Muslim Empires - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it. Note: nostalgia *is* allowed.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By anasawad
#15024922
@Palmyrene
What stories exactly? Because most of the interviews with former ISIS fighters have been completely different.

No they weren't. I saw a good number of them and almost all talk about the same sudden awakening and push to dig deeper in one way or another.

The most contemporary ones are terrorists. They're shooters with a political motive.

Honestly the apologia for Western shooters is kind of hypocritical.

Someone shooting to retaliate from the girls in his schools is not the same as someone shooting for political purposes.
It's a case by case determination.

That was before Al-Qaeda unless you mistaken Russians for Soviets.

Al-Qaeda is simply the latter name for the Mujahedeen. They became either Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, depending on which leader each group followed.

That isn't communist though.

I didn't say it is, I said it's similar to what communists want in regard to a society without economic classes.

We're talking about terrorist power structures not something as ambiguous as the term "Islam". In modern terrorist power structures, it's more based on nepotism rather than piety.

Those groups are Islamic fundamentalists applying the religion to the letter. Ofcourse we're talking about Islam when we talk about them.

And in an armed lawless militia in a war zone, Nepotism gets you killed.

It is.


In more everyday language, a radical is someone who has very extreme views, so you could say that their views are different from the root up.

Do we really need to keep using dictionaries here?

That's not the reason they pretend to be radical. The reason they pretend to be radical is because it gives them full control over people, they don't need to justify their actions.

That is exactly why those who lost their conviction while on top pretend to be radicals.
If they stopped pretending, they lose the support of the rest of the radicals in the movement, who have guns BTW, and it opens the way for more radical and fanatic members to take over.

Stalin? Lenin? Mao?

Che Guevara sure but that doesn't explain those three.

I really am too tired to go through and explain the history of these guys.
Just read up on the Chinese Civil war, how Stalin started and got into power, and how Lenin started and came into power. You'll see why you're wrong in the process.

Stalin and Mao didn't really care much about ideology. Lenin originally did but eventually skewed his own ideology.

:lol: :lol:

So?

So? You serious?
Those are the ones you're talking about how they'd always just stay there to the end.
They don't, they run away or get killed off sooner than latter, as I said.

Thankfully terrorist groups only have Islamic window dressing, they don't have a coherent ideology. Many of the "shiekhs" who run terrorist groups have no formal scholarly training and often come from criminal backgrounds.

:lol: :lol:
You serious bro? Are you reading what you write?
Majority of the terrorist leaders are Islamic scholars with some even having PhDs in Islamic sciences and Fiqh.
That's why they managed to gather followings in the first place.


Because then people start accusing each other of revisionism and not properly following the ideology.

This is why the most successful ideological terrorist organizations are those whose leaders claim to be the Mahdi or have some other similar fail safe. That way no one can oppose them.

Revisionism is called out even happens in non-radical circles. In radical ones it's punished.
Revisionists in a radical militarized movement usually get the bullet.


That's not how power struggles work.

That's exactly how it works in radical militias.
It's violence mixed with ideological purity. Always was and always will be because that's what makes it a radical militia in the first place.

Terrorist groups aren't ideological movements then. Osama belong to a family of multi-millionaires.

They are.
If they weren't ideological, then they wouldn't be considered terrorists since that's what terrorist means.

Osama bin laden is one of the exceptions as I continued to state.

Um, no. Radicalism going away is a huge issue with current governments. It's a very big issue and one anarchist societies have to deal with (what if people stop caring about anarchism?). Furthermore, Rojava was radical and became domesticated (wanting a bourgeoise democracy isn't radical) and so was the Syrian Ba'athist Party which was at first about helping people and then turned into whatever filthy creature Assad is.

How is governments having problems with less radicalism? Seriously, explain to me how?

Do you know anything about the current state of Kurdish controlled territories?

And Baathists are still radicals, their radicalism simply switched to a hail the leader one.

You're ideas don't correlate that well with sociology.

They do with both sociology and reality.
You just don't understand sociology, nor follow up much with the news or history.
By Palmyrene
#15024962
anasawad wrote:@Palmyrene
No they weren't. I saw a good number of them and almost all talk about the same sudden awakening and push to dig deeper in one way or another.


What stories. Show me.

Someone shooting to retaliate from the girls in his schools is not the same as someone shooting for political purposes.
It's a case by case determination.


Have you read the manifestos that they all write? And I'm not just talking about school shooters.

Everything is political. Whether you know it or not is another matter.

Al-Qaeda is simply the latter name for the Mujahedeen. They became either Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, depending on which leader each group followed.


Oh so you are conflating the two. What Osama bin Laden did before is not comparable to what he did afterward.

I didn't say it is, I said it's similar to what communists want in regard to a society without economic classes.


It isn't. If you knew actual communist theory you'd know this is not the case.

Those groups are Islamic fundamentalists applying the religion to the letter. Ofcourse we're talking about Islam when we talk about them.


Their actual actions are not informed by Islam necessarily. That is not the core of their motivation.

And in an armed lawless militia in a war zone, Nepotism gets you killed.


Who said they're lawless? There is a clear power structure at hand.

Do we really need to keep using dictionaries here?


Check the verb.

That is exactly why those who lost their conviction while on top pretend to be radicals.
If they stopped pretending, they lose the support of the rest of the radicals in the movement, who have guns BTW, and it opens the way for more radical and fanatic members to take over.


No. If they stopped pretending, since it's practically a cult, the organization will dissolve since no one has faith in leadership anymore.

I really am too tired to go through and explain the history of these guys.
Just read up on the Chinese Civil war, how Stalin started and got into power, and how Lenin started and came into power. You'll see why you're wrong in the process.


I have though. I just came to different conclusions.

:lol: :lol:


You're so dumb if you think that they didn't care more about maintaining power than ideology.

So? You serious?
Those are the ones you're talking about how they'd always just stay there to the end.
They don't, they run away or get killed off sooner than latter, as I said.


You're talking about completely different people.

:lol: :lol:
You serious bro? Are you reading what you write?
Majority of the terrorist leaders are Islamic scholars with some even having PhDs in Islamic sciences and Fiqh.


Not the guy who made ISIS.

Revisionism is called out even happens in non-radical circles. In radical ones it's punished.
Revisionists in a radical militarized movement usually get the bullet.


But if two people both call each other out on revisionism then it's a civil war.

That's exactly how it works in radical militias.


It isn't. Militias are still hierarchial power structures and thus have the same issues.

They are.
If they weren't ideological, then they wouldn't be considered terrorists since that's what terrorist means.


Oh they have political reasons for their actions, just not ideological ones.

Osama bin laden is one of the exceptions as I continued to state.


You state he's an exception for different reasons.

How is governments having problems with less radicalism? Seriously, explain to me how?


Not less radicalism, less commitment to ideology.

Do you know anything about the current state of Kurdish controlled territories?


Alot more than you do that's for sure.

And Baathists are still radicals, their radicalism simply switched to a hail the leader one.


That isn't radicalism. Radicalism is about fighting for a fundamental change in society, it isn't about the status quo.

