Anti-Mosque Hysteria Elsewhere, Too

[Jack Weber]

What threat do the Chinese pose to us? Besides swarming us with Chinese immigrants, I don't see much of a threat from them. We trade with China to our substantial mutual benefit, and China is very unlikely to undertake military adventurism against established Western nations.

The Islamofascists are easier to confront becuase they're approach is very simplistic.They are as easy to dislike and vilify as the NAZI's and Ku Klux Klan...

It's much harder to stop the Fascist Chinese because of the creeping economic dominance that seems to go on with a large cadre of cheerleaders in the West.I would also point out that in the developing world,the Chinese model of Fascist authoritarianism holds alot more sway than any Western democracy.I know from personal experience that in Sub-Saharan Africa,over the last 15 years there is increasing Chinese aid in things like infrastructure and military support than anything coming from Europe and North America.The reason is fairly simple...The authoritiarian regimes in Sub-Saharan Africa are not interested in democracy,but they are interested in the Chinese developmental model over the last 25 years.

Add all of that international sway,and the more important increasing Chinese nationalism,and you have the biggest threat to democracy on the planet...

The Islamofascists are tiny gnats,by comparison...

Edited August 26, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Bonam]

It's much harder to stop the Fascist Chinese because of the creeping economic dominance that seems to go on with a large cadre of cheerleaders in the West.I would also point out that in the developing world,the Chinese model of Fascist authoritarianism holds alot more sway than any Western democracy.I know from personal experience that in Sub-Saharan Africa,over the last 15 years there is increasing Chinese aid in things like infrastructure and military support than anything coming from Europe and North America.The reason is fairly simple...The authoritiarian regimes in Sub-Saharan Africa are not interested in democracy,but they are interested in the Chinese developmental model over the last 25 years.

Add all of that international sway,and the more important increasing Chinese nationalism,and you have the biggest threat to democracy on the planet...

The Islamofascists are tiny gnats,by comparison...

You still haven't told me anything I should be afraid of. Honestly, I don't give a damn if some sub-Saharan regimes choose to follow the "Chinese developmental model" instead of a Western democratic model. China isn't about to directly interfere with democracy in or act militarily against America or Europe. "Islamofascists", on the other hand, have struck at the US, Europe, and Israel repeatedly and will continue to do so.

[Jack Weber]

You still haven't told me anything I should be afraid of. Honestly, I don't give a damn if some sub-Saharan regimes choose to follow the "Chinese developmental model" instead of a Western democratic model. China isn't about to directly interfere with democracy in or act militarily against America or Europe. "Islamofascists", on the other hand, have struck at the US, Europe, and Israel repeatedly and will continue to do so.

I'm not shocked that a free market libertarian does'nt understand what I posted...

But yes...It's the economically deprived nutters,and their tin pot dictatorships that could easily be anihilated...Yeah,that's the real pressing issue....

[dre]

Iv never heard of any Islamic facist movement.

But as far as the threat from Islamic Jihadists it IS actually quite dangerous. Its not so much that they pose any DIRECT threat, but they make us bat shit crazy. By far the biggest threat is not what THEY do, its how WE react to them.

Take the global war on terrorism for example. They spent a few million bux on 911... they got lucky and made quite a mess. But by FAR the biggest damage done to the US was how they reacted. They got baited into invading two countries and taking on two permanent nation building projects at a cost of trillions. They created the largest new branch of government in history, and as soon as the threat presented itself, the profiteers came out of the woodwork and the biggest scam in history was perpetrated on the US tax payer by government lobbying US companies. All funded by borrowed money that Americans will be paying interest on for centuries, and according to Americas own intelligence aparatus, totally uneffective or even COUNTER productive. The war on terror hurt the US a thousand times worse than 911 and has killed more Americans than 911 did too.

A few low tech dirt farmers tricked the US into borrowing money to finance what is not only one of the most expensive projects in human history but one with absolutely no ROI.

As for the Chinese... who knows. Right now they dont behave like a country with military aspirations abroad. They dont seem to spend on equipment to move their troops anywhere... but theyre growing fast and who knows what they might do in the future.

