Why Liberals are More Likely to Lump All Muslims Together - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14808855
Whenever someone talks about increasing engagement against domestic Muslim extremists, certain people start saying "not all Muslims", calling people bigots and assuming certain things. But who is really assuming what here?

First, to target Muslim extremists with greater scrutiny is not necessarily to target all Muslims.

Second, to hold western military actions responsible for Muslim hostility presumes that Muslims are one monolithic group that respond in a uniform way when any of them are attacked. The largest Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and many others have not been directly attacked by westerners in sometimes hundreds of years. To assume that the west attacked "Muslims" and brought certain things upon themselves is to assume that a Muslim from Saudi Arabia, Libya or Syria are all members of the same group, something that is clearly not true.

The one exception to these collectivist presumptions, generally, is immediately after a terrorist attack when the left argues that the attackers weren't Muslims at all. This is an exception that proves the rule; by saying the attacker(s) weren't Muslim at all, they maintain the illusion that Muslims are a single group that can only have one policy applied to them. Since immediate attackers necessitate a response, they can avoid a fracturing of the group in their minds by making the people they have to respond to not count as Muslims at all.

As such, the people assuming that certain parties would lump all Muslims together if any action were taken are actually lumping all Muslims together themselves and projecting their delusion onto other people. We should reject this fallacy and not let "cry bullies" dictate important policy according to what their fantasies are.
#14808857
Hong Wu wrote:The largest Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and many others have not been directly attacked by westerners in sometimes hundreds of years.

Indonesia: Dutch colony within the last 100 years
Pakistan: British colony with the last 100 years
(India, with a large Muslim population: British colony with the last 100 years)
Bangladesh: British colony with the last 100 years
(Nigeria, with a large Muslim population: British colony with the last 100 years)
Iran: occupied by Britain within the last 100 years, and democratically elected government overthrown by the USA within the last 100 years
Turkey: Invaded by Britain within the last 100 years (though I'd blame the Ottoman Empire for what happened to them in WW1)
Egypt: controlled by Britain within the last 100 years
Algeria: French colony within the last 100 years
Morocco: French colony within the last 100 years
Iraq: controlled by Britain within the last 100 years, invaded by the USA in the last 15 years
Sudan: controlled by Britain within the last 100 years
Saudi Arabia: Not controlled by a western power within the last 100 years!

That's how far down you have to go in the list of largest Muslim countries to get to a country that wasn't controlled.
#14808889
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Iran: occupied by Britain within the last 100 years, and democratically elected government overthrown by the USA within the last 100 years


I've grown more critical of those claims of overthrow by the CIA in Chile and Iran. In both countries there was significant civil strife and the leaders in power were under great pressure. The CIA has helped, no doubt, but it's not obvious to me that its involvement was decisive.
#14808903
@Rugoz
Its not that the regime wasn't going to change anyway. Its that the CIA mainly beat everyone to the punch and installed its own guy.
The country was indeed going through internal fractions and before the US backed Shah and his troops took the government.
Nevertheless, the factions that would've formed the regime were local political parties planning to install their regime in place, and almost all of them (other than the communists) were planning for a direct democracy to be installed. meaning it would've been more of a reform coup rather than a foreign backed dictatorship.
It is unclear what would've happened if the CIA didn't stage its own coup, and whether the country would've taken the path of democratic VS communist rule rather than everyone VS foreign backed dictator. But needless to say, the Shah's coup was the worst path since it led to the mass impoverishment of the people.

Since the early 1900s the country was on the path of industrialization and democratization. The empirial authorities have already given a large portion of its authority to local representatives and the parliament. Along with large improvements to the industrial and agricultural sector of the country and ofcourse trade.
Records for the full nation are hard to come by, and most weren't even recorded to begin with in that period as much was lost both through the wars and through the Shah's regime which intentionally started razing much of the records in his final period. But from what is told about that period and known, is that poverty was rare. Opportunities for moving up the social rank were plenty. And trade was beneficial for everyone.
During the 70s period before the revolution, the agriculture sector was mostly destroyed. Countless numbers lost their livelihood and poverty was rampant almost everywhere in the country (which is why the revolution happened).
Estimates of the population rate under poverty line was nearly 80% when the revolution started With large foreign corporations controlling almost every part of the economy and reaping most of the profit.
Services were no where to be found. Health care and education costs were sky high and many couldn't afford them (which is why literacy rates were so low before the new republic).
etc.


Many don't like the current republic, and i agree there need to be huge improvements in it and a major change in policies. But Iran today is heaven compared to what it was under the Shah in view of the average citizen of it.


And note, the CIA did admit to it planning and funding the coup.
#14809113
@Hong Wu

The resentment Muslims feel is not a product of invasion of their countries but a perception that their entire region is under constant assault from colonial powers. This is not only on a strategic level but also on the level of culture.

