Moderate Islamists work with Al Qaeda

[Robert]

Why are people saying that muslim bashing/criticism = racism?
muslim != race.
Racism is a bad thing, like sexism, not in the last place because someone is disregarded b/c of what he is, not b/c of what he does/think/says/etc.

Being a muslim is an opinion, following a religion, having a vision/idea on life/earth/society, etc.
I think it's absolutely valid to have an opinion on someone's opinion, to criticism / dismiss such a religion/opinion/etc.
In fact saying that muslim bashing = racism equals saying that Ben bashing equals racism.

Now you can disagree with someone's opinion about the Islam. But calling it racism, it doesn't make any sense.

[DaShi]

So I can bash the Chinese because Chinese isn't a race?

[kentonio]

Now you can disagree with someone's opinion about the Islam. But calling it racism, it doesn't make any sense.

When someone brands a group of a billion plus people under a negative set of stereotypes then there is no practical difference between that and racism. You can argue semantics about muslims not being a race, but it doesn't make the hate some pour out towards that group any different. It's also more than a little optimistic to assume that the small fact of most muslims not being white doesn't influence much anti-muslim rhetoric.

[Robert]

Criticism/bashing based on what people do/say/think is never racism.
criticism/bashing based on who people are, that may be racism, we can take that in a broad context, that's fine with me. So calling all chinese names can be racism. Saying that muslims are silly b/c of their believes is not racism.

It's also more than a little optimistic to assume that the small fact of most muslims not being white doesn't influence much anti-muslim rhetoric.

Of course Islam-criticism may be racism in a sheepcoat.

But my criticism on Islam is solely based on what the religion stands for and especially it's position on the post modern democratic society. I consider all people equal, no matter who or what they are. And I think that everybody has the right to believe/follow what they want. But I do consider some opinions/religions better then others. That has nothing to do with racism and it's growing very old to always get the godwin in your face when you voice some very well thought through criticism on Islam.

[molly bloom]

Morsi is the head of state. The Egyptian state is currently engaged in a proxy war with the United States.

So who is paying whom to fight the United States ?

This hardly seems a 'proxy war' in the way that the civil conflict in Angola became a proxy war between Cuba & the M.P.L.A. and the F.N.L.A. & U.N.I.T.A. backed by South Africa, the United States, Zaire, et cetera. Or Ethiopia & Cuba/U.S.S.R. versus Somalia & the U.S. ....

[molly bloom]

So I can bash the Chinese because Chinese isn't a race?

No you can't, because you don't have enough arms or hammers to bash all the Chinese. Besides, the short ones will bite your ankles and stop you.
Cue John Wayne impersonating Genghis Khan, Robert Morley as the Chinese Emperor, and Shirley Maclaine as an epicanthically enhanced nutjob.

Ying tong tiddle I po....

[Zevico]

So who is paying whom to fight the United States ?

This hardly seems a 'proxy war' in the way that the civil conflict in Angola became a proxy war between Cuba & the M.P.L.A. and the F.N.L.A. & U.N.I.T.A. backed by South Africa, the United States, Zaire, et cetera. Or Ethiopia & Cuba/U.S.S.R. versus Somalia & the U.S. ....

Morsi's movement is certainly willing to attack American interests and US; but it lacks the material power to do so directly, i.e. via direct war. In this context, their strategy is as follows--

1. Whip up anti-Western hysteria to achieve popular support. For example, denying that 9/11 was done by Al q. and blaming the United States for it; or describing the Sudanese genocide as American-Zionist propaganda. The point being that he is marking the United States (and the West more broadly) as an ideological enemy.
2. Offer moral and sometimes covert material support to terrorist organisations that kill Westerners. The killing of Bin Laden is a war crime; the war in Afghanistan, a war crime; the conspirators involved in the first WTC attacks should be released. The killing of American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan is laudable. In Tunisia, as just mentioned, talks with Salafists and Al Qaeda centre on offering it tips on how to march through secular institutions and obtain popularity. In Gaza, the MB proclaims its open willingness to cooperate with Al Qaeda (and indeed Al Qaeda operates in Gaza). In Iran this extends even to permitting Al Qaeda to openly organise and meet in its territories.
3. This also usefully diverts excessively violent Islamists into foreign terrorists and not domestic terrorists. The classic case is Saudi Arabia, which in the 80's encouraged fighters to fight in Afghanistan and elsewhere because, after all, it would be more convenient, less bloody, and procure more stability than purging them all outright in a some mass show trial and display of summary executions following their latest act of insurrection. Non-Islamist nationalist movements, ironically, have also seen Islamist movements as an outlet of this kind: thus leading to the increasing popularity of the Islamists (the 'real' fighters) and the weakening and downfall of the nationalists. It will be morbidly interesting to see whether the modern day Islamists encounter these same problems with their Salafist counterparts some few decades into the future. So far the results have been less than spectacular: a botched Salafist coup in Gaza led to about twenty men being summarily shot for their troubles. They acted too soon.

