Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by Burning ghost »

Spectrum -
It is only relative. All religions has their share of evils based on their holy texts but Islam is the worst in the following rating of potential for real evils and violence based on evidences;

1. Islam = 90% [1.5 billion followers]
2. Christianity =30% [2 billion]
3. Judaism = 40% [6-10 million]
4. Buddhism = 0.01%
5. Taoism = 0.02
6. Jainism = 0.001%
This is not a hard science so I am very skeptical about such statistics, not to mention I have no idea what I am meant to get from this? If you post some % comparison please make it clearer what you are referring to and the source you've gotten it from. Stating "based on evidence" doesn't cut it for me.

Personally I think it is a good thing there is opposition to a lot of what Tommy Robinson is doing, because of what he has already done regarding EDL, because he has a large number of supporters so he should not be blindly followed as someone who owns the truth. I would say the same kind of thing for George Galloway.

The more reasonable and steady voice in the UK would be Douglas Murray, although his obsession with statistics sometimes does very little to help his position. He at least expresses the situation of concern more clearly and well mannered.

We will all keep each other in check. In this day and age it is pretty hard to silence everyone. Very one has an agenda and perspective and they will express what they believe to be the source of the problem as they see it. It makes sense to listen to as many views as possible, but it seems we have to rely on common sense at the end of the day given that evidence can be presented to back up almost any claim and the weight of evidence we see is always biased by our own views.

I mentioned the dream above because I know it could make me look like someone willing to believe in dreams or something. The point was all this in connection with other things was going around in my head and I woke after two hours sleep with a very vivid set of questions to myself about the anti-theistic post I made. That is not really something I feel is a fair expression of what I feel and think about religion, although it is in some way, but it is such a complex view I have that it would take a lot to attempt to express what I mean.

I have also seen some people who are part of groups opposing certain sects of Islam being accused of Islamophobia when they are simply trying to bring the factor of Islam to the table and have an open discussion about The Quran. Often though they fail to get any point across for two reasons. People have been conditioned to oppose hatred toward "groups" of peoples and because their presentation is often shoddy.
AKA badgerjelly
Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by Togo1 »

Spectrum wrote: Are you implying we should not ban nor censor movies, computer games and various medias, social environment, and the likes that has evil and violent materials?
Yes, broadly speaking. We still need restrictions to keep people informed as to the nature of the material before it is viewed, but I don't see that a ban is approrpriate. If nothing else, similarly violent material appears in news reports and in the Bible, and I'm hoping you're not proposing that any of those be banned? Why then pick on computer games? There's nothing in this research to suggest that they are more influential than any other form of exposure.
Spectrum wrote:
Harper-Mercer was known as a recluse who was obsessed with violent gaming and the digital world, even finding supporters on those sites. On an anonymous chat room website called 4chan, there are messages that talk about what he was planning to do.
http://www.charismanews.com/culture/526 ... ideo-games
For such cases there are two critical causes, i.e. the predisposition to violence and the triggers as from medias, computer games, etc.
So you're saying that the important point in that case is nothing to do with the fact that he was spending 14 hours a day in a small room by himself with little or no social contact? It was because he was spending that time using a computer that is the critical point?

I guess I'm stuggling to link a game played by tens or hundreds of millions of people worldwide, to a particular incident in the US. Surely if these games were useful or effective triggers we'd be seeing thousands of these cases?
Spectrum wrote:I don't think "inaccurate newspapers, or poorly argued internet articles" are the main points in this case.
According to the research you're citing, news sites and information should be equally influential, if not more so, irrespective of whether it's accurate or not. .
Spectrum wrote:It is not only violent elements that trigger violence in some Muslims. Even the drawings of cartoons of Muhammad would trigger Muslims to fight and kill.
So why don't they? We had cartoons of Muhammad viewed by hundreds of millions of people. Why wasn't there a huge wave of 'triggered' violence?
Spectrum wrote:The Mein Kempf contained evil elements of hatred for Jews. I don't think Germans would have immediately killed Jews after finishing reading the Mein Kempf then but it is a part of the hate ideology that was subliminally infecting the consciousness of Germans [Nazis] then.
So you're blaming the book for Germans hating Jews, rather than the vast amount of anti-semitisim that existed before it was published?
Spectrum wrote:Btw, are you familiar with the principles, concepts, mechanisms, and processes that trigger genocides.
The 8 Stages of Genocide
http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/8 ... ocide.html
Islam [partly] has elements in all the above 8 stages of genocides as proven in the Genocides of the Armenians, Yazidis, Jews, etc.
Sure, but so do your posts. They're up to stage 3, yes? Trying to encourage others to accept your classification of Islam as a religion of hatred, holding up the Quran as symbolising this difference, and now we're onto the stage where you use psychology to try and cast their actions as somehow automatic or triggered, rather than people just being rational and human. You've already started referring to 'vermin', so I guess the process of dehumanisation is well underway.

And strangely enough, you find people opposing you.

Again, Chomsky is useful here. He makes the point that you can't really be said to oppose an action something unless you oppose it when it is practiced by yourself and your own side as well as by others. If you really believe that those are the stages preparatory to genocide, then you need to work out how your own self-imposed mission against Islam (can I call it a crusade?) is different from that. And stick to those differences.
Spectrum wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)


<shrug> As there are in the Quran.
I have done very detailed analysis of the 6,236 verses in the Quran.
There are good verses in the Quran but these are directed at Muslims [only] to be good.
There are like ONLY 10+ verses that are directed positively at non-Muslims, 10+!! out of 6,236 verses in the Quran. In context these 10+ good verses are overwhelmed by the tons of other evil laden verses of the same context that are anti-non-Muslims. Allah may have stated a Muslim be kind to his/her non-Muslims parents in one verse but be harsh to non-Muslims even if they are your parents in other verses.
There are 3,400++ verses 55%!! of the 6,236 verses that are negative [of various degrees] to non-Muslims.
Is that a lot, compared with other religions? Again, without some kind of comparison or baseline, these statistics are meaningless. Reading through my company annual report, for example, I find that references to other companies are overwhelmingly negative. Does that make my company evil?
Spectrum wrote:Christianity has an unconditional maxim 'Thou Shalt Not Kill" in the ten commandments.
Islam do have such commands but they are always conditional, i.e. "Do Not Kill except ... " as they are followed with conditions which are vague, ambiguous and open ended.
So, given that, why do Christians kill so many more people than Muslims? If writing down 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' had the effect of stopping people from killing, we should be able to see it in our results, yes? So why don't we?
Spectrum wrote:The problem with the Quran is, its commands are vague, ambiguous, dualistic and open ended.
Which is probably why it's not taken as a literalist source in Islam. In Western Christian Fundamentalism, you take the bible as your only source, slap your own interpretation on it, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. In radical Islam, you don't do the same with Quran. You run with an interpretation based on a scholastic tradition, and any textual interpretation is done in the context of that tradition. If your view of Islam is based solely on studying the Quran over and over, then you don't understand Islam.
Technically [by Allah's decree] in according to Allah's words, a Muslim is one who has entered [explicitly or implicitly] into a spiritual contract [covenant] with Allah and agreeing to terms of the contract which can only be from the Quran [6,236 verses] and no where else.

