Do Islam and the USA share a desire to impose their will on the world?

[Infohawk]

Yet another burqa-ban thread has me thinking that Islam and the US both share something in common. They both aspire to universal ideals that they wish to project on the rest of the world.

Islam wants to be the one true religion. It wants everyone the world over to respect Mohammed and follow Islam's rules. Foreign religions and customs are looked down upon.

The examples of American reactions to European anti-burqa laws strike me as similar to the Muslim reactions. "Europeans are bad for trying to keep Islam out. They should open their borders and accept all cultures like the US does."

Let's look at the attitudes towards the Second Iraq war. Americans wanted to project their system of government (democracy) on the Muslim world. They want to project their McWorld onto the Middle-East. Meanwhile, the continental Europeans did not want to invade the middle-east, but they do want to keep Islam out.

It seems to me that the European attitude makes more sense. The continental Europeans are saying that Muslims can do what they want in their country but that they shouldn't expect to have any say in Europe. Americans want the rest of the world to adapt their multi-culturalism around the world. Iraq should welcome jews and christians for example like the Us purports to welcome Islam.

Where does this leave us? The US should worry more about its own house and less about other countires' affairs. The US is a a Western multicultural democracy. We should be proud of this and defend it against foreign threats. At the moment I believe this involves keeping many muslims out of the country. They simply do not want to play by our rules. At the same time we need to stop invading other countries in vain attempts to make them more like us.

Edit: I hate having to add caveats for the slower among us, but I'll do it anyway. I'm not saying US is as bad as Islam. The US is in large part a force for good. Islam has no value.

 

[flavio]

Islam wants to be the one true religion.

Most religions have this in common.

 

[Infohawk]

Most religions have this in common.

And some have been cutting more heads off in recent years in furtherance of this goal than others. Just like some countries have been invading more countries in recent years than others.

 

[Ancalagon44]

I dont think America wants to spread democracy to the world as much as it wants to ensure it has stable trading partners. Its easy and profitable for America to trade with democracies with America had a hand in creating, its not to easy to trade with a country with anti America leanings, ie most middle east and all communist states.

Islam just wants everyone not a Muslim to die or convert.

End result, I suppose, is the same, but the motivation is different.

 

[Noobtastic]

Let's look at the attitudes towards the Second Iraq war. Americans wanted to project their system of government (democracy) on the Muslim world. They want to project their McWorld onto the Middle-East. Meanwhile, the continental Europeans did not want to invade the middle-east, but they do want to keep Islam out.

Europeans and Americans created the Muslim world.

Well, mostly the Europeans.

We drew their borders. We granted them independence. We found the oil and they export it with OUR technology.

As far as imperialism go, Europe has a much longer and more violent history in that category. It was Britain that gassed the Kurds in Iraq and subjugated the Jews in Palestine. It was the French that conquered Algeria in the 19th century.

In 1954, Muslim revolutionaries started to incite violence and recruit militants for warfare. They wanted to evict the French and their "collaborators" and restore the Algerian state within the principals of Islam.

600k+ were killed in the ensuing war.

As we all know, the British conquered India, and when they pulled out the state was partitioned. 1,000,000 died and 10,000,000 were made refugees.

The Danish owned Indonesia and killed anyone who opposed them.

Soon the cultural, legal, and moral institutions slowly began to replace the social mandates of the Muslim world.

You should consider reading a book about the crusades InfoHawk. The Muslim conquest of Europe precipitated the Crusades. Christians weren't looking to take over the Muslim world, but protect the European continent and the holy land from Islamic invasion.

Europeans did a good job protecting their land, but the Muslims wiped out the phoneticians, Assyrians, Egyptians, kurds, jews, etc...etc...

This is why there are 50 Muslim states and 1 Jewish state.

American foreign policy is not predicated on changing the social or religious makeup of the muslim world. If anything, American foreign policy has empowered the Muslim world. We arm them. We protect them in the UN. We support their genocidal campaign against the dinkas in Sudan, the Jews in Israel, the Kurds in Iraq, etc...

We were allied with Pakistan when it murdered 3+ million people in the Bangladesh Liberation War.

We are allied with Pakistan today as it rapes civilians living under the Taliban with our weapons and our tax dollars.

The only projection of democracy is on Iraq. Bush pushed for reform in Egypt and Jordan but that failed miserably, Muslim citizens voted in the extremists when given democratic privileges.

You cannot win the affection of the Muslim world. The #1 victim of Muslim violence are...other Muslims.

Just last week 80+ iraqi muslims were killed by an iraqi muslim suicide bomber.

