The Islamic state

[Pickman's model]

much like quiquio's ludicrous accusations of bigotry

more cuckoo than quiquio i suggest

 

[not-bono-ever]

You have been a little bit mischievous with that carefully engineered comment i think Philip

 

[Pickman's model]

You have been a little bit mischievous with that carefully engineered comment i think Philip

you sound like you need a fillip

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes i do tbh

Does any state have a 'right to exist'?

i don't agree, because im a communist and i don't agree with any state's 'right to exist'. They are all founded on a pile of bones tbh.

No state has a right to exist. That many do is not due to the exemplary qualities of the state form (despite what some political scientists claim), but because a state has powers of both subtle and brutal coercion, and uses them accordingly to perpetuate itself.

Does a religious theocracy have a 'right to exist'? Does a state that enshrines the superiority of one version of a religion as 'the right' one and sets about trying to crush anyone who says any different, have a right to exist? A state that invites 'international loons' from all corners of the world to come and displace the original inhabitants and spend the time enforcing mad bollocks (and that goes for israel too, i think there's more than enough similarities between isis's salafi colonialism and zionism)?

A state that institutes punishments for things like adultery, that are thousands of years old and involve stoning people to death and cutting off their heads? Id be interested to know why/how the formation of an islamic state should be happening, if the only problem with this is it's 'the wrong way'?

There's the rub. A "democratic" state that chose "mad bollocks" is one thing. The imposition on culturally-diverse peoples who share a broad set of religious beliefs/interpretations of "Holy writ" of a singular version of beliefs, and the enforcement of that singular version through terror - well, that's another thing entirely. It's dictatorship, and is in no way "benevolent", except to those with power.

 

[Greebo]

yeh but the uk not the only place to have marches against the war. they were all over the place.

Whether he was or not is none of our business. And his reasons (either way) are also none of our business.

 

[teqniq]

you sound like you need a fillip

It sounded to me like that line from a Monty Python sketch: 'I hear You've been a naughty boy Clement'

 

[Pickman's model]

Whether he was or not is none of our business. And his reasons (either way) are also none of our business.

tbh if he's going to fart on about people being liberal imperialists his own record becomes of interest.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I have no idea what politics quiquaquo espouses but he does not seem to like apostates or when people talk critically about Daesh, talking about either subject elicits completely unsubstantiated accusations of racism from him across different threads and at different times. He does not even attempt to contribute to any discussion.

I can appreciate a point of view that says "you can't understand the issues, because you're not a Muslim", but "understanding" is layered. You can understand some issues simply through cultural comparison and through scholarship. Denying any validity to the views of "outsiders" is startlingly-stupid, and smacks of exceptionalism.

 

[frogwoman]

Im interested in how an 'Islamic State' could have emerged and imposed itself in any other way other than extreme brutality given that prior to the war, the populations of syria and iraq were, if not secular, followers of a far more liberal and tolerant version of Islam than al Baghdadi and co, and many different communities lived side by side relatively happily. This sort of rule like al Shabaab and the taliban, and movements from other religions usually takes hold in 'failed states' or warzones and even then usually meets with very fierce resistance from the local population.

Even al Nusra who aren't (yet) as insane as ISIS have used ISIS like methods in order to impose their will over the people. if you want to impose a system of government based on fundamentalist beliefs what choice do you have except to impose it with extreme force given that only a tiny minority will agree with you? Fuck even the nazis only took power when part of germany was occupied and after the worst economic crash in history and even then they could only count on the support of about a quarter of the population.

 

[phildwyer]

I would prefer you to name names so that we can evaluate your claim.

Oh very well. Pickman's Model springs to mind.

 

[phildwyer]

yeh but this is a thread about "the islamic state" and not a thread about "the islamic state weighed against the west's aggression against muslim states".

That doesn't excuse your attitude, or your behavior.

 

[Pickman's model]

That doesn't excuse your attitude, or your behavior.

perhaps you could elaborate.

 

[Pickman's model]

Oh very well. Pickman's Model springs to mind.

on the basis that...? where have i said "the imperialists must save the day" or words to that effect?

 

[Pickman's model]

tbh i think the us and uk have rather burnt their bridges in much of the region with the populace if not the rulers

oh dear here's evidence of liberal imperialism

or is it?

 

[phildwyer]

on the basis that...? where have i said "the imperialists must save the day" or words to that effect?

You constantly bang on about IS without taking into account the British state's role in creating the situation. As I and others have noted.