If one sign a contract the obligation of each party is confined within the terms of the contract and cannot be anywhere else, e.g. appendix, explanatory notes, commentaries, etc.[/quote]

Not true. I've got a large texbook of contract law on my bookshelf that disagrees with you on this point. This is why we get topics like 'Proportionality', 'the postal rule', and so on, not to mention a large body of case law. In general it's not a good idea to try and apply US legal principles to a document written hundreds of years ago in a different country, continent, culture and legal tradition.
Spectrum wrote:The majority of Muslims, Sunni majority and Shia who adopted the Ahadith as having divine authority [when technically there is none] are deviant-Muslims regardless of their claims. They are relying on a very thin string [argument] to hold on to their claims that the Ahadith [100%] has divine authority. If you are familiar with the Ahadith you will note many of the hadith are an insult to their Allah, e.g. drinking camel urine, breast suckling of strangers, etc. The principles is, as long as the hadith explanations are based on the authority of the Quran without deviations then it is acceptable and the ultimate authority is still the Quran.

I don't understand Islam??
Currently there is a growing trend of Quran-only Muslims who rely on the Quran as the only divine authority from Allah.
http://masjidtucson.org/submission/subm ... ssion.html
They have very logical arguments why their Quran-Only view is technically very sound.
Yes, it looks like you don't understand Islam, at least as it is practiced by the majority of it's adherents. You can disagree with them as much as you like about how Islam ought to work, but for the purposes of this discussion it's what they actually believe that's relevent, no matter how much that conflicts with your own analysis.
Spectrum wrote:

(Nested quote removed.)

A good internet rule of them thumb is "Before asking Why, ask If" Thus far you've not actually demonstrated that there exists a Regressive Left, or that they are particularly sympathetic to Islam, rather than just civil liberties in general.
Note,

The regressive left is a term coined by anti-Islamist activist Maajid Nawaz[2] to describe a perceived segment of the left which ignores certain reactionary attitudes in the name of tolerance. Nawaz originally used it to refer to misguided leftist tolerance of conservative and fundamentalist Islam (underbelly and all) in contrast to their progressive stance against the scourge of conservative and fundamentalist Christianity, but the term has since been extended to encompass many (but curiously not all) leftist positions that appear contradictory to progressive values.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Regressive_left
Yes, that's the group we're talking about. Do they actually exist, and if so, are they actually particularly sympathetic to Islam? You've already said you're on a special mission to try and uncover the evil of Islam specifically. Given that you're only attacking Islam, how do you know they're actually sympathetic to Islam, rather than just protective of religious freedom and majoirty rights?
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by Spectrum »

Togo1 wrote:
Spectrum wrote: Are you implying we should not ban nor censor movies, computer games and various medias, social environment, and the likes that has evil and violent materials?
Yes, broadly speaking. We still need restrictions to keep people informed as to the nature of the material before it is viewed, but I don't see that a ban is appropriate. If nothing else, similarly violent material appears in news reports and in the Bible, and I'm hoping you're not proposing that any of those be banned? Why then pick on computer games? There's nothing in this research to suggest that they are more influential than any other form of exposure.
Re computer games, this was merely an example that I introduced to justify there is a link between evil/violent material and acts of violence/evil.

My main point is there is a link between evil/violent materials and violence & other acts of evil by evil prone people regardless of where they are exposed to people.
We have to take preventive actions to do whatever is necessary to eliminate its influence, i.e. ban, censor, and other types of control depending on the context and criticalness.

Whether it is in the Bible or wherever we have to do something about it. Note this OP is about Islam and in this case we are referring to evil and violent elements in the Quran and the Ahadith. Therefore we have to do something about these evil elements in the Quran and Ahadith. There are many ways to deal with them but I am not discussing how to deal with these evil element in this post.
Spectrum wrote: For such cases there are two critical causes, i.e. the predisposition to violence and the triggers as from medias, computer games, etc.
So you're saying that the important point in that case is nothing to do with the fact that he was spending 14 hours a day in a small room by himself with little or no social contact? It was because he was spending that time using a computer that is the critical point?

I guess I'm struggling to link a game played by tens or hundreds of millions of people worldwide, to a particular incident in the US. Surely if these games were useful or effective triggers we'd be seeing thousands of these cases?
Again this is one quick example from google. I have read of many articles where the link between violence in computer games and acts of violence. Computer games is not the main issue here but note this model;

Predisposition to evil/violence + exposure to sources of evil/violence = evil/violence acts

A guy can spend >24 hours on computer with violent material, but if he does not have a predisposition for evil/violence, generally s/he will not commit violence.

Billions of people are exposed to sources of evil/violence materials but not all will commit violence/evils. This is because the majority lack the active predisposition to evil/violence as in the above equation.

Note the above equation is applicable to all people and all sorts of evil/violence.
However for this topic we are only interested in those related to Islam [OP].

I define Evil [inclusive of violence] as generally, any human acts or intention that is net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and therefrom the collective. There is continuum range of evil from low [petty crimes, lying, the likes.] to high [mass rapes, genocides, the likes].

There is a percentile of humans who has a predisposition to evil [low to high] and I have estimated this POTENTIAL pool, conservatively at 20%. [>20% likely to lie, bribe, steal, the likes].

Applying the formula to our case,

20% of Muslims with predisposition to evil/violence + evil/violent materials in Quran = Islamic based evil and violence.

