leftist support for anti us terroists [Archive]

Wanted Man

17th August 2007, 10:34

Well, if we're going to use barely readable strawmen and simplifications, two can play that game. So, spartan:

why do a few so called socialists support some imperialist governments and their actions. i mean look at the beliefs some of these governments fight for male superiority over females,anti choice,anti homosexuality,the belief in one supreme god and one supreme leader(the same as the nazis),etc,etc. i am a socialist and cannot understand why fellow leftists would support this.

and please dont give the excuse that they are fighting islamic terrorism.if you understood true socialism you would know that insurgent victory over capitalist reactionaries is actually a good thing for every small defeat for capitalism is a big victory for socialism for it brings the necessary conditions for a socialist revolution even closer

Gee, a black-and-white view of world politics, largely based on dogmatism, leads to wrong conclusions? Why, I'm positively shocked!

I'm honestly surprised that some people in this thread are even taking this guy seriously. At least he posted in the right forum.

Herman

17th August 2007, 10:57

and please dont give the excuse that they are fighting islamic terrorism.if you understood true socialism you would know that insurgent victory over capitalist reactionaries is actually a good thing for every small defeat for capitalism is a big victory for socialism for it brings the necessary conditions for a socialist revolution even closer

Hmmm...

Alright.

Say a bunch of leftists support a radical islamist party.

Those leftists would do it most likely because they believe that those islamists are fighting US imperialism. They probably belief that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

However, as you have mentioned, they are wrong in supporting these people. A true socialist would never stoop to the level of reactionary religious zealots.

spartan

17th August 2007, 12:41

thank you redherman.if capitalists are fighting quasi feudalists i think it is in a socialists best intrest if the capitalists win. remember feudalism-capitalism-communism not feudalism-capitalism-feudalism

Hiero

17th August 2007, 13:48

Because fuck Amerikkka, that's why.

Go learn what imperialism is. Imperialism is the reason why fundementalist exist. They fought so hard against the secular socialist movement in the Middle east during the cold war, they funded groups like the Mujahideen and Hamas to destablise anti-imperialist, socialist and secular groups. So you know the story, chickens come home to roast, you reap what you sow, etc. So for now I am quite happy to sit back and laugh at feather weights getting their arses blown up in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Lebanon.

spartan

17th August 2007, 14:01

yes but surely iraq and afghanistan becoming feudal/theocratic states is bad for socialism. i mean the quicker more countries are capitalist the quicker the socialist revolution.

spartan

17th August 2007, 14:08

and remember ideally a socialist revlution should occur in an advanced capitalist society not a feudalist/theocratic one or so marx said. so supporting these terrorists is in my view damaging to socialism.

Hiero

17th August 2007, 14:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 12:01 am
yes but surely iraq and afghanistan becoming feudal/theocratic states is bad for socialism. i mean the quicker more countries are capitalist the quicker the socialist revolution.
There has been 100 years of imperialism to prove you wrong. If it was going to happen, it would have already happened.

Also Aghanistan is already a feudal nation. They had a socialist revolution in 1978, they tried to destroy feudalism through socialist constrution, then your hero capitalists imperialists came along and shut down that project nice and quick.

Imperialist need poor and broken nations, and the best for that are Black, Arab, Asian, Muslim, any group of people 1st worlders don't give a shit about. They need this defenceless majority to be broken and poor so it is easier to expliot them. The aim of the imperialist contradict the needs of the worlds poorest majority.

and remember ideally a socialist revlution should occur in an advanced capitalist society not a feudalist/theocratic one or so marx said. so supporting these terrorists is in my view damaging to socialism.

How long has Marx been dead? Oppose book worship!

spartan

17th August 2007, 14:19

yes but look at the history of feudal states becoming communist it never works! just look at the ussr it started out good enough until comrade stalin became fuhrer. so in my opinion all backward feudal states should be capitalist then we can get on with the revolution. i mean surely the revolution would have a much better chance in an all capitalist world just as marx envisioned.

Hiero

17th August 2007, 14:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 12:19 am
yes but look at the history of feudal states becoming communist it never works! just look at the ussr it started out good enough until comrade stalin became fuhrer. so in my opinion all backward feudal states should be capitalist then we can get on with the revolution.
Regardless of the errors of simplifying class war and socialst/capitalist war, you still fail to bring forward a coherent arguement.

If we want to build capitalism in the 3rd world nations, then you have to support the nationalist bourgeois. Nationalist capitalist would create markets for local consumption rather then world consumption. So no more cotton fields for Amerikkka while India starves. That however creates a whole lot of other problems. Communist should only ally temporarily with progressive petty-bourgeois, nationalist bourgeois, and nationalist leaders like Chavez, Mossadegh, Mugabe while they fight the imperialist and promote nationalisation and welfare. At some point class war must become the next priority and socialist revolution must begin.

You should look over your arguement and try to see how class war fits in with national wars, and how religion (the opium of the masses) fits in with the oppressed nation. You're taking a real basic and dogmatic approach that society is bound to fuedal-capitalist-socialist-communist. Imperialist puts another dimension to that notion. You can never really be a succesfull capitalist nation under occuption or occupation through comprador (bourgeois colloborating with imperialism, Phillipines, Pakistan, Colombia etc). Then you can never really be a succesfull capitalist nation like USA, Australia, UK without imperialism, which you need have developed banks and finance capital to certian point where they own and influence industries.

spartan

17th August 2007, 14:44

nationalism and religion is the creation of the bourgeoisie aimed at splitting and dividing humans into members of different nations,religions and races etc. so any supporter of nationalism and religion is the enemy of the proletariat.the fact is we dont need nationalists or religious extremists as are allies

RaÃºl Duke

17th August 2007, 15:43

i think it is in a socialists best intrest if the capitalists win. remember feudalism-capitalism-communism not feudalism-capitalism-feudalism

Actually no, it's usually best for the anti-imperialists to win.

See, if the imperialists win they'll just put their own fundamentalists to power and turn the place into some kind of economic neo-colony.

In the Afghan-Soviet War...the US supported the fundamentalists. The fundamentalists were against the secular government there and also the US had no support for women's rights since they allowed RAWA to be defeated and (probably) spoke nothing about RAWA's spokeswomen's death.

All that imperialism is looking for is economic neo-colonies; they don't care about rights, secularism, etc.

In the past, Marx thought that imperialism from the advance capitalist countries might be "modernizing", basing this on certain things happening in India; but now we know better (and I think Marx got rid of that idea too at some point, if not; than, he was probably wrong.)

If the fundamentalists win, true, there will be lots of reactionary crap but It'll allow the country to freely progress to a normal modern capitalism. Than capitalism will act by itself as an acid against all that reactionary crap. In Iran, students and women are protesting against many Islamic laws and the treatement from the religious police.

Another more "self-centered" reason why we (1st world leftists) want imperialism to lose is that it damages its credibility and leads to people (in the imperialist nation[s] that lost) to begin to question the "mission" and might lead to more receptiveness to revolutionary ideas.

spartan

17th August 2007, 15:50

yes but the us only supported groups like the mujaheeden so afghanistan would become even weaker after the soviets left. the us knew that whilst these groups were united against the soviets when the soviets were gone well civil war time then us invasion time. the fact is bringing capitalism to these countries is good for the more capitalist states the easier and quicker socialists can unite for the revolution.

Idola Mentis

17th August 2007, 16:01

Frankly, even if it accurately described a reality, I can't see the necessity of a feudal-capitalist-socialist progression. Granted, economic growth to a minimum level needed to support the populace is a prerequisite of socialism. But what proof is there that economic growth can only take place under capitalism?

Capitalism itself is a form of feudalism detached from the ownership of land. Is there a reason socialist communities can't use the effective methods which is currently the privilege of capitalists to achieve economic growth, while keeping the accumulation and investment of capital under control of the people?

RaÃºl Duke

17th August 2007, 16:04

the fact is bringing capitalism to these countries is good for the more capitalist states the easier and quicker socialists can unite for the revolution.

Yes, the more unoppressed capitalist states the better...

But US imperialism never lets countries be free capitalist states...they will be under that yoke and usually will not be that well developed to be one of the "advanced capitalist states" as long as they're under it.

Also, these fundamentalists are not bringing back the material conditions of feudalism (actually that could be impossible)...they're only trying to peddle their reactionary beliefs (religion/Islam in this case) and increase those belief's strength in everyday life.

Iran, arguably/roughly, could be said to be a product of one of these reactionary fundamentalist revolutions. Is Iran right now going backwards to feudalism? Capitalism there is developing and with that development comes that "acid" which will chip away at those reactionary ideas. It still has a long way to go...but the student protest in Iran might be a sign to it's direction.

Another interesting thing: When the imperialists come in strong, the fundamentalists seem to grow. When Saddam was in power it seemed there wasn't that many fundamentalist groups in Iraq (I might be wrong) yet when the US came in they spread like wildfire all over Iraq.

spartan

17th August 2007, 16:09

yes but until capitalism unifies both the first and third worlds only then will the global material conditions be favourable to a socialist revolution. for the fact is if we had a revolution now in a first world state it would most probably fail because of hostile neighbours and the fact that half the world(third world) is completly unequal to the proletariat in the first world state that had the revolution. so until capitalism unifies the world a socialist revolution is unfortunately doomed. just look at all past states claiming to be communist where and what are they doing now. capitalism thats what.

spartan

17th August 2007, 16:12

yes johnnydarko but capitalism isnt about freedom the more oppressive they get the better. more oppression equals more discontent. the proletariat can only take so much. we should not oppose capitalist imperialism for they are fighting possibly our future reactionary enemies. i say let the capitalists fight and defeat these reactionaries for it is one less enemy for us when the revolution comes and it wears down capitalism even if they win.let the capitalists fight now we can fight later when the conditions are much more favourable then they are now. so far the capitalists are not concentrating on us because of terroism,oil and all these religious extremists.

RaÃºl Duke

17th August 2007, 16:30

i say let the capitalists fight and defeat these reactionaries for it is one less enemy for us when the revolution comes and it wears down capitalism even if they win.

:mellow:

I suppose everyone has their own views on this matter.....

But here are some things I would like to say.

Arguably/Roughly, it could be said that imperialism is part of capitalism. The problem with it is that it's rarely (they're might have been exceptions...who knows?) much of a progressive force. Imperialism is, I suppose, based on a core (advanced capitalist countries that take part in imperialism) which subjugates economically the periphary (countries which aren't advance capitalist societies).

If this imperialism continues in a periphary country, there will be little chance for it to develop into an advance capitalist country. Only when they have repelled this imperialism they might have a better chance in becoming an advanced capitalist country. Truly I like the idea of these reactionary fundamentalists to be defeated...but if by imperialism it could lead to (IMO) unworthy results (and it could slow down the progress to capitalism for these nations).

our future reactionary enemies

I think we still might have to fight such enemies, there's quite a few in the US ("Christian Fascism").

it wears down capitalism even if they win.

??? :huh:
I don't think a victory for imperialism wears it down much...it might actually help slow down capitalism's decay....

Well...I suppose everyone has their own idea...but I surely would like to know exactly how could a victory for imperialism help in capitalism's demise?

spartan

17th August 2007, 16:35

a socialist must realise that stopping capitalism from advancing to its ultimate stage is bad for socialism for the necessary conditions for revolution will never come and we will be stuck.

spartan

17th August 2007, 16:40

i would rather fight religious extremists in a capitalist first world society than a feudalist third world society. just imagine trying to propel a third world society to communism it is unfair on all involvedfor none of the sides will make any side equal. best let capitalism runs its course putting us all (first and third world) in the same situation. the revolution will be alot easier.

BreadBros

18th August 2007, 01:17

There are major logical flaws in your argument, spartan. You say "best let capitalism run its course". For nearly every independent capitalist country the course of evolution has included some sort of assertion of independence on the part of the national bourgeoisie. So to say "let capitalism develop" and "support imperialism" is conflicting. I think you are simplifying the economic development of societies far too much. You are also presenting opposing sides of arguments that are false. For example: imperialist powers are often the main supporting force for the continuation of feudal conditions. Historically land reform has been the consequence of nearly every anti-imperialist victory.

The rest of your argument is wholly unrealistic. For example, you argue that harsh conditions exacerbate class struggle. That might be true, but harsh conditions (particularly imperialism) also destroy many of the possibilities for revolution. For example, imperialist domination greatly exacerbated class struggle in Palestine...but it also led to the dismantling of the PLO and other resistance organizations. And under your rubric of supporting imperialist intervention we would be opposing the PLO and all other anti-imperialism and awaiting the implementation of capitalism in Palestine .... in other words we would be nowhere, albeit the United States would be stronger and the Palestinians would be even more subjugated. All awaiting some magical moment where the perfect form of class consciousness would shine through and battle the insane odds to win.

Fighting imperialism benefits everyone. In a practical way it prevents the wholesale destruction and looting of the exploited country. In a political way the establishment of a national bourgeoisie can be progressive and propel class struggle forward. In the imperialist countries, the domination and hegemony of the state and corporations are weakened, giving us better odds.

spartan

18th August 2007, 14:11

the palestinians! since when have the palestinians been the beacon of socialism in the middle east. the fact is the majority of palestinians fighting israeli aggression are doing it because they are nationalists who believe that israeli land is rightly theirs or religious extremists. remember nationalists and religious extremists are reactionaries. they are not our allies they prevent capitalism from reaching its ultimate stage which would then lead to a socialiust revolution

Severian

19th August 2007, 00:29

Spartan, do you have anything to say besides just repeating yourself? Rather than just repeating your assertions, why not try to actually respond to people's arguments against them?

spartan

19th August 2007, 01:54

sorry i can get quite repetative. the fact is revolution will not occur and even if it did occur would not succeed for the time is not right. we dont have the support of the majority of planet earths people and the majority of mainstream left wingers are just a sad bunch of students who think its fun to wear che t-shirts and call for equality. but in a couple of years time the majority of these people will have their own buissness' whilst begging daddy for more money from his/her allowance. we must distance ourselves from such reactionary scum who are currently hijacking the movement.

Saint Street Revolution

19th August 2007, 02:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:35 pm
a socialist must realise that stopping capitalism from advancing to its ultimate stage is bad for socialism for the necessary conditions for revolution will never come and we will be stuck.
So strengthening Capitalism is the solution?

edit: Or just waiting?

spartan

19th August 2007, 02:23

wait to a degree. i dont think we can create the necessary conditions ourselves. but in the meantime we must prepare ourselves and future generations for the coming struggle.

Saint Street Revolution

19th August 2007, 02:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 01:23 am
wait to a degree. i dont think we can create the necessary conditions ourselves. but in the meantime we must prepare ourselves and future generations for the coming struggle.
I guess that's what a Socialist believes. I believe in Direct Action, bring Capitalism right the fuck down. I dunno.

Hiero

19th August 2007, 12:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:23 pm
wait to a degree. i dont think we can create the necessary conditions ourselves. but in the meantime we must prepare ourselves and future generations for the coming struggle.
OK, you go ring the Cubans and till them disband the socialist state. You might want to ring the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), Communist Party of Philipines, FARC, PFLP, Communist Party of India Maoist, and any other Communist party that is fighting the bourgeois state and the imperialist and tell them that they should disband and wait around because they done everything wrong in trying to improve the lives of working masses.

spartan

19th August 2007, 12:53

if these parties are so communist they wouldnt be concentrating on their own states. what is this socialism in one country? why dont they all link up. geographically nepal and indias communists could do this. cuba oh yeah cause their so communist right. let me put it this way one man on top deciding whats best for his people yeah right thats not dictatorship of the proletariat thats just a plain old dictatorship with state socialism.

Hiero

19th August 2007, 13:09

This parties do have links with each other. Cuba for years has been supporting revolutions all over the world.

You should really get off this forum and go read some history from leftist authors, or maybe actually trying to participate in a Communist Party.

spartan

19th August 2007, 13:52

the history of communism so far has just been lots of lost opportunities. look at all the states which continue to call themselves communist they simply arent. for the fact is how can a state call itself communist when theoretically in a communist world there is no states or governments. what these countries should be saying is our desire is to one day become communist. for instance many people think that the only reason china has become capitalist is so in the future they can get to the right kind of communism they want. though i dont believe this it would make sense though as so called communist china was born just after the end of feudal/warlord china and we all know that communism just after feudalism becomes severley retarded. the same is true for nepal they are an absoulute monarchy which is more feudalist then capitalist. what the communists are doing there to help the people is good but when you look at the bigger picture what good is it going to do us? nepal is just another backward feudalist country we shouldnt waste our time on. it gets on my nerves when people get so passionate because of a revolution or armed struggle in a country that has or never will affect the bigger picture. i mean the majority of workers our future supporters probably couldnt point out nepal on a map.

