Why Islam So Viciously Hates the West

[jordan179]

(the following originated as a response to a post of polaris93 (http://polaris93.livejournal.com/1385947.html?view=832987#t832987) which was in return a response to one of my posts. How intellectually incestuous of me

Comments

[jordan179]

One should not criticize the "city on the hill" mentality of another culture/religion without also critically examining the prevalence of the same attitude in one's own native country.

(*examines it*)

Well, for one thing, I notice that we are far less intolerant of other cultures than are the Muslim, especially the Islamist Muslim, countries. We, for instance, protect the right of all people to believe and worship as they deem fit within our borders.

I also note that our own triumphalism is far more based on reality than is the Muslim triumphalism. America is the dominant world Power, and of the other Powers, they are disproportionately Christian. In fact the only Great Powers which are not Christian are China and India.

So, examining it, I see that we suffer far less from this sort of cognitive dissonance, and the hatred that it breeds, than do the Muslims.

Was that what you meant, that I should "examine it" and feel happy in our objective superiority? Or did you mean it in some other sense -- perhaps you expected me to find an equivalence there?

Do you find an equivalence there? If so, on what evidence do you base your theory?

[the_brad]

"We" as individual Americans are indeed a tolerant people, but that is not what I am talking about. It is the collective "we" as the country of the United States of America which is not tolerant. Particularly in the Latin American and Asian provinces, there have been numerous instances where we have violently destabilized soverign governments, resulting in much lost life, for selfish or corporate interests. Iran, 1953 comes immediately to mind.

There may be an element of truth to what you say. I am simply suggesting that they dislike our bombs more than our god. If the Muslim world weren't facing our bombs, their opinion on our god may be different.

[jordan179]

Particularly in the Latin American and Asian provinces, there have been numerous instances where we have violently destabilized soverign governments, resulting in much lost life for selfish or corporate interests. Iran, 1953 comes immediately to mind.

Our attitude toward Micheletti of Honduras, right now, being an obvious current example.

However, the same is true of all other Great Powers, including non-Western ones. Your reasoning would explain a resentment of Great Powers in general, not a resentment of the West in particular.

There may be an element of truth to what you say. I am simply suggesting that they dislike our bombs more than our god. If the Muslim world weren't facing our bombs, their opinion on our god may be different.

You are ignoring the historical evidence, both in general and in particular. In general, a stronger nation or civilization is less likely to be violently attacked, due to deterrence, a fact which has proven itself in every era. And in particular, the Muslim world was not more peaceful toward the West in eras when the West was weaker and Islam stronger -- quite the opposite.

Islam has never been anything but aggressive. What has changed in the last century is that its aggressions have become more vicious -- which is to say that the Muslims have become increasingly fanatical and willing to breach the understood conventions of war. This smacks of desperation, and of violated religious expectations arising from a cult which had been promised

Another thing which has changed in the last century, particularly the last six decades, has been that the West has become more peaceful. As recently as the 1910's, we saw nothing wrong with simply reaching out and grabbing Third World territories, with no more justification than that we considered ourselves superior. It is interesting that they have gotten more aggressive as we have gotten less aggressive: interesting, and wholly destructive of your theory that Third World aggressiveness is a response to Western aggressiveness.

It seems especially bizarre that you imagine that the Muslims are offended by aerial warfare ("bombs") and thus become more hostile toward us, especially since Muslim Powers have cheerfully used air attacks when avaialble. Did you perhaps mean something else by "bombs," such as "military might in general?" If so, then Muslim Powers have also cheerfully used military might when available, and indeed glorified it to an extent that the West has not done since World War II.

Again, I would commend you to the study of history before you produce historical theories.

[the_brad]

Your understanding of Islam is not only deeply flawed, but this thread has thoroughly convinced me that you're an outright racist who uses stereotypes to support a violent agenda against Muslims in general.