Edited August 26, 2010 by dre

[DogOnPorch]

Iv never heard of any Islamic facist movement.

That's amazing because the Grand Mufti Mohammad Amin al-Husseini has been pointed out to you several times now. His nephew Yasser Arafat took over the cause when the Mufti retired (1964). Hamas and Hezbollah both carry on in his tradition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Handschar_(1st_Croatian)

[bloodyminded]

b-b-but... Priests molest children! Women can't be priests! .. Spanish Inquisition ... witch burnings... residential schools... Timothy McVeigh ... David Koresh!

b-b-but...I never made any of these analogies. So why pretend these apply to me in any way?

As an avid supporter of the super non-mosque near but not at Ground Zero, you get to criticize Islam to point out how even-handed and objective you are.

Let's leave aside, for the moment, the distinct possibility that I am more objective and even-handed than you are, and address your jaw-droppingly dishonest method of argument here:

It would appear that I (like everyone who disagrees with Kimmy on this) am a "politically correct" fellow who doesn't think that anyone should be "allowed to criticize Islam."

Until I do...in which case "I get to criticize it" (unlike other people, who say they're not "allowed to" do it simultaneous with their doing it) to display my (presumably disingenuous) even-handedness and objectivity.

In other words, kimmy, if I don't criticize it, I'm being "PC." If I do, it's insincere.

Wow, kimmy, that argument is brilliant; no, wait, the other thing...stupid as hell.

I understand you wish to have it both ways. You're deluded if you so cherish what you perceive as an unassailable argument: that those who disagree with you about the terrible threat of the caliphate's looming crescent shadow must be a bunch of "politically correct" idiots who cannot criticize Islam.

So when someone proves you wrong--irrefutably, incontestably, by the way--then you will switch to a different tack: dismissing the very criticism you believe does not occur.

If those who disapprove of the super non-mosque near but not at Ground Zero say the same thing, they get countless examples of bad behavior by Christians... even those who couldn't care less about Christians.

But again: not from me. Try to focus. I"m not some official spokesperson for everyone who might agree with me about 51.

And in fact, I think the bringing up of Christian crimes and misdemeanours is a bad argument, and beside the point anyway.

Oh, wait...I just "get to" say that too...to prove how objective I am!

You know..when I might agree with you on a point or two, I'm being disingenuous; since I don't agree with you 100%, any agreement on any point must be suspect.

At any rate, your "overwhelming evidence" for the innocence of Western mosques consists of nothing more than the fact that few have been caught red-handed.

Exactly. Similar to my "overwhelming evidence" that Albertan conservatives are not a bunch of knuckledraggers.

I'm afraid I maintain this opinion--that they're normal, decent people--no matter how you might try to convince me otherwise. If you have strong and compelling evidence that the mosques and the Western conservatives are simplified, un-nuanced enemies of what is good, I'll look at it.

I'd be much more supportive of mosques in general if I knew that they were staffed by western-raised clerics who understand liberal democracy, as opposed to third-world scumbags who regard anything that has happened since the 7th century as "inventions" that the Prophet never approved.

No you wouldn't. You'd look to the more reactionary and fear-mongering voices within our society to determine what stance you should take on the matter. Like you're doing now.

[bloodyminded]

You reap what you sow.

Actually, Shady, I am on record (repeatedly; over and over) as saying without qualification that I oppose all acts of terrorism.

How about you?

Are you outraged that the American, Australian, UK, and Canadian governments (and possibly other Western powers) were materially and knowingly involved in one of the worst acts of massive state terrorism of the second half of the 20th century, in direct support of Indonesia?

Or do you support it under the largely fraudulent "Cold War" apologetics?

That is, do you support terrorism in certain instances...or not?

Edited August 26, 2010 by bloodyminded

[kimmy]

b-b-but...I never made any of these analogies. So why pretend these apply to me in any way?

(...)

But again: not from me. Try to focus. I"m not some official spokesperson for everyone who might agree with me about 51.

This wasn't aimed at you, but rather at your "team". You might not do this, but dre and Machjo sure do. Yet I notice that they didn't jump in to condemn your startling attack on Islam by pointing out for you the numerous flaws in other faiths.