Islamist militias are reactionary not radicals. Baathists were radical and then stopord after the coup.

They do with both sociology and reality.
You just don't understand sociology, nor follow up much with the news or history.


You didn't even know the phrase "sociology of knowledge" until I told it to you.
By anasawad
#15024970
@Palmyrene
Have you read the manifestos that they all write? And I'm not just talking about school shooters.

Everything is political. Whether you know it or not is another matter.

I don't need to read the manifestos of every school shooter to know that not all are terrorists.
And not everything is political.

Oh so you are conflating the two.

I'm not.
The Mujahedeen split into the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, as I clearly stated.
Osama bin laden was one of the Mujahedeen and fought along side everyone. Once the soviet were gone he founded the first Al-Qaeda organization from the ranks of the Mujahedeen.
His prior class did not matter when he fought side by side with the rest.

It isn't. If you knew actual communist theory you'd know this is not the case.

It is similar. Almost identical in matter of fact. Almost every ideology that claims to push for a classless society effectively pushes for the same thing just under different fancy names.

Their actual actions are not informed by Islam necessarily. That is not the core of their motivation.

It is, that's what these radicals believe in, fight for, die for, and enforce on everyone else whenever they can.

Who said they're lawless? There is a clear power structure at hand.

And that power structure has a little room for violent coups inside it in an alarming frequency, just like every other militia in war. So, it's lawless by that extent.

No. If they stopped pretending, since it's practically a cult, the organization will dissolve since no one has faith in leadership anymore.

It's not a cult.
If the leader stopped sharing the beliefs of the most active radicals in the radical movement, he's replaced from below as someone more zealous and fanatical will remove hem from power by force.


I have though. I just came to different conclusions.

If you somehow came up with the conclusion that Stalin, Mao, and Lenin didn't work on the ground with their fellows and were just previously wealthy and powerful and just wanted to expand their power; Then you sure as fuck didn't even read the Wikipedia pages let alone any book about them.

You're so dumb if you think that they didn't care more about maintaining power than ideology.

They maintain their power through the ideology.
It's why it's called a group of radicals. If power was not maintained through ideology, then it wouldn't be defined as a radical group.

Not the guy who made ISIS.

Let's see;
Of the founders of ISIS, being the two branches of Al-Qaeda to dissolve and produce ISIS from both Iraq and Syria, we have:

-Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was a thug who turned Islamic reporter and recruiter and trained on Islamic law while in Afghanistan, then ending up as part of the resistance in Iraq.

-Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi has a PhD in Islamic studies and science.

-Ayman Al Zawahiri was a medical doctor who had Islamic training and education in the Muslim brotherhood and under none other than Sayyid Qutb and was considered to have the ability to issue Fatwas.

So 2 scholars and 1 just trained and taught Islamic law and science.

But if two people both call each other out on revisionism then it's a civil war.

That's not what a civil war is.

It isn't. Militias are still hierarchial power structures and thus have the same issues.

And that power structure is based on zeal and violence, by definition of being a radical militia.

Alot more than you do that's for sure.

If you think they're not radical, then you clearly don't.

That isn't radicalism. Radicalism is about fighting for a fundamental change in society, it isn't about the status quo.

No it isn't. Not all radicals fight.
The definition of a radical:
a radical is someone who has very extreme views, so you could say that their views are different from the root up.


Islamist militias are reactionary not radicals. Baathists were radical and then stopord after the coup.

Islamists are reactionary, and they're also radicals since they hold extreme views.

Baathists became even more radical in enforcing their ideology after they took over, and became outright extremists when they were about to lose that power.

You didn't even know the phrase "sociology of knowledge" until I told it to you.

1- I didn't use that phrase.
2- Sociology is a field of humanities, quoting fancy terms in it doesn't make you look smart if you don't know what they mean or understand them.
By Palmyrene
#15024980
anasawad wrote:@Palmyrene
I don't need to read the manifestos of every school shooter to know that not all are terrorists.


If they're writing political manifestos for their acts of violence they're terrorists.

I don't know why you are so averse to saying they are.

And not everything is political.


Yeah it is. Politics permeates throughout our entire lives.

I'm not.
The Mujahedeen split into the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, as I clearly stated.
Osama bin laden was one of the Mujahedeen and fought along side everyone. Once the soviet were gone he founded the first Al-Qaeda organization from the ranks of the Mujahedeen.
His prior class did not matter when he fought side by side with the rest.


Oh ok that makes sense then.

It is similar. Almost identical in matter of fact. Almost every ideology that claims to push for a classless society effectively pushes for the same thing just under different fancy names.


It's not unless you have proof from Marx that says "communism is when terrorist leaders fight with their soldiers and the more leaders that fight with their soldiers, the more communist it is".

It is, that's what these radicals believe in, fight for, die for, and enforce on everyone else whenever they can.


They believe in their own strange millenarianist versions of Islam.

Their ideas of Islam are actually really similar to the Hashashin. Terrorist militias are basically militant cults that surround a charismatic sheikh.

[Quptr]
And that power structure has a little room for violent coups inside it in an alarming frequency, just like every other militia in war. So, it's lawless by that extent. [/quote]

Pardon?

It's not a cult.
If the leader stopped sharing the beliefs of the most active radicals in the radical movement, he's replaced from below as someone more zealous and fanatical will remove hem from power by force.


No he won't because their beliefs are tied to the leader. The success and ideology of the militants relies on the leader maintaining power and staying alive.

Miltias that don't have this structure are prone to infighting and sectarianism which we see alot with the Syrian militias in particular.

If you somehow came up with the conclusion that Stalin, Mao, and Lenin didn't work on the ground with their fellows and were just previously wealthy and powerful and just wanted to expand their power; Then you sure as fuck didn't even read the Wikipedia pages let alone any book about them.


No I didn't say that and that's not the context of our conversation (although Stalin and Mao later on didn't do that).

My statement was that Stalin, Mao, and Lenin all didn't do their actions based on ideology. They did it to maintain hierarchy and their power. Lenin started just wanting to achieve communism but fell to power. Mao and Stalin were just power hunger.

They maintain their power through the ideology.


They maintain through coercion and justify it with ideology.

It's why it's called a group of radicals. If power was not maintained through ideology, then it wouldn't be defined as a radical group.


They're called radicals because they want to overthrow the government or cause fundamental change in society. Not because power is maintained through ideology.

Let's see;
Of the founders of ISIS, being the two branches of Al-Qaeda to dissolve and produce ISIS from both Iraq and Syria, we have:

-Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was a thug who turned Islamic reporter and recruiter and trained on Islamic law while in Afghanistan, then ending up as part of the resistance in Iraq.

-Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi has a PhD in Islamic studies and science.

-Ayman Al Zawahiri was a medical doctor who had Islamic training and education in the Muslim brotherhood and under none other than Sayyid Qutb and was considered to have the ability to issue Fatwas.

So 2 scholars and 1 just trained and taught Islamic law and science.


I didn't know Zarqawi was trained in Islamic science.

Regardless, if I were to adjust my position, I'd say that cult leaders are often intelligent and well learned anyways so they fit the bill.

