanon.

      Even though British Pakistanis have close to nothing in common with most Lebanese people aside from Islam, many felt the urge to engage in violence over it.

      You don’t see Christian fundamentalists committing terrorist attacks against Egyptian embassies, in spite of Egypt’s persecution of the Copts. You don’t see Christian fundamentalists from various parts of the world travel to Russia in order to fight Chechen terrorists and separatists.

      You also don’t see Buddhists committing terrorist attacks against Chinese people because of what China is doing to the Tibetans.

      The only other group I can think of who behaves similarly to Muslims in this regard are Jews! Think of American turned Israeli mass murderer Baruch Goldstein. As well as the various other Jews from around the world who travel to Israel to play the fighting Zionist. And also lobby within their countries on behalf of Israel and international Jewry.

      Still, in conclusion, I believe that race and culture play a bigger role than religion in determining human behavior.

    • @Mosh

      “Really?I’ve never heard of a Muslim man claim to kill his wife/daughter in the name Islam, although I have heard them kill due to some unwritten honor code such as pasthunwali in Afghanistan.”

      http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57409395-504083/honor-killing-under-growing-scrutiny-in-the-u.s/

      Most honor killings are taking place in the Arab world, or places infected with the poison of the Gulf Arab religion. Most are being done by observant Sunni Muslims. This has nothing to do with Pashtunwali, which you know jack shit about.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtunwali

      “The problem with western people is that they don’t distinguish between Islam and the Cultures that Muslims are from, a lot of Americans assume Muslim is some sort of race or ethnicity.”

      Well, since to be an observant Muslim means acting and dressing like a goddamn lizard eating bearded Saudi asshole, I actually can fully understand why they think that.

      “Lets suppose Derek Medina’s real name was Abdul Khan, and his religion isn’t mentioned, but the moment somebody here’s a Muslim-sounding name they jump to conclusions.”

      As they shouldn’t. They don’t think that if the name sounds Asian, White, Black, Latino, Hindu, Jewish, Italian, Irish, and Eskimo for a reason.

      Think about it. I’ll give you a hint. The answer is starring you in the face.

      “I’ve read the comment section of articles where the religion or the motives of the murderer aren’t mentioned but people still write racist and xenophobic comments just by assuming they’re Muslim because of their name,race, or appearance.”

      I think it has something to do with your brethren hijacking airliners and crashing them into skyscrapers while shouting “Allah u Akbar!!!”…Incidentally destroying magnificent works of architecture that Arab-Muslim civilization has failed to create.

      “There are many Muslims that don’t kill in the name of Islam, they’re motives are different but despite that people assume that their actions are “islamic” since they’re Muslim.”

      Here are a few quick steps to success for you:

      1)Stop listening to and following bigots and morons from the Arab world as your leaders. The Arab world has been in decay for the last 800 years or so. They are a lost cause. Backward in every way imaginable. The vast majority of Muslim countries(read all) that actually compete and produce things in this world that people want, are non-Arab speaking countries.

      2)Stop trying to convert the world. Missionary work is for Christians. Muslims just end up converting the scum and mentally handicapped that set off bombs at the Boston marathon. Your religion ain’t “fishers of men.” It was spread by the sword, not by hippie “love in’s”.

      3) Learn tolerance. For others, and people within your own cultures and faith. If I had a dollar for every time some cocksucker Ay-rab Moslem camel fucker told me and my fellow “Persians/Central Asians” that we are “harem” for celebrating our own fucking NEW YEAR, I’d be rich. We were doing that shit 2,000 years before those arabian monkeys even learned how to walk upright.

      You spread hate, you get hated…Simple fucking concept.

      “Oh and I could say the same thing about Islam not sanctioning violence.”

      You actions in the modern world say otherwise.

      “I understand and that’s exactly what I try to tell people that just because somebody was born into a Muslim family doesn’t mean they’re necessarily Muslim.”

      Pipe down on the fanatics and converts, and this well stop being an issue.

      “People in America assume that every Brown guy with a Middle eastern name is Muslim, even though they might be atheist or non-practicing Muslim.”

      Guess what…I am aware of this.

      “I would say the same if I committed a crime, however society would always point out the Muslim part of my identity just to otherize me.”

      Because so many others have already done just that. Once again, you reap what you sow.

      “BTW Oscar Pistorious murdered his girlfriend and he had verses from Corinthians tatted on his arm, yet nobody tried to link the dots.
      Had Pistorious been Muslim and if he had verses of the Qur’an tatted on his arm, people would immediately try to connect his Islamic faith with his actions.”

      Blah, blah, blah… :D

    • @BAG

      “Your points are all very good, but as Dota and I would always argue, race/ethnicity > religion every time.”

      Might thoughts exactly.

    • @ Cyrus

      It’s sad that it even needs to be said, but some people never learn.

      Even though I generally avoid critiquing religions and focus more on race and culture, I do get incredibly irritated with leftists’ tendencies to equate Christian fundamentalism with Islamic fundamentalism.

      As many others have put it, when artists and comedians can mock Muhammad with the same frequency that they mock Jesus, and it doesn’t spark riots and assassination attempts, then we’ll talk.

      As odious as evangelical flyover types may be, they have nothing on Muslim fundamentalists.

    • Mott

      @ BAG- I do think you have a great point about Indonesia and Malaysia having virtually no honor killings…and yes, Hindus and Sikhs do it too…

      I would only say that…Hindus and Sikhs only amount to less than 5% of H-kills. Worldwide, it is a 95% Muslim thing.

      As far as Indonesia/Malaysia…the experts say that their cultures are not as patriarchal, apparently, that is the deadly combo- Islam+ Patriarchy.

      I do think that Dota’s Maxim- Race/Ethnicity trumps Religion- is very true in so many cases, however, I think that Islam is different than the rest in that regard.

      Though they kill each other over ethnic/race lines (Iran-Iraq war for ex.) they unite as a block against all non-Muslims.

      Like you said, Muslims seem to “circle the wagons,” banding together as a universal, “international Muslim solidarity to an extent that no other religious groups do.” (Jews possible exception? Yeah, but even they aren’t as zealous about it.)

      You are right that Christians do not have any such solidarity whatsoever, and that they do not act as “Christians first” against all “enemies
      as fanatical Muslims do.

    • @ Cyrus

      Loathe as I am to quote a feminist, but according to Amani Awad:

      This cultural practice is not associated with Islam in form. To link honor killing to Islam, or any religion of the Middle East, will only manage to
      undermine the ideological complexities of gender dynamics in the
      Middle East which are characterized by patriarchy and patrilineal
      orientation.

      Also, plenty of HKs occur in India but the peasant and warrior castes, most of them not receiving the same air time as the Muslim ones are oh so entertaining.

      On Pashtunwali

      I’m not sure if the code directly endorses HKs, but my guess is that it does so indirectly. This code is quite big on Honour and face, and the revenge motif underpins those ideas.

      Mott

      Muslims NEVER come out and condemn their own…all other religions do not forbid this…Where are all the moderate Muslim activists speaking out against stuff like honor killings and this global jihad crap?…

      Here are some:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7758651.stm

      I would post more, but what’s the point? Graphs are boring to most people
      http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/04/30/on-anniversary-of-bin-ladens-death-little-backing-of-al-qaeda/

    • Mott

      @ BAG-

      On the lighter side, it looks like Bigfoot done scared away Manny the Spammer! It’s safe to go back in the water now…

    • Mott

      @ Dota- I did realize that there are, and there have been, some, or a few, Muslim moderates/liberals (mostly in Western, Christian countries), both individuals, activists and groups.