I bet if Israel makes peace with the Palestinians Iraqi fighters will put down their weapons and the death squads will surrender.

so says Noam Chomsky.

 

[Infohawk]

Europeans did a good job protecting their land, but the Muslims wiped out the phoneticians, Assyrians, Egyptians, kurds, jews, etc...etc...

[...]

This is why there are 50 Muslim states and 1 Jewish state.

[...]

Saying Muslims wiped out Phoenicians (not "phoneticians" unless there was some country of hooked on phonics teachers I'm unaware of) is like saying the French wiped out the Franks. They are predecessors and successors. It's the largely the same people who go by different names.

There are 50 Muslim states because Islam is a universal religion and Judaism is traditionally a tribal religion.

 

[flavio]

And some have been cutting more heads off in recent years in furtherance of this goal than others. Just like some countries have been invading more countries in recent years than others.

That's very true and a bit misleading. It's true that methods for spreading any religion go from cutting heads off to invading countries and on to many other means peaceful and violent. What's misleading is to refer to any of the religions as using one method or another. That varies from country to country and is often vastly different within a country.

Projecting your system like democracy is interesting to think about. It's all "our way of doing things is better than yours and we're going to push it on you". Same with selling political parties and their agendas.

It all ends up with people fighting over their agendas and making sweeping generalizations about the "other" people. It's ridiculous.

 

[Infohawk]

I dont think America wants to spread democracy to the world as much as it wants to ensure it has stable trading partners. Its easy and profitable for America to trade with democracies with America had a hand in creating, its not to easy to trade with a country with anti America leanings, ie most middle east and all communist states.

Islam just wants everyone not a Muslim to die or convert.

End result, I suppose, is the same, but the motivation is different.

This is not inconsistent with what I'm saying. The US is inclined to force it's model of free trade an open markets onto the rest of the world.

 

[Infohawk]

What's misleading is to refer to any of the religions as using one method or another.

Look, modern Islam is the clear leader in violent religion at this point in history. Christianity had it's heyday in the middle ages and the colonial period. But to suggest that Islam is somehow no different than other religions in this time period is ridiculous. It's simply more extreme and barbaric than other major religions right now. You're being intellectually dishonest and overly politically correct if you dispute this.

 

[flavio]

Look, modern Islam is the clear leader in violent religion at this point in history. Christianity had it's heyday in the middle ages and the colonial period. But to suggest that Islam is somehow no different than other religions in this time period is ridiculous. It's simply more extreme and barbaric than other major religions right now. You're being intellectually dishonest and overly politically correct if you dispute this.

Shit, I thought we were going to have a real intellectual conversation about different methods of pushing your views and generalizing the "others". My bad.

That sucks. You sounded like you had something with the first post but then you just villianised muslims. There are muslims of all sorts just like christians of all sorts. There are many christians that see wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as religious wars. Rumsfeld looks like he saw it that way. These have been incredibly violent. Israel kills many more Palestinians than the other way. Violence. Claiming your own brand of violence is better is ridiculous.

It's too bad that you went in this direction with this topic. It could have been interesting. Go ahead and classify everyone. *yawn*.

 

[Noobtastic]

Saying Muslims wiped out Phoenicians (not "phoneticians" unless there was some country of hooked on phonics teachers I'm unaware of) is like saying the French wiped out the Franks. They are predecessors and successors. It's the largely the same people who go by different names.

There are 50 Muslim states because Islam is a universal religion and Judaism is traditionally a tribal religion.

Great quote-mining.

The Muslims wiped out the Phoenicians through conflict. That's why you "succeed" other ethnic powers. Muslims almost wiped out the Hindus, over 80 million were killed under the caliphates of the 11-14th century.

Universal religion, what? Islam is as tribal as it gets, InfoHawk.

It is a "universal" religion because it spread like fire through war and genocide. That is why there is 50 muslim states.

That is why their is 1.5 billion Muslims.

Islam is a religion war. Mohamed was a warrior.

Name me one Muslim country that is at peace with itself.

One.

You can't.

That sucks. You sounded like you had something with the first post but then you just villianised muslims. There are muslims of all sorts just like christians of all sorts. There are many christians that see wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as religious wars. Rumsfeld looks like he saw it that way. These have been incredibly violent. Israel kills many more Palestinians than the other way

What does Israel have to do with anything?

More Palestinians have been killed by other Arabs and/or Palestinians than Israel in war, you do know that right?

Comparing the I/P conflict - which is truly irrelevant - to the Iraq or Afghanistan war, is a demonstration of mental retardation.