That's not what a civil war is.


I meant infighting. Slip of the tongue.

And that power structure is based on zeal and violence, by definition of being a radical militia.


It isn't and that isn't even the definition of radical.

If you think they're not radical, then you clearly don't.


They were radical.

No it isn't. Not all radicals fight.
The definition of a radical:


I used the term fighting broadly. A hippie protesting to make love not war can be considered a radical.

Islamists are reactionary, and they're also radicals since they hold extreme views.


No they're specifically reactionary. Just like white supremacists.

Baathists became even more radical in enforcing their ideology after they took over, and became outright extremists when they were about to lose that power.


Killing people for rebelling isn't being radical otherwise the US killing protestors during the Nixon Era would be "radical".

Honestly you seem to put the label radical on anything.

1- I didn't use that phrase.


I know you didn't. I did.

2- Sociology is a field of humanities, quoting fancy terms in it doesn't make you look smart if you don't know what they mean or understand them.


And stating "sociology is a field of humanities" is apparently supposed to make you look smart?

I know what the sociology of knowledge means. Hint: it's exactly what we're talking about.
By anasawad
#15025035
@Palmyrene
If they're writing political manifestos for their acts of violence they're terrorists.

I don't know why you are so averse to saying they are.

Because not everyone is a terrorist.
Just like you can't call every crime done by a Muslim terrorism, you can't label every gun violence as terrorism.
These labels have very specific meaning, and if you just slap them on everything, they start losing that meaning in the people's minds.

Not every shooter is a terrorist, and you can get clues from their actions and status to know whether it's a terrorist act or just mass violence.

Whether it was personal or not, whether the shooting was meant to send a message by targetting very specific groups or buildings or areas, or whether it was random and not targetted at all, etc.

It's not unless you have proof from Marx that says "communism is when terrorist leaders fight with their soldiers and the more leaders that fight with their soldiers, the more communist it is".

They won't call themselves terrorists, just like Islamist militiamen won't call themselves terrorists.
They'll call themselves revolutionaries, and they both work to abolish class structures.
And unsurprisingly, both tend to get into hierarchies where the more zeal and devotion one has for the ideology, the higher he\she gets in the hierarchy.

They believe in their own strange millenarianist versions of Islam.

Their ideas of Islam are actually really similar to the Hashashin. Terrorist militias are basically militant cults that surround a charismatic sheikh.

Then how come leadership is constantly changing in most of these groups?
they're not cults.
I know this might sound shitty, but the reason why Syria and Iraq were damaged so much by ISIS and these groups, in general, is primarily because of smug behavior like you're displaying now underestimating them and considering them as just some rabid cult. Until all hell broke loose and everyone suddenly started regretting underestimating them and not preparing.

No he won't because their beliefs are tied to the leader.

It's not, it's tied to the ideology's manifesto and core philosophy.

If it was then no ideology or ideological group would survive any more than a few years.

No I didn't say that and that's not the context of our conversation (although Stalin and Mao later on didn't do that).

It is the context of our conversation, trace back that quote.
It started with me stating that in radical groups, radicals tend to direct and drive the movement as they're the ones who are willing to go the extra mile to achieve their goals, with the leaders rising up as devoted radicals who take power, and even if they lose conviction, they still pretend and apply as if they were radicals because if they didn't, they'll lose favor with other radicals and they'll be replaced by the next up radical who has just sufficient zeal and devotion to replace them.
Furthermore, that radical leaders tend to often start out from the bottom and work their way up as they establish a following.

You ended up mentioning Mao, Lenin, and Stalin in an attempt to claim this is a false description, even though those guys are exactly like what I described.

My statement was that Stalin, Mao, and Lenin all didn't do their actions based on ideology. They did it to maintain hierarchy and their power. Lenin started just wanting to achieve communism but fell to power. Mao and Stalin were just power hunger.

They lost conviction, sure. But they still needed to act in accordance with the ideology since that's how they gained power and that's the only way to maintain power.

Ideology is a trap, if you use it to gain power, it gains power over you.
If an Islamist rose up to power by being a zealous, devoted, and extremely radical cleric or scholar and gathered following based on that, those followers will get furious if he suddenly came out and said he stopped believing these things.
The same applies to a communist or a nationalists, etc.

They maintain through coercion and justify it with ideology.

All power is maintained through coercion by definition of power.


They're called radicals because they want to overthrow the government or cause fundamental change in society. Not because power is maintained through ideology.

Radicals are those who hold radical or extreme views and want to achieve these fundamental changes.
Radical groups are groups based on a set of shared radical views.
Radical militias are such groups when taking arms.

I didn't know Zarqawi was trained in Islamic science.

He used to issue fatwas with Osama bin laden.

It isn't and that isn't even the definition of radical.

I already quoted the definition of a radical.

Radical groups however tend to organize around ideologies, and when you organize around ideology, the most devout and zealous will usually get to the top.

They were radical.

They still are, they just adapted.


I used the term fighting broadly. A hippie protesting to make love not war can be considered a radical.

True.

No they're specifically reactionary. Just like white supremacists.

They can be both.

Killing people for rebelling isn't being radical otherwise the US killing protestors during the Nixon Era would be "radical".

Honestly you seem to put the label radical on anything.

Baathists were willing to kill 100s of thousands of people in the name their ideology throughout the past several decades.
In Syria, this has changed to absolute loyalty and zeal towards their leader Assad, and as such they're now willing to kill however many it takes in his name.
This is where phrases like "Assad or we burn the country to the ground" or "Allah w Assad w Bas" comes from.

And stating "sociology is a field of humanities" is apparently supposed to make you look smart?

I know what the sociology of knowledge means. Hint: it's exactly what we're talking about.

My point is that sociology, as a field of humanities, has much of it is either common sense or common knowledge, so quoting random parts as buzz words without actually putting an argument or a case isn't "being smart".
By Palmyrene
#15025038
anasawad wrote:@Palmyrene
Because not everyone is a terrorist.
Just like you can't call every crime done by a Muslim terrorism, you can't label every gun violence as terrorism.
These labels have very specific meaning, and if you just slap them on everything, they start losing that meaning in the people's minds.

Not every shooter is a terrorist, and you can get clues from their actions and status to know whether it's a terrorist act or just mass violence.

Whether it was personal or not, whether the shooting was meant to send a message by targetting very specific groups or buildings or areas, or whether it was random and not targetted at all, etc.


Dude, they wrote manifestos specifically stating that their actions were politically motivated.

Why are we even having this conversation?

They won't call themselves terrorists, just like Islamist militiamen won't call themselves terrorists.
They'll call themselves revolutionaries, and they both work to abolish class structures.
And unsurprisingly, both tend to get into hierarchies where the more zeal and devotion one has for the ideology, the higher he\she gets in the hierarchy.


1. No Islamist militia has ever made it their goal to abolish the class structure. Literally all of them are reactionary and only reinforce the status quo.

2. Islamist militias outside of Syria have never called themselves revolutionaries. They themselves don't view themselves as such.

Why are we even having this conversation? It's entirely based oj completely misunderstanding communism.

