Fowler Goes Steyn

[Smallc]

It shows that colonization in itself wasn't always a negative force. That means you're going to have to pin the blame for the current circumstance somewhere else.

[PIK]

It shows that colonization in itself wasn't always a negative force. That means you're going to have to pin the blame for the current circumstance somewhere else.

I would say it did well for india.

[hitops]

When ISIS says as much, I'm inclined to believe them.

To the first point: ISIS is not particularly remarkable by modern standards of atrocity. To the second point, I would point out that Islam past or present has no monopoly on such activities. How many Jews are there in Spain?

Leaving aside the question of whether or not we have the wherewithal to do it: what makes you think it would actually work? Brutal colonial occupations rarely leave stable, prosperous states in their wake once the occupiers pack up and go home. that's not a bug, but a feature of the system.

The colonial argument is an aside. Naturally, any group in the entire non-European world who has any kind of beef, factors colonialism into it. It's low hanging fruit and non-falsifiable, and has the benefit pf being highly motivating.

No ISIS goal is not anti-colonialism, the goal is clear and stated - to form an Islamic caliphate and force everyone into religions conformity within that caliphate. That is exactly what Mohammad and his successors did 1400 years ago, and that kind of ideological purity is highly attractive to an enormous number of Muslims in the world who through a lifetime indoctrinated worldview of victimhood and antagonism towards non-muslims, predictably tend to find themselves on the bottom of the social ladder in most non-muslim nations. Malcontents are always the easy prey for the most extreme. The the very nature of the Islamic belief system, it supplies malcontentedness in abundance, and thus the recruits when the right tune is played.

You point about 'no monopoly' is absurd despite being technically correct. But it's correct like saying 'a knife is dangerous, and so is an atomic bomb. Knives don't have a monopoly on devastation'. It's a red herring and you know it. While there is no doubt an individual of every type of belief system somewhere on earth, who commits violence in the name of that belief system, the reality is that nearly EVERY violent extremist group of any size, organization, with any sizable impact or real-time threat to anyone is Islamic.

There are NO christian organizations beyond the LRA that commit terrorism today. This group is tiny in both scope and impact compared to even medium-sized Islamic groups, and not a Christian I've ever met even sympathizes with them much less apologizes for or support them. There are no Jewish terrorist groups on earth of any note, nor Buddism or Shinto or atheist. The fact that in the past there was a lot religions violence in Europe, or that atheists holds the #1 and #2 spots in history for mass murder (Stalin, Mao), does not mean they do today. Today, Islam has a virtual monopoly or organized non-state enslavement and terror, and we all know it. And the big difference is that Muslims everywhere, to varying degrees is not openly support them, are at least sympathetic to their cause. If there were not, they would be out of business.

Colonial occupations can certainly leave peaceful, stable democracies and obvious examples include: Germany, South Korea, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United States and India. As a matter of fact, those nations alone probably account for at least 1/4 - 1/2 of all world GDP and a huge majority of every modern technology, device and convenience commonly used by all of us. Some legacy of colonial destruction eh?

Edited October 6, 2014 by hitops

[Bob Macadoo]

This country was spawned from colonialism. Nice try though.

So all we gotta do is round 'em all up and keep 'em on reserves......action plan a go.

[Michael Hardner]

Colonial occupations can certainly leave peaceful, stable democracies and obvious examples include: Germany, South Korea, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United States and India. As a matter of fact, those nations alone probably account for at least 1/4 - 1/2 of all world GDP and a huge majority of every modern technology, device and convenience commonly used by all of us. Some legacy of colonial destruction eh?

Germany is a colony of ? Ancient Rome ?

Japan was a colony of ?

Canada, and the commonwealth were controlled by the English until... well... today.

Am I misunderstanding your point ?

[August1991]

Lol. When has war ever defeated ideology....thought these democrats like Steyn were hard about free speech.