      But the numbers, and their impact are woefully paltry. Also, every time they get publicity, the next thing you hear is, they have to have protection or go underground.

      A group for Muslim women in Norway is good, but is it the same as a group being active in a Muslim country?

      I was looking at the same Honor Killing site- interesting stuff. I will have to research more. Like I said, I have no doubt that HK is not “Koranic” (if that is a word).

      I would respectfully point out, however, that fellow Muslims merely refusing to give Muslim jihadists proper Muslim burials may sound like horrible punishment and condemnation in their culture, but to a Westerner, it seems like the weakest, lamest, most impotent act of “non-protest”.

      If that’s the best moderate Muslim’s can muster- “we won’t bury them with us!”…um…I don’t know what else to say!

    • Mott

      I have lived around Muslims most of my life and I know from first hand experience that most of them are not big on Jihad or violence. The only Muslim society that tacitly endorses religious violence is Pakistan. I would mention Afghanistan but most of the violence there is tribal in nature which is unfairly packaged as religions violence by the Jew media. We’ve seen similar intellectual dishonesty in the reporting of violence in Burma and Darfur. Pakistan OTOH actually endorses religious violence on grounds of ideology. My own Wahabi Punjabi roommate is ambivalent towards the killings of Shias and Ahmedis in his country. Hindus are even lower on the Paki totem pole. Pakistan is a despicable country and should be disintegrated and un-stitched.

      I would respectfully point out, however, that fellow Muslims merely refusing to give Muslim jihadists proper Muslim burials may sound like horrible punishment and condemnation in their culture, but to a Westerner, it seems like the weakest, lamest, most impotent act of “non-protest”.

      And they are supposed to do what exactly? Write a letter of protest to the Pakistani government for sponsoring terrorism? If Bin Ladin’s cave had a postal code I would have sent him a letter a long time ago. Israelis can write to their Knesset protesting their state’s apartheid and violence, Americans can write to their Congressmen protesting imperial wars, Hindus can write to their MPs protesting Hindutva violence, and Sinhalese people can write to their own government protesting the horrific persecution of Tamil Hindus in Sri Lanka.

      What’s a Muslim supposed to do? Show me one terrorist organization with a standard Office and mailing address and I’ll do my part by writing to them. The most Muslims can do is to deny terrorists legitimacy by ignoring them and not sympathizing with them. A good example of this is Kashmir. As Robert L pointed out, most Kashmiris do not want to be part of Pakistan, but want to go independent. This is despite the army of Paki sponsored terrorists running amuck in the valley.

    • @Mott

      “Though they kill each other over ethnic/race lines (Iran-Iraq war for ex.) they unite as a block against all non-Muslims.

      They most certainly DO NOT “unite” as block against all non-Muslims, and never have…That is a myth perpetrated as much by the Islamophobic fear mongers in the West, as by the delusional Muslim “ummah” fanatics themselves. If they had ever truly “united” into an overall civilizational sphere, they wouldn’t be the modern day losers that they are.

      During the Iran-Iraq war in fact, not only was the overwhelming vast majority of Saddam’s war machine Muslim…They were SHIA MUSLIM no less, and that certainly did not stop them from cutting down their Turko-Persian coreligionists in the hundreds of thousands at a time.

      Race and ethnicity trumped religion big time. I challenge you to give me an example where it didn’t in the so-called “Muslim World,” going back virtually to the 7th century.

      Remember, there is an Arab League. It’s older than the E.U. The Arabs “united” and lost half a dozen wars against the Israels. When the “Arab Spring” started in 2010, it swept from Morocco to the UAE, and from Syria to Yemen…Anywhere and everywhere Arabic was spoken. No one gave two shits about it in Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, ect…They ain’t Arabs, and they do not speak lizard talk. They have very different cultures.

      Like you said, Muslims seem to “circle the wagons,” banding together as a universal, “international Muslim solidarity to an extent that no other religious groups do.” (Jews possible exception? Yeah, but even they aren’t as zealous about it.)”

      It’s an illusion with absolutely no substance to it. Completely skin deep. When Jews band together nowadays, they get results. When so-called Muslims do it, they get the exact opposite. All talk and hot air. The “Muslim World” has no NATO. No equivalent of the E.U. No comparison to Western cooperation. It simply does not exist. Why? To quote Tariq Ali…”Because there is no such thing as a Muslim World.” It exist only in the imagination of those used car salesman we call Mullahs.

      People who speak of a united Islamic anything, live in La-La land, and we can see the results.

      Christianity may no longer be a unifying force in the world…But Judeo-Christian culture is, which is of course the modern baby of “Christianity.” The Western world most certainly is united economically and geo-politically. Just as the Chinese, the Iranians, and even the Russians will tell you.

      When I fly on a 777 or an Airbus to Germany from the U.S, I am experiencing the fruits of that united Western civilization. It is a united European origin overall culture.

      There is no Islamic equivalent, and never will be.

      http://www.essential-humanities.net/images2/islamic-culture-branches-arabic-persianate.png

    • @BAG

      “As many others have put it, when artists and comedians can mock Muhammad with the same frequency that they mock Jesus, and it doesn’t spark riots and assassination attempts, then we’ll talk.”

      Ironically, you could get away with doing that in most major “Middle Eastern” countries back in the 60′s and 70′s…At least to an extent.

      Think Egyptians and Jordanians in mini-skirts and hula-hoops.

    • Mott

      @ Dota-

      I do agree that you have a point when you say “what do you expect Muslims to do”? I admit that if I was a Muslim, I would not be willing to risk my life to take a public stand, either. Sane Muslims don’t think it’s worth it either. That really sucks. Zero tolerance for dissent works real good.

      I think the problem of inaction is not one that individual Muslims are guilty of, it’s a problem in the entire culture of Muslim countries.

      I know moderate Muslims can’t send hate mail to Al Quada or picket Bin Laden’s cave…

      But, what they could do, if they didn’t have such a cultural predisposition against it, is…

      … engage in civil disobedience, make a huge public stink, etc. How did women, blacks, etc. get the rights they have now? They protested like crazy, that’s how. But this kind of liberal protest has no tradition in Muslim culture either. Civil disobedience and reform movements in Western societies is rampant, has been since the French Revolution. The Arab Spring things are the closest- yet they haven’t been real progressive yet, have they? The Arab Spring things have been political- not religious- reform movements, BTW.

      I do think that the whole fatwa threat is half the problem, the other half of the problem is that the moderate and liberal Muslims just aren’t very motivated to raise a big fuss- the only religious protests you see in the Muslim World are conservative protests.

    • Mott

      Mr. Carlos-

      What I meant by “unite” was, unite as Muslims vs. non-Muslims. (Example: Arab-Israeli Wars) I did not mean they actually get “organized” or actually collaborate on anything (unless you count those wars).

      I used the Iraq-Iran War as an example of how they fight each other. However, when the U.S. invaded, Iran didn’t exactly support it. In fact, they financed the opposition. Iraq under Saddam was very secular, also, it was a nationalistic war, not about religion. Saddam also supported Palestinians, even though he probably didn’t actually give a fuck.