Then how come leadership is constantly changing in most of these groups?
they're not cults.


It doesn't as there isn't something resembling a "head" anyways. Terrorist organizations operate on a clandestine system of cells which are practically autonomous and only rely on association.

They're more akin to a federation of cults rather than one, big cult.

I know this might sound shitty, but the reason why Syria and Iraq were damaged so much by ISIS and these groups, in general, is primarily because of smug behavior like you're displaying now underestimating them and considering them as just some rabid cult. Until all hell broke loose and everyone suddenly started regretting underestimating them and not preparing.


Well I'm not underestimating them. Considering them a reactionary force akin to raiders and warlords is a good approach. We aren't talking about the strongest army ever but they're strong and smart.

I'm not being smug. The only person being smug here is you. You're the one who thinks that everything boils down to religion and that just getting rid of Islam will solve everything.

That kind of idea is just childishness at it's worst. A complete lack of nuance of the situation. You have not even grappled with the complexity of the situation. It seems to me that you go from your initial biases and go backwards to justifying them.

It's not, it's tied to the ideology's manifesto and core philosophy.


Which in turn is tied to the survivability and obedience to the leader.

That's why terrorist groups survive, because of this sort of manipulative relationship.

It is the context of our conversation, trace back that quote.


I did.

This is not the context of our conversation.

The context was that you thought Mao, Lenin, and Stalin all were ideologically driven. They weren't, at least later on in their lives.

They lost conviction, sure. But they still needed to act in accordance with the ideology since that's how they gained power and that's the only way to maintain power.


They didn't. The ideology of the Soviet Union and China changed so rapidly that it was not the same ideology as it was before. Hell this is the central reason why communists say the Soviet Union "wasn't real communism".

Ideology was shifted to obey the whims of the state and leader, not the other way around.

Ideology is a trap, if you use it to gain power, it gains power over you.


Yeah no. Ideology isn't static, it changes frequently based on the life experiences and situations of people and especially if you're in a position of power.

Because power corrupts. It's literally a stereotype for the fallen hero to fall to darkness and lose his ideology due to taking power.

All power is maintained through coercion by definition of power.


Not particularly relevant.

Radicals are those who hold radical or extreme views and want to achieve these fundamental changes.
Radical groups are groups based on a set of shared radical views.
Radical militias are such groups when taking arms.


Good. You understand basic concepts.

He used to issue fatwas with Osama bin laden.


I thought he was too extreme for him.

I already quoted the definition of a radical.


Not according to Google. Google has a different definition.

Radical groups however tend to organize around ideologies, and when you organize around ideology, the most devout and zealous will usually get to the top.


No they don't. It's far more multi-faceted than that. Who gets to the top is based more on social understanding, history, and manipulation than anything else. Someone might just be a good leader.

They still are, they just adapted.


Really? Is this the hill you want to die on?

A capitalist bourgeois democracy is not radical.

They can be both.


They're fighting for the same social customs already present in the Middle East.

Baathists were willing to kill 100s of thousands of people in the name their ideology throughout the past several decades.


So? I can potentially kill you because you ate my sandwich and then claim that it was because God told me to post-mortum. That doesn't it was ideological driven, you just ate my sandwich, it just used ideology to justify it.

In Syria, this has changed to absolute loyalty and zeal towards their leader Assad, and as such they're now willing to kill however many it takes in his name.
This is where phrases like "Assad or we burn the country to the ground" or "Allah w Assad w Bas" comes from.


It's new zeal. It's not the same radicalism. Further, it's far more weaker compared to when Baathism was the ideology.

My point is that sociology, as a field of humanities, has much of it is either common sense or common knowledge, so quoting random parts as buzz words without actually putting an argument or a case isn't "being smart".


This is a huge insult to not just sociology but humanities in general.

For starters, sociology is a science too and it deals with data to make it's conclusions all the time. Secondly, sociology brings lots of insights and dispels tons of myths or "common sense" about social interactions.

Humanities also isn't "common sense". Humanities includes anything that has to do with humanity. Art, literature, history, biology even, etc.

All of this is just "common sense" to you? What ridiculousness.

And it's not a buzzword, the sociology of knowledge is a sub-section of sociology along with the sociology of science.
By anasawad
#15025098
@Palmyrene
Dude, they wrote manifestos specifically stating that their actions were politically motivated.

There are almost weekly mass shootings in the US.
Only a few famous ones that write manifestos.

1. No Islamist militia has ever made it their goal to abolish the class structure. Literally all of them are reactionary and only reinforce the status quo.

All of them did actually. Economic classes atleast.
All Islamists want to abolish economic classes and establish ones based on piety.

2. Islamist militias outside of Syria have never called themselves revolutionaries. They themselves don't view themselves as such.

Considering that they try to bring a political project of the caliphate, they're by definition revolutionaries.
Or atleast, in the context of Islamists, Jihadiyon.

It doesn't as there isn't something resembling a "head" anyways.

Dude, we just mentioned a few changes in leadership in ISIS and Al-Qaeda in this very thread.
And you're contradicting your own comments here BTW.

Terrorist organizations operate on a clandestine system of cells which are practically autonomous and only rely on association.

Not all.
Al-Qaeda was centralized then turned into local groups spread all over, each with its own leadership.
ISIS did have a clear leadership.
They only turn into a decentralized grid and localized leadership when they're in a weak position.

Well I'm not underestimating them. Considering them a reactionary force akin to raiders and warlords is a good approach. We aren't talking about the strongest army ever but they're strong and smart.

They're more akin to conquerers than raiders.

I'm not being smug. The only person being smug here is you. You're the one who thinks that everything boils down to religion and that just getting rid of Islam will solve everything.

That kind of idea is just childishness at it's worst. A complete lack of nuance of the situation. You have not even grappled with the complexity of the situation. It seems to me that you go from your initial biases and go backwards to justifying them.

It doesn't lack nuances, it recognizes the origin of much of the problems and recognizes the various interactions between the various internal aspects of Islam and how they create an enforcement cycle.

Which in turn is tied to the survivability and obedience to the leader.

And the leader changes.

I did.

This is not the context of our conversation.

The context was that you thought Mao, Lenin, and Stalin all were ideologically driven. They weren't, at least later on in their lives.

They were ideologically driven, for the majority of their lives.
They indeed were corrupted by the later years of their lives, but they remained true to the ideology as they couldn't afford not to.

You were arguing that they weren't drive by ideology in general, which you just conveniently changed.

The ideology of the Soviet Union and China changed so rapidly that it was not the same ideology as it was before

The Soviet union and communist China only changed after Stalin and Mao died, not with them.
And the change didn't happen rapidly, quite the opposite it was the build up of many years of ideological revision and evolution that was already happening internally, simply suppressed from shaping power by the older class of radical ideologues and zealots holding power and keeping everything the same (The same type of class of zealots that would kill off the "leader" if he stopped being true to the ideology as they essentially hold each other in check. It's like how MAD policy works, even if they all lost conviction at some point, they'll all keep playing the game and keep each other in check because they don't know what the rest perceive), once this class started dying off, the already existing evolution of ideas in both nations starting showing.
So no, it wasn't rapid, it took several decades, simply happening in the background.