 

[Pickman's model]

You constantly bang on about IS without taking into account the British state's role in creating the situation. As I and others have noted.

tbh i've never believed that i needed to preface my posts on the subject of the islamic state with a summary history of the region from kut, if not sykes-picot, to the present. i note that you don't preface your posts with such an account (the post here quoted being an example) - and indeed you've made but one mention of sykes-picot, back in january. in addition, i don't believe i need to repeat points made by other people and, as i'm sure most people would agree - the sensible ones, anyway (which rules you out, phil) - i took the recent history of the region as read. what you're trying to do here is reheat your stupid attempt to paint me as a satanist in a different setting. so i haven't provided the potted history you yourself have omitted. so fucking what.

 

[Pickman's model]

You constantly bang on about IS without taking into account the British state's role in creating the situation. As I and others have noted.

i've not seen you say anything bar one brief post alluding to the french role in creating the middle eastern morasse on this thread. why is this disgraceful behaviour allowed to go unmentioned?

 

[phildwyer]

tbh i've never believed that i needed to preface my posts on the subject of the islamic state with a summary history of the region from kut, if not sykes-picot, to the present. i note that you don't preface your posts with such an account (the post here quoted being an example) - and indeed you've made but one mention of sykes-picot, back in january. in addition, i don't believe i need to repeat points made by other people and, as i'm sure most people would agree - the sensible ones, anyway (which rules you out, phil) - i took the recent history of the region as read. what you're trying to do here is reheat your stupid attempt to paint me as a satanist in a different setting. so i haven't provided the potted history you yourself have omitted. so fucking what.

So you seem like a liberal imperialist. At best. It seems that your main concern is the villainous Arabs. It seems that you are not concerned about the wanton destruction of the Muslim world, in which the government of your country has played a prominent role.

I suspect it's unconscious, but that makes it worse in a way.

 

[Pickman's model]

So you seem like a liberal imperialist. At best. It seems that your main concern is the villainous Arabs. It seems that you are not concerned about the wanton destruction of the Muslim world, in which the government of your country has played a prominent role.

I suspect it's unconscious, but that makes it worse in a way.

quote me to support your case or shut the fuck up.

 

[phildwyer]

quote me to support your case or shut the fuck up.

The very intemperance of your reaction suggests that I have hit a nerve.

You're by no means alone, fwiw.

 

[Pickman's model]

So you seem like a liberal imperialist. At best. It seems that your main concern is the villainous Arabs. It seems that you are not concerned about the wanton destruction of the Muslim world, in which the government of your country has played a prominent role.

I suspect it's unconscious, but that makes it worse in a way.

on second thoughts, just shut the fuck up. i've a proven record of opposition to british and american involvement in the region. as far as i'm aware, all you have is bluster on the internet.

 

[teqniq]

Oh jeez, not again please.

 

[phildwyer]

i've a proven record of opposition to british and american involvement in the region.

I doubt that.

 

[Pickman's model]

The very intemperance of your reaction suggests that I have hit a nerve.

You're by no means alone, fwiw.

the intemperance of my reaction is caused by your repeated fuckwittery. yesterday i went along with it, for a time, in the hope that you might say why you refuse to allow your 23 year old phd thesis into the public domain. today you've already demonstrated the absence of any genuine argument for your case by saying 'ah, you're pissed off - therefore i'm right'. i'm pissed off because you're a cunt pissing on this thread.

 

[Pickman's model]

I doubt that.

Anyway, I didn't want to single you out. But you insisted. You have only yourself to blame.

right. so now you're calling me a liar.

 

[phildwyer]

the intemperance of my reaction is caused by your repeated fuckwittery. yesterday i went along with it, for a time, in the hope that you might say why you refuse to allow your 23 year old phd thesis into the public domain. today you've already demonstrated the absence of any genuine argument for your case by saying 'ah, you're pissed off - therefore i'm right'. i'm pissed off because you're a cunt pissing on this thread.

I didn't want to single you out. But you insisted. You have only yourself to blame.

 

[phildwyer]

right. so now you're calling me a liar.

Can you deny it?

 

[Pickman's model]

I didn't want to single you out. But you insisted. You have only yourself to blame.

yes. but to repeat myself you've made an assertion which you have failed to substantiate. i'm calling bullshit on this, and the only reason you're doing this is to piss all over this thread.

 

[teqniq]

Again

 

[Pickman's model]

Can you deny it?

yes.