The ideology isn't the problem

As Argus noted above, we defeated Hitler and his Nazi ideology through war. We ultimately defeated Imperialistic Japan by air bombing. We defeated the ideology of communism in a cold war of battles in Vietnam and Korea, Berlin and Cuba. More directly, we have police and put criminals in prison. War, violence and force, if used properly, can teach lessons. Edited October 10, 2014 by August1991

[August1991]

This is completely wrong. We won the cold war not by appeasement but by getting in the Russian's faces and standing up to them. That's the opposite of appeasement.

Call it containment or appeasement or MAD - we avoided a Hot War. But I agree that we stood up to the Communists when it counted. We did it in Vietnam and in Korea. Eventually, we won the war.

[Peter F]

If the Ideology is the danger, August, then are you advocating the use of War, violence and force against all those who hold the dangerous Ideology or only those that act on the ideology ?

and how will you identify those who hold the ideology?

[August1991]

? The rest of your essay is pretty easy to follow, then this non-sequitur. You just pointed out that the west defeated the Soviets without a direct engagement, so why may we have to obliterate religious icons ?

Bombing religious sites is needlessly provocative so this last paragraph doesn't fit with your point above.

I fear, Michael, that we in the West may have to show these heathens who is truly the Strong Horse.

I was recently in Potsdam and there is a display there about the 1945 meeting. Included are descriptions by the British/American delegates of Berlin in July 1945: bedraggled Germans dragging belongings in long lines along roads. They realized that they were not the "Master Race". Hitler was like a speculative bubble.

But as I say, I am of several minds on this issue. Pray that we don't come to this.

[August1991]

The Germans, as they so often do, have a phrase for this thinking: flucht nach vorn or "flight to the front." Like a gambler who finds himself in the hole and decides to throw bigger and bigger bets in an attempt to recoup his losses, Fowler proposes more of what hasn't worked, just bigger.

BD, Fowler knows perfectly well (as you should) that we cannot avoid contact with radical Muslims. We go there (to the Middle East) and heck, they come here. Travel is cheap nowadays.

BD, you seem to think that we can simply "avoid getting involved". That's impossible since we live in a smaller world. How do you propose that we deal with backward neighbours? (Given your record on this forum, I suspect that you'd go further than Steyn...)

=====

In his article, Fowler seems to suggest that all this started in 2003 - it seems a dig at Bush Jnr - because of his invasion of Iraq. In fact, this "started" in 1991 when Bush Snr put US/Christian soldiers in Saudi Arabia (the place of the two Holy Cities) to push Saddam Hussein out of Kuweit. Or maybe it started in 1948 with the founding of Israel. Some blame the colonial powers and the Balfour Declaration.

It is to blame Galileo for the reaction of the Catholic Church.

IMHO, Robert Fowler was a typical liberal/Liberal/FS type. As they say, a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. Fowler is in denial, but coming to grips with his mugging. He's going Steyn.

Edited October 7, 2014 by August1991

[August1991]

No ISIS goal is not anti-colonialism, the goal is clear and stated - to form an Islamic caliphate and force everyone into religions conformity within that caliphate. That is exactly what Mohammad and his successors did 1400 years ago, and that kind of ideological purity is highly attractive to an enormous number of Muslims in the world who through a lifetime indoctrinated worldview of victimhood and antagonism towards non-muslims, predictably tend to find themselves on the bottom of the social ladder in most non-muslim nations.

I tend to agree - except for the reference to "victimhood". IME, Shias tend to feel inferior. Sunni Muslims don't. (It's complicated: Catholics in America tend to feel inferior but Protestants/Jews in France tend to feel special/particular - like Catholics in the UK.)

====

Many years ago, when I was first learning about Internet forums and before I decided to waste my time solely on MapleLeafForum, I recall a discussion thread elsewhere about Islamism. (This was around 2002, after September 2001.) I recall an argument/thread descending to one poster repeating to me the phrase "Caliphate!". I had to look up the term to understand fully its meaning.

Edited October 7, 2014 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

I fear, Michael, that we in the West may have to show these heathens who is truly the Strong Horse.

Al Quaida's leadership was eliminated without having to do this.

[Black Dog]

The colonial argument is an aside. Naturally, any group in the entire non-European world who has any kind of beef, factors colonialism into it. It's low hanging fruit and non-falsifiable, and has the benefit pf being highly motivating.