The above is proven by the glaring evidence of Islamic-based evils and violence that is ongoing almost on a daily basis.
Spectrum wrote:I don't think "inaccurate newspapers, or poorly argued internet articles" are the main points in this case.
According to the research you're citing, news sites and information should be equally influential, if not more so, irrespective of whether it's accurate or not. .
I agree. We have to do something about them. Note this discussion is applicable to contents of evil/violence related to Islam only.
Spectrum wrote:It is not only violent elements that trigger violence in some Muslims. Even the drawings of cartoons of Muhammad would trigger Muslims to fight and kill.
So why don't they? We had cartoons of Muhammad viewed by hundreds of millions of people. Why wasn't there a huge wave of 'triggered' violence?
Surely you have not forgotten there was a huge wave of 'triggered' violence around the World re the Danish Cartoons incident. Then we have the Charlie Hebdo cases. And now every publisher is fearful of publishing cartoons of Muhammad.
Those who continue to draw cartoons are subject to threat and the potential of being killed as per the equation above. If you don't believe me, try drawing a cartoon of Muhammad in a square in Mecca.

The point is, the equation i.e.,
Predisposition to evil/violence + exposure to sources of evil/violence = evil/violence acts
is so volatile and sensitive that even cartoon can trigger SOME Muslims to fight and kill, tells us that Islam really contains very malignant sources that breed evil/violence.

Surely as concern and responsible citizens of humanity, we have to do something about such terrible evil and violent potential.
I am surprise you are hindering and condemning what I am trying to contribute to this real issue of evils and violence.
Spectrum wrote:The Mein Kempf contained evil elements of hatred for Jews. I don't think Germans would have immediately killed Jews after finishing reading the Mein Kempf then but it is a part of the hate ideology that was subliminally infecting the consciousness of Germans [Nazis] then.
So you're blaming the book for Germans hating Jews, rather than the vast amount of anti-semitisim that existed before it was published?
Note the equation again;
Predisposition to evil/violence + exposure to sources of evil/violence = evil/violence acts

The book is one of the sources that is topping to the existing anti-semitisim.
Spectrum wrote:Btw, are you familiar with the principles, concepts, mechanisms, and processes that trigger genocides.
The 8 Stages of Genocide
http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/8 ... ocide.html
Islam [partly] has elements in all the above 8 stages of genocides as proven in the Genocides of the Armenians, Yazidis, Jews, etc.
Sure, but so do your posts. They're up to stage 3, yes?
Trying to encourage others to accept your classification of Islam as a religion of hatred, holding up the Quran as symbolising this difference, and now we're onto the stage where you use psychology to try and cast their actions as somehow automatic or triggered, rather than people just being rational and human. You've already started referring to 'vermin', so I guess the process of dehumanisation is well underway.

And strangely enough, you find people opposing you.

Again, Chomsky is useful here. He makes the point that you can't really be said to oppose an action something unless you oppose it when it is practiced by yourself and your own side as well as by others. If you really believe that those are the stages preparatory to genocide, then you need to work out how your own self-imposed mission against Islam (can I call it a crusade?) is different from that. And stick to those differences.
So you agree Islam do contain the preliminaries (1-3).
Thus don't you think Islam warrant special attention instead of being so apologetic to it?
If you look at the history of Islam, in part it has displayed all the points [1 - 8] of genocides. I will prove this in my project.

As for me, my project's mission is to expose the evil and violent potential of Islam objectively then propose effective total solutions to resolve it.
This [ISIS as vermins, etc.] is merely a discussion and if I were to present my proposals to the public it will be in a form of a total solution that is fool proof [no room for side effects in terms evil and violence].
I have done very detailed analysis of the 6,236 verses in the Quran.
There are good verses in the Quran but these are directed at Muslims [only] to be good.
There are like ONLY 10+ verses that are directed positively at non-Muslims, 10+!! out of 6,236 verses in the Quran. In context these 10+ good verses are overwhelmed by the tons of other evil laden verses of the same context that are anti-non-Muslims. Allah may have stated a Muslim be kind to his/her non-Muslims parents in one verse but be harsh to non-Muslims even if they are your parents in other verses.
There are 3,400++ verses 55%!! of the 6,236 verses that are negative [of various degrees] to non-Muslims.
Is that a lot, compared with other religions? Again, without some kind of comparison or baseline, these statistics are meaningless. Reading through my company annual report, for example, I find that references to other companies are overwhelmingly negative. Does that make my company evil? [/quote]
Besides statistics there are other factors and context to take into consideration.
In terms of quantum there are more evils and violence materials in the Old Testament in comparison to the Quran. There are some evil and violent materials in the New Testament.
But what counts is the real resultants of evil and violent acts from the followers [SOME] of the respective religion.
Another factor is the ethos inherent in the various religions.
If you have lots of encounter with various groups of Muslims you will note they have a very angry, aggressive, evil and violent ethos towards non-believers. This is generated from the tons of hatred exhorted by their Allah and this influenced the 20% [not all] of evil prone believers.

The OT is worst than the Quran in terms of evil and violent materials but somehow the real statistics of evils and violence [at present] by Jews are very minimal in contrast to the Tsunami of evil and violence by evil prone Muslims [SOME]. There must be other factors that suppressed this evil and violence from manifesting.

Btw, I am not pro Judaism, Christianity and other religions. Personally I believe ALL religions must be weaned-off gradually and voluntarily in the future. [see my signature below]. But Islam must be given immediate attention due to the critical_ness at present.
Spectrum wrote:Christianity has an unconditional maxim 'Thou Shalt Not Kill" in the ten commandments.
Islam do have such commands but they are always conditional, i.e. "Do Not Kill except ... " as they are followed with conditions which are vague, ambiguous and open ended.
So, given that, why do Christians kill so many more people than Muslims? If writing down 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' had the effect of stopping people from killing, we should be able to see it in our results, yes? So why don't we?
In the past Christians killed many but not as many as Muslims. [subject to debate]
The difference is Christians in the past killed when driven by their primal nature and not by the teachings of Jesus per se. According to the Bible they have sinned and would have been punished by God after judgment.
Note we should be more concern with the present and future than the past.