Exactly. Similar to my "overwhelming evidence" that Albertan conservatives are not a bunch of knuckledraggers.

I'm afraid I maintain this opinion--that they're normal, decent people--no matter how you might try to convince me otherwise. If you have strong and compelling evidence that the mosques and the Western conservatives are simplified, un-nuanced enemies of what is good, I'll look at it.

Just noticed this yesterday. I wonder what we'll find out once reporters start asking about the mosque these guys go to?

No you wouldn't. You'd look to the more reactionary and fear-mongering voices within our society to determine what stance you should take on the matter. Like you're doing now.

Hardly. My objection has never been to Islam as a whole. I have known Muslims who are normal and decent people who I have no more quarrel with than I do with any Christian I know.

My concern is not the faith as practiced by westernized Muslims who have grown up with the same ideals we have. My concern is with those who come from places where stone-age ideology is the norm, and my concern is with stone-age clerics and stone-age books that will help keep that stone-age ideology alive.

-k

[bloodyminded]

This wasn't aimed at you, but rather at your "team". You might not do this, but dre and Machjo sure do.

But again, I'm no spokesperson for any "team," who must defend every opinion uttered by those otherwise in agreement. In other words, regarding your point here, I can't help that, nor

Yet I notice that they didn't jump in to condemn your startling attack on Islam by pointing out for you the numerous flaws in other faiths.

And by the way, I take your point here. But that's the way it goes, and has nothing whatever to do with anyone's political stance. No one here has yet come to my defense (and I'm not asking anyone to do so) when dishonest little moral degenerates call me an "anti-semite" (based on precisely zero things I've said on any topic) or a "terrorist-supporter."

Just noticed this yesterday. I wonder what we'll find out once reporters start asking about the mosque these guys go to?

Sure, and it's not that there's no issue...it's that I see no reason to suspect the numbers (a vaninshingly irrelevant number by percentage of mosques, never mind individual Muslims) support widespread suspicion of every Mosque.

Hardly. My objection has never been to Islam as a whole. I have known Muslims who are normal and decent people who I have no more quarrel with than I do with any Christian I know.

My concern is not the faith as practiced by westernized Muslims who have grown up with the same ideals we have. My concern is with those who come from places where stone-age ideology is the norm, and my concern is with stone-age clerics and stone-age books that will help keep that stone-age ideology alive.

That's fair enough; but we have immigrant Muslims who have left the more theocratically and retrograde societies precisely because they don't like it there, and prefer Western sociieties. I'm not sensing any Islamic demographic plot. In fact, this is a fairly monumental conspiracy theory, and so the onus is on the conspiracists to come up with something beyond "Saudi funding," as if that's a sufficient "tell" to give the game away. Indeed, i think there is no game, not on any widespread, terrifying levels.

Edited August 26, 2010 by bloodyminded

[ToadBrother]

That's fair enough; but we have immigrant Muslims who have left the more theocratically and retrograde societies precisely because they don't like it there, and prefer Western sociieties. I'm not sensing any Islamic demographic plot. In fact, this is a fairly monumental conspiracy theory, and so the onus is on the conspiracists to come up with something beyond "Saudi funding," as if that's a sufficient "tell" to give the game away. Indeed, i think there is no game, not on any widespread, terrifying levels.

The only demographic "plot" I'm aware of in North American are Mexican Catholics. Let's not forget the Amish, who have some of the highest birthrates in the First World. So, in a few hundred years we'll either be speaking Spanish or archaic German.

[bloodyminded]

The only demographic "plot" I'm aware of in North American are Mexican Catholics. Let's not forget the Amish, who have some of the highest birthrates in the First World. So, in a few hundred years we'll either be speaking Spanish or archaic German.

That's about how long it takes a man like me to learn a new language, so good enough.

[dre]

That's amazing because the Grand Mufti Mohammad Amin al-Husseini has been pointed out to you several times now. His nephew Yasser Arafat took over the cause when the Mufti retired (1964). Hamas and Hezbollah both carry on in his tradition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Handschar_(1st_Croatian)

Nothing in either of those links that supports your position.

[DogOnPorch]

Nothing in either of those links that supports your position.