It is point [2] that constitutes the proxy war. Note that their immediate aim is to whip up popular support for Islamist movements by attacking American targets. This is seen as a means of obtaining power, as well as a means of intimidation. Obviously they don't intend to, say, fund an entire foreign army and thereby procure a formal state of war between two nation states. But they do and have offered strategic, moral and sometimes material support to rival Islamist organisations whose aim is to kill Westerners.

(Ennahda, Hamas and the Egyptian MB are strictly different political movements in different nations, however their ideological grounding is in the same set of foundational Islamist intellectuals who originated in Egypt like Al-Banna and, in Tunisia's case, partly also in Iran's Ayatollahs).

[kentonio]

Funny, I don't think of Egypt when I think about who's trying to 'whip up public hysteria'.

[dannubis]

Zev, next time take the blue pill. You obviously can't handle the truth.

[Uncle Sparky]

Funny, I don't think of Egypt when I think about who's trying to 'whip up public hysteria'.

Isn't it obvious? They were behind 9/11. Send in the troops!

[regexcellent]

oh hai spambot

may I suggest some threads for you to necro

[Zevico]

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

Very few. Mind you, there are Christians in the Democratic party too.

You're confusing authoritarian-libertarian with left-right in several instances here

Well, no. The far left posits a concentration of power in an intellectual elite that has total control over society. Leninism, after all, is a dictatorship of the proletariat by the vanguard of the proletariat. The vanguard are simply those intellectuals who know better, and are better, than everyone else, and hence are entitled to rule. This is as much of a summary of Leninism I'll be bothered to give on an internet forum. As to social democrats, the difference is one of degree. Usually they're not willing to those who disagree with them.

Essentially you seem to think "bad" = leftist and "good" = rightist, without any sort of consistency in any other regard.

Not at all. There have been many good men who were (or are) leftists. I think the concentration of political power in an intellectual class that believes that it's role is to govern society is a danger. Clearly there are those who think that to a large degree societal problems can be solved if everyone were forced to act in the right way. That doesn't make them bad people in their personal lives. It just makes them very, very foolish.

[Zevico]

Only Al Qaeda ?

Surely other terrorist groups are 'evil' too. Unless of course, they're brave morally upright 'freedom fighters' like the Contras, Renamo and Unita. Or stalwart allies in the war against Communism and upholders of the rights of individuals- like Mobutu, Papa Doc Duvalier, Ceaucescu, Rafael Trujillo...

Let me break this down for you. We don't live in the best of all worlds. I say nothing about the particular cases you mention here, but I do say this: sometimes we must work with terrible men to oppose greater evils. For a purist, an alliance with Stalin against Hitler was perhaps evil just as for other purists, the mere act of picking up a gun to defend oneself is evil. Well, what can I say? Purists are dangerous people in the political sense.

[Aeson]

Very few. Mind you, there are Christians in the Democratic party too.

Any Christian who wanted theocratic rule would not be "Leftist" unless they took their faith to an extreme economically (socialism). Even then they'd be economically Left and socially Right.

Well, no. The far left posits a concentration of power in an intellectual elite that has total control over society. Leninism, after all, is a dictatorship of the proletariat by the vanguard of the proletariat. The vanguard are simply those intellectuals who know better, and are better, than everyone else, and hence are entitled to rule. This is as much of a summary of Leninism I'll be bothered to give on an internet forum.

You are trying to pretend that only Leftist ideologies can support an elite ruling class so that you can claim that Islamists are Leftist because they support an elite ruling class and thus Muslim nations should have dictators instead of democracies because it's better to have a dictator than a Leftist elite ruling class. (Ignoring that a dictator is the most extreme form of an elite ruling class possible, and thus must be Leftist in your moronic misuse of logic and/or the English language.)

Your argument is patently absurd even before the part where you start conflating theocracies with communism.

As to social democrats, the difference is one of degree.

The difference between you and Hitler is one of degree. Presumably you aren't willing to ethnically cleanse your opponents (though I'm not sure on that, you do seem to be rather rabid). You'd just stick with oppressing hundreds of millions of people because of your paranoia about the extremists of their religion.

Usually they're not willing to those who disagree with them.

Willing to what? Install dictators over [those]?

Clearly there are those who think that to a large degree societal problems can be solved if everyone were forced to act in the right way.

It is not a Left/Right trait. Both can display that tendency (and it's opposite) throughout the full spectrum. That is why whether you subscribe to forcing people to do it your way (to what degree) places you on the Authoritarian/Libertarian scale, not the Left/Right scale.

[Az]

When someone brands a group of a billion plus people under a negative set of stereotypes then there is no practical difference between that and racism. You can argue semantics about muslims not being a race, but it doesn't make the hate some pour out towards that group any different. It's also more than a little optimistic to assume that the small fact of most muslims not being white doesn't influence much anti-muslim rhetoric.

Precise because they are more than a billion people which often have nothing in common - different ethnicities, languages, etc. it is completely ok to criticize them for the things they do have in common. The fact that they are "not white" is made even more irrelevant by that fact.