Hell this is the central reason why communists say the Soviet Union "wasn't real communism".

The reason why communists say the Soviet Union wasn't real communism because they know that no state has thus far achieved real communism.
The Soviet Union was an attempt at achieving real communism, but simply collapsed before it could achieve it.
Noting that the collapse of the union began in the late 70s.

Yeah no. Ideology isn't static, it changes frequently based on the life experiences and situations of people and especially if you're in a position of power.

Not in an environment of radicals and zealots, it doesn't.

Because power corrupts. It's literally a stereotype for the fallen hero to fall to darkness and lose his ideology due to taking power.

Power corrupts, true. You are simply overestimating how much power these leaders really had.

I thought he was too extreme for him.

Sure, but they did work together in Afghanistan, then they split up.

Many groups split off Al-Qaeda in the late 90s.

Not according to Google. Google has a different definition.

:lol:
I quoted google's definition.

No they don't. It's far more multi-faceted than that. Who gets to the top is based more on social understanding, history, and manipulation than anything else. Someone might just be a good leader.

What the hell are you talking about dude, we can look at history to see how things actually work and analyse them.

The most radical and zealous elements of any groups always end up taking power because the more radical one becomes, the more they're willing to do whatever it takes to achieve their goals.
That's why political violence happens for god's sake.

Really? Is this the hill you want to die on?

A capitalist bourgeois democracy is not radical.

The main driver of the Kurds was nationalism, not socialism.
Look at the treatment of the Arabs in Kurdish controlled areas.
They're still upholding radical views on nationalism, they simply were forced to give up some of their economic views or atleast put it in the back seat in order to get foreign support until they achieve their independence and full autonomy.
The main driver of Kurdish militancy is independence and autonomy, not socialism or communism.

They're fighting for the same social customs already present in the Middle East.

Ok?
The social customs in the middle east are pretty much entirely based on an ultra-conservative Islamic tradition.
Literally, just point to any social custom in the middle east, look thoroughly at it, and you'll see its roots.
The only exceptions are Christian and some Shia areas, but it ends there.

You seem to hold the view that the middle east is some liberal haven and that there are these extremists trying to take over. It's not, the middle east is one of the most conservative places on earth, simply some even more conservative groups are trying to take over power.
It's not Radicals fighting everyone else, it's radical groups fighting slightly less radical groups for power.


So? I can potentially kill you because you ate my sandwich and then claim that it was because God told me to post-mortum. That doesn't it was ideological driven, you just ate my sandwich, it just used ideology to justify it.

You can think that to yourself, but in the wider collective context, you're spreading the ideology.

It's new zeal. It's not the same radicalism. Further, it's far more weaker compared to when Baathism was the ideology.

Sure, I agree with that.
They didn't stop being radicals or zealots, they just changed the form.
But still radicals and zealots nonetheless.

This is a huge insult to not just sociology but humanities in general.

For starters, sociology is a science too and it deals with data to make it's conclusions all the time. Secondly, sociology brings lots of insights and dispels tons of myths or "common sense" about social interactions.

Humanities also isn't "common sense". Humanities includes anything that has to do with humanity. Art, literature, history, biology even, etc.

All of this is just "common sense" to you? What ridiculousness.

And it's not a buzzword, the sociology of knowledge is a sub-section of sociology along with the sociology of science.


Two points.
1- Biology is in the natural sciences, not in the humanities.

2- Yes, most of the Humanities are based on basic logic and reasoning.
You don't need a degree in sociology to be able to analyse a state of affairs and come up with rational explanations for it that matches up what sociologists think.
A degree would teach you how to do analysis and all, but you can learn it on your own.
By Palmyrene
#15025151
anasawad wrote:@Palmyrene
There are almost weekly mass shootings in the US.
Only a few famous ones that write manifestos.


The one just two days ago wrote a manifesto and the one before that.

Regardless I don't see your point here. My point is that shooters often have political motivations. 9/10 they do and I'm not exaggerating here, the amount of shooters who end up being white supremacists or something is staggering.

All of them did actually. Economic classes atleast.
All Islamists want to abolish economic classes and establish ones based on piety.


Yeah no. They don't. I'm absolutely sure of that.

Because your argument is that Islam wants this too if Islamists want it. And Islam doesn't even talk about economic classes, if anything it's neutral towards them.

Considering that they try to bring a political project of the caliphate, they're by definition revolutionaries.
Or atleast, in the context of Islamists, Jihadiyon.


I'm not sure there are many terrorist groups that have the specific goal of starting a Caliphate.

Dude, we just mentioned a few changes in leadership in ISIS and Al-Qaeda in this very thread.
And you're contradicting your own comments here BTW.


When?

To both statements.

Not all.
Al-Qaeda was centralized then turned into local groups spread all over, each with its own leadership.
ISIS did have a clear leadership.
They only turn into a decentralized grid and localized leadership when they're in a weak position.


Define "centralized".

They're more akin to conquerers than raiders.


Yeah no. They are not good at counterinsurgencies.

It doesn't lack nuances, it recognizes the origin of much of the problems and recognizes the various interactions between the various internal aspects of Islam and how they create an enforcement cycle.


In the end, it's still saying "Islam is causing all bad stuff to happen so Islam go bye bye". No matter how much you justify it, there is no nuance here. It's the same thing.

And the leader changes.


Prove it.

They were ideologically driven, for the majority of their lives.


In the case of Stalin and Mao, definitely not.

You were arguing that they weren't drive by ideology in general, which you just conveniently changed.


I specifically said that Stalin and Mao were not ideologically driven while Lenin may have been at the start.

I did not move goalposts. If I was going to change my argument, I would tell you.

The Soviet union and communist China only changed after Stalin and Mao died, not with them.


I'm pretty sure the Soviet Union and CCP changed significantly after Lenin died and Mao took power. For starters, democratic centralism was completely thrown out.

The reason why communists say the Soviet Union wasn't real communism because they know that no state has thus far achieved real communism.
The Soviet Union was an attempt at achieving real communism, but simply collapsed before it could achieve it.
Noting that the collapse of the union began in the late 70s.


I don't know what communists you even talk to but none of the ones I've talked to have ever made that argument. They're thoroughly in opposition to the Soviet Union.

Not in an environment of radicals and zealots, it doesn't.


Especially in that environment because ideology just becomes the language that they speak and language changes frequently.

Power corrupts, true. You are simply overestimating how much power these leaders really had.


You're telling me Stalin had little power. :lol:

:lol:
I quoted google's definition.


(especially of change or action) relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough.


What the hell are you talking about dude, we can look at history to see how things actually work and analyse them.


You've done nothing but provide a simplistic analysis on these events.

The main driver of the Kurds was nationalism, not socialism.
Look at the treatment of the Arabs in Kurdish controlled areas.
They're still upholding radical views on nationalism, they simply were forced to give up some of their economic views or atleast put it in the back seat in order to get foreign support until they achieve their independence and full autonomy.
The main driver of Kurdish militancy is independence and autonomy, not socialism or communism.