Saint Street Revolution

19th August 2007, 20:06

Okay, okay, what are these conditions you wish to wait for? Instead of waiting, why not weaken Capitalism (I guess, not completely destroying it) and speed the process? If you wait, Capitalism will only become Imperialism, where Socialist Revolution will be further away.

Severian

20th August 2007, 10:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 06:52 am
what these countries should be saying is our desire is to one day become communist.
In fact, that's what they do say. Communist is the name of the party in Cuba, not the name of the government.

Of course communism is only possible on a world scale. Cuban communists have consistently done everything possible to aid revolutions elsewhere and make that possible.

In contrast, you tell people to...wait. And support imperialism. I'm here to tell ya, anyone who spends many years of waiting and supporting imperialism, is going to be just the same as any other supporter of imperialism, and is not going to be good for anything else. Just another bought-and-paid for Christopher Hitchens type.

In contrast, someone who joins strikes, protests, whatever struggles by working people are going on today, is in fact preparing for bigger struggles tomorrow. Gaining useful experience, strengthening the working-class movement, and building support for communism.

spartan

20th August 2007, 13:44

just because we will be waiting dosent mean we cant prepare ourselves for the coming struggle. or help elevate ourselves via strikes,protests,etc whilst we prepare.

hajduk

20th August 2007, 14:31

Spartan this connection beetwen socialists and religion radicals is just busines and nothing else

read this books

ZBIGNJEV BZEZINSKI: THE GREAT CHESS BOARD
SAMUEL P. HANTINGTON: THE CLASH OF CIVILISATIONS

but those boocks you must read beetwen the lines

Dean

21st August 2007, 16:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 01:47 am
and please dont give the excuse that they are fighting us capitalist imperialism.if you understood true socialism you would know that us and capitalist victory over feudal reactionaries is actually a good thing for every small victory for capitalism is a big victory for socialism for it brings the necessary conditions for a socialist revolution even closer
Oh, right! Let's all start working to defend to World Bank, WTO, etc. since capitalism is our friend now!

I'm sorry, but people like YOU are the enemy: you'd rather support capital than local struggles against external oppressors. I hope you live in the U.S., because your mentality is best suited for such a state.

Why hasen't this guy been restricted yet?

Saint Street Revolution

21st August 2007, 16:43

Originally posted by Dean+August 21, 2007 03:38 pm--> (Dean @ August 21, 2007 03:38 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 01:47 am
and please dont give the excuse that they are fighting us capitalist imperialism.if you understood true socialism you would know that us and capitalist victory over feudal reactionaries is actually a good thing for every small victory for capitalism is a big victory for socialism for it brings the necessary conditions for a socialist revolution even closer
Oh, right! Let's all start working to defend to World Bank, WTO, etc. since capitalism is our friend now!

I'm sorry, but people like YOU are the enemy: you'd rather support capital than local struggles against external oppressors. I hope you live in the U.S., because your mentality is best suited for such a state.

Why hasen't this guy been restricted yet? [/b]
I agree. Countless times he has pointed out that we should support Capitalism because "then" a Socialist revolution will come, despite his denial of this. I believe I said something along the lines of "Capitalism will only become Imperialism, it won't weaken to the conditions you speak of" because he said we should just kick back and wait for a little bit to do anything. He has yet to answer.

spartan

21st August 2007, 18:18

no no no no no! you shouldnt support capitalism for gods sake! if anything ive changed my position on this arguement hence me not bothering on this specific topic for ages. i think i understand your position now i just dont agree with some leftists support of groups like hamas and hezbollah etc to help bring capitalism down. for surely these groups arent pro socialist? dont they see us as part of the problem? western culture and all in other words un-islamic.

Faux Real

21st August 2007, 19:44

i think i understand your position now i just dont agree with some leftists support of groups like hamas and hezbollah etc to help bring capitalism down. for surely these groups arent pro socialist?
I support Hamas, while they certainly have Islamist tendencies, due to their decree of advocating popular support and participation for what the Palestinian people's government and societal structure would look like. Hamas has rejected and condemned terrorism and suicide bombings against civilians. Hiz'bullah is another matter completely, and don't know enough about them to take either stance.

dont they see us as part of the problem?
Aren't the western imperialists the major problem? Remember partitioning of the Ottoman Empire under colonial Mandate? The dissolution of Arab unity? :rolleyes:

western culture and all in other words un-islamic.
Your notion of all terrorists are Muslims or Arabs befuddles me.

You really want every country to look like the United States or the UK don't you. Should we not let people preserve their old cultures or let them chose to either accept and integrate western culture at their own will? Surely you would. Unless you'd like a sort of, oh I don't know...European colonization of the Americas/Africa and Native American/African subordination under European rule. It sounds that way to me.

spartan

21st August 2007, 19:54

when the hell did i say all terrorists are arabic/muslims? and would you let them chose their own culture if it was rabidly anti communist? which most of them are as well as being anti capitalist. i dont know about you but if i had someone from hezbollah so called helping me against imperialists well i would constantly be looking behind myself waiting for a stab in the back. hamas,hezbollah there all the same and they would be just as bad if not worse then america if given the chance and power to do so. communism is about the collective not the individual. im not pro capitalist or pro imperialist i was just looking at other ways of getting to the revolution instead of teaming up with a bunch of religious nutjobs.

Faux Real

21st August 2007, 20:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 11:54 am
when the hell did i say all terrorists are arabic/muslims?
When you have only specified the two mainstream "terrorist" political organizations in Lebanon and Palestine and their opposition to Westernization.

and would you let them chose their own culture if it was rabidly anti communist?
You could show them communism through deed rather than lecturing them on their errors.

i dont know about you but if i had someone from hezbollah so called helping me against imperialists well i would constantly be looking behind myself waiting for a stab in the back.
I understand why, and that's fine.

hamas,hezbollah there all the same and there would be just as bad if not worse then america if given the chance and power to do so.
Prove it?

communism is about the collective not the individual.
I would hardly call Hamas an individual-oriented political entity. You are correct though.

Dean

22nd August 2007, 23:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:54 pm
hamas,hezbollah there all the same
there are MAJOR differences between the various militant islamic groups. Saying that they're "all the same" gives further evidence for your apparent islamophobia.

spartan

22nd August 2007, 23:42

islamaphobia? so you support these reactionary groups? jesus christ dean no wonder your restricted and you have the cheek to call for my restriction. what i mean by all the same is that we could never count on them as are allies because we would always be waiting for a stab in the back. just because they are anti us/capitalist imperialists that dosent make them socialists. stop being a pc leftist dean its a real turn off.

Saint Street Revolution

23rd August 2007, 01:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 10:42 pm
islamaphobia? so you support these reactionary groups?
Perhaps he does, perhaps he does not.

But the meaning of his statement that you are guilty of "islamaphobia" is because your being a biased twit.

Revolution Until Victory

23rd August 2007, 02:32

i dont know about you but if i had someone from hezbollah so called helping me against imperialists well i would constantly be looking behind myself waiting for a stab in the back.

that's just pure ignorance and bullshit. Hezbollah is a NATIONAL LIBERATION movment. ONE GOAL, and ONE GOAL ONLY: Liberation. Hezbollah are allied with all anti-imperialist forces in the world, including the leftists ones. For example, the PFLP-GC (not to be confused with the PFLP. This group split from the PFLP in the 60's), a marxist-leninist Palestinian liberation movment that is based in Lebanon and Syria, is a very close allie of Hizbollah and had fought together the Zionist occupation of Lebanon all along.

hamas,hezbollah there all the same and they would be just as bad if not worse then america if given the chance and power to do so.

Again, total crap. However, I agree with you, they are acutally the same in one aspect, all of those are national liberation movments fighting for one goal only. Hamas sole goal is the liberation of Palestine and other occupied arab lands, same with Hizbollah. None of those groups are interested in anything else. As I said, Hizbollah and Hamas are allies with all anti-imperailist forces, wether leftist or not. In case you didn't know, there is a thread here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=68725) in the Events and Propaganda forum containing all the military operations of the Palestinian communist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. It is constantly updated, check it out, and see for yourself the coporation between the communist PFLP and Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. In fact, currently, the Zionists are being almost daily pounded whenever they invade the city of Nablus by the PFLP with the coporation of Hamas.

Vinny Rafarino

23rd August 2007, 17:24

Originally posted by RUL
Hezbollah are allied with all anti-imperialist forces in the world, including the leftists ones.

How naive you are!

Hezbollah and every other Islamic Fundamentalist group is not simply a "nationalist movement", (why you support nationalism who knows) they are an imperialist movement exactly like the one you claim to protest.

The only difference is that it's "chic" to be an Islamic Imperialist.

Grow up.

spartan

23rd August 2007, 18:11

thank you vinny rafarino these fools would happily support their own enemies.

Faux Real

23rd August 2007, 19:56

@ the title of this topic: Anti-US is a very misleading term. Anti-US governmental and economical influence is more proper.

You have ignored every single argument here, so be careful of whom you're referring to as "fools". Can you at least acknowledge that Imperialism is what sets off terrorism in the first place? Apparently no one, in your view, should be Anti-Imperialist if they're not your brand of resistance. Isolating the workers movement from oppressed territories and countries is not helpful at all towards global revolution. They'll likely look back at us and say we did NOTHING to help, therefore won't want to collaborate with our movement.

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 10:11 am
thank you vinny rafarino these fools would happily support their own enemies.

Okay then, support our good friends! Lets conquer the third world with the imperialists, comrades!

RNK

23rd August 2007, 20:38

Please, Vinny, show us a single instance of Hezbollah undertaking an imperialist act.

Vinny Rafarino

23rd August 2007, 21:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 12:38 pm
Please, Vinny, show us a single instance of Hezbollah undertaking an imperialist act.
Muslims are increasing their numbers by over 2 percent each year and have been doing so for decades now.

They now have number reaching nearly 1.8 billion spread over 6 continents and over 100 different countries. Many of these countries have actually adding the word "Islamic State" into the names of the nations!

If you don't think this is imperialism then you need to go back to school.

NorthStarRepublicML

23rd August 2007, 21:55

Muslims are increasing their numbers by over 2 percent each year and have been doing so for decades now.

source?

I would assume that this growth is due to population growth which is more pronounced in third world nations ....

population growth is not imperialism ....

Many of these countries have actually adding the word "Islamic State" into the names of the nations!

so what?

Islam is a religion like any other, religion has nothing or little to do with imperialism ...

If you don't think this is imperialism then you need to go back to school.

Lenin defined Imperialism as the last stage of capitalism, when capitalism reaches a total monopoly and exploits regions through economics. he defined 5 features of imperialism as the following (religion is not mentioned):

(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopoly capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.

taken from: Lenin, Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism, LCW Volume 22, p. 266-7.

Faux Real

23rd August 2007, 22:04

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 23, 2007 01:17 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 23, 2007 01:17 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 12:38 pm
Please, Vinny, show us a single instance of Hezbollah undertaking an imperialist act.
Muslims are increasing their numbers by over 2 percent each year and have been doing so for decades now. [/b]
Meanwhile, religion as a whole has been dying off. Or at least losing resonance with people.

Revolution Until Victory

24th August 2007, 02:20

How naive you are!

lol, look who's talking. Why the hell aren't you restricted yet?

Hezbollah and every other Islamic Fundamentalist group is not simply a "nationalist movement"

Yes they are. Hezbollah and Hamas are national liberation movments. nothing else. And no, just coz I'm giving my opnion of the nature of Hamas and Hezbollah doesn't instantly mean I support nationalism.

they are an imperialist movement exactly like the one you claim to protest.

did you just get this out of your ass?

Grow up.

:rolleyes:

thank you vinny rafarino these fools would happily support their own enemies.

the two biggest fools on this thread are you and that Vinni Rafarino lunatic.

RHIZOMES

24th August 2007, 02:54

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 23, 2007 08:17 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 23, 2007 08:17 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 12:38 pm
Please, Vinny, show us a single instance of Hezbollah undertaking an imperialist act.
Muslims are increasing their numbers by over 2 percent each year and have been doing so for decades now.

They now have number reaching nearly 1.8 billion spread over 6 continents and over 100 different countries. Many of these countries have actually adding the word "Islamic State" into the names of the nations!

If you don't think this is imperialism then you need to go back to school. [/b]
...population growth is imperialism?

spartan

24th August 2007, 13:30

these RELIGIOUS EXTREMISTS! groups are not SOCIALIST! get that into your heads. they may be fighting capitalist imperialism and they maybe anti imperialist but that does not make them SOCIALIST! they are REACTIONARIES who are the enemy of the PROLETARIAN! for gods sake name one of their policies that is progressive. they are anti homosexuality anti womens equal rights yet you so called true communists would happily fight in a trench alongside them. well all i can say is good luck but remember to look behind yourself often for they are sure to stab you in the back.

Faux Real

24th August 2007, 16:35

Originally posted by spartan+August 24, 2007 05:30 am--> (spartan @ August 24, 2007 05:30 am)for gods sake name one of their policies that is progressive[/b]

Wiki
Hamas is particularly popular among Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, though it also has a following in the West Bank, and to a lesser extent in other Middle Eastern countries. Since its formation in 1987, Hamas has conducted numerous social, political, and military actions. Its popularity stems in part from its (1)welfare and (2)social services to Palestinians in the occupied territories, including school and hospital construction. The group devotes much of its estimated $70 million annual budget to an extensive social services network, running many relief and (3)education programs, and funds (4)schools, (5)orphanages, (6)mosques, (7)healthcare clinics, (8)soup kitchens, and (9)sports leagues. According to the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz "approximately 90 percent of the organization's work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities".

Oh, they have also condemned suicide bombings long before they were elected. I don't know much about any other so-called terrorist groups so I cannot defend them.

Dean

24th August 2007, 20:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 10:42 pm
islamaphobia? so you support these reactionary groups? jesus christ dean no wonder your restricted and you have the cheek to call for my restriction. what i mean by all the same is that we could never count on them as are allies because we would always be waiting for a stab in the back. just because they are anti us/capitalist imperialists that dosent make them socialists. stop being a pc leftist dean its a real turn off.
I agree with what Hamas and Hizb Allah is doing, in some ways. They are mostly humanitarian organizations; most of the terrorism is either considered self defense (Hizb Allah's war against Israel last year for instance) or is done by atomized individuals who do not represent the groups themselves. I do not ally myself with them, especially not the religious dogma. But I support them in their struggle against imperialism, which is what they are a response to.

The anti-religious here have found a great outlet for their western islamophobia, and that is in implying that these organizations, terrorist they may be, are the enemy more than Israel or the U.S. is.

In regards to suggesting your restriction, I was making a mockery of the CC. I don't see why most of the people here should be restricted other than in order to make a 'RevLeft party-line' pseudo marxist clique in the rest of the forums and the CC in particular. These people are afraid of new ideas.

And believe me... I'm not P.C. If I was I would not be restricted.

spartan

24th August 2007, 21:22

RHIZOMES

24th August 2007, 21:45

okay fair enough but you cant deny the fact that groups like hezbollahs primary support comes from pissed off fundamentalist muslims who have a religious dislike/hatred of the west of which to them israel is apart. this isnt basic proletarian anti capitalism its simply one extreme group (imperialists) fighting another extreme group (islamic fundamentalists etc). this isnt the classic proles versus cappies battle over there comrade.

I remember Osama saying in one of his vids that if he hated America for religious reasons (Secularity, freedom, not Muslim, etc) why he wasn't staging attacks on Sweden who haven't done any wrong to the Middle East in his mind.

A lot of my Muslim associates at my Mosque dislike the USA, but not for religious reasons. They dislike what they've been doing to their Muslim brothers in the Middle East for the past few decades or so. As far as I know, it hasn't got anything to do with religious fundamentalism.

Revolution Until Victory

24th August 2007, 21:48

okay fair enough but you cant deny the fact that groups like hezbollahs primary support comes from pissed off fundamentalist muslims who have a religious dislike/hatred of the west of which to them israel is apart. this isnt basic proletarian anti capitalism its simply one extreme group (imperialists) fighting another extreme group (islamic fundamentalists etc). this isnt the classic proles versus cappies battle over there comrade.

What?

this is unbelievable! where the hell do you get this crap from? the support for Hizbollah stems from the fact that it is the no.1 anti-imperialist movment in Lebanon, and the most active, powerful, and succesful. Hizbollah defeated the most powerful army in the region, and the 4th most powerful in the world not once, but twice!!!! Statistics ans surveys have shown the wide range of support Hizbollah gets from muslims AS WELL AS non-muslims. The support for Hizbollah and Hamas comes from opressed masses pissed off from imperialism, who have a hatred for Western impeirlaism, and not necesarly the "west".

Vinny Rafarino

24th August 2007, 23:45

Originally posted by some religious freak+--> (some religious freak)ol, look who's talking. Why the hell aren't you restricted yet?
[/b]

Because we don't restrict people for condemning religion and terrorism.

We applaud them.