No ISIS goal is not anti-colonialism, the goal is clear and stated - to form an Islamic caliphate and force everyone into religions conformity within that caliphate. That is exactly what Mohammad and his successors did 1400 years ago, and that kind of ideological purity is highly attractive to an enormous number of Muslims in the world who through a lifetime indoctrinated worldview of victimhood and antagonism towards non-muslims, predictably tend to find themselves on the bottom of the social ladder in most non-muslim nations. Malcontents are always the easy prey for the most extreme. The the very nature of the Islamic belief system, it supplies malcontentedness in abundance, and thus the recruits when the right tune is played.

You point about 'no monopoly' is absurd despite being technically correct. But it's correct like saying 'a knife is dangerous, and so is an atomic bomb. Knives don't have a monopoly on devastation'. It's a red herring and you know it. While there is no doubt an individual of every type of belief system somewhere on earth, who commits violence in the name of that belief system, the reality is that nearly EVERY violent extremist group of any size, organization, with any sizable impact or real-time threat to anyone is Islamic.

I'm not sure what your arguing here or what your point is.

There are NO christian organizations beyond the LRA that commit terrorism today. This group is tiny in both scope and impact compared to even medium-sized Islamic groups, and not a Christian I've ever met even sympathizes with them much less apologizes for or support them. There are no Jewish terrorist groups on earth of any note, nor Buddism or Shinto or atheist. The fact that in the past there was a lot religions violence in Europe, or that atheists holds the #1 and #2 spots in history for mass murder (Stalin, Mao), does not mean they do today. Today, Islam has a virtual monopoly or organized non-state enslavement and terror, and we all know it.

No Jewish terror groups? Really? As to the rest, I feel likr you're arguing with a point that no one has made.

And the big difference is that Muslims everywhere, to varying degrees is not openly support them, are at least sympathetic to their cause. If there were not, they would be out of business.

All of this we know. The question is why and what can be done about it. If your tautological explanation is true, the only real solution is to exterminate Islam and all who practice it.

Colonial occupations can certainly leave peaceful, stable democracies and obvious examples include: Germany, South Korea, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United States and India. As a matter of fact, those nations alone probably account for at least 1/4 - 1/2 of all world GDP and a huge majority of every modern technology, device and convenience commonly used by all of us. Some legacy of colonial destruction eh?

Germany: not colonized

South Korea: not colonized

Japan: not colonized

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United States: technically colonized, but more accurately conquered, their indigenous populations essentially wiped out and replaced by that of the colonizer.

India: an obvious example, but not exactly a beacon of democracy and freedom either.

Counter examples: most of the rest of the world, including Africa and the Middle East.

[Argus]

Thats the thing though. Argus rejects the pack up and go home bit. Thats the mistake it seems. We should never pack up and go home.

No, I was explaining what Fowler said. It was Fowler who brought up that we don't have the patience for the long game.

I don't care what their culture is or what they do to themselves as long as they stay THERE. Unfortunately, they rarely do, and our immigration and refugee system ensures that we get spillover.

[Argus]

It shows that colonization in itself wasn't always a negative force. That means you're going to have to pin the blame for the current circumstance somewhere else.

Much of the world was under colonial rule at one point or other. Many are successful nations today, some are not. Those who look for colonialism as the responsible force ignore that Islam tends to be more of a factor. After all, you only have to look at the dozens of Muslim countries out there and see the general level of failure to advance to note what they have in common.

[Michael Hardner]

Those who look for colonialism as the responsible force ignore that Islam tends to be more of a factor.

Did you read BD's post ?

[eyeball]

I don't care what their culture is or what they do to themselves as long as they stay THERE.

Christ on a stick, I can't think of a single statement that better captures the utter hypocrisy the diddling classes bring to this discussion.

Outstanding.

[Black Dog]

Much of the world was under colonial rule at one point or other. Many are successful nations today, some are not. Those who look for colonialism as the responsible force ignore that Islam tends to be more of a factor. After all, you only have to look at the dozens of Muslim countries out there and see the general level of failure to advance to note what they have in common.

How does one even begin to quantify that?

