So much for the "Rights of the Natives" Nonsense

[Skeptic]

In the israel/Palestine conflict, we keep hearing how this is not--I repeat, not--an Islamist war of annihilation against the jews, but "just" an anti-colonialist fight of the "native people against opression".

But let's look at Hizb al-Tahrir, the Islamist party based in Britian. Its official goal is to dimantle the UK and make it into an Islamic republic, or, more precisely, into an Islamic province of a world government ruled by the Chalifate.

Strangely enough, the rights of the natives--the British non-Muslims--suddenly mean nothing at all for this party. That virtually all members of the party are first- or second-generation immigrants in Britian does not stop them from demanding that it is their belief and religion that must supersede that of those who lived there for hundreds of years.

Why is that? Well, the truth is, for the Islamists, it is only Muslims (more precisely, their kind of Muslims) that have any rights, and all others are kuffirs which have none and must be suppressed.

When this is done in an area where the Muslims were before the immigrants, then, of course, the story takes the "anti-colonialist" and "fighting evil imperialism" color--as evidence that the natives must be supreme. When it is done in an area where the non-Muslims were first and the Muslims are the immigrants, all of a sudden it takes the color of "fighting racist islamophobia", "keeping our culture", "refusing to join the decadent west", and so on--as evidence that the immigrants must be supreme.

In reality these are both two sides of the same coin: whether immigrants or natives, whether few (in which case they demand "minority rights") or many (in which case they demand non-Muslim minorites be expelled as a "foreign influence"), whether facing a tough government (in which case it calls for a jihad against "opression of Muslims") or a liberal one (in which case they call for Jihad because the "weak and corrupt democracy" is ripe for the picking), the REAL Islamist idea is that the Muslims must be supreme rulers everywhere and expel, or at least rule over, all others.

Only Muslims have rights. Nobody else does.

[Bandersnatch]

the REAL Islamist idea is that the Muslims must be supreme rulers everywhere and expel, or at least rule over, all others.

Only Muslims have rights. Nobody else does.

You know, in Canada (and the US too, I assume), there are groups like this. The White Nation folks, so it's not like Islam is alone in having fringe groups.

[Ralph]

How many people have been killed by radical Muslims?

How many people have been killed by all the "fringe" groups in Canada combined?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Bandersnatch
You know, in Canada (and the US too, I assume), there are groups like this. The White Nation folks, so it's not like Islam is alone in having fringe groups.

That's very true. These Islamist groups are every bit as bad as the white nationalist groups. Only larger, better funded and better organized.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Skeptic
In the israel/Palestine conflict, we keep hearing how this is not--I repeat, not--an Islamist war of annihilation against the jews, but "just" an anti-colonialist fight of the "native people against opression".Hizb ut-Tahrir have no direct bearing on Palestine. Israel is a colony, and the opposition to it is anti-colonial. It has mostly manifested itself as a nationalist cause, the religious element only becoming sizeable recently and still not as a majority motivation. It has nothing to with establishing a global Caliphate, it only involves Palestine.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Israel is a colony, and the opposition to it is anti-colonial.

Sure. All you need to do is create a new definition of "colony" and "colonial" to make this true. It's a bit of work, but I suppose it's worth it.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
It has mostly manifested itself as a nationalist cause, the religious element only becoming sizeable recently and still not as a majority motivation. It has nothing to with establishing a global Caliphate, it only involves Palestine.

The PLO charter goes on and on about the "Arab Nation" which the Palestinian struggle represents such an important part of. It never actually says "Caliphate" but one wonders what form this greater "Arab unity" is supposed to take. For example:

Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

Article 12: The Palestinian people believe in Arab unity. In order to contribute their share toward the attainment of that objective, however, they must, at the present stage of their struggle, safeguard their Palestinian identity and develop their consciousness of that identity, and oppose any plan that may dissolve or impair it.

Article 13: Arab unity and the liberation of Palestine are two complementary objectives, the attainment of either of which facilitates the attainment of the other. Thus, Arab unity leads to the liberation of Palestine, the liberation of Palestine leads to Arab unity; and work toward the realization of one objective proceeds side by side with work toward the realization of the other.