Yes they are. Hezbollah and Hamas are national liberation movments. nothing else. And no, just coz I'm giving my opnion of the nature of Hamas and Hezbollah doesn't instantly mean I support nationalism.

Sorry bub, you're simply ignorant to the facts. I suggest you take some night classes.

did you just get this out of your ass?

I understand you're confused.

Here's a good first step: look up what imperialism means in the dictionary.

the two biggest fools on this thread are you and that Vinni Rafarino lunatic.

Coming from you that's a compliment jack.

shitty muslim
population growth is imperialism?

Through conversion?

Ummm yup.

Let me guess, you kids aren't even out of high school yet right?

RHIZOMES

24th August 2007, 23:52

Through conversion?

Ummm yup.

Wow! That is so retarded! :lol:

Please explain why and maybe I'll take that notion seriously? How the hell is someone being peacefully converted to a religion imperialism? If Islam is imperialistic, does that mean Christianity is too?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Christ_Islam.png

Red is Christianity. Green is Islam.

Unless you mean forced conversion, which is unislamic. But if you meant that you would've said so.

Revolution Until Victory

25th August 2007, 00:13

some religious freak

lol, are you serious, Vinny Fuckarino?

Because we don't restrict people for condemning religion and terrorism.

We applaud them.

You haven't been condemning religion or terrorism. You are a racist sack of shit.

Sorry bub, you're simply ignorant to the facts

good job.

I understand you're confused.

Here's a good first step: look up what imperialism means in the dictionary.

:rolleyes:

Coming from you that's a compliment jack.

yes, Fuckarino, it's a commpliment to be called a fool

Faux Real

25th August 2007, 00:15

RUV, don't let him get you riled up. It's not worth it.

Revolution Until Victory

25th August 2007, 00:34

yes, rev0lt, no need to "argue" with a racist troll like that kid.

RHIZOMES

25th August 2007, 00:57

I would have to disagree with saying Vinny is a racist. Islam is not a race. He's just an all-around bigot.

It's no coincidence that the BNP has focused less on anti-semitism and more on Muslims in recent years.

NorthStarRepublicML

25th August 2007, 06:50

Let me guess, you kids aren't even out of high school yet right?

listen chuck, the whole argument you are making about Islam=Imperialism is just uneducated, boring, and pretty much proves that you don't know what the hell you are talking about ....

I assume you realize the bankruptcy of your failed argument when you declined to respond to my last post when i explained the Marxist definition of Imperialism ....

two percent growth through conversion?

if you are going to continue to state this apparent fact then you will need to cite sources, or at least one source, don't expect anyone to take you at your word, especially because you have made other claims here that have already proved false or at least misinterpreted (Imperialism).

while we are on the subject of sources here is one you might find interesting, its from religioustolerance.org:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/growth_isl_chr.htm

they look at nine different studies ranging from Al-Islam to Readers Digest, among their conclusions is this glaring piece of information:

There is no agreement about future trends in Christianity and Islam

also here is the Wikipedia entry for "fastest growing religion" where it states that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_...rowing_religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest_growing_religion)

Data for Islam reveal that the growing number of Muslims is due primarily to the higher than average birth-rates and consequent population growths of Muslim countries and communities.

conversion is not mentioned

Vinny, you are the one that needs to go back to school

Dean

25th August 2007, 13:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 08:22 pm
okay fair enough but you cant deny the fact that groups like hezbollahs primary support comes from pissed off fundamentalist muslims who have a religious dislike/hatred of the west of which to them israel is apart. this isnt basic proletarian anti capitalism its simply one extreme group (imperialists) fighting another extreme group (islamic fundamentalists etc). this isnt the classic proles versus cappies battle over there comrade.
Its primary support comes from socially unconscious groups who would rather see the Palestinian / Lebanese clash with the Israeli gov't dragged out.

Why haven't Egypt, Lebanon and Syria taken any steps to alleviate the Palestinian refugee crisis? Could it be because the conflict is a useful politiical tool?

These are politics which have religion on both sides to back it up, but the core of either side - Israeli and Palestinian - is hardly about religion, but material interests. Bigots like to say "they use religion X so it is the cause of religion X." But at its core it's not about religion, and I think you're smart enough to recognize that, even if a couple others here aren't / are too bigotted to see it.

I wouldn't describe it or any battle with the ruling class a "classic proles versus capitalists." It is clearly about an indigenous people defending their own autonomy, but just like all of these conflicts there is a basis on human interest. Just like in south africa, the terrorists - both literal and ill-named - are fighting not a war between worker and capital per se, but certainly one against capital and for the oppressed.

I can admit, and will agree, that when superstitions like Islam weigh heavily on the politics and actions of a group there are problems, but I won't dismiss these groups entirely for oppressive ideas like homophobia etc. just because they have them, especially considering that they don't act primarily on them.

I'm surprised nobody noted the recent coalition between Hizb Allah and the major Christian party in Lebanon. I don't think you are primarily interested in bigotry, spartan, so I think you might do well to read up on these developments before taking in bullshit from people like Vinny.

Spirit of Spartacus

25th August 2007, 18:01

I understand you're confused.

Here's a good first step: look up what imperialism means in the dictionary.

No, sweetie, we Marxists don't look in the Oxford English Dictionary when we're talking political economy.

the two biggest fools on this thread are you and that Vinni Rafarino lunatic.

Coming from you that's a compliment jack.

OMG OMG that was so clever!

population growth is imperialism?

Through conversion?

Ummm yup.

Nope. Go read up on Imperialism, then we can talk about this.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

Let me guess, you kids aren't even out of high school yet right?

Whatever the case may be, the "kids" have taken the trouble to acquaint themselves with the basics of historical materialism and political economy. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for you, O wise old bigot.

spartan

25th August 2007, 18:51

anyone in my book who supports these stupid reactionary groups also supports the idea of religion, governments, states, etc you must do if you support these groups who also happen to hold these ideas! well good luck with your support of these reactionaries for when the revolution comes there little palestine just like all other states in the world will no longer exist.

Faux Real

25th August 2007, 19:55

Yet again you fail to make any sensible argument. Thank you for making random accusations without evidence.

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 10:51 am
anyone in my book who supports these stupid reactionary groups also supports the idea of religion, governments, states, etc you must do if you support these groups who also happen to hold these ideas!
I support a persons right to believe in religion or not. I support the idea of national governments and national liberation movements as long as there hasn't been communist revolution.

How is that reactionary?

You're the one who says the first world should speed up development of capitalism in the third world. Later you'll send religious persons to your own gulag for not being your blend of communist.

well good luck with your support of these reactionaries for when the revolution comes there little palestine just like all other states in the world will no longer exist.
No shit, sherlock!

Invader Zim

25th August 2007, 20:59

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 23, 2007 09:17 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 23, 2007 09:17 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 12:38 pm
Please, Vinny, show us a single instance of Hezbollah undertaking an imperialist act.
Muslims are increasing their numbers by over 2 percent each year and have been doing so for decades now.

They now have number reaching nearly 1.8 billion spread over 6 continents and over 100 different countries. Many of these countries have actually adding the word "Islamic State" into the names of the nations!

If you don't think this is imperialism then you need to go back to school. [/b]
While I agree with nearly everything you have said thus far in this thread, I think you are sliding towards the ridiculous with this charge Gramps.

But don't worry I am going back to school; grad-school.

RNK

26th August 2007, 02:32

Originally posted by The Red Ghost+August 24, 2007 01:54 am--> (The Red Ghost @ August 24, 2007 01:54 am)
Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 23, 2007 08:17 pm

[email protected] 23, 2007 12:38 pm
Please, Vinny, show us a single instance of Hezbollah undertaking an imperialist act.
Muslims are increasing their numbers by over 2 percent each year and have been doing so for decades now.

They now have number reaching nearly 1.8 billion spread over 6 continents and over 100 different countries. Many of these countries have actually adding the word "Islamic State" into the names of the nations!

If you don't think this is imperialism then you need to go back to school.
...population growth is imperialism? [/b]
LMAO

Holy shit. That's the most ridiculous assertion I've ever heard.

RHIZOMES

26th August 2007, 03:28

Originally posted by RNK+August 26, 2007 01:32 am--> (RNK @ August 26, 2007 01:32 am)
Originally posted by The Red [email protected] 24, 2007 01:54 am

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 23, 2007 08:17 pm

[email protected] 23, 2007 12:38 pm
Please, Vinny, show us a single instance of Hezbollah undertaking an imperialist act.
Muslims are increasing their numbers by over 2 percent each year and have been doing so for decades now.

They now have number reaching nearly 1.8 billion spread over 6 continents and over 100 different countries. Many of these countries have actually adding the word "Islamic State" into the names of the nations!

If you don't think this is imperialism then you need to go back to school.
...population growth is imperialism?
LMAO

Holy shit. That's the most ridiculous assertion I've ever heard. [/b]
Seconded

Those damn rabbits, spreading their imperialism everytime they breed :P

Vargha Poralli

26th August 2007, 17:22

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 24, 2007 01:47 am--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 24, 2007 01:47 am)
[email protected] 23, 2007 12:38 pm
Please, Vinny, show us a single instance of Hezbollah undertaking an imperialist act.
Muslims are increasing their numbers by over 2 percent each year and have been doing so for decades now.

They now have number reaching nearly 1.8 billion spread over 6 continents and over 100 different countries. Many of these countries have actually adding the word "Islamic State" into the names of the nations!

If you don't think this is imperialism then you need to go back to school. [/b]
:rolleyes: So what is your proposal ?

The nest version of T4 ? That would be good idea to "control" Muslim terrorism I suppose.

spartan

26th August 2007, 18:38

do you seriously think that when these groups get into power they will dismantle capitalism, give equal rights to women, homosexuals, transexuals, etc cause i dont think they will. the fact is they only ally themselves with progressive forces such as communists and advocate progressive policies so that they appear progressive themselves to get the support of the people to gain power. but the fact is they are not progressive for these groups believe in hierarchy whether it be a religious, financial, military hierarchy or all of them the fact is this is what they want and believe in. i will say again just because they fight imperialist and appear to be anti imperialist that does not make them socialist nor pro socialist. god im seventeen and know this already! i think its time for some of you state capitalists to grow up.

Ismail

26th August 2007, 18:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 12:38 pm
do you seriously think that when these groups get into power they will dismantle capitalism, give equal rights to women, homosexuals, transexuals, etc cause i dont think they will...*text* We support them against imperialism. We don't support their social policies (except if it is based on secular things like better education) and many of us would probably oppose them leading a government. (since Middle Eastern nations that aren't monarchies tend to be pretty anti-imperialist on their own, even if only against bigger powers)

RHIZOMES

26th August 2007, 20:34

Originally posted by g.ram+August 26, 2007 04:22 pm--> (g.ram @ August 26, 2007 04:22 pm)
Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 24, 2007 01:47 am

[email protected] 23, 2007 12:38 pm
Please, Vinny, show us a single instance of Hezbollah undertaking an imperialist act.
Muslims are increasing their numbers by over 2 percent each year and have been doing so for decades now.

They now have number reaching nearly 1.8 billion spread over 6 continents and over 100 different countries. Many of these countries have actually adding the word "Islamic State" into the names of the nations!

If you don't think this is imperialism then you need to go back to school.
:rolleyes: So what is your proposal ?

The nest version of T4 ? That would be good idea to "control" Muslim terrorism I suppose. [/b]
Maybe he wants to impose immigration restrictions on them.

Vinny, do you? You seem like you do, with your talk of how THEY'RE SPREADING EVERYWHERE HOLY SHIT.

Capital Punishment

26th August 2007, 21:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 01:38 pm
i will say again just because they fight imperialist and appear to be anti imperialist that does not make them socialist nor pro socialist. god im seventeen and know this already! i think its time for some of you state capitalists to grow up.
Well the point is to support them to topple the current powers so the revolution can be carried out more effectively, and keep them out of power... But in a way I agree. A line needs to be drawn some where between a potential convenient ally and an unstable group of religious fanatics...

Invader Zim

26th August 2007, 23:38

Originally posted by RNK+August 26, 2007 02:32 am--> (RNK @ August 26, 2007 02:32 am)
Originally posted by The Red [email protected] 24, 2007 01:54 am

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 23, 2007 08:17 pm

[email protected] 23, 2007 12:38 pm
Please, Vinny, show us a single instance of Hezbollah undertaking an imperialist act.
Muslims are increasing their numbers by over 2 percent each year and have been doing so for decades now.

They now have number reaching nearly 1.8 billion spread over 6 continents and over 100 different countries. Many of these countries have actually adding the word "Islamic State" into the names of the nations!

If you don't think this is imperialism then you need to go back to school.
...population growth is imperialism?
LMAO

Holy shit. That's the most ridiculous assertion I've ever heard. [/b]
Oh I don't know about that, try 'Islam is a race', or 'reading Mao is a constructive use of ones time.'

RHIZOMES

27th August 2007, 00:32

Originally posted by Invader Zim+August 26, 2007 10:38 pm--> (Invader Zim @ August 26, 2007 10:38 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 02:32 am

Originally posted by The Red [email protected] 24, 2007 01:54 am

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 23, 2007 08:17 pm

[email protected] 23, 2007 12:38 pm
Please, Vinny, show us a single instance of Hezbollah undertaking an imperialist act.
Muslims are increasing their numbers by over 2 percent each year and have been doing so for decades now.

They now have number reaching nearly 1.8 billion spread over 6 continents and over 100 different countries. Many of these countries have actually adding the word "Islamic State" into the names of the nations!

If you don't think this is imperialism then you need to go back to school.
...population growth is imperialism?
LMAO

Holy shit. That's the most ridiculous assertion I've ever heard.
Oh I don't know about that, try 'Islam is a race', or 'reading Mao is a constructive use of ones time.' [/b]
I don't think Islam is a race, however, Islam is usually if not always associated with foreigners, so sometimes racists such as the BNP or the Stormfront board vent their xenophobia on Muslims (Muslim immigrants in particular) since it's not PC to hate Jews anymore.

Invader Zim

27th August 2007, 01:06

Originally posted by The Red Ghost+August 27, 2007 12:32 am--> (The Red Ghost @ August 27, 2007 12:32 am)
Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 26, 2007 10:38 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 02:32 am

Originally posted by The Red [email protected] 24, 2007 01:54 am

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 23, 2007 08:17 pm

[email protected] 23, 2007 12:38 pm
Please, Vinny, show us a single instance of Hezbollah undertaking an imperialist act.
Muslims are increasing their numbers by over 2 percent each year and have been doing so for decades now.

They now have number reaching nearly 1.8 billion spread over 6 continents and over 100 different countries. Many of these countries have actually adding the word "Islamic State" into the names of the nations!

If you don't think this is imperialism then you need to go back to school.
...population growth is imperialism?
LMAO

Holy shit. That's the most ridiculous assertion I've ever heard.
Oh I don't know about that, try 'Islam is a race', or 'reading Mao is a constructive use of ones time.'
I don't think Islam is a race, however, Islam is usually if not always associated with foreigners, so sometimes racists such as the BNP or the Stormfront board vent their xenophobia on Muslims (Muslim immigrants in particular) since it's not PC to hate Jews anymore. [/b]

Islam is usually if not always associated with foreigners, so sometimes racists such as the BNP or the Stormfront board vent their xenophobia on Muslims (Muslim immigrants in particular) since it's not PC to hate Jews anymore.

Yes that is indeed true. But it hardly alters the point. For any serious leftist there are a shed load of issues with Islam and every other religion because they are tools of oppression. It is also undeniable (well undeniable by anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size) that Islam teachings can and are regularly cited as a prominent factor among young men and women to kill people. Pointing this out does not make a person anything other than honest. It does not imply all Muslims are terrorists or reactionaries, it simply states a fact.

RHIZOMES

27th August 2007, 04:50

Originally posted by Invader Zim+August 27, 2007 12:06 am--> (Invader Zim @ August 27, 2007 12:06 am)
Originally posted by The Red [email protected] 27, 2007 12:32 am

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 26, 2007 10:38 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 02:32 am

Originally posted by The Red [email protected] 24, 2007 01:54 am

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 23, 2007 08:17 pm

[email protected] 23, 2007 12:38 pm
Please, Vinny, show us a single instance of Hezbollah undertaking an imperialist act.
Muslims are increasing their numbers by over 2 percent each year and have been doing so for decades now.

They now have number reaching nearly 1.8 billion spread over 6 continents and over 100 different countries. Many of these countries have actually adding the word "Islamic State" into the names of the nations!

If you don't think this is imperialism then you need to go back to school.
...population growth is imperialism?
LMAO

Holy shit. That's the most ridiculous assertion I've ever heard.
Oh I don't know about that, try 'Islam is a race', or 'reading Mao is a constructive use of ones time.'
I don't think Islam is a race, however, Islam is usually if not always associated with foreigners, so sometimes racists such as the BNP or the Stormfront board vent their xenophobia on Muslims (Muslim immigrants in particular) since it's not PC to hate Jews anymore.