At present, Muslims [SOME] are killing much more non-Muslims and even other Muslims [hypocrites] than Christians and other religionists, but what is so frightening is they are driven to kill in the belief it is their duty [per Quran] to please Allah so that they can have eternal life. This sort of leverage on Allah to fight and kill is VERY dangerous.
If one sign a contract the obligation of each party is confined within the terms of the contract and cannot be anywhere else, e.g. appendix, explanatory notes, commentaries, etc.
Not true. I've got a large texbook of contract law on my bookshelf that disagrees with you on this point. This is why we get topics like 'Proportionality', 'the postal rule', and so on, not to mention a large body of case law. In general it's not a good idea to try and apply US legal principles to a document written hundreds of years ago in a different country, continent, culture and legal tradition.
Disagree on what?
You meant to say, if one sign a contract, one need not have to follow the terms of the contract without having to pay penalties for non-compliances of the agreed terms?
Quote me one reference to support your point?

In the Muslim's spiritual contract with Allah, a Muslim is expected to comply with all the terms of the contract as stipulated in the Quran to the best of their abilities. Any exceptions is up to Allah to judge, reward in paradise and punish in Hell.
If Allah command them to fight and kill and if they have the ability to do but did not, then they will be punished accordingly. This sort of threat of punishment and promise of rewards for fighting non-Muslims is what motivate the current crop of evil prone Muslims to fight and kill non-Muslims.
Yes, it looks like you don't understand Islam, at least as it is practiced by the majority of it's adherents. You can disagree with them as much as you like about how Islam ought to work, but for the purposes of this discussion it's what they actually believe that's relevent, no matter how much that conflicts with your own analysis.
Note majority beliefs do not mean right.
Point is you don't have a good grasp of the Quran and such your view on Islam cannot be credible.
My basis is objective and based on technicalities from the Quran.
This can only be establish from a thread "Why Sunni and Shia are not Islam-proper based on words of Allah from the Quran."
This debate is carried out extensively in the internet and we can do so if you are not convinced.

[/quote]
The regressive left is a term coined by anti-Islamist activist Maajid Nawaz[2] to describe a perceived segment of the left which ignores certain reactionary attitudes in the name of tolerance. Nawaz originally used it to refer to misguided leftist tolerance of conservative and fundamentalist Islam (underbelly and all) in contrast to their progressive stance against the scourge of conservative and fundamentalist Christianity, but the term has since been extended to encompass many (but curiously not all) leftist positions that appear contradictory to progressive values.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Regressive_left
[/quote]
Yes, that's the group we're talking about. Do they actually exist, and if so, are they actually particularly sympathetic to Islam? You've already said you're on a special mission to try and uncover the evil of Islam specifically. Given that you're only attacking Islam, how do you know they're actually sympathetic to Islam, rather than just protective of religious freedom and majority rights?[/quote]
Yes they do exist.

There are many on the Left in general who condemned the negative trend of some of their fellow Leftists.
People like Maajid Nawaz, Bill Maher, Sam Harris and Rubin of Rubin Report,etc., lean to the Left generally and striving to be progressive but they felt some of their fellow Lefties are going to the extreme bothering on generating negatives to humanity. Note ANTIFA.

Note the issue is not religious freedom, the critiques are not shutting down religious freedom but rather they criticizing the evils and violence [the ideology not believers] from some religions. Instead they are called Islamophobes [the fear is real], racists [Islam is not a race] - this is intellectual bankruptcy and moving back to the dark ages.
These Regressive Lefts are protesting with violence to stop freedom of speech leaving no room for debates at all. This is going on regularly.
Are you aware there is a lot of restriction of freedom of speech at present within the academic circle?
There are so many 'stupid' incidents done by these Regressive Left. Note in Canada, they are coming up with Laws to protect especially Islam while they are ignorant of its evil potential. Recently a jihadist terrorist who had killed American soldiers was rewarded with $10++ million .. what kind of f.. is this? If they are not sympathetic, they would make it tough for for that terrorist killer.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by Burning ghost »

Extreme reactions to what we consider benign acts are prevalent throughout religious history. This is not exclusive to Islam. Historically you have a point because Islam is in a very confused position juxtaposition to modern attitudes.

What I could easily imagine is a Christian sect emerging and starting to bomb Muslims in retaliation. Then once the Islamic nutter desist the Christian aggression will remain and we'd see a see-sawing between the two over generations/millenia. The global context has simply brought to light a problem humanity has to face, it is not necessarily a religious problem either in my mind. I see religion as an obvious representation of humanities struggle to live among itself and understand itself.

The grand idea of religions is generally to bring people together regardless of borders or nationhood. It is a very obvious reflection of current attitudes toward globalization and humanities struggle to adapt to recognition of being a part of a greater tapestry of various human cultures and ideologies.

Debating is merely masturbating. It is often a violent methodology to WIN the debate at all costs driven by certain agendas. Debates are useful, but they are only one avenue of discourse. If anything debates shut-down many paths to understanding.

If I speak to someone who says they believe X to be true whilst I believe the opposite, I am wasting my time debating them more often than not. I will often get nowhere debating the "rights" and "wrongs" of someone elses views. In a debate I can even take on the defensive position for something I don't believe in, it is here the real benefit of the debating technique can be put to use, although in public debate you'll not often see people defending views they don't adhere to. This would be my first step in a debate, I would ask the opposition to attempt to defend the position they oppose and for myself to defend their position.

After this I would then ask for a general discussion about these beliefs and how/if they can be consolidated. If they cannot be consolidated in any way, or no further understanding can be gained, then there is an obvious conflict of interests where we are each left in a position from which we must decide to either tolerate their views or actively oppose them.

I have seen a few Muslims held to account over their views not being "democratic" to which they simply reply that they are not concerned with democracy, and don't want democracy. The people then questioning their beliefs go on wasting time trying to preach to them the benefits of democracy thinking they are likely to succeed even though they are not willing to convert to Islam. They fail to understand people have different views.

Zizek was on the BBC lately talking about society being "hypersensitive". People almost want/need to be offended. It is more a plague of society than any particular species of religion that causes this. He also touches on DARPA and how they wish to influence the minds of extremists. They don't want to brain wash people or influence their thoughts, now they are looking to simply alter their brains.

Can we see something of import here please. Let us accept Islamic extremists are a threat (just in case there are some people living in utter ignorance to the widely reported events in the media). We all now agree that Islam has problems. Now what? Do you have anything of substance to propose given that you wish to bring to light to the extreme left the problem Islam poses. Let us assume the message you are declaring is loud and clear and no-one is burying their head in the sand ... now what?