Article 14: The destiny of the Arab nation, and indeed Arab existence itself, depend upon the destiny of the Palestine cause. From this interdependence springs the Arab nation's pursuit of, and striving for, the liberation of Palestine. The people of Palestine play the role of the vanguard in the realization of this sacred (qawmi) goal.

Article 15: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine. Absolute responsibility for this falls upon the Arab nation - peoples and governments - with the Arab people of Palestine in the vanguard. Accordingly, the Arab nation must mobilize all its military, human, moral, and spiritual capabilities to participate actively with the Palestinian people in the liberation of Palestine. It must, particularly in the phase of the armed Palestinian revolution, offer and furnish the Palestinian people with all possible help, and material and human support, and make available to them the means and opportunities that will enable them to continue to carry out their leading role in the armed revolution, until they liberate their homeland.


So as I said, while they never say "Caliphate" it's clear they feel it doesn't just involve "Palestine", but rather a much larger "Arab Nation."

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
In the israel/Palestine conflict, we keep hearing how this is not--I repeat, not--an Islamist war of annihilation against the jews, but "just" an anti-colonialist fight of the "native people against opression".

But let's look at Hizb al-Tahrir, the Islamist party based in Britian. Its official goal is to dimantle the UK and make it into an Islamic republic, or, more precisely, into an Islamic province of a world government ruled by the Chalifate.

Strangely enough, the rights of the natives--the British non-Muslims--suddenly mean nothing at all for this party. That virtually all members of the party are first- or second-generation immigrants in Britian does not stop them from demanding that it is their belief and religion that must supersede that of those who lived there for hundreds of years.

Why is that? Well, the truth is, for the Islamists, it is only Muslims (more precisely, their kind of Muslims) that have any rights, and all others are kuffirs which have none and must be suppressed.

When this is done in an area where the Muslims were before the immigrants, then, of course, the story takes the "anti-colonialist" and "fighting evil imperialism" color--as evidence that the natives must be supreme. When it is done in an area where the non-Muslims were first and the Muslims are the immigrants, all of a sudden it takes the color of "fighting racist islamophobia", "keeping our culture", "refusing to join the decadent west", and so on--as evidence that the immigrants must be supreme.

In reality these are both two sides of the same coin: whether immigrants or natives, whether few (in which case they demand "minority rights") or many (in which case they demand non-Muslim minorites be expelled as a "foreign influence"), whether facing a tough government (in which case it calls for a jihad against "opression of Muslims") or a liberal one (in which case they call for Jihad because the "weak and corrupt democracy" is ripe for the picking), the REAL Islamist idea is that the Muslims must be supreme rulers everywhere and expel, or at least rule over, all others.

Only Muslims have rights. Nobody else does.

Never miss a chance to miss a chance Sharon had the chance years ago to deal with the issue as a secular one, but his pig headedness meant that it is now Hamas who are apparently calling the shots these days, not the weakened PLO/PA.

Exremist religions everywhere are a threat to civil life. It was Sharons extremism that ensured a real chance for peace was blown by doing everything he could to derail it.

He has now realised his error, but painted Israel into a corner that has no easy way out.

[Skeptic]

Never miss a chance to miss a chance Sharon had the chance years ago to deal with the issue as a secular one,

Sharon was prime minister "years ago", before Hamas? That's news. We're not talking about the Palestinians here, when whatever thug is leading the organization is there forever.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Skeptic
In the israel/Palestine conflict, we keep hearing how this is not--I repeat, not--an Islamist war of annihilation against the jews, but "just" an anti-colonialist fight of the "native people against opression".

But let's look at Hizb al-Tahrir, the Islamist party based in Britian. Its official goal is to dimantle the UK and make it into an Islamic republic, or, more precisely, into an Islamic province of a world government ruled by the Chalifate.

Strangely enough, the rights of the natives--the British non-Muslims--suddenly mean nothing at all for this party. That virtually all members of the party are first- or second-generation immigrants in Britian does not stop them from demanding that it is their belief and religion that must supersede that of those who lived there for hundreds of years.