Islam is usually if not always associated with foreigners, so sometimes racists such as the BNP or the Stormfront board vent their xenophobia on Muslims (Muslim immigrants in particular) since it's not PC to hate Jews anymore.

Yes that is indeed true. But it hardly alters the point. For any serious leftist there are a shed load of issues with Islam and every other religion because they are tools of oppression. It is also undeniable (well undeniable by anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size) that Islam teachings can and are regularly cited as a prominent factor among young men and women to kill people. Pointing this out does not make a person anything other than honest. It does not imply all Muslims are terrorists or reactionaries, it simply states a fact. [/b]
Yes I agree.

There's a fine line between condemning Islam and terrorism to condemning every Muslim in the world (Or a large majority of them). There's also a fine line between condemning ISLAM itself and condemning TERRORISM in general, imho.

Dean

27th August 2007, 04:56

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 27, 2007 12:06 am

Islam is usually if not always associated with foreigners, so sometimes racists such as the BNP or the Stormfront board vent their xenophobia on Muslims (Muslim immigrants in particular) since it's not PC to hate Jews anymore.

Yes that is indeed true. But it hardly alters the point. For any serious leftist there are a shed load of issues with Islam and every other religion because they are tools of oppression. It is also undeniable (well undeniable by anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size) that Islam teachings can and are regularly cited as a prominent factor among young men and women to kill people. Pointing this out does not make a person anything other than honest. It does not imply all Muslims are terrorists or reactionaries, it simply states a fact.
Like guns, perhaps?

They are tools of oppression ("one man with a gun can control 100 without one."- Lenin).

Killings follow the gun sales. So distribution of guns should also be considered bad, because they empower people to war - just like religion. Or marxism. But not all people. Because Marxism can be a pacifist ideology, and so can religions.

Wait, it's actually not a dissoluble link; maybe it's a superfluous prejudice. Well, at least concerning oneself primarily with it is... (Vinnie Rafarino)

catch

27th August 2007, 06:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 01:50 am
We don't support it ... fighting imperialism doesn't make u anti-imperialist ...Don't believe foxnews when they associate commies with terrorists man .. in fact just don't watch it anymore ok ? :)
That'll be why Trotskyist groups like Workers' Power shout "victory to the Iraqi resistance" down megaphones in town centres then?

catch

27th August 2007, 06:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 12:48 pm
So for now I am quite happy to sit back and laugh at feather weights getting their arses blown up in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Lebanon.
I'd be quite happy to sit and laugh at your complete lack of class analysis if it wasn't so horrific.

Perhaps you should read this: http://libcom.org/history/vietnam-gi-resistance
and this: http://libcom.org/library/2004-2005-mutini...my-echanges-111 (http://libcom.org/library/2004-2005-mutinies-american-army-echanges-111)

then just go on cheerleading the slaughter of working class soldiers by petty bourgeios islamists. You clearly don't have any idea that there were workers' councils briefly in Northern Iraq around 1990-91 - otherwise you wouldn't be cheering on those who'll crush even the remotest reappearance of the working class as an active force in Iraq at every opportunity.

RHIZOMES

27th August 2007, 06:36

Originally posted by Dean+August 27, 2007 03:56 am--> (Dean @ August 27, 2007 03:56 am)
Invader [email protected] 27, 2007 12:06 am

Islam is usually if not always associated with foreigners, so sometimes racists such as the BNP or the Stormfront board vent their xenophobia on Muslims (Muslim immigrants in particular) since it's not PC to hate Jews anymore.

Yes that is indeed true. But it hardly alters the point. For any serious leftist there are a shed load of issues with Islam and every other religion because they are tools of oppression. It is also undeniable (well undeniable by anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size) that Islam teachings can and are regularly cited as a prominent factor among young men and women to kill people. Pointing this out does not make a person anything other than honest. It does not imply all Muslims are terrorists or reactionaries, it simply states a fact.
Like guns, perhaps?

They are tools of oppression ("one man with a gun can control 100 without one."- Lenin).

Killings follow the gun sales. So distribution of guns should also be considered bad, because they empower people to war - just like religion. Or marxism. But not all people. Because Marxism can be a pacifist ideology, and so can religions.

Wait, it's actually not a dissoluble link; maybe it's a superfluous prejudice. Well, at least concerning oneself primarily with it is... (Vinnie Rafarino) [/b]
Mhm exactly. I wouldn't say I'm a pacifist, if someone shoved me I'd shove them back, but I could never fly a plane in a building or bomb buses full of Israeli children even if I wasn't killed in the process. My philosophy is influenced a lot by Sufism, which is a peaceful, anti-establishment mystical variant of Islam.

Religion can either oppress or liberate you, imho.

Dean

27th August 2007, 11:17

Originally posted by The Red [email protected] 27, 2007 05:36 am
Mhm exactly. I wouldn't say I'm a pacifist, if someone shoved me I'd shove them back, but I could never fly a plane in a building or bomb buses full of Israeli children even if I wasn't killed in the process. My philosophy is influenced a lot by Sufism, which is a peaceful, anti-establishment mystical variant of Islam.

Religion can either oppress or liberate you, imho.
That's not entirely the point. The point is that guns are ALWAYS bad. I expect someone will quote Che saying they're beautiful in revolutionary hands, but the fact is that they always have a negative aspect to them. So they are pretty much always oppressive, whether they are liberating or oppressive in other specific ways.

I would say the same of religion, but I don't know if you'd agree. The point is that the bias, for instance, that guns are meant to kill kids is not always true, just like Islam isn't always about killing Israelis, even though some of the texts talk of war and guns are alwyas intended for some kind of killing, most of them human.

So you don't have to be a pacifist to see that guns are bad, and you don't have to be an atheist to see that Islam is bad. The question is: in your hands is it bad? Or in this case, can we really blame Islam for this or that deed? I would say, "not at all." Islam is a part of the mentality that allows for many terrorists to commit their deeds, this is hardly untrue and admiting that as fact is no slander to Islam or Muslims or anyone but those who use it for such ends. But so are guns.

Are the revolutionary Leftists ready to give their guns up? I don't think enough grond has been taken to do so. And maybe spiritually for many we cannot give our gods up. Though I've found it hard to be godless in a world where atheism is so hated, I have prevailed thinking it the truth. I can easily see how theology can be easy to accept, and just as easily see how it can be pretty inoculous, perhaps liberating in ways.

In fact, I'm willing to say I'd never pick up a gun. That may not be true, but I hope one day, and soon, our society can come to such terms, and it's perhaps all the more important a step to take when we are at a stage when their use against humans is negligible.

Invader Zim

27th August 2007, 12:59

Like guns, perhaps?

No not like guns. Guns don't convince people to kill other people, they do not salve the concience of would-be murderers, etc.

Guns are a machine designed to aid killers, religion - in part - makes murderers. That is the difference.

Dean

27th August 2007, 13:13

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 27, 2007 11:59 am

Like guns, perhaps?

No not like guns. Guns don't convince people to kill other people, they do not salve the concience of would-be murderers, etc.

Guns are a machine designed to aid killers, religion - in part - makes murderers. That is the difference.
OK, marxism.

Good enough comparison?

Invader Zim

27th August 2007, 13:37

Originally posted by Dean+August 27, 2007 01:13 pm--> (Dean @ August 27, 2007 01:13 pm)
Invader [email protected] 27, 2007 11:59 am

Like guns, perhaps?

No not like guns. Guns don't convince people to kill other people, they do not salve the concience of would-be murderers, etc.

Guns are a machine designed to aid killers, religion - in part - makes murderers. That is the difference.
OK, marxism.

Good enough comparison? [/b]
Marxist theory states that revolution is unavoidable, it is the basis of historical materialism; that history points to the eventual bloody overthriow of capitalism. Thus Marxism does not cause people to kill, material conditions created by the oppressive nature of capitalism do. And Marxists should certainly not be indiscriminately killing for their cause.

Capital Punishment

27th August 2007, 14:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 06:17 am
In fact, I'm willing to say I'd never pick up a gun. That may not be true, but I hope one day, and soon, our society can come to such terms, and it's perhaps all the more important a step to take when we are at a stage when their use against humans is negligible.
Well I can't see that happening soon.. There are simply too many people who profit from bloodshed.

Beyond that, I'm sure humanity will only come up with new ways to kill each other off rather than work toward peace.

And rather unfortunately, the possibility of a bloodless proletarian revolution is slim to none.

But will firearms have a place in a post revolutionary society?

Dr Mindbender

27th August 2007, 15:03

Originally posted by Capital Punishment+August 27, 2007 01:34 pm--> (Capital Punishment @ August 27, 2007 01:34 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2007 06:17 am
In fact, I'm willing to say I'd never pick up a gun. That may not be true, but I hope one day, and soon, our society can come to such terms, and it's perhaps all the more important a step to take when we are at a stage when their use against humans is negligible.
Well I can't see that happening soon.. There are simply too many people who profit from bloodshed.

Beyond that, I'm sure humanity will only come up with new ways to kill each other off rather than work toward peace.

And rather unfortunately, the possibility of a bloodless proletarian revolution is slim to none.

But will firearms have a place in a post revolutionary society? [/b]
places like Africa, and the arctic circle will certainly require guns as in these places they are an essential means against Lions and polar bears etc.

BTW im not trying to be silly.

Capital Punishment

27th August 2007, 15:20

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+August 27, 2007 10:03 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ August 27, 2007 10:03 am)
Originally posted by Capital [email protected] 27, 2007 01:34 pm

[email protected] 27, 2007 06:17 am
In fact, I'm willing to say I'd never pick up a gun. That may not be true, but I hope one day, and soon, our society can come to such terms, and it's perhaps all the more important a step to take when we are at a stage when their use against humans is negligible.
Well I can't see that happening soon.. There are simply too many people who profit from bloodshed.

Beyond that, I'm sure humanity will only come up with new ways to kill each other off rather than work toward peace.

And rather unfortunately, the possibility of a bloodless proletarian revolution is slim to none.

But will firearms have a place in a post revolutionary society?
places like Africa, and the arctic circle will certainly require guns as in these places they are an essential means against Lions and polar bears etc.

BTW im not trying to be silly. [/b]
Ok but it is a funny thought...

But yes, that's what I was considering - protection and hunting purposes. But will guns be allowed as personal property for self defense reasons? Or will they only be accessible to militia services?

spartan

27th August 2007, 16:12

the whole take away guns to stop people commiting crimes arguement is seriously flawed. switzerland the gun capital of europe, where if you dont own a gun the chances are the government will provide you with one for free especially if your in the militia, has one of the lowest crime rates in the world even though nearly everyone owns a firearm! hell instead of tennis courts in every town they have shooting ranges! where members of the militia are required to practise with their weapons every weekend! in fact the whole gun culture of switzerland was one of the main reasons the nazis never invaded switzerland in ww2 because they thought that the whole population of switzerland would just go to the alps with their firearms to start a guerrilla war. and remember just because someone has a firearm that does not mean that they will commit a crime hell if we all owned firearms then a criminal would seriously think twice before robbing a shop knowing that the shopkeeper could be armed! all people have a right to self defence whether in a capitalist society or a communist/anarchist society. people who argue against people owning guns are trying to destroy humanities natural instinct to defend what they hold dear in their lives. also as left wingers we should take advantage of this by stockpiling weapons for the future revolution.

Vinny Rafarino

27th August 2007, 20:22

Originally posted by shitty muslim+--> (shitty muslim)Wow! That is so retarded! laugh.gif [/b]

Is it like totally, totally retarded?

Originally posted by revolt+--> (revolt) Meanwhile, religion as a whole has been dying off. Or at least losing resonance with people.
[/b]

In this case are lucky indeed...I don't expect the fundamentalists groups to go down easy however.

Originally posted by Shitty Muslim
How the hell is someone being peacefully converted to a religion imperialism? If Islam is imperialistic, does that mean Christianity is too?

Christianity is without a doubt an Imperialist power. They, like Islamists, want nothing more than to rule the world and they are very forthright with their convictions!

Originally posted by religious quack
I assume you realize the bankruptcy of your failed argument when you declined to respond to my last post when i explained the Marxist definition of Imperialism ....

To begin with Lenin said a lot of things that turned out to be dead wrong; most of them in fact.

In any case, what Lenin's personal definition means absolutely jack squat to anybody besides a silly Leninist.

listen chuck, the whole argument you are making about Islam=Imperialism is just uneducated, boring, and pretty much proves that you don't know what the hell you are talking about ....

I'm sure a lot of things are confusing to you.

f you are going to continue to state this apparent fact then you will need to cite sources, or at least one source, don't expect anyone to take you at your word, especially because you have made other claims here that have already proved false or at least misinterpreted (Imperialism).

Since you're still confused, I'll explain it for you: Imperialism means the act of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

Sound familiar?

Here's the complete list:

State Year of Accession

Afghanistan 1969
Albania 1992
Algeria 1969
Azerbaijan 1991
Bahrain 1970
Bangladesh 1974
Benin 1982
Brunei Darussalam 1984
Burkina Faso 1975
Cameroon 1975
Chad 1969
Comoros 1976
Cote d'Ivoire 2001
Djibouti 1978
Egypt 1969
Gabon 1974
The Gambia 1974
Guinea 1969
Guinea-Bissau 1974
Guyana 1998
Indonesia 1969
Iran 1969
Iraq 1976
Jordan 1969
Kazakhstan 1995
Kuwait 1969
Kyrgyzstan 1992
Lebanon 1969
Libya 1969
Malaysia 1969
Maldives 1976
Mali 1969
Mauritania 1969
Morocco 1969
Mozambique 1994
Niger 1969
Nigeria 1986
Oman 1970
Pakistan 1969
Palestine State (proposed) 1969
Qatar 1970
Saudi Arabia 1969
Senegal 1969
Sierra Leone 1972
Somalia 1969
Sudan 1969
Surinam 1996
Syria 1970
Tajikistan 1992
Togo 1997
Tunisia 1969
Turkey 1969
Turkmenistan 1992
Uganda 1974
United Arab Emirates 1970
Uzbekistan 1995
Yemen 1969

Get it yet son?

while we are on the subject of sources here is one you might find interesting, its from religioustolerance.org:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/growth_isl_chr.htm

Leftists shouldn't now nor ever "tolerate" religion. Quite the contrary, we should do our very best to put that corpse into the ground!

No mummified "leaders" excepted!

conversion is not mentioned

And didn't even need to be.

No, sweetie, we Marxists don't look in the Oxford English Dictionary when we're talking political economy.

I'm sure you have a death grip on Lenninst crap however.

Yes, antiquated garbage with no relevance to the modern era is most certainly the bees knees! :lol:

While I agree with nearly everything you have said thus far in this thread, I think you are sliding towards the ridiculous with this charge Gramps.

It's been several years since we had a go ..why not keep it that way?

But don't worry I am going back to school; grad-school.

Been there, done that. Where are you going?

mini Mao @
Holy shit. That's the most ridiculous assertion I've ever heard.

You and ridiculousness...old hat I'm sure!

Those damn rabbits, spreading their imperialism everytime they breed tongue.gif

Are you saying that people are born as Muslims?

g.ram
So what is your proposal ?

The nest version of T4 ? That would be good idea to "control" Muslim terrorism I suppose.

Just like the rest of the left, I just don't know what to do about religion. I do understand however that we really need to figure it out; sooner than later.

I, unlike many "leftists" here, strongly object to religious fundamentalist rule over the people. I object to rituals that forbid freedom of the sexes. I object against the murder of so called infidels and "Religious law-breakers". I object to to oppressing the masses and having them live in a barbarous, middle ages like atmosphere.

You should object to these too!

Capital Punishment

27th August 2007, 21:28

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 27, 2007 03:22 pm
I, unlike many "leftists" here, strongly object to religious fundamentalist rule over the people. I object to rituals that forbid freedom of the sexes. I object against the murder of so called infidels and "Religious law-breakers". I object to to oppressing the masses and having them live in a barbarous, middle ages like atmosphere.

You should object to these too!
Agreed... The problem is, it's going to be difficult to get people to abandon their beliefs which don't coincide with leftist thought. You can't expect people to all of a sudden accept that their whole lives have been based on a lie.. They have to come to that conclusion themselves, and until then, we're in kind of a tight spot..

Vinny Rafarino

27th August 2007, 21:35

Originally posted by CP
You can't expect people to all of a sudden accept that their whole lives have been based on a lie..

I most certainly don't expect the majority of people to simply abandon their superstitions.

That excludes everyone in the left.

This is a group of people that should know better!

Invader Zim

27th August 2007, 22:19

It's been several years since we had a go ..why not keep it that way?

Well, I wish to understand the reasoning behind your point.