      What I meant was, Muslims fight each other until presented with a non-Muslim adversary, then they act like they’re one big family (you’re right- they’re not- they’re separate tribes who don’t like each other). They defend Islam as a monolithic block.

    • @Dota

      On Pashtunwali

      I’m not sure if the code directly endorses HKs, but my guess is that it does so indirectly. This code is quite big on Honour and face, and the revenge motif underpins those ideas.

      Well, you know about Pakis and Indians, and my realm is the world of the Iranian plateau.

      Modern Afghan culture is something akin to that of “Mad Max”…Trying to understand why one Afghan is killing another, is like trying to contemplate perpetual motion. It’ll never make sense.

      I would garner that an “Afghan” honor killing would generally have rather different motives from that of their Arab equivalents for the most part, at least as motivation is concerned. Afghans are rugged individuals. Arabs are not.

      Afghans are rather akin to our own American Southerners, and some of their inherited “Celtic” traditions.

      I have seen the damage that the Gulf Arab “Islamic” influence in Afghanistan since the 80′s has done, though. It’ll take generations to work out. The Arabs with their money are like pure poison.

    • @Mott

      “What I meant by “unite” was, unite as Muslims vs. non-Muslims. (Example: Arab-Israeli Wars) I did not mean they actually get “organized” or actually collaborate on anything (unless you count those wars).”

      Again, when has that ever REALLY happened, except out of the mouths of some firebrand preachers?

      The Arab-Israeli wars are a nonsensical comparison. That was the Arabs, i.e Arab nationalists(Baathists) versus the newly re-formed Jews, i.e Hebrew nationalists(Zionists).

      It was the Arab League fighting with Israel. Islam played ZERO factor in it. Religion was irrelevant. Arab Christians were just as much in support of the cause as any Arab Muslims. They were all Arabs. Turkey and Iran, two major non-Arab Muslim countries in the region, backed Israel with weapons and intel as allies.

      For the life of me, I do not see how your argument backs any notion of “united Muslims.”

      I used the Iraq-Iran War as an example of how they fight each other. However, when the U.S. invaded, Iran didn’t exactly support it. In fact, they financed the opposition. Iraq under Saddam was very secular, also, it was a nationalistic war, not about religion. Saddam also supported Palestinians, even though he probably didn’t actually give a fuck.”

      That is flat out wrong. The Iranians didn’t finance or support the opposition after the U.S invasion. On the contrary, they were to a large extent supportive of U.S actions to “calm” the place. After all, they wanted a freely elected Iraq they could control, and they got it.

      Anyone telling you the Iranians equipped, financed or backed the insurgents is a liar, for more reasons than I feel like laying out.

      What I meant was, Muslims fight each other until presented with a non-Muslim adversary, then they act like they’re one big family (you’re right- they’re not- they’re separate tribes who don’t like each other). They defend Islam as a monolithic block.

      Again, show me the money…If what you were saying where actually true, the U.S wouldn’t be able to run rap-shod all across the Middle East. That is obviously not the case.

    • Mott

      Carlos-

      Look, you managed to misinterpret what I said again. That’s TWICE. I said Muslims (in the more recent years- not talking about in the 1950s-1970s) present a face of being united against non-Muslims. And I said it is a facade. But it is what the fundamentalists preach- one big caliphate. AL Quada recruits from every Muslim country, ethnicity, nationality.

      You said: “It was the Arab League fighting with Israel. Islam played ZERO factor in it. Religion was irrelevant. Arab Christians were just as much in support of the cause as any Arab Muslims. They were all Arabs. Turkey and Iran, two major non-Arab Muslim countries in the region, backed Israel with weapons and intel as allies.”

      Uh…Iran had the (secular-pro-West)Shah installed at the time, Turkey had a pro-Western regime at the time. Religion wasn’t a factor? In your universe, maybe. I think the Jews not being Muslims is part of it, Einstein.

      Look, I don’t know exactly who you are (let me guess…a Persian Muslim who hates Arabs to the point of fanaticism? You could do worse, I guess) but I don’t dig your know-it-all tone. We won’t be talking again.

    • Mott

      I admit that if I was a Muslim, I would not be willing to risk my life to take a public stand, either. Sane Muslims don’t think it’s worth it either. That really sucks. Zero tolerance for dissent works real good.

      Lets take the example of Kashmir again. Do you think the vast majority of Kashmiris can take a stand against Paki Islamist terrorists? Especially since said terrorists are armed to the teeth? It’s a minority holding the majority hostage. So the word ”dissent” is logically irrelevant to this scenario.

      … engage in civil disobedience, make a huge public stink, etc. How did women, blacks, etc. get the rights they have now? They protested like crazy, that’s how.

      It’s been tried in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. These protesters tend to disappear one by one without any media coverage. Who supports these regimes?

      But this kind of liberal protest has no tradition in Muslim culture either.

      This statement is so close to being illuminating. There is no such thing as ”Muslim culture”. I would rephrase your statement and say that civil disobedience ect are foibles of the west. I would say that there are no parallels in Asian cultures as the various cultures of Asia (diverse as they are) all gravitate towards authoritarianism.

      And this brings us back to the culture variable which we should have been focusing on to begin with. If anything, our little discussion has highlighted the superiority of western culture (in most if not all respects) over the rest.

      I’ve drafted an article on the similarities between Middle Eastern and Chinese cultural perspectives on democracy. I’ll be uploading it on my (and BAG’s) website. I argue that both cultures are fundamentally incompatible with democracy. I’d like to invite you and Cyrus to comment when it’s been uploaded.

    • Mott

      Religion wasn’t a factor? In your universe, maybe. I think the Jews not being Muslims is part of it, Einstein.

      Religion added fuel to the fire, but the I/P conflict was (still is) an ethno nationalist one. Muslims too can engage in genocide against one another, like Punjabi pakis butchering Bengali East Pakistanis in the early 70s (which resulted in the birth of Bangladesh).

      Mott and Cyrus

      but I don’t dig your know-it-all tone. We won’t be talking again.

      Look, I respect the both of you and I really hope you guys refrain from feuding with one another. In fact, this three way debate has been the best discussion I’ve participated in on this blog in God knows how long. Until the Hindutvas started shitting all over the place that is.

    • Mott

      Dota-

      I agree that it is actually an authoritarian, non-Western thing. I know what I mean when I say “Muslim culture”- and I accept that you think there is no such thing. But, to non-Muslims, it appears that there is a “culture” that goes along with the religion, just as there is a system of government (sharia theocracy) that appears to go with it, alot of the time, unfortunately!

      There just doesn’t seem to be a comparable “Christian culture,” or “Christian” government (unless you count secular democracy, which is not religious, so…) or “Buddhist culture/government.”

      One of the huge frustrations non-Muslims have regarding anything on the topic of Islam, Arabs, etc. is the need to ceaselessly equivocate and delineate between the religion and the ethnic / racial / nationalistic groups. We (anyone w/ brain) know “Muslim” is not a language, a race, ethnicity or nationality. We know not all Arabs are Muslims, Persians are not Arabs etc. etc. (insert LOUD SCREAM HERE). Just because stupid people don’t know this…AY AY AY!!!!