Why is that? Well, the truth is, for the Islamists, it is only Muslims (more precisely, their kind of Muslims) that have any rights, and all others are kuffirs which have none and must be suppressed.

When this is done in an area where the Muslims were before the immigrants, then, of course, the story takes the "anti-colonialist" and "fighting evil imperialism" color--as evidence that the natives must be supreme. When it is done in an area where the non-Muslims were first and the Muslims are the immigrants, all of a sudden it takes the color of "fighting racist islamophobia", "keeping our culture", "refusing to join the decadent west", and so on--as evidence that the immigrants must be supreme.

In reality these are both two sides of the same coin: whether immigrants or natives, whether few (in which case they demand "minority rights") or many (in which case they demand non-Muslim minorites be expelled as a "foreign influence"), whether facing a tough government (in which case it calls for a jihad against "opression of Muslims") or a liberal one (in which case they call for Jihad because the "weak and corrupt democracy" is ripe for the picking), the REAL Islamist idea is that the Muslims must be supreme rulers everywhere and expel, or at least rule over, all others.

Only Muslims have rights. Nobody else does.

What's most alarming is that you think you're making a point. Thankfully not everyone is this ******* insane. You betray your stunning -- nay, gobsmacking -- ignorance of Palestinian resistance.

Speaking of bat**** insane, let's not forget our Mycroft. I do love how in his pitiful attempt to refute CD's characterization of a nationalist struggle he goes to great pains to highlight the word "Arab" (as if this proves anything). Gosh, shouldn't you be using your search function to find "Islamic" and "Muslim"?

It should surprise no one as the PLO has always been rather secular in its ideological outlook. Anyway, yeah, Palestinians are oppressing Israeli Jews. Uh-huh. No question about it. Oh, and if you have any questions then you're a raging anti-Semite.

If we're interested in counting bodies, then let's look at Sharon's conduct in the invasion of Lebanon in the early 80s.

Now it's easy for me to agree with philosopher Brian Barry that the Islamists who, for instance, marched through the streets of London calling for Rushdie's head are illiberal and even backward. Fine. I'm not exactly sure how this justifies colonizing Palestine and oppressing the populace (you know, the sort of imperialism that is also illiberal and backward).
Post edited - rule 8. Cain, please stop using bad language. You know better.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Ralph
How many people have been killed by radical Muslims?

How many people have been killed by all the "fringe" groups in Canada combined?

May not be much in Canada, but Oaklahoma was a big deal.

Fringe groups kill. what does it matter what the numbers are? They all need to be fought diligently.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by fowlsound
May not be much in Canada, but Oaklahoma was a big deal.

Fringe groups kill. what does it matter what the numbers are? They all need to be fought diligently.

Good point. Fighting them diligently doesn't mean trying to minimize or dismiss from any one group.

[Manny]

Originally posted by fowlsound
May not be much in Canada, but Oaklahoma was a big deal.

Fringe groups kill. what does it matter what the numbers are? They all need to be fought diligently. Correct. There's a few differences, however.

One, the white supremecist groups lost a lot of legitimacy among their followers when those followers saw the outcome of what they thought they wanted. By contrast, successful Islamist terrorism is widely believed to increase their appeal.

Two, there was a large and mostly successful program undertaken by the government of the countries where they exist to infiltrate and break up white supremecist groups around the time of the OKC bombing. That's only happening in some countries where the Islamist groups exist.

Three, no one was ever, ever taken seriously when they said we have to do a better job understanding the root causes of the white supremecists' rage -- people who did that were correctly and summarily dismissed as nutcases or apologists for white supremacy.

But yes, members of both groups who engage in or plot violence should be captured or killed.

[Skeptic]

One, the white supremecist groups lost a lot of legitimacy among their followers when those saw the outcome of what they thought they wanted. By contrast, successful Islamist terrorism is widely believed to increase their appeal.

Two, there was a large and mostly successful program undertaken by the government of the countries where they exist to infiltrate and break up white supremecist groups around the time of the OKC bombing. That's only happening in some countries where the Islamist groups exist.