In general, a stronger nation or civilization is less likely to be violently attacked, due to deterrence, a fact which has proven itself in every era.

I would commend you to the study of history before you produce historical theories. In particular, I would suggest you study World War I and II, which directly contradict you. War isn't about strength, it's about resources and politics. Look how big we are. Compare that to any one of the rag-tag fundamentalist Islam movements. Our size and strength is no deterrence.

Another thing which has changed in the last century, particularly the last six decades, has been that the West has become more peaceful. As recently as the 1910's, we saw nothing wrong with simply reaching out and grabbing Third World territories, with no more justification than that we considered ourselves superior.

Your impression of the West is quaint and dangerous. This is the "city on the hill" mentality that leads to people being unable to see faults with the supposed perfection of their country. We're no less dangerous, our methods are merely more subtle.

The truth is, directly acquiring territories is messy and no longer necessary. Instead, we covertly destabilize them and then come in as the reconstructing angel of mercy, with our Western culture, democracy, and corporations. It's much more profitable -- if it works.

It seems especially bizarre that you imagine that the Muslims are offended by aerial warfare ("bombs") and thus become more hostile toward us, especially since Muslim Powers have cheerfully used air attacks when avaialble. Did you perhaps mean something else by "bombs," such as "military might in general?" If so, then Muslim Powers have also cheerfully used military might when available, and indeed glorified it to an extent that the West has not done since World War II.

Are you kidding? Muslims are not so much offended by the concept of a bomb as they are a bomb blowing up their home. If your home were blown up, would you be upset that it were from an aerial bomb as opposed to being crushed by a tank?

A Racist for Rejecting Islam?

[jordan179]

Your understanding of Islam is not only deeply flawed, but this thread has thoroughly convinced me that you're an outright racist who uses stereotypes to support a violent agenda against Muslims in general.

Against which "race" would my bigotry be directed? FYI, Muslims are adherents to a religion, not members of a "race." If you're going to accuse someone of something, at least use the right term!

Now, doing your editing job for you and thus taking your accusation to be one of "religious bigotry" rather than "racism," the question then becomes whether or not the prejudice is rational or irrational. While I do not hate all Muslims, I do believe that modern Islam, as a faith, is misogynistic, intolerant and violent, compared to modern Christianity, aa a faith. Why do you consider this belief irrational?

And if it's not irrational, then why would it be wrong?

Re: A Racist for Rejecting Islam?

[the_brad]

I received company as I was editing this final paragraph. Hopefully this is better:

"Your understanding of Islam is not only deeply flawed, but this thread has thoroughly convinced me that you're a racist who uses religious stereotypes to support a violent agenda against the Middle East."

There are countless examples of why Modern Christianity is anything but Christ-like. From the prosetylyzing Christians in Iraq, trying to convert the traumatized populace, to the intolerance of the mother church when it comes to gay rights, to the support of violence and war in the Middle East, to the treatment of the sex scandal victims back at home... and these are just modern examples. Looking farther back, we have our own "let's kill these people in the name of God." All the fuck over Europe and Asia. The Crusades, being the most notable.

I'm not saying criticism of Islam is wrong, but if you postulate some kind of holy war without taking into account the violence Christians have perpetrated throughout the years, then the argument is massively hypocritical.

Further, this thread is clearly pointless because you don't/can't/won't see this. I don't know if it's hyper-patriotism, seeing the world through rose-tinted lenses, or because you have so much invested in your faith as a Christian. But treating this like a holy war is stupid when you have, at the end of the day, average people on both sides who just want to come home from stable employment, to their families, and go to sleep in peace.

Re: A Racist for Rejecting Islam?

[jordan179]

Your understanding of Islam is not only deeply flawed, but this thread has thoroughly convinced me that you're a racist who uses religious stereotypes to support a violent agenda against the Middle East.