Nationalism isn't radical at all. What was radical was communalism not the nationalism.

Ok?
The social customs in the middle east are pretty much entirely based on an ultra-conservative Islamic tradition.
Literally, just point to any social custom in the middle east, look thoroughly at it, and you'll see its roots.


Then Islamists are reactionary. They want to defend those social customs, not create new ones.

Also the same goes for all countries.

The only exceptions are Christian and some Shia areas, but it ends there.


Well duh Christians aren't Muslims silly!

You seem to hold the view that the middle east is some liberal haven and that there are these extremists trying to take over.


You what led you to make this claim? The fact that I don't think Islam causes terrorism and that you can't just kill off Islam (and probably genocide Muslims) to solve it.

This is a dumbass take.

You can think that to yourself, but in the wider collective context, you're spreading the ideology.


The point is that the ideology itself did not motivate my actions. And the only example I'm giving is that you can do whatever you want if say it's in the name of God.

Sure, I agree with that.
They didn't stop being radicals or zealots, they just changed the form.
But still radicals and zealots nonetheless.


They did.

The people who support Assad are completely different from the people who supported Baathism.

Two points.
1- Biology is in the natural sciences, not in the humanities.


Anything thar could deal with humans is humanities.

2- Yes, most of the Humanities are based on basic logic and reasoning.


Shame that most people suck at that shit like you for instance so maybe you should listen to humanities people.

You don't need a degree in sociology to be able to analyse a state of affairs and come up with rational explanations for it that matches up what sociologists think.


The sociologist has data you don't have and has been doing social experiments to test out their hypothesis.

You couldn't possibly do so because the conclusions of sociologists completely contradict that of "common sense".

A degree would teach you how to do analysis and all, but you can learn it on your own.


A degree would fill you in on most basic and advanced sociology concepts that most common people don't know and you'd be able to do your own experiments and research.

That gives them more knowledge by default.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15025152
Muslims like to kill non-Muslims because they are not Muslim. Muslims kill for both religious, and political reasons.

For one to support a reactionary Islamic empire, yet desire for justice, should be questioned.
By anasawad
#15025183
@Palmyrene
The one just two days ago wrote a manifesto and the one before that.

Regardless I don't see your point here. My point is that shooters often have political motivations. 9/10 they do and I'm not exaggerating here, the amount of shooters who end up being white supremacists or something is staggering.

Majority don't.
The only reason some get famous is that they are politically driven, the ones who don't just pass unknown.

Yeah no. They don't. I'm absolutely sure of that.

Because your argument is that Islam wants this too if Islamists want it. And Islam doesn't even talk about economic classes, if anything it's neutral towards them.

No, my argument is Islamists want it because it is part of Islam, a society and class structure based on piety.
Islam does talk about class structures:
From the Quran:
( يا أيها الناس إنا خلقناكم من ذكر وأنثى وجعلناكم شعوباً وقبائل لتعارفوا إن أكرمكم عند الله أتقاكم إن الله عليم خبير ) الحجرات/13 ،

From the Hadith:
( يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ أَلا إِنَّ رَبَّكُمْ وَاحِدٌ وَإِنَّ أَبَاكُمْ وَاحِدٌ أَلا لا فَضْلَ لِعَرَبِيٍّ عَلَى أَعْجَمِيٍّ وَلا لِعَجَمِيٍّ عَلَى عَرَبِيٍّ وَلا لأَحْمَرَ عَلَى أَسْوَدَ وَلا أَسْوَدَ عَلَى أَحْمَرَ إِلا بِالتَّقْوَى ... ) رواه الإمام أحمد 22391 وهو في السلسلة الصحيحة 2700

Class based on Piety.

I'm not sure there are many terrorist groups that have the specific goal of starting a Caliphate.

Islamism is the political movement seeking to re-establish the caliphate if they're not after it they're not Islamists, and if they're not Islamists then they're not relevant in the middle east.

Yeah no. They are not good at counterinsurgencies.

It doesn't matter if they couldn't keep the ground they gained, they were a conquering army that managed to cease much of Iraq and Syria.

Prove it.

You can take a look at any radical movement.
Literally, anyone, just throw a dart.

Even in this thread, we mentioned the transition of leadership between Zawahiri, Baghdadi, and Zarqawi.

Especially in that environment because ideology just becomes the language that they speak and language changes frequently.

Not with zealots, by definition.

Image
Image

Nationalism isn't radical at all. What was radical was communalism not the nationalism.

If you're a nationalist who want to purge out a section of the population in your nation beause they are foreign, you're a radical.

Then Islamists are reactionary. They want to defend those social customs, not create new ones.

You can be both reactionary and radical at the same time. They're not mutually exclusive.

The people who support Assad are completely different from the people who supported Baathism.

The regime is still the same, and the people filling it have been there for decades.

Anything thar could deal with humans is humanities.

Humanities:
Humanities are academic disciplines that study aspects of human society and culture.

Natural sciences:
a branch of science which deals with the physical world, e.g. physics, chemistry, geology, biology.


Shame that most people suck at that shit like you for instance so maybe you should listen to humanities people.

:lol: :lol:

The sociologist has data you don't have and has been doing social experiments to test out their hypothesis.

You couldn't possibly do so because the conclusions of sociologists completely contradict that of "common sense"

The sociologists use data gathered by pollsters or governments or historians.
Available to everyone.

A degree would fill you in on most basic and advanced sociology concepts that most common people don't know and you'd be able to do your own experiments and research.

That gives them more knowledge by default.

It does, but you can still get this knowledge on your own.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15025191
Palmyrene wrote:In the case of Stalin [...], definitely not.

Wrong!

Some think that Leninism is the precedence of practice over theory in the sense that its main point is the translation of the Marxian theses into deeds, their "execution"; as for theory, it is alleged that Leninism is rather unconcerned about it. We know that Plekhanov occasionally chaffed Lenin about his "unconcern" for theory, and particularly for philosophy. We also know that theory is not held in great favour by many present-day Leninist practical workers, particularly in view of the overwhelming amount of practical work imposed upon them by present circumstances. I must declare that this more than odd opinion about Lenin and Leninism is quite wrong and bears no relation whatever to the truth; that the attempt of practical workers to brush theory aside runs counter to the whole spirit of Leninism and is fraught with serious dangers to the cause.

Josef Stalin, Foundations of Leninism


:)
By Palmyrene
#15025194
anasawad wrote:@Palmyrene
Majority don't.
The only reason some get famous is that they are politically driven, the ones who don't just pass unknown.


The most recent ones are though. I'm not sure where the trend of politically motivated shooters came from, but every shooter recently has had political motivations or ties.

No, my argument is Islamists want it because it is part of Islam, a society and class structure based on piety.
Islam does talk about class structures:


None of that is comparable to how actual capitalist class structures work though. Just because Mohammed thinks that people who are righteous should be rewarded doesn't indicate that economic classes should be based on it. This is especially obvious from Islam's treatment of economics which is very laissez faire.

And having a class structure is not a classless society so you're wrong.