The Schutzstaffel (that's the SS) was indeed a fascist organization. One might say the epitome of fascist organizations. Are denying that the Mufti was part of it?

[dre]

The Schutzstaffel (that's the SS) was indeed a fascist organization. One might say the epitome of fascist organizations. Are denying that the Mufti was part of it?

No I didnt weigh in on either of those non sequitur arguments. Those facts dont support your conclusion that there is an Islamic Fascist movement.

Fascism is authoritarian nationalism in which the state (economy, money, and political system) is reorganized based on a corporate perspective, in collaboration with corporate elites. I dont see any indication of a significant movement within Islam that fits this definition. I also dont see any adherence or interest in the ideology of "third position" thats core to Fascism.

I think youre probably confusing fascism with authoritarianism.

The reality is this fallacious term became popular simply because it roles off the toungue nicely and people often try to demonize their modern day enemies by associating them with historical enemies (Nazis, Fascists, Communists, etc).

Edited August 26, 2010 by dre

[Jack Weber]

No I didnt weigh in on either of those non sequitur arguments. Those facts dont support your conclusion that there is an Islamic Fascist movement.

Fascism is authoritarian nationalism in which the state (economy, money, and political system) is reorganized based on a corporate perspective, in collaboration with corporate elites. I dont see any indication of a significant movement within Islam that fits this definition. I also dont see any adherence or interest in the ideology of "third position" thats core to Fascism.

I think youre probably confusing fascism with authoritarianism.

The reality is this fallacious term became popular simply because it roles off the toungue nicely and people often try to demonize their modern day enemies by associating them with historical enemies (Nazis, Fascists, Communists, etc).

Because those pious Islamic fundimentalists could never learn and co-opt things from the opressive Ba'Athist regimes they lived under,right?Those Pan-Arabist Ba'Thists who had historic ties to the National Socialist movement in Germany?

That could never happen,right?

[DogOnPorch]

No I didnt weigh in on either of those non sequitur arguments. Those facts dont support your conclusion that there is an Islamic Fascist movement.

Fascism is authoritarian nationalism in which the state (economy, money, and political system) is reorganized based on a corporate perspective, in collaboration with corporate elites. I dont see any indication of a significant movement within Islam that fits this definition. I also dont see any adherence or interest in the ideology of "third position" thats core to Fascism.

I think youre probably confusing fascism with authoritarianism.

The reality is this fallacious term became popular simply because it roles off the toungue nicely and people often try to demonize their modern day enemies by associating them with historical enemies (Nazis, Fascists, Communists, etc).

Hmmmm...sounds like political Islam to me.

From the same Wikipedia entry you used....

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. They claim that culture is created by the collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus they reject individualism. Viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they see pluralism as a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety.

But I do understand your need to deny the existence of fascism in Islam...it kind of buggers-up the whole Religion of Peace concept that is being pushed on the Dar al-Harb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Islamism

[dre]

Hmmmm...sounds like political Islam to me.

From the same Wikipedia entry you used....

But I do understand your need to deny the existence of fascism in Islam...it kind of buggers-up the whole Religion of Peace concept that is being pushed on the Dar al-Harb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Islamism

I dont believe in religions of peace, so I have no stake in strengthening that paradigm.

And youve still dont nothing at all to demonstrate either that Islam = Fascism, or show any significant Fascist movement within Islam.

Youve tried to demonstrate elements of nationalism. Youve tried to demonstrate elements of authoritarianism. But Facism and Nationalist Authoritarianism are not the same thing.

Like I said... That word because popular for no other reason than because it has a nice ring to it, and people have a tendency to try to associate present day enemies with enemies from the past.

Apparently it was coined by people without access to a dictionary.

[DogOnPorch]

I dont believe in religions of peace, so I have no stake in strengthening that paradigm.

And youve still dont nothing at all to demonstrate either that Islam = Fascism, or show any significant Fascist movement within Islam.

Youve tried to demonstrate elements of nationalism. Youve tried to demonstrate elements of authoritarianism. But Facism and Nationalist Authoritarianism are not the same thing.