OR are you saying the extreme right/left are beyond reason? If so why waste your time? Or why not put your time into bringing both right and left ends of the spectrum together rather than creating more of a rift? Or is your personal judgement that of which you see politics skewed to the left more than the right and you're actively trying to balance this? If so to the last how do you propose to do this?

Who is ignorant of the potential evil that religious doctrine is used to back up? Who is that ignorant? I would say that many within Islam may well be ignorant about the misuse of their faith. MAny will be ashamed of it too, given that shame plays a part of religious attitudes. What seems like the best course of action is to back up those within Islam who are preaching the good and condemning acts of terror.

Maybe you're points are new to some? I cannot judge from the perspective of others. This is a larger problem of people being less and less concerned with political matters unless they directly affect them. Many probably don't care about child slavery in Africa and such because they don't see it, it is too ugly to look at. This is not really a "leftist" attitude, humans don't like looking into the hideuousness of the world and prefer to focus on the positives (this is something of a Buddhist peace for all nonsensical attitude IMO and denies the necessity of learning through suffering and working hard).

10 pages and little progress seems to have been made here and I am none the wiser as to what you propose to do other than repeat how evil passages in The Quran are. The counter position would be to ask "Why are the right so opposed to Islam?" You've presented enough cases for that already. Why do you think the left is so sympathetic? What reasonable explanation is there? Does it matter? What do you propose? What questions are of use to us? What discussions can we have to further understand the dynamics of this?
AKA badgerjelly
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by Spectrum »

Burning ghost wrote:Spectrum -
It is only relative. All religions has their share of evils based on their holy texts but Islam is the worst in the following rating of potential for real evils and violence based on evidences;

1. Islam = 90% [1.5 billion followers]
2. Christianity =30% [2 billion]
3. Judaism = 40% [6-10 million]
4. Buddhism = 0.01%
5. Taoism = 0.02
6. Jainism = 0.001%
This is not a hard science so I am very skeptical about such statistics, not to mention I have no idea what I am meant to get from this? If you post some % comparison please make it clearer what you are referring to and the source you've gotten it from. Stating "based on evidence" doesn't cut it for me.
Earlier you accused me of being apologetic to Christians.
I am not apologetic to Christians, the above ranking indicate why I am focusing on Islam, i.e. with a 90% seriousness/criticalness as a potential to evil for humanity.

The evilness of the respective religions can be inferred from actual incidents and acts of evils and violence committed by evil prone Islamic since 911.
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/atta ... ?Yr=Last30
One will note [roughly] 90+% of all attacks inspired by holy texts are from Islam.

The above reason is why I am focusing on evils and violence from Islam. I am not apologetic to any violence [if any] by Christians who are inspired by the New Testament.

-- Updated Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:39 am to add the following --
Burning ghost wrote:10 pages and little progress seems to have been made here and I am none the wiser as to what you propose to do other than repeat how evil passages in The Quran are. The counter position would be to ask "Why are the right so opposed to Islam?" You've presented enough cases for that already. Why do you think the left is so sympathetic? What reasonable explanation is there? Does it matter? What do you propose? What questions are of use to us? What discussions can we have to further understand the dynamics of this?
I am not on the Right.
My point is humanity must address the problem of evil from Islam as inherent in the Quran and Islam.

My point is this;
  • 1. It is a fact there are loads of terrible evils by SOME Muslims.

    2. My concern is those evil and violent acts that are inspired by evil/violent elements from the Quran. The quantum of such evils and violence overwhelm those from other religions.

    3. Why the non-Muslims [including from the Right] are voicing against Islam is because it is a real threat to humanity into the future, especially when Muslims are brainwashed by Allah that they MUST and will dominate over the World.
    The other is if WMDs are cheaply available an if say ISIS [any other group] is able to establish a stable state and obtain ICBMs with nuclear warheads from a rogue state like North Korea, they would have no hesitation to use it. This is because regardless of what happen they are assured of a place in paradise.
Why the Regressive Left is so sympathetic to Islam could be due to the following;
  • 1. They are ignorant of the inherent evil of Islam because they assumed if it is a religion, it by default must be peaceful. The truth is Islam is not a peaceful religion.
    2. When those who are aware of the evils of Islam critique and voice against Islam, the Regressive Left imagined the majority of Muslims are being victimized so they try to be hero to save the victims.
    3. Some of the Regressive Left could have be cowered by the terror spread by Islamic terrorist. They feel that if they side with the perpetrators and antagonizers they would be saved. This is the same reason why some are converting to Islam to feel save from terror if they are on the side of the terrorists.
    4. There could be many other reason why the Regressive is sympathetic to Islam, the consequence of which is the malignant element of Islam will fester as a threat to humanity. This is proven with a small case study of Tommy Robinson's Luton Town.
I think what is critical is the majority are very ignorant of what is the real evil ethos of Islam proper.
One problem is the Quran is not easy to read for non-Muslims to understand the real evil ethos of Islam.
One of my project is to rearrange the Quran so that all the verses are presented in one main theme and thus the evil elements are exposed [in a checkmate move].

Note this from Reformist Imam Tawhidi who is trying to reform Islam.
His first approach is to recognize there is element and problem of evil within Islam, the Quran and the Ahadith.
Suggest you listen from 50:52 to 54:00 and 55:21 to 56:00 to get an idea why and how this iman recognize there is a problem of evil within Islam. To deal with the problem of evil, there is a need to address the evil elements in some ways.
If you can listen to the whole video, that would be preferable.
Btw, I am not expecting to convince any one of my point because the whole issue is very complex and require the other party to fully understand Islam and the Quran [ a difficult task]. So I am just posting to express my views, let it flow and settle wherever it will be.

I believe we can make easier progress when I have finished my project in presenting the Quran in thematic format to expose the evil elements therein.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by Burning ghost »

Is this an accusation?
What really puzzles me about you is you seem to be apologetic toward Christianity? I say this if you assume I am being apologetic toward Islam?
Nope. I was hoping to show you if you want to get through to people you assume are opposed to what you're saying then you'll have to change tack. Those so opposed to accepting what you are saying will not step in closer to listen. You'll have to seduce them into understanding rather than banging them on the head with it. Helping people who want to reform Islam is probably a better route.