Vinny Rafarino

27th August 2007, 22:23

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 27, 2007 02:19 pm
Well, I wish to understand the reasoning behind your point.
The reasoning that an individual with 8 years of college may just in fact be a bit more accurate then some kid that's wet behind the ears?

Do you really need an explanation?

Invader Zim

27th August 2007, 22:37

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 27, 2007 10:23 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 27, 2007 10:23 pm)
Invader [email protected] 27, 2007 02:19 pm
Well, I wish to understand the reasoning behind your point.
The reasoning that an individual with 8 years of college may just in fact be a bit more accurate then some kid that's wet behind the ears?

Do you really need an explanation? [/b]

Do you really need an explanation?

Now, if I understood exactly where you were coming from, and as such didn't disagree to an extent, I would not ask for further explaination, would I? And, sorry to be harsh to most of your detractors, but I'm pretty certain I am a lot smarter than most of them. So if I require a little further explaination, they do without a shadow of a doubt.

Come on grandad, don't hold out on us now; after all you are usually so keen to put 'the kids' right.

Vinny Rafarino

27th August 2007, 22:48

My explanation was rhetorical Blimpie; I'm sorry if you just don't get it.

RHIZOMES

27th August 2007, 23:24

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 27, 2007 07:22 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 27, 2007 07:22 pm)
shitty muslim
Wow! That is so retarded! laugh.gif

Is it like totally, totally retarded? [/b]
Yes it is totally retarded.

I see what you did there with the "Shitty Muslim" thing.

Not following obscure religious sources sure make me a shitty Muslim!

And Northstar said the "MARXIST" definition of Imperialism, not Leninist.

Vinny Rafarino

27th August 2007, 23:39

Originally posted by Shitty Muslim
And Northstar said the "MARXIST" definition of Imperialism, not Leninist.

How does that apply to non-Marxists then sunshine?

Oh yeah...

It doesn't!

I and the rest of society will stick with the actual definition of the word, thanks.

Let the mummy die son! :lol:

spartan

27th August 2007, 23:41

we could put a gun to their head and give them a choice between communist/anarchist utopia or heaven :D

Invader Zim

28th August 2007, 00:59

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 27, 2007 10:48 pm
My explanation was rhetorical Blimpie; I'm sorry if you just don't get it.

As you said to someone else eariler, which makes this rather ironic, I doubt you are capable of making a point I wouldn't get. So if you aren't going to elaborate (or more likely can't) to remove the possiblity - remote though it was - that I simply misunderstood you, I'm just gonna have to put that point down on the ever growing RAF bullshit list.

Later, Pops.

RHIZOMES

28th August 2007, 03:28

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 27, 2007 10:39 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 27, 2007 10:39 pm)
Shitty Muslim
Please, Vinny, show us a single instance of Hezbollah undertaking an imperialist act.
Muslims are increasing their numbers by over 2 percent each year and have been doing so for decades now.

They now have number reaching nearly 1.8 billion spread over 6 continents and over 100 different countries. Many of these countries have actually adding the word "Islamic State" into the names of the nations!

If you don't think this is imperialism then you need to go back to school. [/b]
:rolleyes: So what is your proposal ?

The nest version of T4 ? That would be good idea to "control" Muslim terrorism I suppose. [/b][/quote]
Maybe he wants to impose immigration restrictions on them.

Vinny, do you? You seem like you do, with your talk of how THEY'RE SPREADING EVERYWHERE HOLY SHIT.[/b][/quote]

Idola Mentis

28th August 2007, 11:19

Oh my, oh my. Eight years of college, and the kid still thinks religion can be turned off like a switch just because he personally disapproves of it.

Tyrants and juntas using religions as a wedge for power is nothing new. I'm sure everyone here wants to know how Vinny gets from there to casting muslims in general as the new Yellow Horde. This leap of the imagination is not as obvious as it may seem to you. Zim's request is not unreasonable at all. And while we're at it, you may want to answer some of the other questions you've ignored?

But somehow, you seem more likely to settle for calling someone "boy" and then mangle the device of sarcasm some more. This is getting boring.

Vinny Rafarino

28th August 2007, 17:32

Originally posted by shitty muslim+--> (shitty muslim)Your definition isn't even the common definition of imperialism[/b]

You're right.

That definition belongs to Random House Unabridged Dictionary among many others.

Dolt.

Population growth is not imperialism.

So you're telling me that when America increases its population (to increase its population means "growing" its "numbers") by annexing a small country it's no longer called Imperialism?

You need to come back down to earth son.

Idola
Oh my, oh my. Eight years of college, and the kid still thinks religion can be turned off like a switch just because he personally disapproves of it.

You're confused again.

Please quote me saying I think religion can be "turned off like a switch".

I'm sure everyone here wants to know how Vinny gets from there to casting muslims in general as the new Yellow Horde.

The depths of your confused logic are endless.

Let's see here..

Stoning, mutilating, and lashing its citizens.....check!

Oppressing women and homosexuals....check!

Blowing up children at the ice cream shop.....check!

Forcing populations to live in the middle ages....check!

Any questions bubby?

This is getting boring.

Rather be out playing?

spartan

28th August 2007, 23:13

vinny is yet again completly right. when will you reactionaries learn or better still shut up because all religions are anti proletarian which were created and have been successfuly used by the ruling class for millenia! but now that the religious ruling class in the middle east is losing power to capitalism these shit reactionary groups like hamas and hezbollah have sprung up. there should be no compromise when it comes to religion. when the revolution comes lets give them a choice between our utopia or their heaven. i know which one i would choose our utopia for that will one day be a reality whilst their heaven does not even exist.

NorthStarRepublicML

29th August 2007, 01:11

vinny is yet again completly right.

ok, whenever you two are done blowing each other ....

Imperialism means the act of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

actually it sounds like you are picking and choosing definitions that fit your argument (which still escapes me) ....

yes imperialism is about extending control over foreign countries, but that is achieved by directly seizing the economic means of production and the raw materials ... by extracting profit ...

colonialism is a different term and while similar to imperialism is not the same, marx wrote a bit on colonialism ... and it is accepted that colonialism is one path to imperialism:

The epoch of imperialism opens when the expansion of colonialism has covered the globe and no new colonies can be acquired by the great powers except by taking them from each other, and the concentration of capital has grown to a point where finance capital becomes dominant over industrial capital.

So you're telling me that when America increases its population (to increase its population means "growing" its "numbers") by annexing a small country it's no longer called Imperialism?

please be more clear .... this sounds like you don't understand how population grows ... america is mostly dependent on immigration to achieve growth and the act of seizing new lands is not typically to gain populations but resources ...

the act of seizing new territories is colonialism

Though the word colonialism is often used interchangeably with imperialism, the latter is sometimes used more broadly as it covers control exercised informally (via influence) as well as formal military control or economic leverage.

by the way .... i can agree that Islamic or terrorists or otherwise may be reactionaries ... they are certainly not imperialists, at least not at the moment ...

and religions are not imperialist either ... some are reactionary, not imperialist ....

if you are going to attempt to appear as though you are "smarter" or older or whatever you would do well to argue in a scientific way ...

read up on these materials and get your facts straight before you try to play village elder ... you sound like the village idiot ...

Edit: opps, i missed this little gem of knowledge ....

How does that apply to non-Marxists then sunshine?

Oh yeah...

It doesn't!

actually Marxist is a scientific system for studying human societies by way of class struggle and the relations of production, just because you don't understand how it works does not exempt you from the system.

so yes .. because of these relations it includes all peoples and societies .. no one is exempt from class society ....

you are using bourgeoisie definitions of "imperialism" and as such are promoting ignorance and reactionary thought ...

RHIZOMES

29th August 2007, 01:16

Northstar that was great.

And Vinny you ignored this again. A simple yes or no will suffice.

Originally posted by g.ram+August 26, 2007 04:22 pm--> (g.ram @ August 26, 2007 04:22 pm)
Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 24, 2007 01:47 am

[email protected] 23, 2007 12:38 pm
Please, Vinny, show us a single instance of Hezbollah undertaking an imperialist act.
Muslims are increasing their numbers by over 2 percent each year and have been doing so for decades now.

They now have number reaching nearly 1.8 billion spread over 6 continents and over 100 different countries. Many of these countries have actually adding the word "Islamic State" into the names of the nations!

If you don't think this is imperialism then you need to go back to school.
:rolleyes: So what is your proposal ?

The nest version of T4 ? That would be good idea to "control" Muslim terrorism I suppose.
Maybe he wants to impose immigration restrictions on them.

Vinny, do you? You seem like you do, with your talk of how THEY'RE SPREADING EVERYWHERE HOLY SHIT.[/b]

Vinny Rafarino

29th August 2007, 20:39

Originally posted by the not so good at being a muslim guy+--> (the not so good at being a muslim guy)And Vinny you ignored this again. A simple yes or no will suffice.[/b]

Once again you are confused.

Scroll up to see where I have already responded to that question. I'll give you a hint..it's even on this very page! :lol:

wacky religious cat
actually Marxist is a scientific system for studying human societies by way of class struggle and the relations of production, just because you don't understand how it works does not exempt you from the system.

so yes .. because of these relations it includes all peoples and societies .. no one is exempt from class society

Nice attempt at explaining MArxism to a former Marxist of 20 years but unfortunately you have failed.

You failed because you aren't even sure you understand Marxsm. Marxism is simply a political and social theory named after Karl Marx; nothing more.

The actual science behind these theories can be called "dialectics" by the mystics or "materialism" by the materialists...I hope that was layman enough for you to understand.

actually it sounds like you are picking and choosing definitions that fit your argument (which still escapes me)

It seems to me that a great many things have a tendency to escape you. :lol:

As far as the definition goes, I'll stick to the same one I originally posted. You remember, the one from the English language.

yes imperialism is about extending control over foreign countries, but that is achieved by directly seizing the economic means of production and the raw materials ... by extracting profit ...

You're confused again.

Economic Imperialism can be obtained without directly seizing the means of production.

As you are unfamiliar with both the definition of Imperialism and Economics, I'm sure you won't understand that one wither.

please be more clear .... this sounds like you don't understand how population grows ... america is mostly dependent on immigration to achieve growth and the act of seizing new lands is not typically to gain populations but resources ...

Do not confuse yourself even further by attemting to respond to questions that were not directed at you.

the act of seizing new territories is colonialism

Not exactly.

Colonialism is the act of controlling or exploiting another country. Actual annexing doesn't even need to happen.

Good grief.

they are certainly not imperialists, at least not at the moment ...

Then you are still confused on what "imperialism" means.

if you are going to attempt to appear as though you are "smarter" or older or whatever you would do well to argue in a scientific way ...

You're having too much trouble understanding simple English. I fear that confusing you any further may possibly lead you into madness. :lol:

you are using bourgeoisie definitions of "imperialism" and as such are promoting ignorance and reactionary thought ...

You're definitely high.

Does that mean that the definition of an "apple" as defined by the "bourgeois" is not it's actual definition.

What is the "marxist" definition of an apple then? :lol:

ok, whenever you two are done blowing each other ....

Jealous?

settlefornothin

30th August 2007, 18:18

http://photos-b.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v99/201/20/8806074/n8806074_35258917_2868.jpg

From the Recent G8 Summit in Germany, this seems to me like the correct idea for any leftist.

settlefornothin

30th August 2007, 18:22

As for religion, Napoleon summed that up best: "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." Religion is anti-revolutionary, and anti-proletarian

spartan

31st August 2007, 00:09

exactly settlefornothin whilst we are massacring the capitalists in the revolution we should be doing the same to the religious fools who believe in fairys :lol: there should be no compromise when it comes to religion for it is the same as capitalism anti proletariat. and remember religion teaches people not to harm another being dont you think this is the capitalists way of stopping a violent revolution from happening.

Dean

31st August 2007, 02:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 11:09 pm
exactly settlefornothin whilst we are massacring the capitalists in the revolution we should be doing the same to the religious fools who believe in fairys :lol: there should be no compromise when it comes to religion for it is the same as capitalism anti proletariat. and remember religion teaches people not to harm another being dont you think this is the capitalists way of stopping a violent revolution from happening.
Lovely.

Faux Real

31st August 2007, 02:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 04:09 pm
exactly settlefornothin whilst we are massacring the capitalists in the revolution we should be doing the same to the religious fools who believe in fairys :lol: there should be no compromise when it comes to religion for it is the same as capitalism anti proletariat. and remember religion teaches people not to harm another being dont you think this is the capitalists way of stopping a violent revolution from happening.
Yayaya lets kill off 85% of the worlds population!!!1111 :D

Genocidal anarchists four thee win.

The Advent of Anarchy

31st August 2007, 03:06

Religious rendition is the most powerful and most dangerous things in the world. If there was a Christian Communist movement in the United States, the ruling class will be shaken to their foundations, and finally destroyed.

Vinny Rafarino

31st August 2007, 18:42

Originally posted by Spartan
exactly settlefornothin whilst we are massacring the capitalists in the revolution we should be doing the same to the religious fools who believe in fairys

Whoah...cool those jets turbo.

We are not in business of whacking out members of the masses; we are in the business of liberating them.

Come back down to planet earth jack.

RNK

31st August 2007, 19:51

spartan

31st August 2007, 20:01

yeah but what about the ones who dont want to be liberated or accept our new way vinny? surely we will have to destroy them for we cant have two worlds one anarchist the other all religious people can we?

Vinny Rafarino

31st August 2007, 20:32

Vinny, if you decide to move to another country, because of better job oppurtunities, less rampant political corruption and the (false) promise of a higher quality of living... is that imperialism?

Why?

Are you considering relocating?

I have some beach side property in Arizona I will part with real cheap.

yeah but what about the ones who dont want to be liberated or accept our new way vinny? surely we will have to destroy them for we cant have two worlds one anarchist the other all religious people can we?

What about them?

A revolution will never be successful unless it's composed of the massive majority of the population.

Killing off that massive majority is not only a sure fire way to eliminate the possibility of a revolt completely but is also a quick way to get your ass in a heap of trouble for promoting genocide.

RNK

31st August 2007, 20:49

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 31, 2007 07:32 pm

Vinny, if you decide to move to another country, because of better job oppurtunities, less rampant political corruption and the (false) promise of a higher quality of living... is that imperialism?

Why?

Are you considering relocating?

I have some beach side property in Arizona I will part with real cheap.
Well, you're claiming that muslims who emigrate to other countries to pursue better lives are carrying out an "imperialist invasion". Since you seem not to have a problem with me doing the same, I have to ask why it's a problem for muslims to do it.

Btw, please learn to differentiate from the frothing, barbaric islamic jihadists the everyday Joe al-Baqtara.

spartan

31st August 2007, 20:50

how will we get in trouble of genocide when we will be the winners? there will be no capitalists left to accuse or try us for genocide. also it would not be genocide but reactionarycide :D

Andy Bowden

31st August 2007, 22:35

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 27, 2007 07:22 pm

f you are going to continue to state this apparent fact then you will need to cite sources, or at least one source, don't expect anyone to take you at your word, especially because you have made other claims here that have already proved false or at least misinterpreted (Imperialism).

Since you're still confused, I'll explain it for you: Imperialism means the act of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

Sound familiar?

Here's the complete list:

State Year of Accession

Afghanistan 1969
Albania 1992
Algeria 1969
Azerbaijan 1991
Bahrain 1970
Bangladesh 1974
Benin 1982
Brunei Darussalam 1984
Burkina Faso 1975
Cameroon 1975
Chad 1969
Comoros 1976
Cote d'Ivoire 2001
Djibouti 1978
Egypt 1969
Gabon 1974
The Gambia 1974
Guinea 1969
Guinea-Bissau 1974
Guyana 1998
Indonesia 1969
Iran 1969
Iraq 1976
Jordan 1969
Kazakhstan 1995
Kuwait 1969
Kyrgyzstan 1992
Lebanon 1969
Libya 1969
Malaysia 1969
Maldives 1976
Mali 1969
Mauritania 1969
Morocco 1969
Mozambique 1994
Niger 1969
Nigeria 1986
Oman 1970
Pakistan 1969
Palestine State (proposed) 1969
Qatar 1970
Saudi Arabia 1969
Senegal 1969
Sierra Leone 1972
Somalia 1969
Sudan 1969
Surinam 1996
Syria 1970
Tajikistan 1992
Togo 1997
Tunisia 1969
Turkey 1969
Turkmenistan 1992
Uganda 1974
United Arab Emirates 1970
Uzbekistan 1995
Yemen 1969

Get it yet son?
Yeah, thats a list of countries which have become independent (or in the case of Palestine, declared) which have varying degrees of Muslim majority populations.

It doesn't mean that they're some "Imperial gains" of Islam anymore than France, UK, Germany, Ireland etc are "Imperial gains" of Christianity cos they have majority Christian populations

Vinny Rafarino

31st August 2007, 22:49

Originally posted by Andy+--> (Andy)Yeah, thats a list of countries which have become independent (or in the case of Palestine, declared) which have varying degrees of Muslim majority populations.[/b]

Not exactly.

