Muslim Ban Over Handshake. Whaddayareckon Liberals?

[JimC]

Exi5tentialist wrote:

...Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan did not have a hope of enjoying continued women's liberation after the west's intervention in their internal politics. ...

What utter crap. The Taliban was in power - were they suddenly going to have a change of heart and allow women any form of freedom? You know about them closing all the girl's schools, I hope? Or is your romantic view of the brave freedom fighters against the oppressive west that blinkered?

I agree it is unfortunate that the brave freedom fighters agains the oppressive Soviet Union after 1979 invasion were so quickly turned into anti-Western resistance but equally it is utter crap to think that the Taliban developed in an environment of non-interference between 1979 and 2016. And if the west's intervention was such a good thing in 2001, it didn't exactly put right the problem, did it? The 2016 Taliban are more right-wing, more vicious, and control more Afghan territory than at any time since the West's intervention. And you are really saying that the Taliban is an example of Islam that has developed independently of Western/USSR interference? If so, you really are in denial.

The destruction of economies by military means promotes the development of reactionary resistance movements. To pretend that those resistance movements arose from Islam is to deny the reality of imperialist intervention.

Are you saying that the well-documented vicious misogyny of the Taliban owes nothing to their interpretation of Islam, and is caused purely by western intervention in the region? If so, another example of mindless leftist analysis...

And of course the US can be criticised for its ill-though-out support of "the brave freedom fighters" who morphed into the dear old Taliban. The US were playing cold war real-politik, and it came back to bite them on the bum. However, remember that the leftist Afghani government of that day were at least trying to bring the people of Afghanistan out of their virtually feudal economy, where local war lords ruled. And yes, the Soviets backed them, not by idealism but for Great Power politics. But the "brave freedom fighters" were Islamic fundamentalist to the core, who wanted an end to any form of secular government.

[pErvinalia]

Capitalism exercises its economic and military might through the major capitalist states and particularly the capitalist superpower. You only need to think about the involvement of those states in the middle east since 1945 to realise the way that capitalism has exploited countries where islam is predominant and has lately taken to downright subjugating them. If muslims in regions of the world are permitted to compete in a thriving economy on equal terms with the west there is no reason why their economies and social structures can't develop as the west has done. But for heaven's sake, when the west is undermining your government and bombing your economy to bits you don't stand a chance, and for westerners to then come back and blame your religion is just idiocy.

I agree with all of this. But it has nothing to do with your contention. It applies to both men and women. It doesn't explain why women have gone backwards in comparison to men.

Misogyny, homophobia, racism, ableism, ageism - all these things are features of lower-income societies under capitalism. And societies that have been "bombed back to the stone age". Like Afghanistan. If you send countries back in time economically, they will go back in time on all of these axes of oppression. That is a feature of contemporary western imperialism.

You are really reaching now. Poor education and conservatism are the reasons for gross cases of mistreatment of women, not capitalism. As I said, severely limiting the access of women to the labour market is anathema to capitalism.

[Exi5tentialist]

This is unrelated to what I was replying to. You said we don't criticise other generalised minorities (not that Islam is in any way a minority). I pointed out that we do.

But the examples you gave are not generalisations. Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism are specifics with specific doctrines applying across the all the organisations under those lables. "Islam" is a generalisation. And people do not generally generalise about Hinduism.

Those are bad examples.

I really don't know what point you are trying to make.

My point is that to "criticise Islam" is a generalisation whereas to "criticise Roman Catholicism" or "Orthodox Judaism" is not. Now you need to put your counter-argument, if you have one, but it needs to address my points about Roman Catholicism being and organisation and Roman Catholics being a white-based religion. This is what reasoned argument means.

And in any case, most of us don't criticise all Muslims (therefore not all of Islam either). Which you'd know if you dropped the hate and bias.

Oh yes you do. That's why you're fighting your corner to "criticise islam" without being challenged.

Ok, well that makes you a right winger as you are most definitely an authoritarian.