You'll have to gain the sympathy of the one's you see as "sympathetic" otherwise you'll just be preaching to the converted. I would suggest you show genuine attempts to be "sympathetic" toward Islam, which you do by saying "SOME" a lot. More of this will help people view you as being someone who has considered possible explanations rather than gone full steam ahead with your conclusion and then backing it up with convenient evidences that fit well into your stated conclusions.

If you simply present many different ideas and reports then they should speak for themselves. You'll have no need to conclude this or that, such conclusions are only of real political use if they are referring to hypotheticals.

You have some juicy stats above. Show how you can try and explain them away in part and how this fails. Show the source of the data and how it may be skewed. Statistics are dangerous things to play with and many will know this. Make sure the reader is left with little space to explain the stats away (and they can be explained away to a degree!)

Do you want me to play the game of explaining them away or do you see what argumentation can be placed at your door already?
AKA badgerjelly
Fan of Science
Posts: 172
Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by Fan of Science »

There is not a single Islamic-majority nation that exists now or has existed in the past that grants equal political rights to non-Muslims. There is not a single Islamic-majority nation that grants its citizens freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion. Yet, the political left is not boycotting any Islamic nation. A nation like Saudi Arabia that criminalizes atheism as terrorism and denies women the most basic of human rights is seldom mentioned by the left as a concern. Instead, what we see over and over again from the political left is attack after attack against Israel, a nation that provides greater freedom of speech and rights for its Arab Muslim citizens than most European nations provide for their citizens. A number of Jews who held high positions in the British Labour Party had to resign because of threats against them, solely because they were Jews. The Left fully endorses Chomsky and other so-called "intellectuals" who advocate for the Left as well as vulgar anti-Semitism, including conspiracy theories against Jews.

If Islam was not anti-Semitic, one would see the alliance between the Left and Islam disappear overnight. This alliance goes back to the days of Hitler, who was a head of a socialist workers' party. The Muslim Brotherhood allied with Hitler against the British in WWII. The USSR certainly allied itself with the Arab-Muslim nations throughout most of its history. Today, we have mass demonstrations by the Left in the USA that are headed by Muslim radicals who are extremely anti-Semitic, just check out the leadership for the women's march on Washington shortly after Trump's election win. One doesn't have to look very hard to see the close connections between the Left and Islam, which makes the Left oppressive and an enemy against those who enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from religion, equal rights for gays and transgenders, as well as equal rights for women, which Islam stands against.

There are actually a number of leftists themselves who are concerned about the left's love affair for anti-Semitism and Islam. This is why some people are coining the term "reactionary leftist," to try to distance the leftists who support Islam and anti-Semitism from those leftists who are more concerned about equal political rights for everyone and freedom of speech. The reality, however, is that the left has always been reactionary.

I'm not stating that the political right is much better, but I am most definitely condemning the left, and find that the centrists are the saner political people in this world.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by Burning ghost »

Fan of Science -

Even though the Labour leader said he'd stop arms deals with Saudi Arabia? I don't think this portrayal of the "left" is really that convincing at all. Some are stupid on each side, not that I really understand the difference between "left" and "right" anyway? It is just another convenient political label to attach to people and push some agenda.

You are centrist but against socialism? That means you are on the right then doesn't it or am I misunderstanding something here? Or is it possible people can have views that are considered both left and right depending on the subject and context? I would still maintain that the meaning of "left" and "right" are too plastic and variable in their usages.

It some bizarre to call yourself "centrist" if you are say elsewhere socialism doesn't work.
AKA badgerjelly
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by Spectrum »

Burning ghost wrote: You have some juicy stats above. Show how you can try and explain them away in part and how this fails. Show the source of the data and how it may be skewed. Statistics are dangerous things to play with and many will know this. Make sure the reader is left with little space to explain the stats away (and they can be explained away to a degree!)

Do you want me to play the game of explaining them away or do you see what argumentation can be placed at your door already?
Re the 31,100++ incidents of terror attacks since 911 by Islamists
here;
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Note this stats refer to incidents with fatality [with exceptions].
The list of evil acts daily basis by Islams are listed in the "News" section on the right.

I have using this Stats as reference since a long time ago.
To ensure there is credibility, I wrote to the owner of the TROP site insisting he keep the site link to his source of data. Therefrom he provided this in his site;
[b]TROP[/b] wrote: For years, TROP has published a daily list of Islamic terror attacks with supporting detail culled from reputable news sources. For each incident, we provide enough information for any serious inquirer to verify practically any attack on our list, including date, location and a brief description.
..
..
Not only does TROP publish detail for each item on our counter, but we also furnish substantiating sources for individual incidents upon request. We do not cater to bulk demands beyond the last 30 days, as we do not care to give our work away for free.

Serious enquirers are welcome to contact our editor with requests for specific incidents.
At the bottom of the box "Jihad Report -June, 2017" there is the link re
"List of Attacks"

At the bottom of the link, there is another sub-link re
For information about our methodology, see "About the List."
This list of terrorist attacks committed by Muslims since 9/11/01 (a rate of about five a day) is incomplete because not all such attacks are picked up by international news sources, even those resulting in multiple loss of life.

These are not incidents of ordinary crime involving nominal Muslims killing for money or vendetta. We only include incidents of deadly violence that are reasonably determined to have been committed out of religious duty - as interpreted by the perpetrator. Islam needs to be a motive, but it need not be the only factor.

For example, the Munich mall shooting in July, 2016 was by a Muslim, but it is not on the list, because it was not inspired by a sense of religious duty.

We usually list only attacks resulting in loss of life (with a handful of exceptions). In several cases, the deaths are undercounted because deaths from trauma caused by the Islamists may occur in later days, despite the best efforts of medical personnel to keep the victims alive.
...
...
I suggest you read all the notes by the TROP explaining the methodology of their collection of the data for their statistics.

Also note a response to their critics;
Responding to Loonwatch's Attack on TROP with the following therein;
According to the July 10th [2012] article, Loonwatch is now admitting that the violence on the TROP list is real, but claims that about 7% of the incidents are either not terrorism or not Islamic. This is a fair complaint, but even if true, hardly justifies the over-the-top conclusion that I am guilty of a “propagandistic spin-job” replete with “lies.” Why would anyone intentionally taint such a large list with bad seeds? Obviously, the truth is more complicated and requires a closer look.
I suggest you read the full article to understand TROP's defense.