      Makes one want to discuss anything but this subject, which I believe is the goal of MANY who are Muslims (not you, Dota)- their goal is shut up all outside commentary- “only Muslims can comment on Islam because only they understand it.” The heck with that…

      The countries you mentioned- all are propped up by the U.S.- that’s a clue to why they even permitted the protests at all.

      I look forward to reading your articles, Dota.

    • Mott

      Dota- I think there could be a lively debate on how much religion factors into the Pali-Israel thing. I know there is a very good case to made that it is ethno-nationalist, and there are a lot of facts to support this.

      But…If the Israelis were just some ethnically middle-eastern Muslim minority tribe, coming to “claim its land” back after living elsewhere, it would not be the same situation.

      If the Palestinians were all Jews, and merely resented being supplanted by the newcomer Israelis, it wouldn’t be the same.

      Just because Arab Christians might not have supported Israel…so what? Neither do Palestinian Christians..Christians- anywhere- don’t automatically love Jews or support Israel- in Europe, they do not at all…doesn’t “prove” that religion is not a factor between the Jews and Arabs/Palis.

      Someone remarked to me, the Arabs don’t hate the Jews because of religion- they hate them because they are “there”- sitting on stolen land. Sounds logical- but it isn’t they hate them for both reasons, and the reasons are inseparable.

      The fact that there was, at the time of the Arab-Israeli conflicts, a Pan-Arab secular movement going on (which was brief and was very phony, too) was just coincidental. While the leaders claimed to be secular, the average Arab was not.

      Earlier, the Ottoman Empire would have attacked Israel, and religion would have been a “factor” to say the least… if Israel had been surrounded by Islamist states (like modern Iran) at the time they would have named religion as the main reason…

      It could be argued that if it wasn’t for U.S.- British interference, there would have been Islamist states in every Mid-East country from the get go. They would have attacked Israel for religious, and other reasons…

      To quote Hilary- “What difference does it make?” If an Arab (or other ethnicity) Muslim wants to attack an enemy, they can use religion, race, ethnicity, or nationality as the reason…it doesn’t matter. They seem to use interchangeable reasons…

      We are into philosophy here…

      Also- I didn’t know Cyrus was Carlos D. He needs to chill. Way too hyper. Makes sense now.

    • Despite the rise of the Haredim (on the Jewish side), and certain manifestations of Palestinian Islamic radicalism in the form of Hamas, the Israel/Palestine conflict has always been an ethnonationalist one at its foundation.

      The Zionists are often ones who seek to push the conflict as a religious one, for several reasons.

      1) By constantly invoking their ancient biblical claim, they can wrap their enterprise in the cloak of religious and historical legitimacy, irrespective of the fact that Palestinians were the long time inhabitants.

      2) They do it to appeal to Christian Zionist turds and similar types.

      3) They emphasize religion as a divide and conquer strategy against the Palestinians. They don’t even call Palestinians “Palestinians.” They either call them Arabs or even refer to them by their respective religious communities.

      This is also done to sanitize Israeli discrimination against Palestinians. I’ve seen several Zionist apologists argue that Palestinians aren’t economically marginalized, and that the only ones who are really poor are the Muslim ones who have too many kids.

      And, of course, they can continue pushing this BS myth that they’re the only place in the Middle East that treats Christians right.

    • Mosh

      @Dota: “The only Muslim society that tacitly endorses religious violence is Pakistan. ”

      Really?I don’t think Pakistani society endorses terrorism, maybe the Pakistani establishment does, but certainly not the average Pakistani, and Pakistan isn’t the only country that has supported terrorists before, LIbya has supported terrorism, India supports Baluch insurgents,America armed and funded the Taliban, and they’re currently giving weapons to Syrian rebels,

      “My own Wahabi Punjabi roommate is ambivalent towards the killings of Shias and Ahmedis in his country.”

      I’m not sure if there are many “Wahabi Punjabis”, but most Pakistanis I’ve talked to aren’t “ambivalent” towards “shia genocide” or “ahmedi genocide”, Pakistanis for a really long time and up until recently always believed in “live and let live”, which is part of Sufi philosophy.

      Your room mate isn’t a representative of all Pakistani people, he’s an individual that has his own opinions.

      “Pakistan is a despicable country and should be disintegrated and un-stitched.”

      You’re just saying that cause you’re Indian, I could say the same about India.

      “A good example of this is Kashmir. As Robert L pointed out, most Kashmiris do not want to be part of Pakistan, but want to go independent. This is despite the army of Paki sponsored terrorists running amuck in the valley.”

      Really?I’m a Kashmiri myself, and I would rather have Kashmir be a part of Pakistan than India, and those “terrorists” are actually freedom fighters, even Nelson Mandele was once called a terrorist, most liberation groups are called “terrorists” by their oppressors just to justify their atrocities against them, what Pakistan is doing in Kashmir is no different than what India did in Bangladesh or what the Americans did in Libya, there has always been a lot of support for independence for Kashmir, and Pakistan is just assisting the Kashmiris.

    • Mosh

      Really?I don’t think Pakistani society endorses terrorism, maybe the Pakistani establishment does, but certainly not the average Pakistani,

      The average Paki may not openly and explicitly condone violence, however that average Paki definitely supports institutionalized discrimination against minorities which leaves them vulnerable to violence in periods of instability. A non Muslim may never become prime minister of Pakistan. Even Israel is better, for (in theory) a non Jewish Israeli can become PM (I’m aware of no clause to the contrary). Ditto for India.

      You’re just saying that cause you’re Indian, I could say the same about India.

      Then say it, I don’t care. I’m also not the most patriotic Indian in the world, ask the local commenters, or better yet, ask Nominay .

      Anyhow, I can speak, read, and write Urdu (and Hindi), and I am quite immersed in the local Paki community here. The difference between these Pakis and the ones I knew in Dubai and Toronto is that these guys immigrated directly from Pakistan. These are some of the most small minded, intolerant, petty, and most backward people I’ve ever met. They have absolutely no interest in assimilating into the culture of the west, scream racism when they themselves hold highly prejudiced attitudes towards Hindus, Ahmedis, Shias ect and in general have no tolerance or even remote interest in anything/anyone that is different.

      I don’t deny that on an individual level, Pakis are some of the friendliest people you will meet, but I’ve described group behaviour up there.

      And besides why should Pakistan exist? Pakistan’s influence on the world is overwhelmingly negative. Their shenanigans destabilize south Asia and they contribute nothing to the world economy. They’ve even failed in their prime directive of creating a safe haven for South Asian Muslims, ask any Indian Shia or Ahmedi.

      India supports Baluch insurgents,

      There is absolutely no evidence of this whatsoever. And besides, the Baloch insurgents are genuine freedom fighters unlike the Harkatul faggots and the Lashkar-e-dipshits.

    • Mott

      BAG- I would agree that the Jews are the ones who made the Is-Pal conflict a religious one from the get-go. If you take the religion out of it, it’s not the same for the Jews.

      It’s not just their claimed ancient homeland- it’s the home of their religion, too.That makes a huge difference.

      Also, the “Holy” Land is the religious home to the Christian and Muslim religions. The fact that Jerusalem is so sacred to the Muslims and the Jews is a huge factor in this.

      Take out the religious factor, and Christians wouldn’t give a flying fuck about that godforsaken real estate.

      Take out religion, and Christians wouldn’t give a damn about Jews or Palestine (except maybe not liking Jews for their economic tactics) Take out religion and you probably don’t have a Holocaust, so you don’t have the post-WW 2 Israel project.

