Moderate Islamists work with Al Qaeda

[Kidlicious]

No, it's because they don't drive their countries into crippling poverty.

Oh well then, if they did so much for the economy why didn't they have elections?

[MrFun]

I think it was. If we hadn't they would have simply forced a communist dictatorship upon themselves.

I don't think you're making much sense.

[Zevico]

Islamists are about as far right as you can go on the political spectrum, and right is synonymous with conservative.

Unfortunately this is a popularly accepted form of reasoning, but it really doesn't have any analytical validity.

Islamists envision a utopian Islamic society governed by a clerical or enlightened Islamic elite that controls all aspects of its society. They openly embrace socialist policies. Some even model themselves in political structure on Marxist-Leninist parties quite openly, like "Secretary-General" Hassan Nasrallah's Hezballah. They also regard violence as a means of achieving domestic political goals, abide no dissent, and kill those who oppose them if thought necessary. In this they have quite consciously and openly adopted the Marxist-Leninist and leftist model for gaining power.

Islamists envision a concentration of power in an Islamist intellectual-ideological elite; believe in perfecting society; and believe in the use of arbitrary violent power to achieve their goals.

Conservatives in the Western sense subscribe to the ideology postulated by men like Adam Smith and Bourke: a limited government in which all men are under the law and people are free to act as they wish. Conservatives reject the idea that society can be perfected, reject the idea of arbitrary power not under law, and reject the idea that intellectuals can reshape society to suit their whims. Conservatives believe that the body of knowledge of which any given individual possesses is but a drop in the ocean to the collective knowledge of society, incorporating its various beliefs, habits and culture. Individuals possess the ability to deal with their own lives on their own precisely because they know what they need most by their standards.

By contrast Islamists posit that articulated Islamic ideas as they are understood by intellectuals are the solution to all social, political and economic problems. Any idea that does not fit the Islamic mould is to be discarded, and any Islamic idea cannot be discarded even if it has proven utterly disastrous in the past. In this respect they are not unlike the Western left, which believes that Western intellectuals are infinitely more capable of solving other people's problems for them.

[notyoueither]

Any idea that does not fit the Islamic mould is to be discarded, including ideas that have been utterly disastrous in the past.

That sounds like wisdom.

/nitpick

[Zevico]

I meant to say, any "Islamic" idea cannot be discarded despite its disastrous effects.

[giblets]

There are a number of similarities between social conservatives in the west and Islamic fundamentalists, since both wish to impose an abrahamic faith on society. Of course there's a difference in degree. Conservatives in the west oppose same sex marriage and civil unions while Islamic fundamentalists stone homosexuals, for example.

[Kidlicious]

There are a number of similarities between social conservatives in the west and Islamic fundamentalists, since both wish to impose an abrahamic faith on society. Of course there's a difference in degree. Conservatives in the west oppose same sex marriage and civil unions while Islamic fundamentalists stone homosexuals, for example.

Yeah, just like we draw pictures of their prophet and they cut off the head's of christians.

[Aeson]

Unfortunately this is a popularly accepted form of reasoning, but it really doesn't have any analytical validity.

It's popular because on most every issue Islamists are on the extreme right side of the spectrum. I can see how you find that unfortunate, but it's simply reality.

Islamists envision a utopian Islamic society governed by a clerical or enlightened Islamic elite that controls all aspects of its society. They openly embrace socialist policies. Some even model themselves in political structure on Marxist-Leninist parties quite openly, like "Secretary-General" Hassan Nasrallah's Hezballah.

And there are Christians that do the same. Doesn't mean the GOP is leftist.

They also regard violence as a means of achieving domestic political goals, abide no dissent, and kill those who oppose them if thought necessary. In this they have quite consciously and openly adopted the Marxist-Leninist and leftist model for gaining power.

Islamists envision a concentration of power in an Islamist intellectual-ideological elite; believe in perfecting society; and believe in the use of arbitrary violent power to achieve their goals.

... Conservatives reject the idea that society can be perfected, reject the idea of arbitrary power not under law, and reject the idea that intellectuals can reshape society to suit their whims. Conservatives believe that the body of knowledge of which any given individual possesses is but a drop in the ocean to the collective knowledge of society, incorporating its various beliefs, habits and culture. Individuals possess the ability to deal with their own lives on their own precisely because they know what they need most by their standards.