Here's a couple of interesting quotes I found in the ol wayback machine:

The problems in Africa are, to some degree, the same as those in Iraq. You have a bunch of unnatural countries, the borders drawn by outsiders without regard to ethnicity, religion, race or tribal affiliation, and with no history or culture of democracy or democratic values trying to somehow coexist.

If I had a magic wand I would completely redraw the map of Africa, and eliminate most of the existing borders -- which were drawn by the colonialist powers with no regard to ethnicity. I would redraw those borders to put ethnic groups together into separate nations wherever feasible.

FTR: I'm not saying it's all colonialism's fault and Islam is not a factor. But I'm pretty tired of simplistic, all-or-nothing interpretations of complex geopoltical and social histories. Acknowledging the interrelationship of these factors and the west's role in creating the mess we have isn't going to make you a terrorist apologist or anything.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

We defeated Hitler and his Nazi ideology through war. We ultimately defeated Imperialistic Japan by air bombing. We defeated the ideology of communism in a cold war of battles in Vietnam and Korea, Berlin and Cuba. More directly, we have police and put criminals in prison. War, violence and force, if used properly, can teach lessons.

Nazism and Japanese militarism were by and large limited to those nations. Global communism of the Marxist-Leninist variety was a paper tiger that crumbled as soon as its main sponsor couldn't afford to maintain it. As ideologies go these were largely centralized. This is not the case with Islam. There's no single enemy that can be named or defeated. The fact we're talking about ISIL today instead of Al Qaeda is proof of that.

[Peter F]

No, I was explaining what Fowler said. It was Fowler who brought up that we don't have the patience for the long game.

I don't care what their culture is or what they do to themselves as long as they stay THERE. Unfortunately, they rarely do, and our immigration and refugee system ensures that we get spillover.

Whaddya mean No?

Fowler says we won't stay for the long term - you agree that that is our problem: we won't stay for the generations required - then you say no thats not what you meant?

Or is it you're saying yes that fowlers right and we won't stay for the long term and who cares about them anyway if they stay over there - so we should bomb them over there in case they come over here?

[Argus]

Did you read BD's post ?

Was I replying to BD?

[Argus]

FTR: I'm not saying it's all colonialism's fault and Islam is not a factor.

And I'm not saying there aren't local factors involved in individual cases either. However, the presence of Islam seems to be partially or overwhelmingly responsible for an awful lot of violence wherever its adherents exist in numbers.

And as much as I'd like to have the God-like power to redraw boundaries I don't, nor does anyone else, nor would the locals accept it without bitter violence directed at ME. So that means we deal with what we can deal with, which is putting out fires as they arise and hoping that some day the locals will climb out of their sixth century mentality.

[Michael Hardner]

Was I replying to BD?

BD had some good points about colonialism, if you want to have a look. It's harder to say that the results of colonialism are mixed or positive for colonized people, after seeing those points.

[Michael Hardner]

However, the presence of Islam seems to be ...

...seems to be but really isn't responsible on its own, or as a causative factor. Unless somebody could put forward a reason why it might be responsible...

[Argus]

Whaddya mean No?

Fowler says we won't stay for the long term - you agree that that is our problem: we won't stay for the generations required - then you say no thats not what you meant?

You said that I reject the 'pack up and go home' bit, that we should never go home. The point I'm making is I don't want to go in in the first place. If a place like Afghanistan has to have a hundred thousand babysitters present for the next hundred years, babysitters who will be constantly targeted, then the international community should hire some mercenaries or something. I don't believe Canadian soldiers should have that duty.

Or is it you're saying yes that fowlers right and we won't stay for the long term and who cares about them anyway if they stay over there - so we should bomb them over there in case they come over here?

I agreed with invading Afghanistan. I didn't agree with trying to set up some kind of democracy in a land without the cultural value set to support democracy. I certainly didn't agree to sticking around for years while that was attempted. I think something like that would take generations, and I don't want Canadians coming home in coffins during that time period.

One of the main reasons Britain could subdue and keep control of India for all those years was nobody in any position of authority much gave a damn about the British soldiers who died doing it.