Man Called X
Resident asshole
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 19,537
- Reaction score
- 29,874
- Points
- 135
That's simply wrong. The Islamists played the single largest part (though not the only part) in the effort to oust the Shah -- they were the only ones who could really get large numbers in the street, and it was the mullahs who torpedoed the Shah's efforts to appoint a civilian PM as a transition to a more democratic society. They were also the ones who kept stirring the pot whenever it seemed that a temporary lid had been clamped on.
That's simply wrong. The Islamists played the single largest part (though not the only part) in the effort to oust the Shah -- they were the only ones who could really get large numbers in the street, and it was the mullahs who torpedoed the Shah's efforts to appoint a civilian PM as a transition to a more democratic society. They were also the ones who kept stirring the pot whenever it seemed that a temporary lid had been clamped on.
The key event in the ultimate triumph of the Islamists was when Bakhtiar let the Ayatollah return to Iran, foolishly believing that the Ayatollah would support a more secular government, despite the reality that the mullahs (and Khomeini in particular) had never supported that. When Khomeini returned, he pulled millions into Teheran while openly calling for an Islamic state in which the religious heirarchy would be supreme. The new Constitution, which openly asserted the primacy of the religious authorities, passed overwhelming in a referendum. It was not something that a small, tightly organized group of Islamists forced on an unwilling nation.
But that's all tangential to the main point anyway, which is that whatever its relevant strength, a significant Islamist movement existed in Iran in the late 70's. And that Islamist movement consisted almost entirely of people who were not living in poverty. The grievances against the Shah were very largely an opposition to his forced secularization and liberalization of a population that was much more conservative in matters of religion and morals. Sure, you had your marxists and some who wanted a more open, but still secular - government. But they were simply outnumbered at that time.
There is absolutely zero contradiction in having an Islamist state that tolerates an anti-israel Jewish minority.
I understand the difference quite well. Terrorism is simply a tactic. It is not the reason those people choose to engage in conflict. Any number of underlying ideologies can be the motive for engaging in terrorist acts.
You seem to think those two are mutually exclusive. They are not. People do not wake up one morning and decide to engage in terrorism for its own sake. They choose terrorism as the particular tactic to advance their chosen ideology, be it Islamism, neo-nazism, or anything else.
ISIS are Islamists, though it obviously is not an interpretation of Islam with which all Muslims agree. I'm much less certain that they are just Islamic terrorists, because they do engage in what amounts to conventional warfare as well.
Americans may be moving beyond their war weariness.
A series of new polls shows that public opinion is shifting about military operations in Iraq and an aversion to putting boots on the ground is fading.
"It is safe to say that Americans are more supportive of sending U.S. forces into Iraq than they were a year ago," said Fran Coombs, the managing editor at Rasmussen Reports, a nonpartisan firm that conducts public opinion polling.
According to a Rasmussen poll in early February, 52 percent of Americans believe the U.S. should send "send combat troops back to Iraq as part of an international coalition to fight ISIS." That's up from 48 percent in October. Meanwhile, the percentage of those opposed fell 8 points, to 28 percent from 36 percent in October.
And a Quinnipiac University poll conducted Feb. 26-March 2 found that 62 percent of Americans support sending U.S. combat troops to fight the militants, while just 30 percent oppose such a move.
The polls suggest that the rise of the group known as the Islamic State has focused public attention, fueled anxiety about international terrorism and begun to erode some of the broad opposition to sending troops into new conflicts.
Some polls, however, shows the limits to U.S. support for aggressive military action.
An NBC News/Marist Poll conducted in early February found that a strong majority of Americans, 66 percent, believe that some ground troops are needed to combat the Islamic State militants.
Yet only 26 percent of those people believe the U.S. should send a "large number of ground forces," while the remaining 40 percent of those people support a "limited number" of U.S. ground forces.
Those opposed to all ground forces in Iraq accounted for 26 percent of respondents in the NBC News/Marist Poll.
The uptick in support for troops in Iraq comes amid a wave of broader pessimism. The percent of people who believe that the "U.S. and allies" are "winning the war on terror" has plummeted to an all-time low of 19 percent, down from about 50 percent in 2012, according to the Rasmussen polls.
Public support is tipping in favor of a debate on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers are considering a bill expanding President Obama's authority to use military force against the Islamic State militants.