The Islamic world has felt itself under siege ever since Europeans started entering their lands. Even after colonialism this same sense of siege continued with Western resistance to Arab nationalist powers. Take for example the Anglo-French and Israeli intervention at Suez in 1956, along with the constant propaganda and negative coverage of Nasser's government in the years prior to and after this. And then even the non-Arab Iranians were alienated from the US and UK when they stood against Mossadeqh.

Saudi Arabia and Israel have always been seen as the two major Western client states in the Middle East.

The Islamists, like the Arab nationalists before them, seek to remove all Western strategic and economic influence from their region, so as to achieve full independence and autonomy from any outside force.

Remember, that was their objective well before September 2001, including when a certain famous person declared war on America in the 1990s from Afghanistan.

During the Cold War Islamists were forced to choose whether or not to make tactical alliances with Western powers against secular Arab socialists and communists. Now that the Soviet Union is gone and Arab nationalism is a dead force they have no need for any temporary arrangement with America or England.

Because of the development of tensions between Sunni and Shi'a that were dormant throughout the 1950s and 1960s Iran is also considered an enemy by many Arabs.

Until the Middle East can achieve self-realisation and release its civilisational energy we will continue to witness Islamist extremism. Our constant engagement in this regon and our refusal to stand behind popular forces will eventually be our downfall. Europe and America will literally be swallowed by the Middle East.
#14810242
Any revenge Islam seeks against the Western public for the support of policies Muslims don't like, is nothing more than a smoke-screen. It does not explain their atrocities in Africa, and the Philippines, and which are coming in Indonesia and Turkey. Nor does Muslim revenge against the West explain their internal blood feuds. Islam was far more accommodating of Westerners when they needed help against communists. The fact is an illness infects Islam. We know it, and they know it, but until quite recently they did not want to talk about. Don't forget Muslims believe they are God's chosen people. There are various groups within Western countries that might believe such twaddle, but not to the extent of an international religion that has the goal of kill or convert. If so called moderate Muslims were so numerous, they would do something about the sickness spreading among them.
#14813437
@neopagan

You talk of Islam as if it is a person or monolithic group of people and not an ideology. You talk of Islam as if it's a mastermind capable of creating a "smoke-screen". In reality, Islam is nothing more than a vague book and a pile of scrolls that are jumbled together to form a concept known as "Islam". Islam is a social construct that is molded to represent the current living standards, psychological state, emotional state, and financial state of the people of country if that country was influenced by Islam. Islam does not mean absolutely anything, it's people who make it something.

What atrocities happened in Africa and the Philippines that were caused by the social construct known as "Islam" that consists of a vague book and a pile of scrolls? And what atrocities shall the social construct known as "Islam" cause in Indonesia and Turkey or, as you put it atrocities "which are coming in" Indonesia and Turkey? I think in terms of the first one, when you refer to the atrocities made by the vague book and pile of scrolls that is "Islam", you mean the Umayyad Caliphate that conquered North Africa, an Empire that happened to have Islam as it's state religion. However there were no atrocities committed outside of the actual conquering out it. There was an Arabization process however it pales in comparison to the level of cultural eradication that most Western empires partook in.

However there was no Islamic Empire in the Philippines and in Indonesia. Particularly in Indonesia, Islam spread through trade rather than violence. I also don't understand how "Islam" is supposed to cause atrocities in Turkey however I do know that the incompetent Erdogan, an authoritarian president who may cause great distress to his country who is not a Muslim contrary to popular belief but actually a nationalist as seen by his "Ottomanism". However Islam never really fought communism and under Soviet influence it was highly secular and even after Western influence it was still secular. Islam played no part in the Cold War at all.

That is subjective given that Islam is a social construct to be molded into whatever the fuck someone wants Islam to be. You can't claim that Islam, which is a pile of scrolls and a really vague book, has an illness or is corrupted because someone else can come along and say it's false. You do realize that every Abrahamic religion believes that they are God's chosen people. Also Islam says that both Jews and Christians are people of the book and therefore also God's chosen people. Islam also apparently says, according to the Quran my aunt has at her house and Sharia Law, that you're not supposed to forcefully convert people with the Quranic principle "no compulsion in religion". Of course I could also say that Islam believes god is a giant spaghetti monster and that Mohammed smoke weed since Islam is just a social construct to be molded in to anything, even a dildo!

Most of these moderate muslims are in the West where they are freely able to identify problems and speak their ideas. Where extremist Islam is a problem is in the Middle East where people are not allowed to speak their ideas and freely identify problems unless you get killed because the governments there are authoritarian regimes that are funded by the West. And usually moderate muslims become cynical of their country and just don't bother to do anything like in Iran because they think it's not worth it and there's no hope. Thank America! Thanks Democracy!

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]