It's a list that contain the phrase "Islamic state of" before the actual name of the country.

These states are run according to Islamic law.

It doesn't mean that they're some "Imperial gains" of Islam anymore than France, UK, Germany, Ireland etc are "Imperial gains" of Christianity cos they have majority Christian populations

I beg do differ.

After Constantine, Christian Imperialism ran rampant and still exists to this very day!

Originally posted by [email protected]

Well, you're claiming that muslims who emigrate to other countries to pursue better lives are carrying out an "imperialist invasion"

No I'm not.

That's what you say I'm claiming and nothing more.

If you want to deny that religious Imperialism exists then go right ahead. It wouldn't be this first time a Maoist ignored or revised history.

Since you seem not to have a problem with me doing the same, I have to ask why it's a problem for muslims to do it.

All people have the right to take their asses anywhere they feel fit. You see, I don't believe in borders or nationalism.

Do you?

Btw, please learn to differentiate from the frothing, barbaric islamic jihadists the everyday Joe al-Baqtara.

If you yourself support the movements from these "frothing, barbaric islamic jihadists" then perhaps you need to ask yourself the very same question.

spartan
how will we get in trouble of genocide when we will be the winners? there will be no capitalists left to accuse or try us for genocide. also it would not be genocide but reactionarycide biggrin.gif

You will get in trouble because your "movement" will never get off the ground.

The only thing that won't be around is you.

Dude, if you want people to take you seriously stop acting like you're fresh out of Thermopylae.

That crap is more suited to Dungeons and Dragons conventions; not a leftist message board.

spartan

31st August 2007, 23:05

come on vinny the revolution is not going to come about peacefully. and we might as well kill all our enemies who wont repent instead of leaving them alive to do damage to the revolution. and i thought this forum was called REVLEFT in other words REVOLUTIONARY in left wing politics revolution usually means violence not peaceful sit down protest crap.

Vinny Rafarino

31st August 2007, 23:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 03:05 pm
come on vinny the revolution is not going to come about peacefully. and we might as well kill all our enemies who wont repent instead of leaving them alive to do damage to the revolution.
Sorry jack, if you think you're ever going to get me to support that bullshit then you are sadly mistaken.

Back to your mother's basement for you!!

RHIZOMES

1st September 2007, 07:24

Not exactly.

It's a list that contain the phrase "Islamic state of" before the actual name of the country.

These states are run according to Islamic law.

Wow, second error I've seen you made, first being "Pakistan doesn't have nuclear weapons".

The only countries that have "Islamic State of" in front of their actual names to the best of my knowledge is Mauritania, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran.

Looking at that list, I'm failing to see how 1992 Albania could be run according to Islamic law when most of the country is atheist, or how the radically secular nation of Turkey could be run according the Islamic law.

No I'm not.

That's what you say I'm claiming and nothing more.

yes you did.

Muslims are increasing their numbers by over 2 percent each year and have been doing so for decades now.

They now have number reaching nearly 1.8 billion spread over 6 continents and over 100 different countries. Many of these countries have actually adding the word "Islamic State" into the names of the nations!

If you don't think this is imperialism then you need to go back to school.

They spread to the Americas and Europe and Australia by immigration.

RNK

1st September 2007, 08:58

Is Vinny backpedalling now? :lol:

Andy Bowden

2nd September 2007, 16:03

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 31, 2007 09:49 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 31, 2007 09:49 pm)
Andy
Yeah, thats a list of countries which have become independent (or in the case of Palestine, declared) which have varying degrees of Muslim majority populations.

Not exactly.

It's a list that contain the phrase "Islamic state of" before the actual name of the country.

These states are run according to Islamic law. [/b]
Albania is run according to Islamic law? Im sure that'll be news to most Albanians.

There are actually only a few "Islamic Republics" in the world - Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Mauritania. Although there are Kingdoms such as Saudi Arabia etc that are not Islamic Republics but do enforce a legal system based on Sharia.

However many of the countries put on that list are neither Islamist in name or practice - others are more complex. For example Syria is run by the secular Baath party, but has influence from Sharia in terms of divorce, family laws etc.

This doesn't make it an "Islamic Republic", as the popular consensus sees it, with Taliban style stonings though. The reality is there would be little scope for divorce full stop if Syria was ruled by supporters of Political Islam.

The scope for Al Qaeda to seize political power in Muslim countries was actually better 10 or 20 years ago, before their Egyptian uprising and Algerian Jihad were crushed. Thats partly the reason they went for spectacular terror attacks - to try and rouse the masses into a state where they could be mobilised for an Islamic Revolution.

In terms of seizing state power though, its been no more effective than killing Sadat was for Egypt.

Vinny Rafarino

4th September 2007, 20:35

Originally posted by piss poor excuse for a Muslim+--> (piss poor excuse for a Muslim)Wow, second error I've seen you made, first being "Pakistan doesn't have nuclear weapons".[/b]

You're confused.

There are only eight states that have been confirmed to have nuclear weapons and Pakistan is not one of them.

The only countries that have "Islamic State of" in front of their actual names to the best of my knowledge is Mauritania, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran.

Sure, their is only four states that have actually passed the law to include the name Islamic state of or a version thereof into their name.

The other 53 states haven't bothered to yet.

Looking at that list, I'm failing to see how 1992 Albania could be run according to Islamic law when most of the country is atheist,

To begin with this list comes directly from the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Since you're not familiar with many things that a normal Muslim would be I doubt you even know what the OIC is.

Second, over 70 percent of Albania's population is Muslim. Good grief, prior to the recent Christian occupation that number for over 90 percent for centuries.

or how the radically secular nation of Turkey could be run according the Islamic law.

The only thing keeping Turkey secular is the military; without them the government would have been completely Islamic years ago.

As a matter of fact, recently the Turkish military had to publicly state that they would hold a coup if the government tried any funny business.

yes you did.

Wrong.

The words "imperialist invaders" never came from me.

That was you're little spin on my remarks.

hey spread to the Americas and Europe and Australia by immigration

I'm sure that math, like logic, is not your area of expertise but I'll give it a go anyway:

How exactly does standard immigration account for an annual increase of over 2 percent?

Originally posted by Mickey Mao-[email protected]
Is Vinny backpedalling now? laugh.gif

Nope.

This train has been running down reactionaries like yourself for decades with no end in sight!

Andy
Albania is run according to Islamic law? Im sure that'll be news to most Albanians.

Nope, they've been well aware of it for centuries.

There are actually only a few "Islamic Republics" in the world - Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Mauritania. Although there are Kingdoms such as Saudi Arabia etc that are not Islamic Republics but do enforce a legal system based on Sharia.

The OIC has a different story.

However many of the countries put on that list are neither Islamist in name or practice - others are more complex. For example Syria is run by the secular Baath party, but has influence from Sharia in terms of divorce, family laws etc.

This doesn't make it an "Islamic Republic", as the popular consensus sees it, with Taliban style stonings though. The reality is there would be little scope for divorce full stop if Syria was ruled by supporters of Political Islam.

No "taliban style stonings" in Syria?

You've been grossly misinformed:

Syrian Deputy Minister of Religious Endowments, Muhammad Abd Al-Sattar Al-Sayyid: AIDS Patients Should Be Stoned before Spreading Their Disease.

The following are excerpts from an interview with the Syrian deputy minister of religious endowments, Muhammad Abd Al-Sattar Al-Sayyid, which aired on Syrian TV on August 30, 2005.

Read more here. (http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2006/03/syrian-govt-cleric-endorses-stoning.html)

I wonder what you would call this type of stoning?

The "exactly identical but not the same as Taliban style stonings"? :lol:

Dean

5th September 2007, 01:10

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+September 04, 2007 07:35 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ September 04, 2007 07:35 pm)
piss poor excuse for a Muslim
Wow, second error I've seen you made, first being "Pakistan doesn't have nuclear weapons".

You're confused.

There are only eight states that have been confirmed to have nuclear weapons and Pakistan is not one of them. [/b]
Sure they don't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Pakistan. 27s_Nuclear_Infrastructure), and neither does Israel.

Let's just talk about politically correct concepts from now on. N. Korea is a free Communist state, Guantanamo Bay is cool because they're just militant combatants, etc.

Or, we can accept the facts. Pakistan has nuclear arms, and so does Israel.

RHIZOMES

5th September 2007, 07:57

You're confused.

There are only eight states that have been confirmed to have nuclear weapons and Pakistan is not one of them.

there are 5 confirmed nuclear states.

Taken from Wikipedia

This is a list of states with nuclear weapons, sometimes called the "nuclear club." There are currently eight states that have successfully detonated nuclear weapons. Five are considered to be "nuclear weapons states", an internationally recognized status conferred by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In order of acquisition of nuclear weapons these are: the United States, Russia (successor state to the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, France, and China.

Since the formulation of the NPT, three non-signatory states have conducted nuclear tests: India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Israel is also widely believed to have nuclear weapons, though it has refused to confirm or deny this.[1] The status of these nations is not formally recognized by international bodies as none of them are currently signatories to the NPT.

the other 3 aren't signatories.

So when you said "Only 8 have confirmed nuclear weapons", Pakistan *is* one of them. They've done nuclear tests and everything. They're not even hiding it like Israel is.

Sure, their is only four states that have actually passed the law to include the name Islamic state of or a version thereof into their name.

The other 53 states haven't bothered to yet.

Proof?

To begin with this list comes directly from the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Since you're not familiar with many things that a normal Muslim would be I doubt you even know what the OIC is.

Second, over 70 percent of Albania's population is Muslim. Good grief, prior to the recent Christian occupation that number for over 90 percent for centuries.

Nope, they've been well aware of it for centuries.

The OIC has a different story.

Wrong again. While I am indeed aware that Albania used to be majority Muslim, that was before Hoxha's brutal suppression of all things religious. You are kinda right, only 70 percent of the the religious population of Albania is Muslim. However, only 40 percent of Albania is religious. The President and Prime Minister of the country are both atheists. Now, how exactly would a country run according to Islamic law have atheists in power?

It seems to me you just took a list of countries that joined an organization of Islamic-majority countries.

The only thing keeping Turkey secular is the military; without them the government would have been completely Islamic years ago.

As a matter of fact, recently the Turkish military had to publicly state that they would hold a coup if the government tried any funny business.
You basically just said I was right about Turkey. The government is SECULAR even if it's being told to be secular by the military. The government is still a secular government.

I'm sure that math, like logic, is not your area of expertise but I'll give it a go anyway:

How exactly does standard immigration account for an annual increase of over 2 percent?

Do I have to bold what you said now?

Muslims are increasing their numbers by over 2 percent each year and have been doing so for decades now.

They now have number reaching nearly 1.8 billion spread over 6 continents and over 100 different countries. Many of these countries have actually adding the word "Islamic State" into the names of the nations!

If you don't think this is imperialism then you need to go back to school.

the fact that Muslims are prodominantly in third-world countries where the population growth is high is not the issue. you called Muslims who have moved to Europe, the Americas and Australia imperialists.

And anyway, how exactly do they plan out their imperialism? Do all Muslims go to some kind of secret Islamic meeting every Thursday to discuss their plans of world domination by having shitloads of kids?

Vinny Rafarino

5th September 2007, 17:32

there are 5 confirmed nuclear states.

Taken from Wikipedia

I will concede the Pakistan issue.

Not that it matter much. Now, stroke your stiffy and pat yourself on the back for a while.

Proof?

In the pudding sunshine.

If a government has bothered to register with the OIC then they themselves consider their country to be an Islamic state.

Regardless about how you feel about it.

Wrong again. While I am indeed aware that Albania used to be majority Muslim, that was before Hoxha's brutal suppression of all things religious. You are kinda right, only 70 percent of the the religious population of Albania is Muslim. However, only 40 percent of Albania is religious. The President and Prime Minister of the country are both atheists. Now, how exactly would a country run according to Islamic law have atheists in power?

You're confusion is endless.

I don't care what you think about the religious population of Albania; I care about how the government that rules the country thinks about it.

In any case you're still wrong about the percentages:

The majority of citizens are secular in orientation after decades of rigidly enforced atheism under the Communist regime, which ended in 1990. Despite such secularism, most citizens traditionally associate themselves with a religious group. Citizens of Muslim background make up the largest traditional religious group (estimated at 65 to 70 percent of the population) and are divided into two communities: those associated with a moderate form of Sunni Islam and those associated with the Bektashi school (a particularly liberal form of Shi'a Sufism). In 1925 after the revolution of Ataturk, the country became the world center of Bektashism, although it has not been recognized as such by the Government. Bektashis are concentrated mainly in the central and southern regions and are estimated to represent approximately one quarter of the country's Muslim population.

Once again it's your opinion versus reality and you still are not fairing well.

It seems to me you just took a list of countries that joined an organization of Islamic-majority countries.

And that confuses you how?

You basically just said I was right about Turkey. The government is SECULAR even if it's being told to be secular by the military. The government is still a secular government.

You're confused again.

The government is not themselves a secular force; they are kept secular by the military under threat of coup.

Given a choice they would gladly run the country under Islamic law.

Just ask the new President.

Do I have to bold what you said now?

If you want but I fear you may confuse yourself even further.

the fact that Muslims are prodominantly in third-world countries where the population growth is high is not the issue. you called Muslims who have moved to Europe, the Americas and Australia imperialists.

No I didn't, that's just what your confused little mind got from it.

I said that Islam (like all major religions including Christianity) is an Imperialistic force.

That does not mean that the ultra-Christian mom from the mid-west is planning an Imperialistic siege while using the church bake sale as cover for the "operation".

It also means that the everyday Muslim is not some wacko agent for religious Imperialism.

They like the rest of the oppressed population are simply stuck between a "stoning and a hard place". :lol:

Do all Muslims go to some kind of secret Islamic meeting every Thursday to discuss their plans of world domination by having shitloads of kids?

If you are unfamiliar with the historical facts behind religious imperialism using military force and standard missionary practises then I suggest you take some classes on it.

Hopefully that will ease your confusion in the matter.

Andy Bowden

5th September 2007, 18:46

I don't care what you think about the religious population of Albania; I care about how the government that rules the country thinks about it.

Article 10
1.
In the Republic of Albania there is no official religion. (http://www.ipls.org/services/kusht/cp1.html)

That actually makes Albania one of the more secular countries in the world, most of which have some official state religion.

Also the political process of Albania is dominated by ex-Communist, Free Market and vague Social Democrat types (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Albania) - The only religous party is the Christian Democrats!

No "taliban style stonings" in Syria?

You've been grossly misinformed:

Syrian Deputy Minister of Religious Endowments, Muhammad Abd Al-Sattar Al-Sayyid: AIDS Patients Should Be Stoned before Spreading Their Disease.

The following are excerpts from an interview with the Syrian deputy minister of religious endowments, Muhammad Abd Al-Sattar Al-Sayyid, which aired on Syrian TV on August 30, 2005.

Read more here.

I wonder what you would call this type of stoning?

I'd call it proposed stoning. A top level cleric is calling for stoning to be introduced.

Which logically implies that there are no "Taliban style stonings" in Syria at present.

Clerics can and do call for all kind of things across the world. What matters is actually having the state power to enforce their laws; having a majority population of Muslims doesn't equal Islamist state power.

That theory assumes all Muslims are one homogenous block with Islamic Law as a universal interest, instead of the reality; that Muslims like the rest of the world are split into classes, where the majority of Muslims, the working class, would be victims of Islamic law, economically, culturally and politically.

Vinny Rafarino

5th September 2007, 19:35

That actually makes Albania one of the more secular countries in the world, most of which have some official state religion.

So "secular" that the government themselves applied for membership in the OIC. :lol:

Regardless of what their "official policy" is on religion, the fact remains the same that religion, in particular Islam, currently dominates Albanian society.

Also the political process of Albania is dominated by ex-Communist, Free Market and vague Social Democrat types - The only religous party is the Christian Democrats!

Says who?

You?

I'd call it proposed stoning. A top level cleric is calling for stoning to be introduced.

Which logically implies that there are no "Taliban style stonings" in Syria at present.

That's definitely some unique and rather quaint "logic" you have used to make that assertion.

Reality suggests that you're wrong and so do the Syrians:

17 year old Iraqi girl stoned to death in Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du%E2%80%99a_Khalil_Aswad)

Clerics can and do call for all kind of things across the world. What matters is actually having the state power to enforce their laws; having a majority population of Muslims doesn't equal Islamist state power.

Tell that to Du’a Khalil Aswad and the thousands of others that are stoned to death in areas that don't have an "Islamic state power.

The fact that these governments and the people responsible for these barbaric rituals still have not done anything about the issue is a clear and quite logical conclusion that they don't do anything about them because they truly believe these repulsive actions are justified!