      Like I said, you guys are technically correct to say that it is ethnonationalist in nature, and that religion is a tertiary factor.

      But, if you take the religion out of it, the whole thing doesn’t happen, at least doesn’t rise to the same level.

      If Jews and Palis were both just different tribes of middle eastern Muslims you don’t have the same conflict. Likewise if they were both Christian ethnic groups. Or if they were two Jewish groups, obviously.

      The problem for me, is I see Palis/Arabs/Muslims in that area as people whose ethnicity is merged with their religion to the point that it is maddening and frustrating to even comment on it.

      A Palistinian Arab Muslim can say “I’m a Palistinian first”, then say “I’m an Arab first”, then say “I’m a Muslim first” , all in space of a minute, then jump back and forth at will. They are all three, all at the same time, they just pick and choose which suits the moment better.

      If the Jordanians and Egyptians had taken their land, everyone would just collectively yawn! That means religion is a huge factor (and the fact that the Zionist invaders are mostly European- not middle eastern).

      (And no, FYI- I’m not taking the pro-Zionist side! – yuck, barf!)

    • Mosh

      @Dota: U.S Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel confirmed that India is supporting insurgents in Baluchistan.

      “Pakistan doesn’t contribute to the economy”, well Pakistan has been included in the next-11 by Goldman sachs and the U.S EIA in a recent report says that Pakistan has the 9th largest shale oil reserves in the world(even more than Canada) and Pakistan is also a gateway to the Central Asian Republics which are rich in hydrocarbons, so Pakistan can potentially contribute to the global economy in the future.

    • Take out religion and you probably don’t have a Holocaust, so you don’t have the post-WW 2 Israel project.

      That’s not exactly true.

      I’ve taken courses on the Israel/Palestine conflict, and have read a good amount on the topic, and from what I’ve gathered, the Zionist enterprise would have continued irrespective of the Nazi Holocaust.

      The Holocaust may have galvanized world Jewry, and it has since been used to shield Israel from criticism, but the process of establishing a Jewish state in historic Palestine was well underway.

      Following the Balfour Declaration and British support of the Zionist enterprise following WWI, the writing was already under the wall.

      Also, the Holocaust was not about religion at all. Even Jews who converted to Christianity were exterminated. Anti-Semitism endorses hatred of Jews as a perceived racial or ethnic group.

      Even Martin Luther, who was very harsh on Jews, would tolerate a Jew if he converted to Christianity.

    • Mott

      BAG- I have had to tell a lot of posters that the H-Cast wasn’t a Christian thing, absolutely. So, in that sense, the extermination wasn’t religiously motivated.

      I am asserting (just for the sake of debate) that the Jews having a religion that was not just different from Christianity, but in many ways contrary to Christianity (i.e. Jesus is a false Jewish messiah, rejection of the “love your neighbor stuff) has been the No 1. thing (along with the money thing) made it really rough for them to do what they’ve done for 1,700 years- live surrounded by Christians who don’t like them or their religion so much. Add the “Christ-Killers” label and their position gets worse. Add also the fact that they are (at least partly) different from Europeans, and that they spoke a different language, and you have people that regular Christian Europeans couldn’t relate to at all. If Jews were just another sect of Christianity, they would have been forbidden from lending money, so that would not have gotten off the ground when it did.

      I’m just trying to get you to imagine an alternative universe scenario- what if the Jews had been not members of a separate religion, but merely different ethnically/racially? Their Religion+ Race+ Culture (which are inseparable, IMO) is what made the Nazis target them to the extent they did. If Jews were racial Germans, and Christians, but were members of an ethnic subgroup, it gets harder for them to be so reviled.

      To people like the Nazis, the fact that they (Jews) were not Christians, and that their religion was seen as the antithesis of Christianity, was the nail in the coffin, or at least another big reason to consider them sub-human. If you take away their separate religion, Jews are just another ethnic group with smelly food and weird customs, and the Nazis never rounded up everyone from groups who fit those descriptions.

      I stand by my theory- No separate Jewish religion, no monopoly on usury, no entrenched hatred and segregation by Europeans for centuries.

      Many sources I have read cite the H-cast as the primary reason why the British and Truman stood by and let the Israel thing happen exactly when it did- right after WW 2.

      I know that you are well-versed in this stuff, BAG, and that you disagree. I’m OK with that- I’m just trying to get outside of the normal, “accepted” theory boxes here.

    • Many sources I have read cite the H-cast as the primary reason why the British and Truman stood by and let the Israel thing happen exactly when it did- right after WW 2.

      I think the holocaust may have played an indirect role. As a result of the 1936-1939 Palestinian uprising, the British issued the White Paper in order to appease the Palestinians. The White Paper included restrictions on Jewish immigration, which were obviously included to placate the Palestinians on the eve of WWII, as the British were already hated by most of the Arabs, whereas the Nazis were more popular.

      Following WWII, the Exodus boat affair (of which the film of the same name no doubt took inspiration), where the Brits deported Jewish holocaust survivors back to Europe was a major PR disaster for them.

      However, I still maintain that the holocaust was not a significant factor in the creation of a Jewish state.

      In light of the 1936-1939 revolt, growing acts of Jewish terrorism against British authorities, and various conflicts between Jews and Palestinians, the British considered Palestine “ungovernable,” and wanted to wash their hands of the matter.

      Lots of interesting ideas and theories tossed around up there.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Islam, identity, Geopolitics – Discussion continued from Robert Lindsay’s blog

  1. Mott says:

    BAG- I have to say, I was horrified when I realized that the both “the Arabs hate us Jews because of our religion” argument, along with the “no one would care if the Palis land had been stolen by other Arabs (or other Muslims)” argument are 2 that are used by the Hasbara Zionists.

    However, I also know that the Palis and Arabs have used the “it’s not religion” argument, starting back when their governments were dominated by Arab secular nationalist types. But those governments would have never admitted to Islam being the real reason that Israel is so intolerable to them. They would not have played that card, as it would have fed their own domestic Islamist movements. The secular Arab nationalists (from whom Mubarak, Gaddafi, and Assad are descendants) were trying to keep a lid on Islam in their countries, for good reason. Look what happened to Sadat. Look what just happened to Mubarak, Gaddafi, and Assad.

    The Arab world (except S.A. and the Gulf States) seems to be dumping their secular, nationalist leaders. If it hadn’t been for these military-strongmen types, some propped up by the West, some by Russia, the Islamists might have taken over a long, long time ago. If it wasn’t for oil- and Western oil money flooding S.A. and the Gulf States, one can only imagine what kind of Islamic governments they would have now.

    The idea of a secular, Arab Nationalism was always a joke, IMO. The Arab League, to my knowledge, has never been functional save for its only real purpose- to try to block Israel from being established. That’s the only thing they’ve ever been able to agree on, ever.

    And it was a good cause, I might add! The world would definitely be a much calmer, safer place if they had succeeded.

    • Dota says:

      Mott

      First of, its great to have you here, and I really do hope you’ll stick around 🙂

      Ok, while it’s tempting to say that the IP conflict wouldn’t be what it is had the Israelis been replaced with another tribe of Muslims, I have to disagree. It’s a tempting conclusion to jump to, but lets suppose that Jinnah had instead decided to occupy part of Palestine as his Pakistan, what would happen? Do you think that the Arabs would simply relinquish control of their farms and cede their property to these Indian foreigners, who speak a different language, dress differently, practice alien marriage rituals, and eat a different cuisine? I think not.