With 31,100++ deadly fatal attacks since 911, there is too much evidence for it to fail and collapse totally when TROP has taken care to ensure to the best of their knowledge the individual incidents are related to the Muslim's religious duty and exclude those there are not, i.e.
[b]TROP[/b] wrote:For example, the Munich mall shooting in July, 2016 was by a Muslim, but it is not on the list, because it was not inspired by a sense of religious duty.
With such a load of evidence, i.e. 31,100, even if I provide a 10% margin of error, the net result is still a very serious figure. Even at the extreme of providing a 90% margin of error, the net quantum 3110 incidents [10%] is still a frightening figure.

For the 31,100++ incidents the majority are related to 'politics' at first glance. However all these political related incidents can be reduced to the evil elements [political related] in the Quran.

I hope you will wake up and realize,
IT IS 31,000++ deadly and fatal incidents since 911!! :shock: :shock:
Comparing light to light, note the numbers [if any] to the other religions.
Note the ones committed by Buddhists in Myanmar and elsewhere are not done on the basis of their religious duty nor in the name of the Buddha.
I hope some one will collect terror attack based on religious duty on other religions. But the fact is there is very little or none [religious text driven attacks] from the other non-Islamic religions.

Point is, the terror attacks by Islamists as their religious duty is so frequent that it has make the majority "numbed" to be alarmed to its serious impact.

With ISIS collapsing, the chance of being killed by Islamist terrorists has increased tremendously for any one who is travelling by any means, visit any place around the World. It could be you!
WAKE UP!!
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by Burning ghost »

Do I take that as a resounding "NO" and you are going to insist on me, and others, "waking up"?

This whole thread is starting to look like you saying "Look it is raining! The rain is wet. Wake up!"

We are just saying, yeah we know. What is your point?

To which you reply "The rain is wet! Wake up to it!"

Come now. Show some restraint. You want to CONVINCE others and think you're doing a good job here??? Are you kidding?

WAKE UP!!! yourself!

You don't even think to counter the information you're presenting. It is not going to help you at all. I am trying to help you here and you are not allowing me. This is a political sphere and you are assuming you don't need to present anything other than some statistics without informing us of how much rigor you've put into checking them and then when pressed assume some words from the site owner is enough? How are we to believe you? How are we to trust you if you don't show any hint of a counter argument?

I will play the game then regardless of you wishing to ignore my offer.

1- What is deemed a terrorist act?
2- What regions are these attacks carried out in?
3- Where do these people who carry out the attacks originate from?
4- Do any acts of terror stem from non-war ravaged regions?
5- What non-religious acts of violence are they possibly countering?

They are just off the top of my head. My point is you really need to be more moderate in your approach rather than present something as an argument when you've already decided on the truth of the matter. This will not only help you present a better argument to the reader, but will also help you to convince them (if they need convincing?) because they will be able to see you've made some serious attempt to explain away the data. It would also help to express some humility in places and say it is possible that some statistics may be misleading (as above), then go on to say that regardless there are so many instances that we should take them seriously or at least investigate further.

You say you want to convince the extreme left about this? And you use this kind of rhetoric? It won't work any better than telling Muslims there religion is evil, they will shun you more in most cases. So although you may get through to some the ones you don't you possibly harden against your cause.

To be fair a lot of what you write is well written and presented. Too much of it doesn't really help though.

Watch people like Douglas Murray or Peter Hitchens talk. They are very carefully selecting their words in most cases. They are very clear about what they are NOT saying and realise how people may react with hostility. It is a very difficult thing to do.

What is even more of a problem is you'll get silence from the extremists. Many will simply refuse to answer a direct question and speak in a very political manner. I certainly agree that a great many people used to listening to politicians just accept this as a political game and what they fail to realise is that politicians tend to evade some questions because they don't want to say anything conclusively without all the information at hand, or simply wish to address the complexity of the situation. This rhetoric is something the extremists play on and the difference is they are purposely avoiding the facts where the politicians we see everyday are more inclined to avoid answering direct questions because of the lack of facts.

I have seen MANY of these extremists lie without having to lie. They simply use the political tactic of saying it is "complicated", like most religious institutions do when dealing with the contradictory nature of their scriptures. This is a lie from Islamic extremists though, because they know what they believe and want to avoid saying it outright because they know we will condemn them.

Show TORP site and write about who established it and why. Right there you have a bias. Everyone is bias though and bias does not mean the data is corrupt or blatantly misrepresented. It means that we have to make attempts to counter the information it presents. A great deal of attacks are made by Muslims. Note you were quick to note that that Buddhists were not acting as Buddhists so that doesn't count. Your point being Buddhists don't act out in the name of Buddha and their religion would condemn them for doing so. Muslims can, and have, used the excuse of religion. We could also counter arguments by addressing the reaction of Christian communities under war conditions compared to Muslims. We are talking about the EXTREME fringes of each here.

Another comparison worth considering is the Talmud and the Koran. From what I remember both are very degrading to anyone outside of the religion and refer to them as animals. If we draw these comparisons we cannot help but look at other factors involved. This is not to dismantle the obvious hatred spouted by extremists sects it is to identify why it is so different from other extremist sects from other religions. I would point directly at the Islamic States as being the central cause, because if people are taught this from birth as a stark truth then we can very much expect them to fall prey to extremist ideologies (given that the scripture possess enough hostility to carry their ideas along, or simply duplicity of thought - this would pretty much include every religious text there is, with the Koran, OT and Talmud being much more inclined toward violence).

You could argue that emulating the prophet is the mainstay. But we can also consider that if GOD says and does things then this is even more acceptable given that the prophets are mere mortals (at least in Islam).