I/P isn't even a war. Just a playground to exercise Arab/Iranian foreign policy.

God, Saudis spent many billions on propaganda to posit the Israel/Palestinian conflict as somehow an inspiration for Islamic genocides and/or self-destruction.

LoserLefties have taken the bait...as usual.

 

[flavio]

Name me one Muslim country that is at peace with itself.

What the fuck does that mean? I want to go look for any country that is at peace with itself.

Has anyone told you you're a bigot? You are.

 

[Noobtastic]

What the fuck does that mean? I want to go look for any country that is at peace with itself.

Has anyone told you you're a bigot? You are.

Name me on Muslim country that isn't at war with itself.

Can you?

No you can't.

Classic Islamic apologist. Anyone who dares criticize the peaceful Muslims is a bigot!1111!!

 

[flavio]

What do you even mean by "at war with itself"?

I could if I knew WTF you meant.

Explain. Here how is Kuwait at war with itself? Get me started and we'll move on.

Classic Islamic apologist. Anyone who dares criticize the peaceful Muslims is a bigot!1111!!

Yeah, I don't make excuses or apologize for any group I don't represent. If you hate someone because of their religion you are the definition of a bigot.

 

[Noobtastic]

What do you even mean by "at war with itself"?

I could if I knew WTF you meant.

A Muslim state that is self-oppressive.

Explain. Here how is Kuwait at war with itself? Get me started and we'll move on.

Kuwait is a product of the American-defense umbrella. I mean Islamic states that cannot graduate from dictatorial/subjugation-based modes of government.

The Islamic world is more or less a cesspool. The most enlightened state - Turkey - is a quasi-democracy basically ruled by the underground elite. Interesting to note that this is done to circumvent the crazy Islamist and keep the country as secular as possible.

Yeah, I don't make excuses or apologize for any group I don't represent. If you hate someone because of their religion you are the definition of a bigot.

Criticism of Islamic despotism = bigotry?

I never said I hated Muslims.

I do however hate the way women, jews, christians, homosexuals, and ethnic minorities are treated in these Muslim states.

Do you?

 

[1prophet]

Yet another burqa-ban thread has me thinking that Islam and the US both share something in common. They both aspire to universal ideals that they wish to project on the rest of the world.

Islam wants to be the one true religion. It wants everyone the world over to respect Mohammed and follow Islam's rules. Foreign religions and customs are looked down upon.

The examples of American reactions to European anti-burqa laws strike me as similar to the Muslim reactions. "Europeans are bad for trying to keep Islam out. They should open their borders and accept all cultures like the US does."

Let's look at the attitudes towards the Second Iraq war. Americans wanted to project their system of government (democracy) on the Muslim world. They want to project their McWorld onto the Middle-East. Meanwhile, the continental Europeans did not want to invade the middle-east, but they do want to keep Islam out.

It seems to me that the European attitude makes more sense. The continental Europeans are saying that Muslims can do what they want in their country but that they shouldn't expect to have any say in Europe. Americans want the rest of the world to adapt their multi-culturalism around the world. Iraq should welcome jews and christians for example like the Us purports to welcome Islam.

Where does this leave us? The US should worry more about its own house and less about other countires' affairs. The US is a a Western multicultural democracy. We should be proud of this and defend it against foreign threats. At the moment I believe this involves keeping many muslims out of the country. They simply do not want to play by our rules. At the same time we need to stop invading other countries in vain attempts to make them more like us.

You do know America brought Sharia law to Iraq not democracy and turned women into second class citizens at best and they had more rights under Sadaam Hussein?

Most ironic that here in the US we debate whether gays should have the right to marry while helping the middle east , in this case Iraq move backwards not forwards.

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_774.html

Iraqi Laws and Procedures
Iraqi Laws and Procedures
The Iraqi Social Status (civil) Law follows the Islamic Sharia (Islamic legislation). Under Islamic law, an Iraqi Muslim female may not marry a non Muslim male. However an Iraqi Muslim male may marry a Muslim, Christian, or Jewish female.

Marriage of a Muslim to a Non-Muslim
Muslim women in Iraq are legally prohibited from marrying a non-Muslim. Therefore, the non-Muslim male must convert his religion to Islam and file a petition with the Social Status Court to declare that he is Muslim. Muslim men in Iraq are permitted to marry non-Muslim women if they are Christian or Jewish only. If the woman belongs to any other religion, she must convert to Islam.