That theory assumes all Muslims are one homogenous block with Islamic Law as a universal interest, instead of the reality; that Muslims like the rest of the world are split into classes, where the majority of Muslims, the working class, would be victims of Islamic law, economically, culturally and politically.

I agree.

Where you're getting at in relation to this particular debate beats me.

It probably beats even you.

Andy Bowden

5th September 2007, 21:12

Regardless of what their "official policy" is on religion, the fact remains the same that religion, in particular Islam, currently dominates Albanian society.

In what sense does it dominate Albanian society? Its not the official religion and it has neither influence in law or politics. Is there any area of domestic policy where Islam dominates in Albania? Divorce, abortion laws, etc?

Says who?

You?

Check out the political parties in Albania who have won seats in the Parliament. A variety of ex-Communists, free-market, and social democrat type parties. No Islamists.

There are no political parties of any relevance who have based their political programme on Islam. There doesn't even appear to be any in existence, at least on the list of the wiki site.

Reality suggests that you're wrong and so do the Syrians:

17 year old Iraqi girl stoned to death in Syria

That doesn't change the fact that the Syrian state is not executing people by stoning - ie, it is not a Taliban style Islamic State.

Thats what the Cleric in your previous post was calling for, that Syria as a state should murder AIDS sufferers and homosexuals.

And the girl in question was killed for converting TO Islam by NON-Muslims, the Yazidi sect. Ironically had Syria been an Taliban-style state her murderers would probably face a grisly fate for being (1) "pagans" and (2) killing a "true believer".

The fact that these governments and the people responsible for these barbaric rituals still have not done anything about the issue is a clear and quite logical conclusion that they don't do anything about them because they truly believe these repulsive actions are justified!

Given that Du'a Khalil Aswad was killed for converting to Islam, do you think therefore think that Syria's Baathist rulers think murdering converts to Islam is justified?

This would mean all the activities, from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to the GSPC's activities in Algeria all have or had the backing of those countries governments, cos they happened in their territory. The reality is both countries governments came down like a ton of bricks on them.

Tell that to Du’a Khalil Aswad and the thousands of others that are stoned to death in areas that don't have an "Islamic state power.

Theres no doubt that Radical Islamists carry out atrocities in areas they don't control - my point is that Al Qaeda type groups attempts to take state power have generally been total failures, from Egypt to Algeria.

In Egypt hardly any Muslims cared when Sadat was murdered, let alone rise in the revolution Zawahiri desired. They were totally isolated, they most they got was Zawahiris speech from his cell.

Despite winning the election, the radical Islamists lost favour with the majority of Algeria because they bombed civilians indiscriminately, before breaking into factions who began bombing each other and declaring their own splinters as the true believers.

In Iran where they do hold power they face a groundswell of opposition, and Hamas would probably lose an election to Fatah if they were held tommorow.

Even in Turkey the AKP's maximum level of support is 46%, and thats on some distinctly non-Islamist proposals, like getting Turkey into the EU.

This failure to win state power in the Arab world is the reason Al Qaeda went for "spectacular" operations like on 9/11, they believed this would break the apathy of Muslims and allow them to take state power. Unfortunately for them its been as successful for revolution as killing Sadat was.

I agree.

Where you're getting at in relation to this particular debate beats me.

It probably beats even you.

It was based on this post,

Muslims are increasing their numbers by over 2 percent each year and have been doing so for decades now.

They now have number reaching nearly 1.8 billion spread over 6 continents and over 100 different countries. Many of these countries have actually adding the word "Islamic State" into the names of the nations!

If you don't think this is imperialism then you need to go back to school.

Ie, "Muslims" as a block are increasing their numbers, there are now loads of them in many countries, these countries have become Islamic states, and this is imperialism.

This seemed to infer a link between increasing Muslim population growth of over 2% = many Islamic states = imperialism.

My point is Islamic States wont be built due to population growth since they (Islamists) aren't very popular in countries where there is and has been an overwhelming majority of Muslims.

Ismail

5th September 2007, 21:32

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 05, 2007 03:12 pm
In what sense does it dominate Albanian society? Its not the official religion and it has neither influence in law or politics. Is there any area of domestic policy where Islam dominates in Albania? Divorce, abortion laws, etc?
A majority of the religiously-inspired deaths are actually from non-Islamic sources. Like people in the less-regulated north who have blood feuds ("You kill my brother? I KILL YOU! AND YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY!!!") which is a law in the Kanun. Also, their treatment of women was more harsh than the treatment of women in Iran right now. It was only under Enver Hoxha that all these fucked up practices were either ended or reduced as much of possible. It's coming back now, of course.

In this case, Islam > tribal beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gjakmarrja

According to Japanese researcher Kazuhiko Yamamoto, "the ethical structure of the Kanun is based on pagan culture." - Wikipedia.

Vinny Rafarino

5th September 2007, 21:47

n what sense does it dominate Albanian society? Its not the official religion and it has neither influence in law or politics. Is there any area of domestic policy where Islam dominates in Albania? Divorce, abortion laws, etc?

One more time:

In the sense that the Albanian government has seen fit to resister their state as an official Islamic state.

heck out the political parties in Albania who have won seats in the Parliament. A variety of ex-Communists, free-market, and social democrat type parties. No Islamists.

You're trying to tell me that sine 1992 when the Albanian president was a Muslim there has never been another Muslim in the government?

Is your Albania located on Neptune or something because mine is tight here on Earth.

That doesn't change the fact that the Syrian state is not executing people by stoning - ie, it is not a Taliban style Islamic State.

Thats what the Cleric in your previous post was calling for, that Syria as a state should murder AIDS sufferers and homosexuals.

Okay...we will stick with the original plan and call them the "esactly the same as but different than Taliban style stonings".

Happy now? :lol:

And the girl in question was killed for converting TO Islam by NON-Muslims, the Yazidi sect. Ironically had Syria been an Taliban-style state her murderers would probably face a grisly fate for being (1) "pagans" and (2) killing a "true believer".

I don't give a rats ass what fanatical group carried out the execution; she is simply being used as proof of Stonings ("Taliban style" but not Taliban Style) in Syria.

Ironically had Syria been an Taliban-style state her murderers would probably face a grisly fate for being (1) "pagans" and (2) killing a "true believer".

And they would have immediately been stoned to death in a Taliban style of stoning that is identical to another type of stoning that is exactly like Taliban style stoning but is not referred to as such.

Right?

Given that Du'a Khalil Aswad was killed for converting to Islam, do you think therefore think that Syria's Baathist rulers think murdering converts to Islam is justified?

Who knows?

Chances are if it's good for the goose it's good for the gander.

Ie, "Muslims" as a block are increasing their numbers, there are now loads of them in many countries, these countries have become Islamic states, and this is imperialism.

This seemed to infer a link between increasing Muslim population growth of over 2% = many Islamic states = imperialism.

My point is Islamic States wont be built due to population growth since they (Islamists) aren't very popular in countries where there is and has been an overwhelming majority of Muslims.

Are you, like many others here, somehow ignorant to all the historical data about religious imperialism?

Andy Bowden

6th September 2007, 01:35

[
One more time:

In the sense that the Albanian government has seen fit to resister their state as an official Islamic state.

Bullshit. The constitution makes it clear Albania has no official religion, let alone an Islamic State.

The OIC itself is so vague that India (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/730/in1.htm) and the Phillipines (http://www.gov.ph/news/default.asp?i=3087) have tried to join.

These aren't even Muslim majority states, let alone Islamic Republics!

If you want to keep this fiction going that Albania is an Islamic Republic, then try finding examples of Sharia law being enforced etc within its borders. If it is it shouldn't be that hard to find, Islamic Law is not exactly stealthy. Good hunting.

You're trying to tell me that sine 1992 when the Albanian president was a Muslim there has never been another Muslim in the government?

Is your Albania located on Neptune or something because mine is tight here on Earth.

Yeah, cos Muslim = fundamentalist. Thats like saying Christian Prime Ministers of the UK are Christian theocrats. The Muslim Presidents of Albania didn't get in on a Sharia ticket, they got in on vague pro-democracy leanings.

Okay...we will stick with the original plan and call them the "esactly the same as but different than Taliban style stonings".

Happy now?

The Taliban stoned people who converted TO Islam?....

The difference in "stoning" isnt the physical act its who is carrying out.

It is who is carrying out, that determines how widespread Islamist repression can be carried out. Islamists out of power can stone people in mobs, Islamists in power stone dozens in sports stadiums. Thats the difference, and people in Albania would notice it if it changed...

Are you, like many others here, somehow ignorant to all the historical data about religious imperialism?

No. Im also not ignorant to far-right propaganda about how Muslim immigration will make the UK part of the caliphate :wacko: ...

Devrim

6th September 2007, 06:48

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 05, 2007 08:47 pm

And the girl in question was killed for converting TO Islam by NON-Muslims, the Yazidi sect. Ironically had Syria been an Taliban-style state her murderers would probably face a grisly fate for being (1) "pagans" and (2) killing a "true believer".

I don't give a rats ass what fanatical group carried out the execution; she is simply being used as proof of Stonings ("Taliban style" but not Taliban Style) in Syria.

Ironically had Syria been an Taliban-style state her murderers would probably face a grisly fate for being (1) "pagans" and (2) killing a "true believer".

And they would have immediately been stoned to death in a Taliban style of stoning that is identical to another type of stoning that is exactly like Taliban style stoning but is not referred to as such.

Right?

Given that Du'a Khalil Aswad was killed for converting to Islam, do you think therefore think that Syria's Baathist rulers think murdering converts to Islam is justified?

Who knows?

Chances are if it's good for the goose it's good for the gander.

I am not sure if Vinny's complete ignorance of the Middle East is feigned in other to show contempt, or not.

The fact remains though that not only was the girl in question not from a Muslim background but also that she was not even a Syrian. She was an Iraqi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du%E2%80%99a_Khalil_Aswad

This, therefore, obviously shows nothing about the state's intentions in Syria unless one wants to resort to the "they are all Arabs anyway" line.

On the subject of this murder, I think that all was not as it seemed as I pointed out at the time:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67892&hl=

Devrim

Vinny Rafarino

6th September 2007, 17:32

Originally posted by Little devie+--> (Little devie)The fact remains though that not only was the girl in question not from a Muslim background but also that she was not even a Syrian. She was an Iraqi.
[/b]

Did you not read this part from my original posting about the chick?

Here it is:

Originally posted by [email protected]
That's definitely some unique and rather quaint "logic" you have used to make that assertion.

Reality suggests that you're wrong and so do the Syrians:

17 year old Iraqi girl stoned to death in Syria

If you're going to try to show someone up, please pay attention so you don't embarrass yourself.

This, therefore, obviously shows nothing about the state's intentions in Syria unless one wants to resort to the "they are all Arabs anyway" line.

Of course not dear.

Nothing ever "shows" to a reactionary supporter of religious nut jobs; no matter how many kids get blown up, chicks get stoned to death or construction workers get their heads sawed off.

dandy andy
Bullshit. The constitution makes it clear Albania has no official religion, let alone an Islamic State.

I really don't care what you think is "bullshit" or not. The government of Albania filed with, and is a current member of, the OIC.

No matter how much you cry about it.

The OIC itself is so vague that India and the Phillipines have tried to join.

These aren't even Muslim majority states, let alone Islamic Republics!

No, you think it's "vague". The rest of the world knows exactly what it is.

eah, cos Muslim = fundamentalist.

Nope.

Religious fanatic wearing Armani's latest dynamite suite "= fundamentalist".

Get with the times son!

I noticed you conveniently changed the subject with an attempt to paint me as a bigot.

I don't blame you; it sucks to lose. :lol:

The difference in "stoning" isnt the physical act its who is carrying out.

Only to a reactionary.

The rest of us see stoning as murder; regardless of who "gives the order".

Islamists in power stone dozens in sports stadiums

In addition to hundreds that are stoned in villages.

Thats the difference, and people in Albania would notice it if it changed...

I of course won't speak for the what the people of Albania may or may not notice since I'm neither an Albanian, a seer or a time traveler.

Which one do you consider yourself to be privy to such information? :lol:

No. Im also not ignorant to far-right propaganda about how Muslim immigration will make the UK part of the caliphate wacko.gif ...

You think you're not ignorant to a number of things; reality says otherwise.

In any case, why exactly are you talking about the "UK becoming part of the caliphate".

Oh, right I remember now.

change the subject...change the subject...change the subject. :lol:

Typical.

Andy Bowden

6th September 2007, 23:25

Nope.

Religious fanatic wearing Armani's latest dynamite suite "= fundamentalist".

Right, and how many Albanian Presidents have fitted this mould? How many have been involved in funding, training, supporting suicide bombers or Jihadis?

You changed the topic when I asked you about Islamist involvement in Albanian politics. You commented that all Albanian Presidents since 1992 have been Muslim -not exactly surprising in a country where an overwhelming majority of the population is Muslim.

What matters is the political programme your elected in on; and none of them were elected on a programme to introduce Islam into politics.

Why are you so desperate to create some fictional Albanian jihadi movement? There are enough of them already without trying to create imaginary ones.

Only to a reactionary.

The rest of us see stoning as murder; regardless of who "gives the order".

Everyone knows stoning is abhorrent. I dont know why you brought that up as no one is defending stoning. Im simply pointing out that a lot more of it can go on when Islamists have control of a state apparatus to do it.

If Syria as a state were taken over by Islamists/Yazidi fundamentalists it would lead to far worse oppression of women, religious minorites, etc than they can do out of power. Now they dont have state power in Syria, and aren't anywhere near getting state power cos most Muslims in the middle east see through their bullshit.

I think you agree with that, so I dont actually know what were arguing over.

In any case, why exactly are you talking about the "UK becoming part of the caliphate".

Isnt it the logical end to this religous imperialism? Muslims are increasing in number in the UK, and will one day be a significant minority if not a majority. They already are in many areas. Isnt this how Islamic Republics are spread?

If they aren't then why exactly did you bring up population growth of Muslims alongside the numbers of Islamic Republics in the world? Its totally irrelevant considering that in most parts of the world where Muslims form an overwhelming majority Al Qaeda type groups have no chance of taking power.

I thought we agreed earlier on Islamic Republics are objectively bad news for the working-class majority of Muslims; so logically they would not be backed by the majority of Muslims regardless of their % growth in any country?

Vinny Rafarino

6th September 2007, 23:54

Right, and how many Albanian Presidents have fitted this mould? How many have been involved in funding, training, supporting suicide bombers or Jihadis?

Whether or not the "fit the mould" has nothing to do with the subject so why are you even bringing it up?

You changed the topic when I asked you about Islamist involvement in Albanian politics.

You're very confused dude, try reading the thread again.

You commented that all Albanian Presidents since 1992 have been Muslim

No I didn't.

This is what I said:

Originally posted by raf+--> (raf)You're trying to tell me that sine 1992 when the Albanian president was a Muslim there has never been another Muslim in the government?[/b]

Try again bucko.

not exactly surprising in a country where an overwhelming majority of the population is Muslim.

But didn't you just say this:

you
heck out the political parties in Albania who have won seats in the Parliament. A variety of ex-Communists, free-market, and social democrat type parties. No Islamists.

So which is it? :lol:

I dont know why you brought that up as no one is defending stoning.

Your attention span sucks. I would suggest scrolling back a bit and starting over.

I think you agree with that, so I dont actually know what were arguing over.

The Taliban style stonings that we're not allowed to call Taliban style stonings that you say both happen and don't happen in Syria.

That's what.

Isnt it the logical end to this religous imperialism? Muslims are increasing in number in the UK, and will one day be a significant minority if not a majority. They already are in many areas. Isnt this how Islamic Republics are spread?

I see you have busted out your time machine again.

How quaint.

If they aren't then why exactly did you bring up population growth of Muslims alongside the numbers of Islamic Republics in the world? Its totally irrelevant considering that in most parts of the world where Muslims form an overwhelming majority Al Qaeda type groups have no chance of taking power.

That's got nothing to do with your overly dramatic "siege of the UK" theory. I don't have a crystal ball so I will never be able to accurately predict when, where and how any type of imperialism, religious or otherwise, will transpire.

All I can tell you is that it currently happens and will probably continue to happen.

Look, the next time you have to ask "why" just read through the thread again.

That will at least save me from having to repeat myself over and over for you.

Andy Bowden

7th September 2007, 01:04

Countries can and do have Presidents who are observers of a religion and political systems dominated by ex-Communist and pro-free market parties. That an elected represenative is a Muslim does not mean that religion has influence on a countries politics.

In the UK the Prime Minister Gordon Brown is a practicing Christian - but he got into power on the Labour ticket, not because he was a practicing Christian.

Thats my point regarding Albania; there are no large Islamist parties, the Presidents elected who are Muslim dont get elected on a programme of introducing Sharia, etc.