A 54 percent majority of Americans want their member of Congress to vote for a measure, while only 32 percent are opposed, according to the NBC News/Marist poll.
The shift toward support for boots on the ground in Iraq was also captured by Pew Research Center polls. In October, about 39 percent of respondents were in favor of "sending ground troops" to Iraq, a number that rose to 47 percent in late February when a Pew poll asked the same question.
Coombs cautioned that public support for military operations is often conditioned on a belief in international support and allies who share burden.
"The 'as part of a coalition' part is critical," Coombs said.
"I think if President Obama came out and said the U.S. is going to send in troops to Iraq unilaterally, people would go crazy. There would not be strong support for that."
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/03/08/iraq-opinion-polls/24276663/
Crazy to think that less than a year ago, public opinion was strongly against any type of American intervention in Iraq or Syria. There's a lot less opposition in a relatively short amount of time.
You said: "The grievances against the Shah were very largely an opposition to his forced secularization and liberalization of a population that was much more conservative in matters of religion and morals. "
That isn't remotely accurate though.
Yes, this was a component, but by and large the protests against the Shah were related to the repressive nature of government
Also, you refer to the revolutionaries as not being poor, but that's not accurate either. I agree with jking in his referring to them as a populist movement in that all elements of society from the rich to the poor, even those in government, largely supported the revolution.
I always found the concept of "war weariness" in the US during the GWOT laughable. Less than 1% served in the military at the time and zero sacrifice was made by the public to help prosecute the conflicts. What are they weary of? Watching the news? Endless ads during campaign years?
The military was at war, not the nation.
I'd just add that though the number of people who served in the military during that time is small, the "military family" including veterans, and the close friends and families of those who did serve there, was larger..
I didn't say it was racist, though I certainly believe it is anti-jewish. But what would you call this:
'Kill all Jews and annihilate Israel!' Iran's Ayatollah lays out legal and religious justification for attack
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097252/Kill-Jews-annihilate-Israel-Irans-supreme-leader-lays-legal-religious-justification-attack.html#ixzz3UvyEfHOn
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
The mere fact that Iran tolerate the bare existence of a very small (and rapidly dwinding) Jewish community, doesn't prove otherwise.
At the time of the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, there were approximately 140,000–150,000 Jews living in Iran, the historical center of Persian Jewry. About 95% have since migrated, with the immigration accelerating after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, when the population dropped from 100,000 to about 40,000.[60] Following the Iranian Revolution, some 30,000 Iranian Jews immigrated to Israel, while many others went to the United States and Western Europe.
On March 16, 1979, Habib Elghanian, the honorary leader of the Jewish community, was arrested on charges of "corruption", "contacts with Israel and Zionism", "friendship with the enemies of God", "warring with God and his emissaries", and "economic imperialism". He was tried by an Islamic Revolutionary Tribunal, sentenced to death, and executed on May 8,[53][61] one of 17 Iranian Jews executed as spies since the revolution.[62]
Estimates of the Jewish population in Iran until the census 2011 vary. In mid- and late 1980s, it was estimated at 20,000–30,000, rising to around 35,000 in the mid-1990s.[63] The current Jewish population of Iran is 8,756 according to the most recent Iranian census.[64][65]
The condition of Jews in Iran is difficult to assess objectively. The Islamic Republic uses factions within the Iranian Jewish community to win public relations points with the Western world, but privately many Jews complain to foreign reporters of discrimination. Foreign reporters are asked by the Iranian Jewish community to self-censor their own reports for fear of repercussions on the community.[66] The Islamic government appoints the officials who run Jewish schools, most of these being Muslims and requires that those schools must open on Saturdays, the Jewish Sabbath. Criticism of this policy was the downfall of the last remaining newspaper of the Iranian Jewish community which was closed in 1991 after it criticized government control of Jewish schools.