      As I already stated, Muslims can engage in genocide against other Muslims, like the Punjabi pakis against the Bengalis in the early 70s.

      As far as Secular Arabs vs Islamists go, it’s always been in the west’s interests to back Radical Islam. Secular Pan Arabism is still pretty big in the levantine regions. You have to spend considerable time around these Arabs to realize that they are far bigger on secularism than their Hijazi counterparts in Arabia. Secular Pan Arab nationalists like Nasser have always been a thorn to western Imperialists as they were more pro socialist, and weren’t as willing to whore out their countries’ resources. The goal of the 67 war wasn’t just to grab agricultural land and the west bank aquifer, but also to take down Nasser. There’s a very good reason why western elites like the Bush family are in bed with the Saudis.

      • Bay Area Guy says:

        That’s an interesting point, Dota.

        From what I’ve read on the origins of Wahhabism, the British Empire supported the movement in its early stages as a means of undermining the Ottoman Empire.

      • Dota says:

        Or why the US funded the Mujaheddin which would become the Taliban. A lot of US imperial strategy is just hand me downs from the British. I don’t want to pull a Johny boy on you guys, but the Radical Islamist jokers are very handy in furthering US imperialism.

      • Mott says:

        Hey Dota- Thanx for the invite!

        I actually have to acknowledge first that you for sure know 10 times more than I do about Islam (as far as volume of knowledge), same for BAG- he knows 5X what I do (volume-wise) about Israel-Palis.

        Yet, I’m stickin’ to m’guns here! I still think I’m correct…I actually did check with a couple of folks who know more than I do, also, on these subjects. They said that they actually sided with me! SO, at least I knew then that I’m not completely out to lunch here… I think it amazing and interesting that we disagree so much on this…such is History- the only unarguable facts are names, dates, places, who won a battle, sometimes…all else seems to depend on who you ask, even on things that seem to not be disputed. I know I will not convince you two, but…

        As far as Palestine being overrun by Pakis…fun idea…I was trying make it clear before that I thought race was intertwined with Islam in this case. Islam=Arab, in that part of the world. I believe I postulated “what if” the Jews were not only a sect of Islam, but what if they were just some minority Arab tribe…

        …would the “the Arabs would simply relinquish control”? you ask? Uh-no, there would have been a war there, probably, but I believe the Palis would be just as pissed now at the Jews even if it had been taken from them more “peacefully.”

        I also said that the fact that the Jews who have occupied Israel are in general not middle eastern- they are Europeans w/ only some Semitic blood- as much as 1/2, I know, but it’s also a big deal that that the Zionist Invaders are not really even “from” the Middle East in any rational way. Where some of your ancestors were 1,000 years ago doesn’t make you “from” there, for sure.

        Some of the best cards the Palis have to play here are: 1. The Jews are Europeans- alien invaders and 2. They are not even Muslims, or Arabs, and this is Muslim/Arab land, period. 3. The Jews are seen as having been enabled by European Christians- makes it even worse! Take away these cards, and their cause becomes more like the Kurds. Remember them?

        Have to disagree with this one, too, Dota:

        “As far as Secular Arabs vs Islamists go, it’s always been in the West’s interests to back Radical Islam.” No…when has that happened? The Mujadeen? That’s once, and it was because “communism” and Russia was the enemy, for us, there (actually only for Reagan and his freakshow) Enemy of our enemy stuff- and it had to be done clandestinely, if I recall, because I don’t think Congress sanctioned it. If they were supported at all, it was because they were re-named “freedom fighters” which was a joke. The U.S. public never would have supported radical Islamists wanting to implement Sharia, but back then, no American knew anything about Islamic extremism, or Islam, period.

        Aside from that one (very mistaken) instance, I can’t think of a single instance where the U.S. backed Islamists.

        Nasser, well, that’s another post…I need a beer!

        Your shot…

      • Dota says:

        I postulated “what if” the Jews were not only a sect of Islam, but what if they were just some minority Arab tribe…

        If they were an Arab tribe then there would be no issue. No grounds for an ethno nationalist conflict, which is what this is primarily. The problem with your argument is that you are confusing the trigger for the cause. The cause was ethno-nationalism while religion was the trigger (unless I’m misreading your position). Islamism emerged onto the world scene in the 90s (outside of Afghanistan) to the best of my knowledge. Prior to that, the I/P conflict was purely secular. It’s astounding how many people seem to think that Islamism, or specifically its terrorism, is temporally infinite; ie always was always will be. People don’t understand that Islamic terrorism is rooted in historical context too.

        Take Israel’s shaping of Hamas. Numerous analysts have pointed out that Israeli intelligence was keenly aware of the organization’s activities in the 70s, but ignored them, and in some cases even assisted them.

        When Israel first encountered Islamists in Gaza in the 1970s and ’80s, they seemed focused on studying the Quran, not on confrontation with Israel. The Israeli government officially recognized a precursor to Hamas called Mujama Al-Islamiya, registering the group as a charity. It allowed Mujama members to set up an Islamic university and build mosques, clubs and schools. Crucially, Israel often stood aside when the Islamists and their secular left-wing Palestinian rivals battled, sometimes violently, for influence in both Gaza and the West Bank.
        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html

        also: http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-s-hamas/1817

        Unintentional? Only the most naive would believe that.

        Aside from that one (very mistaken) instance, I can’t think of a single instance where the U.S. backed Islamists.

        I can. Try Pakistan’s ISI, which uses US aid to fund the faggot ass Kashmiri militants and the Taliban. Most ISI chiefs are literally hand picked by Washington and Pakistan receives a lot of aid to “”combat terrorism”” (in essence, to manufacture it). Islamic terrorism destabilizes south and central Asia, the latter being particularly worrisome for the US as it is out of its Navy’s reach. Islamic terrorism gives the US some measure of control. It also justifies an indefinite US military presence in central Asia which would enable the US to:

        1) Menace Iran
        2) Make a grab for Balochistan’s natural gas resources should the province un-stitch itself from Pakistan.(Baloch insurgency is on the rise again)

        Islamic terrorism is handy Mott, very handy.

      • Mott says:

        Dota- The Hamas thing is interesting. Before the Islamist surge of the 90s, and going back into the 60s-70s, I believe that Hamas was not as in favor of attacking Israel and was instead into fighting with the secular Arab nationalist Palis. That is why Israel practically supported Hamas back then.

        I’m saying that religion is the cause and the trigger, along with “Arabism.” Just because at one time there was a thriving “secular Arab nationalist” thing, that doesn’t change my impression of Arabs in general- they will use tribe, sect, religion, ethnicity, or nationality as a “reason” for attacking an enemy, but “Arab” and “Muslim” still means the same thing to them. They are not separable, the two terms. Scratch the surface of a “secular” Arab, and there’s a Muslim underneath.

        Even though it was “cool” in the 70s to be a “secular” Arab, that was a temporary aberration- where are they now? The just banded together under that because Islamism wasn’t “cool” yet (not until the 90s), and the religious conservatives apparently weren’t calling for jihad yet.. Also, conservative religious Muslims don’t like modernism or socialism, that’s why they wouldn’t join with the “secular nationalists” back then.