Why are people in the west more sympathetic? I would say they are more willing to understand with empathy rather than cold hard facts. This is not something I can openly condemn. There will come a point where those few will "wake up" to the truth of the situation and stop making excuses for Islam or any other religious fanatics. People are strongly defending freedom of speech more than anything from what I can see. This is the "goodness" the regime of Islamic extremism is trying to exploit. I won't cower to them, I will not destroy their freedom for the sake of mine, because that is counter productive. The question of enforcing measures to inhibit preaching is a very tricky political problem. We have people on both sides being banned from speaking and it is this that plays into the hands of the extremists. They want to inhibit dialogue and stop unity of thought. They are extreme because they have no intention of listening or compromising.

note: I am not against you and what you are saying in general. I am against how your presenting your points because I don't think you'll achieve anything here anything like to the extent you'd wish for. Maybe I am wrong though. Maybe writing this thread does jar some people into realization? we can only do what we think is best and to the best of our ability.

-- Updated July 12th, 2017, 3:41 am to add the following --

ALSO ... I am still waiting for an explanation as to what e above statistics refer to?? 90% what? What are you referring to? You need to present this is with a clear use of language because I only have the most vague of ideas what these statistics refer to. Also one says [followers] where the others don't? This looks like a deliberate misrepresentation of data.
AKA badgerjelly
Fan of Science
Posts: 172
Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by Fan of Science »

The Talmud refers to non-Jews as animals? Strange since anyone can become a Jew. Moreover, pharaoh's daughter is considered a Jewish history, despite not having been a Jew. So was Ruth, who gave rise to King David. Now, name a single non-Muslim hero in the Koran?

Yet again, the leftists reveal their anti-Semitism.
User avatar
ZoneOfNonBeing
Posts: 93
Joined: June 8th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Alan Watts

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by ZoneOfNonBeing »

Before we begin, I want to re-calibrate the wording here - as what we typically call the "left" is actually the center. We should always reserve the term "left" for those who are outside of the bourgeois system of politics to refer to socialists, communists, anarchists, and other revolutionaries who believe the entire system should be burned. There is nothing "left" about Obama, Trudeau, etc. These are liberals who are in the center. Lets get that straight.

1). The actions of extremist groups like ISIS are barbaric and inexcusable - but lets stop pretending Western governments are complete angels. We ask "why do they hate us?" and assume the answer is who we ARE as opposed to what we DO. Since the end of World War II, the US and its allies have stopped at nothing to dominate the Middle East: bombs, coups, drones, etc. In 1996, after several years of a harsh economic sanction, US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children was "worth it." Let that sink in.

2). Terrorism is a hatred produced by a greater hatred. The attackers in Boston, Orlando, and Ohio all argued their violence was a reaction to bombings in the Middle East. Studies show that 90-95% of all suicide bombings in the world are responses to foreign [typically American] military occupation. Terrorists are not radicalized by Islam, they are radicalized by Western foreign policy.

3). The War on Terror only breeds more terrorism. Every time a bomb is dropped on the Middle East, a bunch of people join ISIS to commit more acts of unconscionable evil for the sake of evil. The War on Terror reproduces what it claims to eradicate; and is the most powerful form of recruitment.

4). If Western governments are truly interested in ending terrorism, they will stop terrorizing the Middle East with its imperialist agendas. Instead of implementing a travel ban and criminalizing refugees, the West should address the primary reasons people leave their countries to begin with: poverty and war. When this happens, there will be no need to fear refugees as potential terrorists

5). The U.S. and U.K. support Saudi Arabia with arms deals, etc. They also support Israel - an open air prison and colonial regime oppressing Palestine. The question should be less about why do liberals support Islam - the question should be: why does the West support Saudi Arabia and the Zionist agenda being implemented in Israel? (*calling out Zionism is not the same as being anti-Semitic).
What is the answer to
the Question of U?
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by Burning ghost »

Fanofscience -

I believe Spectrum was looking at the evils of The Koran. My point was to say that the Talmud has equally evil passages throughout (many say it openly lifted passages from here!). We do not see as much aggression and violence from Jews. Why is this? What are the differences between these societies? Is there possibly more to this than the religious text?

Other than making that clear I have no idea what you are trying to say here:
The Talmud refers to non-Jews as animals? Strange since anyone can become a Jew.
Yes, it does. Anyone can become a Muslim. The best thing about becoming Jewish, as a non-Jew, is they actively try to dissuade you. Would be nice if Islam took up this idea as well as every other religious institution.
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by LuckyR »

ZoneOfNonBeing wrote:Before we begin, I want to re-calibrate the wording here - as what we typically call the "left" is actually the center. We should always reserve the term "left" for those who are outside of the bourgeois system of politics to refer to socialists, communists, anarchists, and other revolutionaries who believe the entire system should be burned. There is nothing "left" about Obama, Trudeau, etc. These are liberals who are in the center. Lets get that straight.

1). The actions of extremist groups like ISIS are barbaric and inexcusable - but lets stop pretending Western governments are complete angels. We ask "why do they hate us?" and assume the answer is who we ARE as opposed to what we DO. Since the end of World War II, the US and its allies have stopped at nothing to dominate the Middle East: bombs, coups, drones, etc. In 1996, after several years of a harsh economic sanction, US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children was "worth it." Let that sink in.

2). Terrorism is a hatred produced by a greater hatred. The attackers in Boston, Orlando, and Ohio all argued their violence was a reaction to bombings in the Middle East. Studies show that 90-95% of all suicide bombings in the world are responses to foreign [typically American] military occupation. Terrorists are not radicalized by Islam, they are radicalized by Western foreign policy.

3). The War on Terror only breeds more terrorism. Every time a bomb is dropped on the Middle East, a bunch of people join ISIS to commit more acts of unconscionable evil for the sake of evil. The War on Terror reproduces what it claims to eradicate; and is the most powerful form of recruitment.

4). If Western governments are truly interested in ending terrorism, they will stop terrorizing the Middle East with its imperialist agendas. Instead of implementing a travel ban and criminalizing refugees, the West should address the primary reasons people leave their countries to begin with: poverty and war. When this happens, there will be no need to fear refugees as potential terrorists

5). The U.S. and U.K. support Saudi Arabia with arms deals, etc. They also support Israel - an open air prison and colonial regime oppressing Palestine. The question should be less about why do liberals support Islam - the question should be: why does the West support Saudi Arabia and the Zionist agenda being implemented in Israel? (*calling out Zionism is not the same as being anti-Semitic).
Waiting for the counterargument.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
ZoneOfNonBeing
Posts: 93
Joined: June 8th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Alan Watts

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by ZoneOfNonBeing »

LuckyR - you could always offer one yourself instead of being a witness =)
What is the answer to
the Question of U?
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021