Give me an example of where I have shot strikers, overthrown an elected government, deleted your posts or anything else that is classed as "authoritarian". How are you defining an authoritarian? Somebody who gets angry with racists, bigots and islamophobes?

That's pretty shit logic, even by your standards.

Your intolerance for reasonable free speech is what makes you authoritarian.

You're talking to the person who was given a warning for trolling when I launched a democratic campaign to get moderators here elected by members. How have I expressed my "intolerance for free speech"? Have I asked for your right-wing posts to be deleted? Oh, you mean I expressed some anger and dissatisfaction with your posts. I see. And what does this accusation of authoritarianism mean for your anger and dissatisfaction with my posts? Authoritarians must be restrained, after all... or we will all lose our liberty. Perhaps you agree with me being sanctioned for being a troll. Who's the authoritarian now?

[Exi5tentialist]

Capitalism exercises its economic and military might through the major capitalist states and particularly the capitalist superpower. You only need to think about the involvement of those states in the middle east since 1945 to realise the way that capitalism has exploited countries where islam is predominant and has lately taken to downright subjugating them. If muslims in regions of the world are permitted to compete in a thriving economy on equal terms with the west there is no reason why their economies and social structures can't develop as the west has done. But for heaven's sake, when the west is undermining your government and bombing your economy to bits you don't stand a chance, and for westerners to then come back and blame your religion is just idiocy.

I agree with all of this. But it has nothing to do with your contention. It applies to both men and women. It doesn't explain why women have gone backwards in comparison to men.

Misogyny, homophobia, racism, ableism, ageism - all these things are features of lower-income societies under capitalism. And societies that have been "bombed back to the stone age". Like Afghanistan. If you send countries back in time economically, they will go back in time on all of these axes of oppression. That is a feature of contemporary western imperialism.

You are really reaching now. Poor education and conservatism are the reasons for gross cases of mistreatment of women, not capitalism. As I said, severely limiting the access of women to the labour market is anathema to capitalism.

So you don't think that poverty, caused by the military destructiveness of the world's capitalist superpower, causes inequality?

I think you need to think again.

[Exi5tentialist]

Exi5tentialist wrote:

...Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan did not have a hope of enjoying continued women's liberation after the west's intervention in their internal politics. ...

What utter crap. The Taliban was in power - were they suddenly going to have a change of heart and allow women any form of freedom? You know about them closing all the girl's schools, I hope? Or is your romantic view of the brave freedom fighters against the oppressive west that blinkered?

I agree it is unfortunate that the brave freedom fighters agains the oppressive Soviet Union after 1979 invasion were so quickly turned into anti-Western resistance but equally it is utter crap to think that the Taliban developed in an environment of non-interference between 1979 and 2016. And if the west's intervention was such a good thing in 2001, it didn't exactly put right the problem, did it? The 2016 Taliban are more right-wing, more vicious, and control more Afghan territory than at any time since the West's intervention. And you are really saying that the Taliban is an example of Islam that has developed independently of Western/USSR interference? If so, you really are in denial.

The destruction of economies by military means promotes the development of reactionary resistance movements. To pretend that those resistance movements arose from Islam is to deny the reality of imperialist intervention.

Are you saying that the well-documented vicious misogyny of the Taliban owes nothing to their interpretation of Islam,

No but I am more interested in who facilitated the Taliban being in power in the first place.

and is caused purely by western intervention in the region?

Let me ask you. Do you think the USSR invasion of 1979 had anything to do with the rise of the Taliban?

Do you think the US invasion of 2001-2016 has been successful in denying the Taliban power?

If so, another example of mindless leftist analysis...

This adds nothing to our discussion. It is just an empty insult. Stop it.

And of course the US can be criticised for its ill-though-out support of "the brave freedom fighters" who morphed into the dear old Taliban. The US were playing cold war real-politik, and it came back to bite them on the bum. However, remember that the leftist Afghani government of that day were at least trying to bring the people of Afghanistan out of their virtually feudal economy, where local war lords ruled. And yes, the Soviets backed them, not by idealism but for Great Power politics. But the "brave freedom fighters" were Islamic fundamentalist to the core, who wanted an end to any form of secular government.