        As far as the U.S. supporting the ISi…yes, you are going a little into “J-boy” territory here! I know how cynical the CIA is, they supported the Mujadeen just to spite communism. The U.S. and CIA have done nutty stuff over the years…but there is no conspiracy here. You could argue that invading Iraq was part of a larger conspiratorial strategy to protect Israel, and the oil supplies- I’ll actually buy that one! But that was under the deranged Bush/Cheney regime…and they’re gone now. The U.S. military, and the Democrats, do not want to be in Iraq or Afghanistan, so we’re pulling out finally.

        But post-9/11, the U.S. will never intentionally, directly support Islamists; they give money (indirectly) to the ISI because they’re afraid they’ll be worse if they don’t. But, no the U.S. doesn’t want to destabilize the region…no. And, the U.S. is not after Baluchistan. The U.S. is very pissed at Pakistan and the ISI, but they are afraid to cut off the aid, too. The U.S. considers Pakistan to be un-invadable, un-occupiable. However, if the nukes got loose, the U.S. would have to do both temporarily- no choice. It is not something the U.S. is looking forward to to say the least. They only thing more unthinkable for the U.S. is invading Iran.

      • Dota says:

        Dota- The Hamas thing is interesting. Before the Islamist surge of the 90s, and going back into the 60s-70s, I believe that Hamas was not as in favor of attacking Israel and was instead into fighting with the secular Arab nationalist Palis. That is why Israel practically supported Hamas back then.

        Don’t be naive, they knew exactly what they were doing. Even the Romans knew that Jewish Fundamentalism (read: Pharisaic Judaism as opposed to Essene) was a threat to Roman interests which is why the Roman authorities swiftly crucified any would be messiahs. You cannot seriously believe that Israeli intel didn’t foresee this. Even today, Hamas serves Israeli interests by derailing any looming prospect of peace. Should the specter of peace rear its hideous head, the Israelis can easily provoke Hamas into attacking them by bombing a couple of Pally villages at random. Militarily, Hamas poses zero threat to Israel and they know it.

        Even though it was “cool” in the 70s to be a “secular” Arab, that was a temporary aberration- where are they now?

        Still pretty secular actually. Islamism has slowly crept through the crevices and occupied some social space now vacated by the secularists whom Washington helped topple. Nasser is gone, Gadafi is gone, and now Assad is under siege. What did Nasser and Gadafi have in common? Both had Pan nationalist goals, Gadafi for Africa, and Nasser for the Arabs. That sort of secular unity is the bane of imperialists.

        But post-9/11, the U.S. will never intentionally, directly support Islamists;

        Why not? Recognize that Islamic militancy is only a type of militancy. The US has supported militants in the past. Remember General Castillo? The chap who overthrew Jacob Arbenz in 1956 to protect the interests of the United Fruit Company? Where did he and his militant turds get their training? Recognize also that Islamism is not a special unique phenomenon that just fell out of nowhere and into current events. It has a history. A history tied to imperialism, anti-colonialism, religious fundamentalism to be sure, and revivalism. Until people realize that Islamism is rooted in History, and shaped by real socio/political currents of the times, the Zionist/Hindutva position will continue to dominate this discourse.

        But, no the U.S. doesn’t want to destabilize the region…no.

        Yes they do, central Asia has always been key to US interests as it plays an important role in Oil logistics. Why do you think Clinton held secret talks with the Taliban in the late 90s? To help establish an oil pipeline for UNOCOL. They declined, and 9/11 gave the US the perfect opportunity to “liberate” Afghanistan. Balochistan would be the perfect location to menace Iran and make a grab for the provinces rich resources. Wade did a superb post about the strategic importance of central Asia a couple of years ago, if I can fish it out, I’ll post it.

        but “Arab” and “Muslim” still means the same thing to them. They are not separable, the two terms.

        Maybe not to the Arabs, but they are to intelligent and educated men like us. You know as well as I do that most people lack the intellectual capacity to deconstruct their own identities. A Paki will tell you that he is a Muslim and not an Indian. He’s obviously full of shit as Pakis are Islamicized Hindus who practice the same base culture as their ethnic cousins across the border. Similarly, a lot of retards see Islam as a race, and sadly many of said retards happen to be Muslim. Does that make it true? Intelligent men like us do not take these things at face value.

        My problem with Islam bashers (not you Mott, your criticism of Islam is healthy and I appreciate it) is that their blinkered vision blinds them to variables such as race, ethnicity, culture, and historical context. Does Islam have a streak of reactionary backwardness built into it? Most definitely; I wrote about it here. But how Muslims react to their faith and project it into their enviorment depends largely on their ethnicity and cultural values. This is why not every Muslim country is Turkey, but not every Muslim country is Pakistan either.

      • Mott says:

        Dota…we won’t agree here, but that’s OK. I have no illusions about U.S. ambitions. If you go back further, it gets way worse. The 1950s, Central America, well, that was in the “American” Hemisphere- we controlled whatever went on in our hemisphere until very recently (Panama, Grenada). We don’t even control that anymore, and we were engineering coups thru the1980s. No more. Why? No more Cold War.

        Also, we wouldn’t have gone anywhere near Afghanistan had it not been the base for 9/11. The rest of the world loves to flatter itself by saying that the U.S. covets them, or their resources. In the past yes, now- no. What the U.S. has been all about recently is, we want everywhere to be open to U.S. corporations, if feasible. The Republicans are way worse woth this- Democrats don’t care as much.

        Even so, if Iraq’s oil, or Af-stan’s minerals, had been at all part of the equation (the oil-maybe, for Bush) then we have done a HORRENDOUS job of actually seizing any of it. The U.S. is going to go home now, apparently w/o getting any oil from Iraq. We’re leaving Afghanistan, too, empty-handed. And if you think that either of those countries is now “safe” for U.S. corporations….uh , no way!

        Israel uses Hamas like you say, I agree. At first, though, it was “enemy of my enemy.”

        The U.S. absolutely doesn’t want to attack Iran. Ever. Or Pakistan, or India. I wish there was a way of convincing fans of the J-Boy Conspiracy that all but the most loony right-wing Americans know that the days when we did what we wanted, took what we wanted are long over. The U.S. absolutely doesn’t want to get involved in any wars, for any reason, and the U.S. public has felt this way for a long time (2004-5). We don’t covet Central Asia. Wade was smart, but that’s not true.

        Arab nationalists were disposed of by us? No. None of the ones on that list were removed by the U.S. Not even Gaddafi, who we would have loved to have removed in the 80s. We didn’t like Nasser because he cozied up to Ruskies (and kept attacking Israel), not because he was a Pan-Arab guy. The U.S. opposed any of the Arab states if they got in bed with the U.S.S.R. Pan-Arab thing we didn’t care about. Who tried to kill Nasser? Islamists.

      • Mott says:

        Hey, Dota- I just realized that this is not just your blog, but it’s BAG’s blog too. Maybe I’ve been here before, but it was a long time ago. I’ll be checking it out now on a regular basis.

      • Dota says:

        Yeah, we co-own this website. I’m also instructing BAG along the way. He’s already mastered the fundamentals of wielding a light saber 🙂

        But yeah, glad to have you with us. Commenters like you add value to a blog.