By contrast Islamists posit that articulated Islamic ideas as they are understood by intellectuals are the solution to all social, political and economic problems. Any idea that does not fit the Islamic mould is to be discarded, and any Islamic idea cannot be discarded even if it has proven utterly disastrous in the past. In this respect they are not unlike the Western left, which believes that Western intellectuals are infinitely more capable of solving other people's problems for them.

You're confusing authoritarian-libertarian with left-right in several instances here, and in cases confusing leftist with Machiavellian or just *******. Essentially you seem to think "bad" = leftist and "good" = rightist, without any sort of consistency in any other regard.

Conservatives in the Western sense subscribe to the ideology postulated by men like Adam Smith and Bourke: a limited government in which all men are under the law and people are free to act as they wish.

Wanted to address this specifically outside the whole masturbation over conservative values part of your post. It's awesome how you're here spouting nonsense about how hundreds of millions of people shouldn't be allowed to vote, should be oppressed by dictators chosen by foreign powers, because you believe in limited government in which all people are free to act as they wish. It's just so ****ing absurd

[Hauldren Collider]

There are a number of similarities between social conservatives in the west and Islamic fundamentalists, since both wish to impose an abrahamic faith on society. Of course there's a difference in degree. Conservatives in the west oppose same sex marriage and civil unions while Islamic fundamentalists stone homosexuals, for example.

I think that this where the similarities end, however. Zevico is basically right that the Islamists believe in a dictatorship of the intelligentsia. Unfortunately their intelligentsia are probably even more misguided than the Communists'.

[Aeson]

I think that this where the similarities end, however. Zevico is basically right that the Islamists believe in a dictatorship of the intelligentsia. Unfortunately their intelligentsia are probably even more misguided than the Communists'.

So let's see. HC in this thread has decided that hundreds of millions of people are not fit to vote and need to be dictatored to avoid being dictatored. His rational for this is that they are illiterate and leftist. Nevermind that most of the populations in question are well over HC's 50% mark. Nevermind that on marriage, abortion, traditional family values, charity (vs welfare), drugs, death penalty, and just about every other actual issue you can think of that's left-right they are firmly on the right.

Reality is to be avoided at all costs!

Bonus points for: "Dictatorship of the intelligentsia"

You mean like a group of people who think they know what's best for a population and so won't allow them freedom to vote or self-rule? Like you and Zev ... such LEFTISTS

[Kidlicious]

So let's see. HC in this thread has decided that hundreds of millions of people are not fit to vote and need to be dictatored to avoid being dictatored. His rational for this is that they are illiterate and leftist. Nevermind that most of the populations in question are well over HC's 50% mark. Nevermind that on marriage, abortion, traditional family values, charity (vs welfare), drugs, death penalty, and just about every other actual issue you can think of that's left-right they are firmly on the right.

Reality is to be avoided at all costs!

Bonus points for: "Dictatorship of the intelligentsia"

You mean like a group of people who think they know what's best for a population and so won't allow them freedom to vote or self-rule? Like you and Zev ... such LEFTISTS

Next thing you know HC is going to be telling us that the government needs to do all kinds of things like tell us what we can and can't eat and what prices we are suppose to pay for things like gasoline.

[Zevico]

Wanted to address this specifically outside the whole masturbation over conservative values part of your post. It's awesome how you're here spouting nonsense about how hundreds of millions of people shouldn't be allowed to vote, should be oppressed by dictators chosen by foreign powers, because you believe in limited government in which all people are free to act as they wish. It's just so ****ing absurd

It's absurd to you because you don't understand these ideas. A forum post is not going to explain Bourke in detail. But to explain a few matters of which you are clearly ignorant:

- Bourke supported the American revolution. He was also an abolitionist (so was Adam Smith). Bourke reconciled these two ideas for a simple reason: he understood that Americans had come to conceive of themselves as equals deserving of equal rights under the law--specifically, the English common law. He understood that the Americans' rebellion was for a principle of self-government to which they were entitled to and understood--after a long passage of time in which these sentiments were learned and ingrained into their culture. Now, the "founding fathers" understood that this revolution naturally extended to men of all races alike. Though privately abolitionist in sentiment they understood that then was not the time to fight that battle. Compromise required them to work towards an imperfect solution because there was no perfect solution.
- Conservatives understand that they cannot remake the world in their own image. You cannot create a democracy out of a society that does not brook dissent, or a movement that calls for the murder of blasphemers and those who oppose it. Such movements have come to power via elections in the past. There is no reason to allow them to do so in future. Hamas won an election and capped it off by taking over Gaza and throwing Fatah fighters off buildings and shooting them in hospitals. They're no democrats. They're happy to use the ballot box to take power but that doesn't mean they adhere to democratic values. That's a key difference here: you characterise them as democratic movements. I don't, and I don't see any reason to bring to power anti-democratic, rabidly anti-Western movements that will quite happily support the murder of you and yours.

[Zevico]

Also the simple principle of self-defence dictates that a society must oppose foreign groups or movements that seek their destruction, as Islamists do vis-a-vis Western nation states.

Additionally, your childish language impresses no one. Are you an adult or an adolescent? Pick one.

[Aeson]

It's absurd to you because you don't understand these ideas

No, it's absurd because all the reasoning you give is refuting what you're trying to support with it.

You want to disallow the baby steps of democracy because of your fear that people aren't perfect yet. You'd be the one arguing against a democratic USA, saying that Americans aren't ready for democracy because so many of them aren't ready to give up slavery.

Compromise required them to work towards an imperfect solution because there was no perfect solution.

So you think they should have installed a dictatorship ... we know. Thankfully totalitarian cheerleaders like you weren't deciding things back then.

Conservatives understand that they cannot remake the world in their own image.

I guess the Iraq war never happened. Because neo-cons definitely wouldn't have been involved in any sort of "remaking the world in their own image" attempts ... They would call it nation building or maybe something completely different!

Are you and HC in some sort of competition about who can make the most moronic supporting claims for dictatorships?

You cannot create a democracy out of a society that does not brook dissent, or a movement that calls for the murder of blasphemers and those who oppose it.

Because a revolution obviously is not dissent!

Such movements have come to power via elections in the past. There is no reason to allow them to do so in future.

The reason to allow them to do so is because democracy is a good in and of itself. Instead of oppressing these people, let them have a taste of freedom. We know it's irresistibly good, and over time leads to more and more tolerant societies. Yet you want to continue to oppress them and not give them a chance to ever get started down that path.

That's a key difference here: you characterise them as democratic movements.

They are obviously democratic movements. Democratic movements are when people decide to revolt (peacefully or not) and install a democratic form of government. Just because they might vote in someone you don't like doesn't make them not democratic.

Also the simple principle of self-defence dictates that a society must oppose foreign groups or movements that seek their destruction, as Islamists do vis-a-vis Western nation states.

Because heaven knows Egypt and Libya are such a huge threat to us ...

They are such a threat that obviously what we should do is support brutal dictators for the illiterate and leftist populations there. Like Saddam. What could go wrong with that? Or maybe we just subvert their democracy to overthrow it. Like we did in Iran. What could go wrong with that?

[molly bloom]

No, it's because they don't drive their countries into crippling poverty.

Like Pinochet's Chile ?

In recent years, the right-wing in Chile also distanced itself from the general, especially after accusations of financial mis-dealings began to emerge.

Political leaders such as Joaquin Lavin and Sebastian Pinera stressed they believed in parliamentary democracy as the way forward for their country, and were careful not to hark back to the Pinochet era.

The healing of the wounds of the past has been helped by the continued dynamic growth of the Chilean economy, which has allowed levels of poverty to be substantially decreased in the past 15 years.

Although General Pinochet's supporters claim this success is based on the efforts he made while president, members of the Concertacion and other analysts put it down to continued good management throughout the 1990s.

The healthy economic situation has often depended on the export of copper and the revenues this produces - and as President Bachelet recently pointed out, this is due to the fact that President Allende nationalised the industry early in the 1970s, before he was overthrown by Pinochet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6170117.stm