Again -- how is it "racist" to argue against Islam? To what particular "race" do you imagine Muslims to belong? Are you actually unaware of the fact that Islam is a religion, and a universal faith? It is practiced by people of almost all human races, and the ethnicity that originated the faith -- the Arabs -- happen to be white.

There are countless examples of why Modern Christianity is anything but Christ-like. From the prosetylyzing Christians in Iraq, trying to convert the traumatized populace, ...

You find it objectionable that Christians attempt voluntary conversion of Iraqis? On what grounds?

... to the intolerance of the mother church when it comes to gay rights, to the support of violence and war in the Middle East ...

Precisely what "violence and war" does Christianity support in the Middle East? Are you using the term "modern" Christianity to refer to the Medieval Church?

I don't know if it's hyper-patriotism, seeing the world through rose-tinted lenses, or because you have so much invested in your faith as a Christian.

Based on what statement of mine do you assume me to be a Christian? FYI, I'm an atheist.

But treating this like a holy war is stupid when you have, at the end of the day, average people on both sides who just want to come home from stable employment, to their families, and go to sleep in peace.

The Islamofascists are the ones "treating this like a holy war." I'm not interested in "holy wars" -- I'm interested in defending liberty against Muslim religious assault.

Re: A Racist for Rejecting Islam?

[the_brad]

Sorry, I sometimes confuse atheism for fundamentalist Christian. For example:

It is practiced by people of almost all human races, and the ethnicity that originated the faith -- the Arabs -- happen to be white.

You find it objectionable that Christians attempt voluntary conversion of Iraqis? On what grounds?

Such things that make me say "wow" out loud don't typically come from an atheist.

Precisely what "violence and war" does Christianity support in the Middle East?

Didn't you know? We're a Christian nation, and God hates Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. And Iran.

Are you using the term "modern" Christianity to refer to the Medieval Church?

"Looking farther back" and the brief mention of the Crusades establishes that a lack of Christ-like behavior is hardly a modern phenomenon, but in fact an ongoing trend. It's a side, considering I already answered your earlier question of rationality.

Re: A Racist for Rejecting Islam?

[jordan179]

Sorry, I sometimes confuse atheism for fundamentalist Christian. For example:

It is practiced by people of almost all human races, and the ethnicity that originated the faith -- the Arabs -- happen to be white.

You find it objectionable that Christians attempt voluntary conversion of Iraqis? On what grounds?

Such things that make me say "wow" out loud don't typically come from an atheist.

Why are either of those statements particularly "Christian" in nature? The first is a simple statement of fact: Islam is a universal faith practiced by people of many races, and was originated by the Arabs, who happen to be Caucasian. The second is that I find it morally unobjectionable for Christians to attempt to convert Iraqis.

Do you disagree with either statement? You appear to, but you are not giving any reasons for your disagreement. Why do you find it hard to believe that an atheist would believe either of them?

Precisely what "violence and war" does Christianity support in the Middle East?

Didn't you know? We're a Christian nation, and God hates Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. And Iran.

We're not a "Christian" nation, we're a religiously-neutral nation. First Amendment, US Constitution.

I have no idea why you think that Christians believe that "God hates Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. And Iran."

"Looking farther back" and the brief mention of the Crusades establishes that a lack of Christ-like behavior is hardly a modern phenomenon, but in fact an ongoing trend. It's a side, considering I already answered your earlier question of rationality.

My original point is that modern Christianity behaves far better than does modern Islam, which renders the Crusades not particularly relevant to the issue. For that matter, the Crusades were considerably less aggressive than was the original expansion of Islam, since the Crusades were a reconquest of formerly Christian lands rather than an attempt to expand Christianity into lands that had never known that faith. You'd be on firmer ground referring to the Spanish Conquest of Mexico and Peru, if you wanted to show Christianity being aggressive.

Deterrence Theory

[jordan179]

In general, a stronger nation or civilization is less likely to be violently attacked, due to deterrence, a fact which has proven itself in every era.