Three, no one was ever, ever taken seriously when they said we have to do a better job understanding the root causes of the white supremecists' rage -- people who did that were correctly and summarily dismissed as nutcases or apologists for white supremacy.

Four, even the nuttiest white-supremacist groups' craziest goal is to dominate the USA and/or Europe, not to take over the whole world and force everybody to accept the superiority of white people. Islamists, on the other hand...

[Tony]

Originally posted by Skeptic
In the israel/Palestine conflict, we keep hearing how this is not--I repeat, not--an Islamist war of annihilation against the jews, but "just" an anti-colonialist fight of the "native people against opression".

But let's look at Hizb al-Tahrir, the Islamist party based in Britian. Its official goal is to dimantle the UK and make it into an Islamic republic, or, more precisely, into an Islamic province of a world government ruled by the Chalifate.

Strangely enough, the rights of the natives--the British non-Muslims--suddenly mean nothing at all for this party. That virtually all members of the party are first- or second-generation immigrants in Britian does not stop them from demanding that it is their belief and religion that must supersede that of those who lived there for hundreds of years.

Why is that? Well, the truth is, for the Islamists, it is only Muslims (more precisely, their kind of Muslims) that have any rights, and all others are kuffirs which have none and must be suppressed.

When this is done in an area where the Muslims were before the immigrants, then, of course, the story takes the "anti-colonialist" and "fighting evil imperialism" color--as evidence that the natives must be supreme. When it is done in an area where the non-Muslims were first and the Muslims are the immigrants, all of a sudden it takes the color of "fighting racist islamophobia", "keeping our culture", "refusing to join the decadent west", and so on--as evidence that the immigrants must be supreme.

In reality these are both two sides of the same coin: whether immigrants or natives, whether few (in which case they demand "minority rights") or many (in which case they demand non-Muslim minorites be expelled as a "foreign influence"), whether facing a tough government (in which case it calls for a jihad against "opression of Muslims") or a liberal one (in which case they call for Jihad because the "weak and corrupt democracy" is ripe for the picking), the REAL Islamist idea is that the Muslims must be supreme rulers everywhere and expel, or at least rule over, all others.

Only Muslims have rights. Nobody else does.

Yep religious fanatics sure are hypocrites, in other news, experts agree: sun rises in east.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Skeptic
*snip*

Four, even the nuttiest white-supremacist groups' craziest goal is to dominate the USA and/or Europe, not to take over the whole world and force everybody to accept the superiority of white people. Islamists, on the other hand...

Funny. The run-of-the-mill US white supremacist groups I have heard about have quite different goal: bringing about global nuclear war to purge the world of all non-white races.

I don´t think Bin Laden et al can compete with that...

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Chaos
Funny. The run-of-the-mill US white supremacist groups I have heard about have quite different goal: bringing about global nuclear war to purge the world of all non-white races.

I don´t think Bin Laden et al can compete with that...

I may be a few years out of date with hate groups, but I've never seen one with nuclear war as their goal. Many anticipate widespread race wars where they will get the chance to purge regions of lesser races and to punnish "race-traitors", but even the nuttiest of them recognize there might not be much left after a nuclear war.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Chaos
Funny. The run-of-the-mill US white supremacist groups I have heard about have quite different goal: bringing about global nuclear war to purge the world of all non-white races.

I don´t think Bin Laden et al can compete with that...

Oh yeah? IIRC, Al Quaeda & co. are trying to arm themselves with nukes to fight the jihad whose ultimate goal is ridding the world of all unbelievers.

Sounds similar.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally posted by Ralph
How many people have been killed by radical Muslims?

How many people have been killed by all the "fringe" groups in Canada combined? A white supremacist group in America dragged a black man to his death a couple of years ago. There is still radical racism. I know that a Sikh was shot to death in Chandler when I lived there in late 2001.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Four, even the nuttiest white-supremacist groups' craziest goal is to dominate the USA and/or Europe, not to take over the whole world and force everybody to accept the superiority of white people. Islamists, on the other hand... [/B] White supremacists don't want everyone to accept the superiority of white people? Um, isn't that the very definition of 'white supremacy'?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Chaos
Funny. The run-of-the-mill US white supremacist groups I have heard about have quite different goal: bringing about global nuclear war to purge the world of all non-white races.

