 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
The danes did not self-define as germans, the facist Spaniards welcomes Italian Intervention, so both your counter-examples don't work. Moderate Muslims still define themselves as Muslims, thus this is a battle within the community of Islam as to which modern interpretations of Islamshould islam follow.
|
Im not clear are you claiming that what the italians did in Spain was NOT expansionism, that was opposed by many leftists of the time??? Some spaniards welcomed it - some opposed it - you could say the same about any muslim society of today wrt to the jihadis.
Yes, muslims define themselves as muslims, but not all define themselves as part of a muslim religious community that transcends national boundaries.
Lets take this analogy out - Danes in 1940 self defined racially as white nordics, and nationally as Danes. However to them their national identiy was their political identity NOT their racial identity , and so when intervention by white nordic Germans took place, the overwhelming majority of them opposed it and saw it as foreign expansionism.
Now in say Indonesia the majority of the population is religiously muslim, and identify nationally as Indonesians, citizens of a secular state that also has hindu and christian citizens. If there is an attempt, orchestrated by Bin Laden (a saudi) and Al zawahiri (an egyptian) to establish an islamic state, by internationally organized violence in Indonesia thats aggression. That it has the support of some Indonesians is of no more importance definitionally than the presence of Danish or Norwegian Nazis.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Im not clear are you claiming that what the italians did in Spain was NOT expansionism, that was opposed by many leftists of the time??? Some spaniards welcomed it - some opposed it - you could say the same about any muslim society of today wrt to the jihadis. |
Italian intervention on the side of thier ideological allies was no more expansionism than the US intervening on the side of its ideological allies in Asia and latin America
quote:
Yes, muslims define themselves as muslims, but not all define themselves as part of a muslim religious community that transcends national boundaries. |
And that is one of the points of conflict.
quote:
Lets take this analogy out - Danes in 1940 self defined racially as white nordics, and nationally as Danes. However to them their national identiy was their political identity NOT their racial identity , and so when intervention by white nordic Germans took place, the overwhelming majority of them opposed it and saw it as foreign expansionism. |
Nazi ideology did NOT call for all nordic races to be united as one: the invasion of Denmark (well, the one days stroll though Denmark) occured simply due to the vagaries of the war- had Norway not been a target, I doubt the Germans would have wasted the resources. So the annalogy is still false.
quote:
Now in say Indonesia the majority of the population is religiously muslim, and identify nationally as Indonesians, citizens of a secular state that also has hindu and christian citizens. If there is an attempt, orchestrated by Bin Laden (a saudi) and Al zawahiri (an egyptian) to establish an islamic state, by internationally organized violence in Indonesia thats aggression. That it has the support of some Indonesians is of no more importance definitionally than the presence of Danish or Norwegian Nazis. |
Aren't the two biggest political parties in indonesia leaning towards islamicism?
The most powerful islamist groups (ie, those with actual power somewhere) are the nationalist ones, like hizbullah, or the Taliban, groups that are not particularly interested in grand crusades of Islamic unity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Italian intervention on the side of thier ideological allies was no more expansionism than the US intervening on the side of its ideological allies in Asia and latin America
LOTM - Yet it was opposed by leftists at the time, and rightly so to Berman. Hes saying we should look at the current WOT the same way.
quote:
Yes, muslims define themselves as muslims, but not all define themselves as part of a muslim religious community that transcends national boundaries. |
And that is one of the points of conflict.
quote:
Lets take this analogy out - Danes in 1940 self defined racially as white nordics, and nationally as Danes. However to them their national identiy was their political identity NOT their racial identity , and so when intervention by white nordic Germans took place, the overwhelming majority of them opposed it and saw it as foreign expansionism. |
Nazi ideology did NOT call for all nordic races to be united as one:
LOTM - IIUC they called for German domination of the world and for the assimilation of other nordics to Germany as far as possible. they were "pragmatic" however, and werent about to invade sweden or Switzaerland in the short run.
the invasion of Denmark (well, the one days stroll though Denmark) occured simply due to the vagaries of the war- had Norway not been a target, I doubt the Germans would have wasted the resources. So the annalogy is still false.
Aren't the two biggest political parties in indonesia leaning towards islamicism?
LOTM - granted this is more complex than simply Secularists and jihadis - the islamist parties in Indonesia, IIUC, want sharia IN indonesia. they do NOT want Indonesia to be replaced by a pan-Islamic state. As i said (and i think Berman acknowledges) not all islamists are jihadists. And i would add, not all islamists are islamofascists, just as not all muslims are islamists.
The most powerful islamist groups (ie, those with actual power somewhere) are the nationalist ones, like hizbullah, or the Taliban, groups that are not particularly interested in grand crusades of Islamic unity. |
LOTM - Lebanese Hizbullah is a shiite group, and is ideologically distinct from the Salafi-jihadi pan-islamists. (They have of course used terror, and berman has an interesting discussion of the relationship between fascism and terror in general, but thats rather different from the identification of Qutbist pan-Islamist jihadis with fascism)
As for the Taliban, while they may have been principally concerned with their domestic agenda, they worked hand in glove with al - qaeeda, who largely financed and to some extent ran their regime. A good analogy would be the relationship of the Hungarian arrow cross to the German Nazis.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
bipartanship, in our current system
is where republicans and democrats unite with the corporations to screw over the citizen and voter
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
This war just isn't about fighting for justice and democracy. The problems in Iraq are due to capitalism. |
You're right, Saddam was a benevolent ruler trying to save the Iraqi people from the evils of capitalism. 
As for the article, I'm quite happy to see Saddam go, but we better not make the same mistake we made in Afghanistan - liberate Iraqis only to walk away as another dictatorship sympathetic of terrorist organisations assumes power. But was the invasion justified? Forget about Bush and the falsehoods we were handed, was it justified? Only if compelling others to risk their lives for "my" security is justified. It ain't...
Does it matter if the people in the military volunteered? Did they volunteer to fight wars all over the place whenever some politician gets a burr under his saddle or to defend this country from attack? I think the latter, but before sending them off to such wars they should have the option of sitting it out without repercussions. If I sign up to defend my country, I'm not signing up to defend Iraqis...
And then there's the hypocrisy - we invade little podunk countries while N Korea is an even worse dictatorship working on nukes. The response to this hypocrisy from supporters of the Iraqi invasion is that we have to look at each situation based on it's merits. Okay, what's different? Oh yeah, N Korea could put up a stronger deterrant and China - another dictatorship - won't like it. So it's body count, not how awful the dictators are. Okay, then say so, but don't give us all that crappola about how evil Saddam was. It's strange to hear people like Sean Hannity accuse opponents of the Iraqi invasion of being Saddam's appeasers while he argues against an invasion of N Korea et al.
But since the Dems and Repubs agree that the military exists to project power around the globe, I can think of worse things and few better things than getting rid of Saddam. Now, the left also believes that the miltary exists "to do good" in the world, so why they are upset would be perplexing if not for the obvious answer - Bush did it, not them.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-01-2004 02:01
|