Their religious views are pretty much irrelevant in terms of their political programme for Albania basically.

The Taliban style stonings that we're not allowed to call Taliban style stonings that you say both happen and don't happen in Syria.

That's what.

By "Taliban style stonings" I mean government sponsored stonings; that is stoning, as a means of execution officially carried out by the Government.

Syrias Government does not carry out stonings. Whether or not they tolerate them is a different debate, though Im at a loss as to why the Syrian Government would tactically support the stoning of a Muslim girl by a sect.

I'd imagine it would be far more in their interests (considering Syria has a Muslim majority population, and a tiny number of Yazidi) for it to be the other way round.

I don't have a crystal ball so I will never be able to accurately predict when, where and how any type of imperialism, religious or otherwise, will transpire.

No one has a crystal ball, we have to base whats going to happen in the future on the world around us today, and to some degree whats happened in the past.

My point is that I dont see how % growth of Muslims in Europe or anywhere else is "religious imperialism". It assumes all the new Muslims born want to be footsoldiers for Islam, when in areas of the world where they are a majority, most of them don't.

Devrim

7th September 2007, 06:35

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+September 06, 2007 04:32 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ September 06, 2007 04:32 pm)
Originally posted by Little devie+--> (Little devie)The fact remains though that not only was the girl in question not from a Muslim background but also that she was not even a Syrian. She was an Iraqi.
[/b]

Did you not read this part from my original posting about the chick?

Here it is:

Originally posted by raf
That's definitely some unique and rather quaint "logic" you have used to make that assertion.

Reality suggests that you're wrong and so do the Syrians:

17 year old Iraqi girl stoned to death in Syria

If you're going to try to show someone up, please pay attention so you don't embarrass yourself.
[/b]
She wasn't stoned to death in Syria. It seems that you are also geographically challenged:

[email protected]
The incident took place in Bashika, a town in Ninawa Governorate,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninawa_Governorate

Vinny Rafarino

This, therefore, obviously shows nothing about the state's intentions in Syria unless one wants to resort to the "they are all Arabs anyway" line.

Of course not dear.

Nothing ever "shows" to a reactionary supporter of religious nut jobs; no matter how many kids get blown up, chicks get stoned to death or construction workers get their heads sawed off.

You have the wrong person here. This is nothing I have ever supported.

Little devie

Don't patronize me.

Devrim

Vinny Rafarino

7th September 2007, 17:33

It seems that you are also geographically challenged:

I appears so.

Let's use this then:

http://www.ordoesitexplode.com/me/2005/10/..._to_outlaw.html (http://www.ordoesitexplode.com/me/2005/10/drive_to_outlaw.html)

How about this portion of Article 548 of the Syrian Legal Code:

1. He who catches his wife, or one of his ascendents, descendents or sister committing adultery (flagrante delicto) or illegitimate sex acts with another and he kills or injures one of both of them benefits from an exemption of penalty

2. He who catches his wife, or one of his ascendents, descendents or sister in a suspicious state (attitude equivoce) with another and he kills or injures one of both of them benefits from an exemption of penalty.

Stoning has been a traditional way to execute "honour killings" for a couple thousand years.

Your opinions are not going to change that.

Don't patronize me.

Or else? :lol:

Devrim

7th September 2007, 18:03

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 07, 2007 04:33 pm

It seems that you are also geographically challenged:

I appears so.

Let's use this then:

http://www.ordoesitexplode.com/me/2005/10/..._to_outlaw.html (http://www.ordoesitexplode.com/me/2005/10/drive_to_outlaw.html)

How about this portion of Article 548 of the Syrian Legal Code:

1. He who catches his wife, or one of his ascendents, descendents or sister committing adultery (flagrante delicto) or illegitimate sex acts with another and he kills or injures one of both of them benefits from an exemption of penalty

2. He who catches his wife, or one of his ascendents, descendents or sister in a suspicious state (attitude equivoce) with another and he kills or injures one of both of them benefits from an exemption of penalty.

Stoning has been a traditional way to execute "honour killings" for a couple thousand years.

Your opinions are not going to change that.

I don't really care about the argument you are having. I feel that the people that you are arguing against fall over themselves to support reactionary Islamic groups, and you seem to fall in behind the racist western media, at least in your tone. I just pointed out that the facts you used to support it were wrong.

Don't patronize me.

Or else? :lol:

Or else... nothing. What do you want me to do, issue some macho sounding threats to somebody in a country whatever country I don't know, but I am pretty sure is a long way from the Middle East?

First, it isn't very polite.

Second, 'Little Devie' is a bit patronising particularly if you are the average age of people on these boards, I presume I am at least twice your age, if not more, and even if you are not I presume we are at most the same age.

Devrim

Vinny Rafarino

7th September 2007, 18:43

Originally posted by devie (happy [email protected] I took the "little" out
, I presume I am at least twice your age, if not more

That would make you 80 or more.

Funny, I always thought that your generation didn't care for computers.

, and you seem to fall in behind the racist western media, at least in your tone.

How did you come to that conclusion?

I've never said anything about Arabs; just Islam.

Devrim

7th September 2007, 21:01

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+September 07, 2007 05:43 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ September 07, 2007 05:43 pm)
Originally posted by devie (happy [email protected] I took the "little" out
, I presume I am at least twice your age, if not more

That would make you 80 or more.

Funny, I always thought that your generation didn't care for computers.

[/b]

Devrim
if you are the average age of people on these boards, I presume I am at least twice your age, if not more, and even if you are not I presume we are at most the same age.

Second choice then, similar age, 40s.

and you seem to fall in behind the racist western media, at least in your tone.

How did you come to that conclusion?

I've never said anything about Arabs; just Islam.

The feeling that I get (without saying that this is what you think, but this is the tone that comes across) is that the Middle East is Muslim; forget the fact that there is a plurality of cultures, and religions they are all backward, Islamic fanatics.

In some ways it is the other side of the coin to what the rest of the leftists here are saying. They are defending Islam, and you are attacking it. The entire Middle east is Muslim, and most importantly class antagonisms throughout the region are ignored.

On another point congratulations on shifting the subject away from you not knowing what you were talking about. That was nicely done. ;)

Devrim

Devrim

7th September 2007, 21:14

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 07, 2007 12:04 am
Syrias Government does not carry out stonings. Whether or not they tolerate them is a different debate, though Im at a loss as to why the Syrian Government would tactically support the stoning of a Muslim girl by a sect.

I'd imagine it would be far more in their interests (considering Syria has a Muslim majority population, and a tiny number of Yazidi) for it to be the other way round.

Apart from the fact, which has already been pointed out, that this event happened in Iraq not Syria, and even then as I also mentioned before there are very suspicious things about it, there is another point to be made about Syria.

The ruling clique in Syria is not Muslim, but Alawite*. As they are a minority of about 10% of the population, it is in their interests to play down religious conflict, and be seen to be treating people from all religions equally.

Certainly they would not like to support a powerful Islamicist movement, or even Islamicists operating outside of state control. It would bring back to many memories of Hama in '82.

Devrim

*Of course an argument could be made that the Alawites are Muslims, but I think that the majority of Muslims would reject that.

Andy Bowden

7th September 2007, 21:51

Are Alawites similar to Shia or Sunni, ie a faction within the Muslim faith or something different entirely?

RedAnarchist

7th September 2007, 21:55

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 07, 2007 09:51 pm
Are Alawites similar to Shia or Sunni, ie a faction within the Muslim faith or something different entirely?

'Alawites are an offshoot of Shi'ites. Some other Muslims, particularly in Syria and Lebanon, accept them as Muslims, but others consider themheretics (ghali) and outside of Islam. 'Alawites have seven pillars of Islam, including Jihad and devotion to 'Ali,who is divine. 'Alawites believe in drinking wine, and they have something similar to a communion service. Tens of thousands of 'Alawites have been killed by other Muslims, but today 'Alawites are in control in the country of Syria..

That was from here (http://www.muslimhope.org/Alawites.htm).

Devrim

7th September 2007, 22:49

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 07, 2007 08:51 pm
Are Alawites similar to Shia or Sunni, ie a faction within the Muslim faith or something different entirely?
Their roots are in Shia Islam. However, I think that very few Muslims, who weren't beholden to the Syria state, would consider them to be Muslims today.

Devrim

Vinny Rafarino

10th September 2007, 22:46

Originally posted by Dev
The feeling that I get (without saying that this is what you think, but this is the tone that comes across) is that the Middle East is Muslim; forget the fact that there is a plurality of cultures, .

The massive majority in the Middle East are Muslim. So what? It still doesn't show how I've ever mentioned having and disdain for Arabs.

and religions they are all backward, Islamic fanatics

Any person that embraces any backwards philosophy is subsequently backwards; not just Muslims.

Muslims just happen to be what this thread is about. If you would like to see me comment on the backwardness of Christians, Jews and other superstitious folks then start a thread on it!

On another point congratulations on shifting the subject away from you not knowing what you were talking about. That was nicely done

Shifted appropriately to you not knowing what you're talking about.

If it will give you a little smile and possible put you in line to get a chocolate ship cookie I will confess:

I didn't fully read the article and made the assumption that the girl was in Syia.

Is your pecker shifting around yet?

Now, If you would like to discuss the other evidence I presented then go ahead. Otherwise soothe that stiffy and dunk that cookie esse.

Devrim

11th September 2007, 07:39

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+September 10, 2007 09:46 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ September 10, 2007 09:46 pm) Muslims just happen to be what this thread is about. If you would like to see me comment on the backwardness of Christians, Jews and other superstitious folks then start a thread on it!
[/b]
But the fact remains that their is a continuous attack on Muslims. You are not commenting on 'Christians, Jews and other superstitious folks'. Without saying that you are a racist, which I don't believe in any way, this could be the same sort of line that came from the far right.

There is a racist attack on people from Middle Eastern, and South Asia backgrounds in the West, and this attack is being made through a campaign against Islam, and Muslims, yet you fail to acknowledge this.

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+--> (Vinny Rafarino)The massive majority in the Middle East are Muslim. So what? It still doesn't show how I've ever mentioned having and disdain for Arabs.[/b]

I didn't say that you did mention it. What I have said is that you have the same tone as the right. Let's just look at a few Middle Eastern countries for a second though:

[email protected]
SYRIA:The majority are Arabic-speaking Sunni Muslims at 74% of the population. Other Muslim groups include Alawites 11%, Druze and other Muslim sects 5%. There are also various Christian sects constituting 10% of the total population.

LEBANON:It is estimated that about 59% are Muslims (Sunni, Shia, and Druze) and 39% are Christians (mostly Maronites, Greek Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Melkite Greek Catholics, Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Catholic).

TURKEY:Nominally, 94.0% of the Turkish population is Muslim[106] , of whom over 75% belong to the Sunni branch of Islam. A sizeable minority, about 20% of the Muslim population, is affiliated with the Shi'a Alevi sect.

So, in Syria about 75% of the population are Muslims, in Lebanon slightly over 50%, and In Turkey about 74%*.

A majority yes, but I wouldn't say that the Middle East is uniform in any way.

Perhaps a more important point is that yourself alongside all those on here who support political Islam (and you are right many people do), view everyone who comes from a Muslim background as a Muslim (actually I think this is to charitable, in reality it is everyone in the Middle East except the Israelis). Although it may come as a surprise to you (and the pro Islamicists) there are all people who live in the Middle East, who don't believe in any god(s).

For example the quote above says that 94% of the Turkish population are nominally Muslim. Non of my personal friends are (because I can't stand religion). All of them have Islam on their identity cards.

Vinny Rafarino
Is your pecker shifting around yet?

Now, If you would like to discuss the other evidence I presented then go ahead. Otherwise soothe that stiffy and dunk that cookie esse.

This is just shockingly rude.

Devrim

*I haven't included the Druze, Alevi, or Alawites as Muslims.

Hiero

11th September 2007, 07:52

Hating Amerikkka is the right thing to do, when you hate Amerikkka you're in good company.

Vinny Rafarino

13th September 2007, 19:58

Originally posted by dev
But the fact remains that their is a continuous attack on Muslims. You are not commenting on 'Christians, Jews and other superstitious folks'. .

Because that's what this thread is about; that is how message boards work.

Without saying that you are a racist, which I don't believe in any way, this could be the same sort of line that came from the far right.

A lot of things can be painted in many different ways according to each individual's opinion.

I personally don't care about the opinions of someone I have never even met; especially when they're crap.

There is a racist attack on people from Middle Eastern, and South Asia backgrounds in the West, and this attack is being made through a campaign against Islam, and Muslims, yet you fail to acknowledge this.

I understand it fully and it has nothing to do with me. I attack all religions equally and will continue to to so regardless of if it gets your panties in a twist.

I didn't say that you did mention it. What I have said is that you have the same tone as the right. Let's just look at a few Middle Eastern countries for a second though:

Once again: I don't give a hoot about what you think my "tone" is.

This is just shockingly rude.

Who the fuck are you?

Thurston Howell III? :lol:

" I say old chap, we don't stand for that kind of poppy-cock, lollygagging or boondoggling at the country club".

Grow a thicker skin.

jasmine

13th September 2007, 20:11

But the fact remains that their is a continuous attack on Muslims. You are not commenting on 'Christians, Jews and other superstitious folks'. Without saying that you are a racist, which I don't believe in any way, this could be the same sort of line that came from the far right.

Your instincts were right. He is a racist.

Vinny Rafarino

13th September 2007, 20:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 12:11 pm

Your instincts were right. He is a racist.
Race doesn't exist silly boy.

In any case I double dog dare you to find any quote from me that is "racist" as the word is know to us.

jasmine

13th September 2007, 20:15

There is a racist attack on people from Middle Eastern, and South Asia backgrounds in the West, and this attack is being made through a campaign against Islam, and Muslims, yet you fail to acknowledge this.

absolutely because he is a an ant¡-arab racist. This has been demonstrated on other threads but the admin does nothing,

Vinny Rafarino

13th September 2007, 20:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 12:15 pm

absolutely because he is a an ant¡-arab racist. This has been demonstrated on other threads but the admin does nothing,
We all know what your opinion is now prove it, shit bag.

jasmine

13th September 2007, 20:19

Race doesn't exist silly boy.

really, race doesn't exist? Explain.

spartan

13th September 2007, 20:35

No races do not exist jasmine unless of course you are the racist here because you said to prove that races dont exist (meaning you believe in races).

Faux Real

13th September 2007, 20:41

Race might not exist biologically, but it is a recent a social concept designed to separate and segregate different cultures and ethnicities. You can't deny people consider themselves racists, like the KKK, to feel superiority over another group Therefore, racism exists, though race might not.

A racist is someone who encourages segregation based on reasons above and quite a few more left out.
(edit: grammatical errors)

Devrim

13th September 2007, 20:59

Originally posted by jasmine+September 13, 2007 07:11 pm--> (jasmine @ September 13, 2007 07:11 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected]
But the fact remains that their is a continuous attack on Muslims. You are not commenting on 'Christians, Jews and other superstitious folks'. Without saying that you are a racist, which I don't believe in any way, this could be the same sort of line that came from the far right.

Your instincts were right. He is a racist.

Devrim
There is a racist attack on people from Middle Eastern, and South Asia backgrounds in the West, and this attack is being made through a campaign against Islam, and Muslims, yet you fail to acknowledge this.

absolutely because he is a an ant¡-arab racist. This has been demonstrated on other threads but the admin does nothing, [/b]
No, it hasn't been proven that he is a racist, and I never said he was.

What I said was:

Without saying that you are a racist, which I don't believe in any way, this could be the same sort of line that came from the far right.

What he has done is refused to support Islam, or Islamic terrorism. If that makes him a racist it also makes the Worker Communists racist, and our my organisation racist.

That he has done it in a vehement tone is in some ways is reminiscent of the far right, but as he also points out is at least partly a consequence of the way message boards work.

That he is really rude is, however, undeniable.

Devrim

Vinny Rafarino

13th September 2007, 21:04

Originally posted by jasmine+September 13, 2007 12:19 pm--> (jasmine @ September 13, 2007 12:19 pm) really, race doesn't exist? Explain. [/b]
"Race" is what biologists use to differentiate between species and nothing more.

In the early 19th century a French aristocrat named Gobineau coined the word "racialism" and began to write articles about the superiority of the "aryan race".

This nonsense was later used by Wagner, Chamberlain, and Hitler.

Before the 19th century no one ever considered separating humans into "races".

Why?

Because saying that people of different skin colors were a different fucking species would have to be the stupidest idea ever to creep out of France.

Didn't you learn this in school son?

Now, either put up or shut up, pussy; let's see the evidence of my "racism".

revolting
You can't deny people consider themselves racists, like the KKK, to feel superiority over another group Therefore, racism exists, though race might not.

Did you hear me say that racism doesn't exist?

Didn't think so.