I would commend you to the study of history before you produce historical theories. In particular, I would suggest you study World War I and II, which directly contradict you.

No, they don't at all. In fact, you see correlation-of-forces reasoning and deterrence (both successful and unsuccessful) in some of its purest forms in the origins of both wars.

War isn't about strength, it's about resources and politics.

Ah, now I see your confusion.

Deterrence does not proceed from strength alone, but from the multiplication of strength times the factor of the perceived likelihood of its use in the case against which one is attempting to deter.

Also, your claim that war isn't about "strength" is simply absurd. "Resources," in a military sense, is from what strength springs. "Politics" are the reasons why one choose to go or not to go to war. Unless one's polity is utterly insane, this will include a calculation of the correlation of forces involved -- in other words a comparison of one's own strength against the strength of one's intended victim.

Look how big we are. Compare that to any one of the rag-tag fundamentalist Islam movements. Our size and strength is no deterrence.

This is because the Islamic faith induces its practicioners to vastly over-rate their own strength, because they believe that God Himself will intervene to give them the victory or at least reward them after death should they fail. However, the flip side of this is that fanatical Muslims tend to be militarily incompetent, because they are always overrating their own chances.

Deterrence is based on rationality in war-fighting, and the only way to avoid the effects of deterrence is to abandon rationality in one's war-fighting. That, however, brings its own penalty, as rejecting reality is rarely a good plan!

Super-Exploitation Through Commerce?

[jordan179]

The truth is, directly acquiring territories is messy and no longer necessary. Instead, we covertly destabilize them and then come in as the reconstructing angel of mercy, with our Western culture, democracy, and corporations. It's much more profitable -- if it works.

An amusing theory -- this way you get to blame all the ineptitude of the Third World on the West. Has it never entered your head that perhaps they are destablizing THEMSELVES, through unwise policies?

There's an easy way to test this against reality. By your theory, those parts of the Third World which have the least to do with the West, in terms of commercial and diplomatic contacts, should be the most fortunate and richest parts, becuase they will have avoided the "destablization." And those parts which have the most to do with the West in such terms should be the saddest and poorest parts, because they will have been destablized and exploited by us.

Yet when you look at the actual world, you see pretty much the opposite. The East Asian Tigers, which were "Third World" when I was a lad and which "suffered" the most Western contacts, are the richest parts of the Third World today -- in fact they have achieved First World economic status. They are followed by Latin America and then by Sub-Saharan Africa, with those countries most contacted by the West being rich and democratic, and those least contacted by the West being poor tyrannies.

Reality rejects your theory (which was originally Lenin's), and with contempt.

Re: Super-Exploitation Through Commerce?

[the_brad]

Enjoy attacking that strawman. Nowhere did I blame "all their ineptitude."

Re: Super-Exploitation Through Commerce?

[jordan179]

The vast majority of the problems of the Third World are self-created. It has now been four decades since the typical African Third World country won its independence from the Europeans -- and almost two hundred years where Latin America is concerned. Past a certain point, nations must accept responsibility for their own fates -- blaming the Great Powers on what's wrong in the Third World is a useful dodge for Third World politicians, but it stands in the way of real progress.

Re: Super-Exploitation Through Commerce?

[jordan179]

... and I notice you failed to say anything about my main point, which is that there is an existence disproof of the theory of capitalist super-exploitation, in that it is the c. 1950's Third World countries which have been the most "super-exploited" (the Asian Tigers) who are doing the best, and the ones which have been the least "super-exploited" (Burma, North Korea) who are doing the worst.

Re: Super-Exploitation Through Commerce?

[the_brad]

Nor will I respond to your strawman of this strategy being universally applied to all countries.

Re: Super-Exploitation Through Commerce?

[jordan179]

So you believe that a different strategy was applied by the West to East Asia than to Africa, and that it was the difference in this strategy rather than differences in the behavior of the locals that explain the fact that East Asia is today rich, and Africa poor?