Surely the lesson is that superpowers invading small countries does not result in a good outcome. Or am I being too leftist here for your moderator tastes?

[NineBerry]

There aren't millions of versions of Islam. There aren't even 100. There's like 3 schools with a couple of dozen branches.

There's lots of informal differing interpretations of Islam.

You're also implicitly implying Ayaan doesn't know what she's talking about, which is hilarious.

She doesn't know what she's talking about. Being a victim doesn't make you an expert.

How is she a 'victim'? Have you read her stuff?

Sure, I read her earlier works. She has become a victim as a young girl when forced to undergo genital cutting. And she has become a victim later on when threatened with Islamist violence after her public appearances. That still doesn't make her an expert.

[pErvinalia]

Exi5tentialist wrote:

...Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan did not have a hope of enjoying continued women's liberation after the west's intervention in their internal politics. ...

What utter crap. The Taliban was in power - were they suddenly going to have a change of heart and allow women any form of freedom? You know about them closing all the girl's schools, I hope? Or is your romantic view of the brave freedom fighters against the oppressive west that blinkered?

I agree it is unfortunate that the brave freedom fighters agains the oppressive Soviet Union after 1979 invasion were so quickly turned into anti-Western resistance but equally it is utter crap to think that the Taliban developed in an environment of non-interference between 1979 and 2016. And if the west's intervention was such a good thing in 2001, it didn't exactly put right the problem, did it? The 2016 Taliban are more right-wing, more vicious, and control more Afghan territory than at any time since the West's intervention. And you are really saying that the Taliban is an example of Islam that has developed independently of Western/USSR interference? If so, you really are in denial.

The destruction of economies by military means promotes the development of reactionary resistance movements. To pretend that those resistance movements arose from Islam is to deny the reality of imperialist intervention.

Are you saying that the well-documented vicious misogyny of the Taliban owes nothing to their interpretation of Islam,

No but I am more interested in who facilitated the Taliban being in power in the first place.

Yet when we suggested that religion can amplify bigotry that was present for other reasons you spat the dummy.

[Tyrannical]

Seth would just tell her to stop being a victim, get a gun and shoot the misogynistic Muslims. Not a bad idea actually......

[Exi5tentialist]

No but I am more interested in who facilitated the Taliban being in power in the first place.

Yet when we suggested that religion can amplify bigotry that was present for other reasons you spat the dummy.

Stop talking absolute shit will you? All this bollocks about Islam only became popular since people realised they could use it as an alternative to being racist about "Pakis". Get a grip and get off your racist high horse for once and start talking about the real causes of oppression: capitalism, economic deprivation and western militarism.

[pErvinalia]

This is unrelated to what I was replying to. You said we don't criticise other generalised minorities (not that Islam is in any way a minority). I pointed out that we do.

But the examples you gave are not generalisations. Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism are specifics with specific doctrines applying across the all the organisations under those lables. "Islam" is a generalisation. And people do not generally generalise about Hinduism.

Those are bad examples.

I really don't know what point you are trying to make.

My point is that to "criticise Islam" is a generalisation whereas to "criticise Roman Catholicism" or "Orthodox Judaism" is not. Now you need to put your counter-argument, if you have one, but it needs to address my points about Roman Catholicism being and organisation and Roman Catholics being a white-based religion. This is what reasoned argument means.

And in any case, most of us don't criticise all Muslims (therefore not all of Islam either). Which you'd know if you dropped the hate and bias.

Oh yes you do. That's why you're fighting your corner to "criticise islam" without being challenged.

The holy books of Islam, like those of Christianity and Judaism, are misogynist and bigoted. When whatever interpretation of whatever religion puts some of that misogyny and bigotry into practice it is perfectly reasonably to criticise them for it. As I said, most of us don't criticise the whole of Islam. We criticise the shit bits. Same as most of us are easier on Anglicanism than Catholicism.

Ok, well that makes you a right winger as you are most definitely an authoritarian.