  2. Batterytrain says:

    My belief is that Islam is sort of a civilizational virus religion; it basically carries itself over via conquest or conversion and then goes inside the values and social codes of societies and changes it, once it does it expands and goes against other competitor beliefs standing in the way and gets rid of it until it eventually takes over the entire society and stagnates it to it’s end. This is not unlike how a virus enters a human body and enters a cell, once it enters the cell, it takes some of the DNA strands, assimilates it to become a familiar cell in the host and basically takes over the cell and the cell stratum and organism to take the shape of the cells in the body until it eventually replicates enough of itself en masse to basically take control of the host. It does this via 7th century Arab morals and replacing the host society with 7th century outlooks of life until the societies gradual views align to that of juvenile retarded Arabid belief systems and takes parts of the host values that it deems effective for replicating itself.

    There is also another way that Islam gradually corrodes societies and civilizations from the insides and the working gears/levers, and that is by setting up this unique social hierarchy system that really couldn’t be explained historically until now with the emergence of darwinism, sexual selection, evolutionary theory, modern game. This is one of the ultimate reasons why there is significant amounts of slave admixture in the Arab world and other countries that were affected by large scale Arab takeovers and invasions,, even in the most odd places that you would never imagine someone would partake in to breed with Africans. It has to do with the fact that Islam by its very nature, it is a very macho darwinistic heriarcial religion; it is basically a religion that subscribes to the actual alpha-beta male spectrum and it is extremely effective, like a virus, in carrying out and enforcing this social polarity silently within a civilization it takes over. You see hints of it in how it basically encourages polygamy, polyandry etc. Once Islam takes over a society, it enforces a rigid unchanging social system which it shields combative opposition and competitor beliefs (different cults, religions) by infecting the host society with a sole singular interpretation of civilization via a hyper-Arabid Abrahamic prism view of the world. Once this is accomplished, a polarity is established between the powerful dominant alpha males and the ones that do not fall within that category or in an unfortunate opposing party; the dominant alpha males within the society now have their choice and freedom to possess the dexterity and maneuverability to gain access to most of the healthy females and successfully sail around the rules, codes, laws via their position while enforcing said rules for their own benefit by utilizing the veil and having other non-fortunate males do the work for them by brainwashing them with various false promises; or just having them get all riled up, frustrated and angry at opposing parties and far off enemies and objectives because they are not the alpha males who are not fortunate enough to successfully question and maneuver through and about the clever but rigid and tight hyper arabid prism prison complex maze of rules and belief systems which the majority of encumbered on the shoulders of those not in the top echelons of the spectrum.

    I know this doesn’t make much sense in the beginning and I might have to make another explanation of this theory and how it applies in motion and in practice and of course there are many exceptions to this but generally I think applies on a numeric enough basis to actually be true. My theory is that when this polarity is established, the society has to be in continous expansion for the males to cover up and compete, in terms of mates, with the alpha males but also to gain access to other females which in some cases they might compete with the alpha males for. Because the beta males are basically burdened and have a lack of choice and freedom as to navigating around the society in an effective manner because they are neutered in terms of intellectualism and questioning the norms and values set forth by this society; they might also be left in a situation where they have no choice but to go and consort/take foreign outsider females because they don’t have much of a choice in terms of their own mates.

    My theory is that this happened within the original Arabic societies and the regions that these Arabids took control of, (there are plenty of exceptions though); when this religion took over these societies, a huge social sexual divide was established and which further expanded cracking open into the civilization. When this crack began to grow, the non-fortunate Arabid males were left with very little options in terms of sexual selection and their only way at true sexual relationships were with African slaves or foreign slaves, so what you got was that you had all these Arabid males fucking and gradually introducing considerable sums of SSA African strata and DNA, as well as other foreign admixtures, into the host populations. In the meantime, the Alpha Arabid males were already content with the loot and within their own positions in the society, so they either monopolized or took access of all the good number of females within their own society and had their non-fortunate males bring all the goods for them thus they had no need to get riled up about anything or really do much else. This spectrum also came into fruition and cracked into existence in the host societies that these Muslims converted the whole of on a systematic level; so the slaves that went across and penetrated these X societies fortunately fell into the webs of the societies they were settled in. This means that the alpha males of X society did the same generic sexual thing that these males do and the non-category-Alpha males were left with little sexual access except the slaves and other outsider females; eventually the strata of SSA African DNA was considerable enough to eventually penetrate enough of the X society until it reached all echelons and became normal/negligible but having effects such as lowering IQ and changing certain genetic behavioral traits (IQ) and abilities.

    Of there were many exceptions to this sexual spectrum axiom such as the Mamluk slave warrior classes, Turkish invaders, convert Kingdoms which had values that eliminated the rigidness and cracker divides of the religion, Christian jannisseries, Dhimmis that paid special taxes, merchants, buffer groups that were non-religious or ethnically different enough to not fall within the web of these values, regional characteristics and values that neutralized the rigidity and closedness of which gives birth to such cracked social divides etc etc. I also think this is part of the tribalistic nature of these societies and why such Muslims appear to so generically adverse and combative to outside influences, within their own societies, in tribalistic regions; it just by it’s very nature adds an expansionist taint and grows this matter that has to mandatorily spread out and spill forth elsewhere or it just ends up chewing the insides and the social fabrics of civilizations.

  3. WmarkW says:

    LATEST MUSLIM ATROCITY:

    Last week, two Jewish girls from London, volunteer teachers at a Christian school in Zanzibar, were attacked with acid by Muslims. The two men – one of them now arrested is a Muslim preacher – did it passing by on a motorcycle as the girls walked along the road. Farid Ghadry, a Muslim, comments in the Assyrian International News Agency:

    > I indict Islam. Yes, I indict it for ignoring the terror against two innocent British teens in Zanzibar who were doused with acid. Where are our Muslim leaders to speak out against such terror and to commit, once and for all, to its eradication?

    > Where is the King of Saudi Arabia, or the President of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation? Cooperation on what? With the OIC’s silence, how could not anyone interpret “Cooperation” to mean to cooperate to disfigure the innocent? Where is the Grand Imam of al-Azhar University, or the Arab League, or Ayatollah Khamenei, or the millions of other religious Muslim leaders? Where is Erdogan of Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood? Why are they silent in the face of such atrocities committed in the name of Islam?

    > Where are all our collective Muslim voices to indict these senseless acts not even animals in a jungle are capable of? Islam has become synonymous with terror and the target of justifiable and global contempt. The religion I was born into, and which shelters 1.3 billion people, has turned into a weapon of global destruction against the other 5.7 billion people who do not adhere to Muslim principles.

    > Islam no longer exists for Islam. Islam exists today to destroy non-Muslims.

    Linked from The Atheist Conservative:
    http://theatheistconservative.com/2013/08/13/a-muslim-indicts-his-religion/

    • Dota says:

      You do realize that a sellout like Farid Ghadry has zero credibility right?

      Farid Al-Ghadry (Arabic: فريد الغادري) (born June 18, 1954) is the Syrian-born co-founder and current president of the United States-based Reform Party of Syria, a party lobbying for regime change in Syria.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farid_Ghadry

      So he’s not just ‘a muslim’ as your source claims, but the head of a Lobby group (Listed as a pro Israel lobby group by Wikipedia) with a specific ideological agenda.

      The two men – one of them now arrested is a Muslim preacher

      Source? I can’t find anything on the BBC or CNN.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s