Like I said... That word because popular for no other reason than because it has a nice ring to it, and people have a tendency to try to associate present day enemies with enemies from the past.

Apparently it was coined by people without access to a dictionary.

One more time...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Islamism

[dre]

One more time...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Islamism

More non sequitur.

I dont see any evidence of authoritarian nationalism in which the state (economy, money, and political system) is reorganized based on a corporate perspective, in collaboration with corporate elites.

I already explained exactly why that term is bullshit, and I explained exactly how it came to be as well.

Like I said... That word because popular for no other reason than because it has a nice ring to it, and people have a tendency to try to associate present day enemies with enemies from the past.

Youre free to keep using it, just as youre free to refer to the rear axle of a dump truck as a toaster or hacksaw, but that doesnt make it accurate.

Edited August 26, 2010 by dre

[DogOnPorch]

More non sequitur.

I dont see any evidence of authoritarian nationalism in which the state (economy, money, and political system) is reorganized based on a corporate perspective, in collaboration with corporate elites.

I already explained exactly why that term is bullshit, and I explained exactly how it came to be as well.

Youre free to keep using it, just as youre free to refer to the rear axle of a dump truck as a toaster or hacksaw, but that doesnt make it accurate.

So Pan-Islamism...Pan-Arabism...Muslim Brotherhood...Hizb ut-Tahrir...etc...things ol' DogOnPorch jus' made up.

[dre]

So Pan-Islamism...Pan-Arabism...Muslim Brotherhood...Hizb ut-Tahrir...etc...things ol' DogOnPorch jus' made up.

No Captain Obtuse. I never said you made those things up. I said that were non-sequiturs. Apparently the definition that THAT word elludes you as well.

What sets fascism aside from other forms of nationalist authoritarian is the collaboration of the corporate elite in the re-organizating of the state. NONE of your links have demonstrated this, and without this you have a best a claim of authoritarian nationalism or nationalist authoritarianism.

But were just gonna have to agree to disagree because Im not going to waste any more time explaining this to you.

[DogOnPorch]

No Captain Obtuse. I never said you made those things up. I said that were non-sequiturs. Apparently the definition that THAT word elludes you as well.

What sets fascism aside from other forms of nationalist authoritarian is the collaboration of the corporate elite in the re-organizating of the state. NONE of your links have demonstrated this, and without this you have a best a claim of authoritarian nationalism or nationalist authoritarianism.

But were just gonna have to agree to disagree because Im not going to waste any more time explaining this to you.

It's your key-hole definition of fascism that's the problem...not my understanding.

[dre]

Because those pious Islamic fundimentalists could never learn and co-opt things from the opressive Ba'Athist regimes they lived under,right?Those Pan-Arabist Ba'Thists who had historic ties to the National Socialist movement in Germany?

That could never happen,right?

I never said it was impossible for an Islamic Fascist movement to exist. I just said one doesnt now.

In any case that word "IslamoFascist" is just thrown about as a blanket reference to Islamists and Islamic extremists. You know as well as I do that its use is eronious in the context that its used in around here.

Everybody labels everyone else they dont like as fascists these days and this is nothing different.

[Jack Weber]

I never said it was impossible for an Islamic Fascist movement to exist. I just said one doesnt now.

In any case that word "IslamoFascist" is just thrown about as a blanket reference to Islamists and Islamic extremists. You know as well as I do that its use is eronious in the context that its used in around here.

Everybody labels everyone else they dont like as fascists these days and this is nothing different.

1.I think your claim of there not being a Fascistic movement using the cover of faith is an incorrect assessment of the situation.

2.The term Islamofascist is not thrown around lightly by me.You'll not see me throwing blanket claims about an entire group of people.I specifically single out those with Fascistic leanings.Some here tend not to make that important distinction.

3.True...It's like claiming someone is a Marxist...Or a Leftist...Unless it's done within a specific context.In this case,I believe the term to be correct when one looks at the historic factors involved.

[kimmy]

Debating whether extreme Islamist (note to the pre-schoolers on the board, "Islamist" isn't a synonym for "Muslim") dogma is fascism in a strict literal definition is kind of like arguing about whether Pol Pot was really a communist.

-k