I don´t think Bin Laden et al can compete with that...

Actually, I have never heard of a US white supremacist group with that as the goal. All the ones I have heard of want a world that is sort of compartmentalized racially, The whites get the US and Europe (though I guess that means my Indian relatives get screwed in that scenario), Blacks get Africa, etc. They also beleive that the whites will naturally dominate the rest of the world in such a scenario but that is stil very differnet from wanting to have a global nuclear war to purge the world of non-whites.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Actually, I have never heard of a US white supremacist group with that as the goal. All the ones I have heard of want a world that is sort of compartmentalized racially, The whites get the US and Europe (though I guess that means my Indian relatives get screwed in that scenario), Blacks get Africa, etc. They also beleive that the whites will naturally dominate the rest of the world in such a scenario but that is stil very differnet from wanting to have a global nuclear war to purge the world of non-whites.

I was thinking mainly of the Turner Diaries, and the kind of freaks associated with that.

And IIRC it said in "Inside Terrorism" by Bruce Hoffman that some of these groups - I can´t recall the names right now - have already been planning on poisoning the water supplies of major US cities back when Bin Laden was still busy fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. And at least one of these freaks was arrested trying to acquire biological warfare material.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
White supremacists don't want everyone to accept the superiority of white people? Um, isn't that the very definition of 'white supremacy'?

No. The vast majority of White Supremacist groups, while of course considering themselves superior, do not want everybody to acknowledge their superiority, let alone become white (which is naturally impossible); what they want, rather, is to divide the world where North America and Europe are white-only, and the rest of the world can do whatever it wants.

It's interesting that this goal, when white people ask for this, is rather obviously racist, intolerant, and dangerous--which it is; yet when Muslim countries do the exact same thing--kick out most non-Muslims, subjugate the rest, and demand non-interference of anybody in their Muslim-superior societies--this is seen as "moderate" Islam, one that "only" wants to be left alone and not suffer from "western imperialism", etc., etc.

It says someting about the state of the world when, when you translate "white people" into "believers" or "Muslims", the "moderate" Muslim world is equivalent to the "White Power" groups in its view of outsiders.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally posted by Skeptic
No. The vast majority of White Supremacist groups, while of course considering themselves superior, do not want everybody to acknowledge their superiority, let alone become white (which is naturally impossible); what they want, rather, is to divide the world where North America and Europe are white-only, and the rest of the world can do whatever it wants. The part of your quote in bold brought to you by the good folks at Strawman Inc. The rest of your quote brought to you by (Over)General(ize) Mills.

It's interesting that this goal, when white people ask for this, is rather obviously racist, intolerant, and dangerous--which it is; yet when Muslim countries do the exact same thing--kick out most non-Muslims, subjugate the rest, and demand non-interference of anybody in their Muslim-superior societies--this is seen as "moderate" Islam, one that "only" wants to be left alone and not suffer from "western imperialism", etc., etc. Who sees this? Besides you, I mean. Because you have just said that racial discrimination is the "exact same thing" as religious discrimination. You forget, the largest population of Muslims is in Indonesia, which is Oriental/Asian, NOT Arab.

If you want to compare apples to apples, try comparing all the times in the past when Europeans and/or Americans kicked out (quite often by killing) most non-Christians, subjugated the rest, and demanded non-interference of anybody in their Christian-superior societies. I believe you'll find this information in any world history book under nearly any date that ends in "A.D.". I believe you'll also find it in any US history book.

It says someting about the state of the world when, when you translate "white people" into "believers" or "Muslims", the "moderate" Muslim world is equivalent to the "White Power" groups in its view of outsiders. It says something about the state of YOUR world.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Actually, I have never heard of a US white supremacist group with that as the goal. All the ones I have heard of want a world that is sort of compartmentalized racially, The whites get the US and Europe (though I guess that means my Indian relatives get screwed in that scenario)
Don't they get Sourth America? If not there's always Antarctis. :p