Give me an example of where I have shot strikers, overthrown an elected government, deleted your posts or anything else that is classed as "authoritarian". How are you defining an authoritarian? Somebody who gets angry with racists, bigots and islamophobes?

That's pretty shit logic, even by your standards.

Your intolerance for reasonable free speech is what makes you authoritarian.

You're talking to the person who was given a warning for trolling when I launched a democratic campaign to get moderators here elected by members.

I can't actually remember what you proposed, but I'd bet my left nut you were totally intolerant to other people's views on the issue. That would be why you were done for trolling. You trolled the shit out of me and others in the Adam Johnson thread, so you have form.

How have I expressed my "intolerance for free speech"?

People making reasonable critiques of religion aren't racists, just the same as people making reasonable critiques of the Adam Johnson sentence aren't paedophiles. The fact that you can't handle reasonable free critique suggests you have authoritarian tendencies. Unless you are a female Muslim who was abused as a child and therefore can't remain objective in these types of discussions.

Perhaps you agree with me being sanctioned for being a troll. Who's the authoritarian now?

Accepting rules and laws on a private internet forum isn't being "authoritarian". You trolled. Take responsibility for your own actions.

[pErvinalia]

Capitalism exercises its economic and military might through the major capitalist states and particularly the capitalist superpower. You only need to think about the involvement of those states in the middle east since 1945 to realise the way that capitalism has exploited countries where islam is predominant and has lately taken to downright subjugating them. If muslims in regions of the world are permitted to compete in a thriving economy on equal terms with the west there is no reason why their economies and social structures can't develop as the west has done. But for heaven's sake, when the west is undermining your government and bombing your economy to bits you don't stand a chance, and for westerners to then come back and blame your religion is just idiocy.

I agree with all of this. But it has nothing to do with your contention. It applies to both men and women. It doesn't explain why women have gone backwards in comparison to men.

Misogyny, homophobia, racism, ableism, ageism - all these things are features of lower-income societies under capitalism. And societies that have been "bombed back to the stone age". Like Afghanistan. If you send countries back in time economically, they will go back in time on all of these axes of oppression. That is a feature of contemporary western imperialism.

You are really reaching now. Poor education and conservatism are the reasons for gross cases of mistreatment of women, not capitalism. As I said, severely limiting the access of women to the labour market is anathema to capitalism.

So you don't think that poverty, caused by the military destructiveness of the world's capitalist superpower, causes inequality?

I think you need to think again.

I told you what I think. Restricting half the population from selling their labour makes zero sense in a capitalist system. Hence why your argument makes zero sense.

[pErvinalia]

No but I am more interested in who facilitated the Taliban being in power in the first place.

Yet when we suggested that religion can amplify bigotry that was present for other reasons you spat the dummy.

Stop talking absolute shit will you? All this bollocks about Islam only became popular since people realised they could use it as an alternative to being racist about "Pakis". Get a grip and get off your racist high horse for once and start talking about the real causes of oppression: capitalism, economic deprivation and western militarism.

You just repeated the same retarded dummy spit from last time. QED.

[Tyrannical]

I told you what I think. Restricting half the population from selling their labour makes zero sense in a capitalist system. Hence why your argument makes zero sense.

A fair point, but the reason and justification for misogyny has nothing to do with whether a system is capitalist or not. When women are given rights and have control over their reproduction, the end result is birth rates drop below replacement levels which causes a future demographic crisis which will eventually lead to economic collapse.

[pErvinalia]

I told you what I think. Restricting half the population from selling their labour makes zero sense in a capitalist system. Hence why your argument makes zero sense.

A fair point, but the reason and justification for misogyny has nothing to do with whether a system is capitalist or not.

Which is exactly what I am saying.

When women are given rights and have control over their reproduction, the end result is birth rates drop below replacement levels which causes a future demographic crisis which will eventually lead to economic collapse.

Man you are a piece of work. Misogyny is about power, not protecting capitalism.

[Hermit]

Not to mention, oppression pre-dates capitalism.

So fucking what?

History seemed to matter to you when you mentioned that the oppression of women pre-dated the Islamic religion.