 

[StageLeft]

Yes but you're missing the big picture. I think everyone wants to impose their beliefs and views on the world. It's just that the US rises to the top, being the most able to do it. And Islam is strong in this regard, too, although far less capable than the media (and the US government) seems to think, IMO.

 

[Mursilis]

This is not inconsistent with what I'm saying. The US is inclined to force it's model of free trade an open markets onto the rest of the world.

The US is not forcing its view so much as its assisting (or not - sometimes, US policy is WAY off target) a population's own natural inclination to be free, both economically and politically. No population willingly accepts any form of totalitarianism - they occasionally allow it to come into power in a drunken stupor, and then sober up and realize they're screwed. Populations in countries such as (the old) Iraq, Iran, North Korea, China, etc., are NOT in gov't models of their own choosing, and their desire to have a greater say in their own governance has NOTHING to do with the US and EVERYTHING to do with every people's own natural desire to be free (more or less - few people are anarchists).

 

[SandEagle]

why is it that every product i buy has a K, triangle K, or OU (orthodox union) associated to it? why to companies have to PAY ROYALTIES to use these logos to keep a minor population happy? gee why impose that stuff on unsuspecting consumers? why bend backwards for a tiny minority?

 

[palehorse]

I dont think America wants to spread democracy to the world as much as it wants to ensure it has stable trading partners. Its easy and profitable for America to trade with democracies with America had a hand in creating, its not to easy to trade with a country with anti America leanings, ie most middle east and all communist states.

Islam just wants everyone not a Muslim to die or convert.

End result, I suppose, is the same, but the motivation is different.

This.

 

[soccerballtux]

I dont think America wants to spread democracy to the world as much as it wants to ensure it has stable trading partners. Its easy and profitable for America to trade with democracies with America had a hand in creating, its not to easy to trade with a country with anti America leanings, ie most middle east and all communist states.

Islam just wants everyone not a Muslim to die or convert.

End result, I suppose, is the same, but the motivation is different.

This.

+1

 

[Infohawk]

Yes but you're missing the big picture. I think everyone wants to impose their beliefs and views on the world. It's just that the US rises to the top, being the most able to do it. And Islam is strong in this regard, too, although far less capable than the media (and the US government) seems to think, IMO.

Sure but it's a matter of degree and the degree matters. For example, I do not see Hindus trying to project their religion outside their own community in a strong way.

 

[HumblePie]

Hurray for hyperbole! Let's try to equate to dissimilar items just because they are both trying to achieve an ends. Not the same ends, but are just vehicles to an ends.

You should have stated in the OP,

"Do Assassins and Pundits share a desire to impose their will on the world?"

I mean they both are after trying to change a political climate. Come on, they HAVE to be the same right?

Do you not see how stupid it is trying to compare apples to oranges through hyperbole is?

 

[Infohawk]

Hurray for hyperbole! Let's try to equate to dissimilar items just because they are both trying to achieve an ends. Not the same ends, but are just vehicles to an ends.

You should have stated in the OP,

"Do Assassins and Pundits share a desire to impose their will on the world?"

I mean they both are after trying to change a political climate. Come on, they HAVE to be the same right?

Do you not see how stupid it is trying to compare apples to oranges through hyperbole is?

Reading comprehension failure. I did not say the US and Islam are the same. The point is that both are the two biggest forces in interventionism in the world and that the US is not in good company.

Check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad_vs._McWorld

Islam is obviously the force behind Jihad. The US is the force behind McWorld.

 

[HumblePie]

Reading comprehension failure. I did not say the US and Islam are the same. The point is that both are the two biggest forces in interventionism in the world and that the US is not in good company.

Check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad_vs._McWorld

Islam is obviously the force behind Jihad. The US is the force behind McWorld.

No, it's not comprehension failure. You are doing what is called equating by association. It is by definition HYPERBOLE as you are using the exaggeration of one method that uses very evil means of persuasion as the same as something else. Look it up.

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

By giving both equal merit in how you present the arguments, you are equating the two as a similar evil upon the world. I will grant that both of your arguments and points do have merit, however your presentation stinks.

Now if I was a Christian, which I'm not, let me give you an example to bad presentation you are giving.

Do God and Satan share a desire to impose their will on the world?"

I mean look at it. The both are seeking to convert followers to their ideas. They both are looking to eradicate opposition to their respective views. They both do this, and that, and this which are all similar!

Again, this is what you are trying to present here. In your argument, you may be giving different reasoning for what each is trying to accomplish and they may share similar methods of achieving their ends, but that does NOT equate the two as your arguments thus far have alluded to. My reading comprehension is fine by the way, but yours seems to be way off.