Islamism is the political movement seeking to re-establish the caliphate if they're not after it they're not Islamists, and if they're not Islamists then they're not relevant in the middle east.


You do know that there's just Islamists who want to "revive Islamic traditions" or "create a country based on Islamic ideas" and that's it. They form the majority even.

It doesn't matter if they couldn't keep the ground they gained, they were a conquering army that managed to cease much of Iraq and Syria.


There's no "they" with Islamists if they infight frequently. Generally it's warlords who took over some territories and that's it.

Even in this thread, we mentioned the transition of leadership between Zawahiri, Baghdadi, and Zarqawi.


Was this really a transition of leadership or did one just have their group become more prominent over the other?

Not with zealots, by definition.


?

Especially with zealots.

Image
Image


That's exactly what my definition was.

If you're a nationalist who want to purge out a section of the population in your nation beause they are foreign, you're a radical.


Well Kurds A. don't do that they just mistreat people in Raqqa and don't like people with ties to ISIS and B. how is this specifically "radical"?

You can be both reactionary and radical at the same time. They're not mutually exclusive.


A reactionary is someone who fights against "perceived" fundamental changes to society. A radical is someone who pushes for said fundamental changes.

This is why radicals are progressive (in a literal sense) while reactionaries are regressive (in a literal sense).

The regime is still the same, and the people filling it have been there for decades.


Depends on what part of the regime you're referring to because most of the people who were a part of the Ba'athist regime before Assad's takeover are either dead or in prison.

Humanities:

Natural sciences:


Your post proves me right.

Humanities is anything to do with humans. It's in the name.

Biology can be in humanities and natural science.

:lol: :lol:


Laugh all you want, don't underestimate liberal arts majors!

The sociologists use data gathered by pollsters or governments or historians.
Available to everyone.


They do their own research. Have you actually seen any sociological experiments? There're plenty of famous ones.

It does, but you can still get this knowledge on your own.


You can get any knowledge on your own if you have the resources and time.
By Palmyrene
#15025195
ingliz wrote:Wrong!

Some think that Leninism is the precedence of practice over theory in the sense that its main point is the translation of the Marxian theses into deeds, their "execution"; as for theory, it is alleged that Leninism is rather unconcerned about it. We know that Plekhanov occasionally chaffed Lenin about his "unconcern" for theory, and particularly for philosophy. We also know that theory is not held in great favour by many present-day Leninist practical workers, particularly in view of the overwhelming amount of practical work imposed upon them by present circumstances. I must declare that this more than odd opinion about Lenin and Leninism is quite wrong and bears no relation whatever to the truth; that the attempt of practical workers to brush theory aside runs counter to the whole spirit of Leninism and is fraught with serious dangers to the cause.

Josef Stalin, Foundations of Leninism


:)


Yeah I'm not going to trust Stalin on what he says especially given that he has his ways of, let's say, stretching the truth.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15025196
Palmyrene wrote:A reactionary is someone who fights against "perceived" fundamental changes to society.

Wrong!

Reactionary ideologies can also be radical, in the sense of political extremism, in service to re-establishing past conditions.


:)
By Palmyrene
#15025200
ingliz wrote:Wrong!

Reactionary ideologies can also be radical, in the sense of political extremism, in service to re-establishing past conditions.


:)


The social customs Islamists want to "revive" already exist and are in abudance.

They are reactionary.
By anasawad
#15025203
@Palmyrene
None of that is comparable to how actual capitalist class structures work though. Just because Mohammed thinks that people who are righteous should be rewarded doesn't indicate that economic classes should be based on it. This is especially obvious from Islam's treatment of economics which is very laissez faire.

And having a class structure is not a classless society so you're wrong.

I didn't claim it's the same as capitalism.
I claimed, very clearly, that Islamists, just like communists, want to destroy the economic classes and replace it with other forms of classes.
Communism preaches a lack of economic classes, not the complete anarchy of society. A communist or socialist society does have classes, just not economic ones.
So no, I'm not wrong, you are.

You do know that there's just Islamists who want to "revive Islamic traditions" or "create a country based on Islamic ideas" and that's it. They form the majority even.

:lol:
And what do we call a country based on Islamic tradition and ideas?


There's no "they" with Islamists if they infight frequently. Generally it's warlords who took over some territories and that's it.

This part was in regard to ISIS.
ISIS doesn't have "warlords" in it, it's a centralized militant group with a central leadership.
And it did conquer lands and had very little infighting.

Was this really a transition of leadership or did one just have their group become more prominent over the other?

They weren't competitors, nor were prominent in the same time period.
Zarqawi and Zawahiri were leaders, whom then were replaced by Baghdadi.

Well Kurds A. don't do that they just mistreat people in Raqqa and don't like people with ties to ISIS and B. how is this specifically "radical"?

https://www.voanews.com/world-news/midd ... ging-arabs
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/ ... om-kirkuk/

This is radical because it's an extreme view of nationalism.

A reactionary is someone who fights against "perceived" fundamental changes to society. A radical is someone who pushes for said fundamental changes.

They are groups who want to protect Islamic traditions and change the current structure of the middle east with all the perceived "corruption" in it, both socially and politically.

This is why radicals are progressive (in a literal sense) while reactionaries are regressive (in a literal sense).

:lol:

Depends on what part of the regime you're referring to because most of the people who were a part of the Ba'athist regime before Assad's takeover are either dead or in prison.

Someone who was in the party 50 years ago dying of old age doesn't mean that they didn't stay in the regime till their death.
And much of the people in the regime joined (the senior members leading most things) were there at the early stages, just not in positions of absolute power.
hint: It's why you see many 70 and 80 years old all over the high positions.

Your post proves me right.

Humanities is anything to do with humans. It's in the name.

Biology can be in humanities and natural science.

No it doesn't proof you right.
Humanities aren't everything to do with humans, it's everything to do with human society and culture.
Biology is a natural science, not in the humanities. And no, it can't be in both.

Laugh all you want, don't underestimate liberal arts majors!

They sure make good waiters.
:lol: :lol:

They do their own research. Have you actually seen any sociological experiments? There're plenty of famous ones.

Not the majority of them.

You can get any knowledge on your own if you have the resources and time.

By you can get it on your own I meant;
You can get the exact same knowledge and expertise on your own as from universities in humanities.
You can't get the same knowledge and expertise on your own in natural sciences.
By Palmyrene
#15025211
anasawad wrote:@Palmyrene
I didn't claim it's the same as capitalism.
I claimed, very clearly, that Islamists, just like communists, want to destroy the economic classes and replace it with other forms of classes.
Communism preaches a lack of economic classes, not the complete anarchy of society. A communist or socialist society does have classes, just not economic ones.
So no, I'm not wrong, you are.


Communist want a classless society. This includes all other classes.

They don't posit an entirely different class system; they don't want a clsss system.

This is so basic you should be able to understand it.

:lol:
And what do we call a country based on Islamic tradition and ideas?


Definitely not a Caliphate. Is Iran a caliphate? Is Saudi Arabia? Is Pakistan?

This part was in regard to ISIS.
ISIS doesn't have "warlords" in it, it's a centralized militant group with a central leadership.
And it did conquer lands and had very little infighting.


