Iraq is totally screwed after the misadventures of George W Bush and a stooge like John Howard. Both sought to enrich themselves from death and misery of others. Now there is a chaos in the Middle East far more dangerous than any past situation.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 7:40pm:


Islamism is an anti-democratic movement.

freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:57am:


Not necessarily if it is the genuine will of the majority... if it is an imposed system by an elite (nothing new there) it is not democratic.  where we of the West differ is on whether or not the rote learning of Koranic verse etc means a person is sufficiently informed to make a valid decision on such a thing.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 3:57pm:


I am new to this. Please go easy on me.

Quote:


The whole point of Islamism (Shariah law) is to impose it on people from above against their will. Our very own Islamist has explained this for us. It is a quaint thought experiment to imagine that people would choose this democratically, but the reality is that they don't. Even Muslims fear Islamism, in case the wrong type of Muslim is the one enforcing it. Of course, many still want to be the one pointing the gun at people, but when given the choice, cooler heads prevail. That is why, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the Islamists have been forced to use violence to achieve their goals. If it was the will of the majority, it would be inevitable in a democracy.

They insist that they represent the true will of the people, and a few westerners are stupid enough to believe that, but you have to really want to believe it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 9:32pm:


A spineless apologist's wet dream.

freediver wrote on Jul 7^th, 2014 at 11:12am:


Are you saying muslims are democratically inclined?

bear with me LTYC.

I am asking FD, because he has dedicated a good part of 7 years here denigrating muslims and arguing ad-infinitum that when given the opportunity, muslims inevitably strive for the autocratic, anti-freedom route, not the democratic one. I'm sure he will be only to happy to refer you to a related PEW poll of Malaysians to help articulate his thoughts about "what muslims think". Interesting though that when I expressed this sentiment of his as "democratically wanting to be undemocratic" in this thread, he attacks it as "spineless apologetics".

So you can probably understand my surprise when he turns up here declaring that in fact muslims don't actually want the autocratic, anti-freedom option. Thus the question - are muslims then naturally democratically inclined?

Soren wrote on Jul 7^th, 2014 at 8:38pm:


Scientifically speaking "tribal" does not qualify as an insult.

From Wikipedia:

"... People have postulated that the human brain is hard-wired towards tribalism due to its evolutionary advantages..."

"... Anthropologists such as Richard Borshay Lee and Marshall Sahlins began publishing studies that showed tribal life as an easy, safe life, the opposite of the traditional theoretical supposition. In the title to his book, Sahlins referred to these tribal cultures as "the Original Affluent Society," not for their material wealth, but for their combination of leisure and lack of want.

This work is for the progression of humanity and the enlightenment of ourselves, such as that advocated by John Zerzan or Daniel Quinn. These philosophers have led to new tribalists pursuing what Daniel Quinn dubbed the "New Tribal Revolution". The new tribalists use the term "tribalism" not in its widely thought of derogatory sense, but to refer to what they see as the defining characteristics of tribal life: namely, an open, egalitarian, classless and cooperative community. New tribalists insist that this is, in fact, the natural state of humanity, and proven by two million years of human evolution..."

freediver wrote on Jul 8^th, 2014 at 5:28am:


Ah yes, the "established" democracies 

What about Egypt? We both remember you twisting yourself into knots trying to explain a pro Egyptian-democracy rally as an anti-freedom rally, and your spineless apologetics for the brutal overthrow of that democratic government.

Let me take a wild stab in the dark here - "democracy" in muslims lands is only commendable if its imposed by the west, on western terms - not when its a grassroots movement that votes in the "wrong" guys amrite?

Why don't you tell us all about the wondrous democracy we created in Libya FD?

freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 8:13pm:


The biggest threat to democracy in Islam's traditional heartland is a combination of secular dictators, and US intervention. Saudi Arabia - the key sponsor of the jihadists running rampant in Syria, as well as key sponsor of anti-freedom, anti-democracy in the region, is supported almost unconditionally by the US. Their intervention in Bahrain to smash a democracy movement there, amidst deafening silence from the west (while they were feigning outrage over alleged atrocities in Libya), is a salient case study in this.

Meanwhile, the lynchpin of the arab spring - Egypt - has had their democracy destroyed - not by the big bad islamists, but the same old military autocrats. Next door, Tunisia (the other genuinely grassroots establishment of democracy), is doing pretty well without US intervention. Libya - that other noble democratic intervention - went from per-capita richest and best educated in Africa - to failed state.