You specifically said Islamists in general. You didn't specify ISIS.

Which means I'm still right because Islamists are warlords.

They weren't competitors, nor were prominent in the same time period.
Zarqawi and Zawahiri were leaders, whom then were replaced by Baghdadi.


I never said they were competitors and of course they weren't both prominent at the same time period. They can't both be leaders.

https://www.voanews.com/world-news/midd ... ging-arabs
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/ ... om-kirkuk/

This is radical because it's an extreme view of nationalism.


That's what I was referring to when I said "they don't like people ties to ISIS". Those Arabs and Turkmen had ties to Islamist groups.

And how is it an extreme view of nationalism.

They are groups who want to protect Islamic traditions and change the current structure of the middle east with all the perceived "corruption" in it, both socially and politically.


Killing off radical or liberal parts of the Middle East isn't radical it's reactionary.

It's like how alt-right reactionaries talk about draining the swamp and killing liberalism.

:lol:


Guess you didn't take it literally enough.

Someone who was in the party 50 years ago dying of old age doesn't mean that they didn't stay in the regime till their death.
And much of the people in the regime joined (the senior members leading most things) were there at the early stages, just not in positions of absolute power.
hint: It's why you see many 70 and 80 years old all over the high positions.


Like I said, there is a distinction between people who joined the party/supported Assad after his coup and the people prior to that.

No it doesn't proof you right.
Humanities aren't everything to do with humans, it's everything to do with human society and culture.
Biology is a natural science, not in the humanities. And no, it can't be in both.


Human society and culture is informed by biology. Thus biology is both.

They sure make good waiters.
:lol: :lol:


Be careful! They might spit in your food!

Not the majority of them.


A majority of them do. Most polls done do not provide proper information on what the sociologist is looking for.

By you can get it on your own I meant;
You can get the exact same knowledge and expertise on your own as from universities in humanities.
You can't get the same knowledge and expertise on your own in natural sciences.


I stand by what I said.

You can get the same knowledge and expertise on your own in natural sciences.
By anasawad
#15025219
@Palmyrene
Communist want a classless society. This includes all other classes.

Communism is inherently meritocratic, it wants a society based on merit, not material wealth.

Definitely not a Caliphate. Is Iran a caliphate? Is Saudi Arabia? Is Pakistan?

Iran doesn't seek to be a caliphate, the principle of caliphate is long dead in Shia tradition.

Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, was established from an agreement between Mohammed ben abed al Wahhab and the house of Saud to establish a state the restores Islamic tradition and take control of the caliphate.
The movement, which started in the 1700s, descended into absolute monarchy after the collapse of the caliphate in the early 20th century.

Pakistan, as a whole, is an Islamic republic that tries to be as close as possible to an Islamic caliphate, simply under a western structure instead of an Islamic one. That's how the concept of Islamic republics was born, it's a caliphate thought of in a western republican structure.

You specifically said Islamists in general. You didn't specify ISIS.

The quote you were responding too was in regards to ISIS.
You claimed they were raiders, I said they were conquerers.

Which means I'm still right because Islamists are warlords.

Islamists are not warlords. In fact, Islamists are occasionally at war with warlords.

That's what I was referring to when I said "they don't like people ties to ISIS". Those Arabs and Turkmen had ties to Islamist groups.

And how is it an extreme view of nationalism.

They used the excuse of ISIS after they were called out on on the ethnic cleansing.
They were purging out Arabs for a while now.

It's an extreme view on nationalism because it seeks to purge out and ethnically cleanse any "non-native" people living in the nation.
It views any and all foreigners as a threat to the nation.

Killing off radical or liberal parts of the Middle East isn't radical it's reactionary.

Killing off the corrupt parts of the middle east that are in a position of power and control over the middle east is radical by definition of it seeking to change the current structure of the middle east in a fundamental way.
They're both radical and reactionary.
By Palmyrene
#15025221
anasawad wrote:@Palmyrene
Communism is inherently meritocratic, it wants a society based on merit, not material wealth.


No it doesn't. One of the most famous communist sayings is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need".

That is not meritocratic at all.

Iran doesn't seek to be a caliphate, the principle of caliphate is long dead in Shia tradition.

Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, was established from an agreement between Mohammed ben abed al Wahhab and the house of Saud to establish a state the restores Islamic tradition and take control of the caliphate.
The movement, which started in the 1700s, descended into absolute monarchy after the collapse of the caliphate in the early 20th century.

Pakistan, as a whole, is an Islamic republic that tries to be as close as possible to an Islamic caliphate, simply under a western structure instead of an Islamic one. That's how the concept of Islamic republics was born, it's a caliphate thought of in a western republican structure.


Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are not comparable to the Caliphate's structure and neither is it in goal, at least now.

The quote you were responding too was in regards to ISIS.
You claimed they were raiders, I said they were conquerers.


It was in response to Islamists not ISIS specifically.

Islamists are not warlords. In fact, Islamists are occasionally at war with warlords.


They are warlords.

They used the excuse of ISIS after they were called out on on the ethnic cleansing.
They were purging out Arabs for a while now.


Your evidence of this is?

This is just wishful thinking on your part.

It's an extreme view on nationalism because it seeks to purge out and ethnically cleanse any "non-native" people living in the nation.
It views any and all foreigners as a threat to the nation.


How is that extreme?

Killing off the corrupt parts of the middle east that are in a position of power and control over the middle east is radical by definition of it seeking to change the current structure of the middle east in a fundamental way.
They're both radical and reactionary.


Taking over territory isn't radical in it of itself.
By anasawad
#15025231
@Palmyrene
No it doesn't. One of the most famous communist sayings is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need".

That is not meritocratic at all.

You kidding right?
Each according to their ability.

Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are not comparable to the Caliphate's structure and neither is it in goal, at least now.

As stated above, the concept of Islamic republic is a merger of the caliphate and western republicinism.
And Saudi Arabia only descended into absolute monarchy in the early 20th century, primarily after Ataturk abolished the Caliphate.

They are warlords.

Look up what a warlord means.

Your evidence of this is?

This is just wishful thinking on your part.

Because they are ethnically cleansing Arabs in general.
Unless "ties to ISIS" means the Arabs in general.

How is that extreme?

You kidding right?
Ethnically cleansing a part of the population on ethnic lines in pursuit of establishing an ethno-state, and the perception of all foreigners as threats and must be kicked out is not extreme?
Really?

Taking over territory isn't radical in it of itself.

Establishing a movement to take power in your own country and to purge that country of all things perceived by your ideology as corrupt, and destroying the country's social and political structures in its entirety to re-establish it on your own ideological frame is radical.

Islamists want to do this, and thus they're radical.
They're also reactionary because they perceived this corruption as destroying the Islamic tradition and culture and want to protect it by taking over and radically overhauling the nation.
Department of Justice drops Flynn Case

https://i.imgur.com/YiTwYwR.jpg

Holes in my Consciousness

Fill in the blank: If a leopard seal is a seal th[…]

Almost none of these people are going to die. […]

It's an odd thing for you to say considering the […]