Instead of expelling Jews en masse like in Libya, Iraq, Egypt, and Yemen, the Iranians have adopted a policy of keeping Jews in Iran.[67] The strong public anti-Israel position of the Iranian Jews might be related to their desire for survival and led to their overselling of their anti-Israel positions. Their response to the questions regarding Israel have been outright denial of Israel or staying quiet. An example of the dilemma of Iranian Jews can be observed in this example :"We hear the ayatollah say that Israel was cooperating with the Shah and SAVAK, and we would be fools to say we support Israel. So we just keep quiet about it... Maybe it will work out. Anyway, what can we do? This is our home."[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iran
I didn't address it because it is tangential to the argument that the root cause of Islamism is poverty, and these posts are already long enough without more tangents. The example of Iran alone is sufficient to prove that poverty is not the root cause of Islamism, which is the claim you made previously that I have been refuting.
Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought you initially argued that poverty was the root cause of Islamism. But if not, then fine. So we now agree that poverty is not the root cause of Islamism?
Regardless of whether or not I agree with that, it means we at least agree that there are circumstances in which "class differences" are not a significant cause of Islamism. What are the cause/causes in those cases?
And just so you think I'm not just trying to be a dick, there is a huge difference between there existing a correlation between class and Islamism in particular nations, and those class differences actually being the cause of Islamism.
Well, I'm certainly not grasping that particular sentence. You need to reword it.
I'll say at the outset that I am really enjoying this and am also not trying to be a dick. You are making sound arguments and definitely forcing me to think. Your arguments are definitely on "the right" of me but are also well-informed and I appreciate it. To begin...
That's fine, but Islamists were not the majority of protestors.
You see the same thing in Syria today. Do most of the protestors hold the same belief system as ISIS? No, of course not.
I just don't see how saying the weapons the Islamists had in Iran means that there is something inherent about Islam that causes Islamism. Could you elaborate?
I'll absolutely agree that following the Iranian revolution the clerics were anti-Jewish and forced Jews to be tortured or flee the country. With that said, however, that does not mean the current regime is anti-Jew.
The only thing you need as evidence is that, per the article I mentioned previously, the Jewish community supports the regime.
I honestly do not believe that this is true. If I can prove that in the majority of cases class-subjugation and other structural factors lead to Islamism in more cases than does Islam/culture doesn't that mean I am winning? I can also give you examples of how Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt's Islamists have resulted from similar factors as Syria.
I'm arguing structural factors, as opposed to institutional and/or ideational ones, cause Islamism. My primary focus is on vast inequality that manifests itself as class differences.
The same goes for institutional and ideational. But my Syria evidence is more than correlation. Where the Islamists took hold in Syria is directly related to where the subjugated classes lived.
Just so you understand where I'm coming from, I don't buy into the Marxist emphasis on materialism. I think people are very often motivated by things other than the material. So I look at "Islamism" the same way I look at other beliefs to which I'd object.
Asking for the "root cause" of Islamism doesn't make much more sense to me than asking for the "root cause" of racism. Or the "root cause" of most kinds of religious or other intolerance. I don't think there is a societal root cause period, other than the appeal of the ideology/belief system itself.
That ideology/belief system may appeal to certain people because of individual factors such as alienation, personality quirks, whatever, but looking for a widespread social cause doesn't lead anywhere useful.
In other words, if you want to get rid of racism, you have to address it head on its own merits.
Same with religious extremism of any stripe, including Islamism.
"This is wrong, and here's why", rather than the psychobabble of "well, you probably feel this way because of "Y", so let's try to change "Y".
Just so you understand where I'm coming from, I don't buy into the Marxist emphasis on materialism. I think people are very often motivated by things other than the material. So I look at "Islamism" the same way I look at other beliefs to which I'd object.
Asking for the "root cause" of Islamism doesn't make much more sense to me than asking for the "root cause" of racism. Or the "root cause" of most kinds of religious or other intolerance. I don't think there is a societal root cause period, other than the appeal of the ideology/belief system itself. That ideology/belief system may appeal to certain people because of individual factors such as alienation, personality quirks, whatever, but looking for a widespread social cause doesn't lead anywhere useful.
In other words, if you want to get rid of racism, you have to address it head on its own merits. Same with religious extremism of any stripe, including Islamism. "This is wrong, and here's why", rather than the psychobabble of "well, you probably feel this way because of "Y", so let's try to change "Y".
They were not the majority of protestors at first because they were not participating at first. Not because they were outnumbered in society overall.
Just to be clear, I'm not equating all "Islamism" to ISIS.
Do you realize I've never said that there is something inherent in Islam that causes Islamism? In fact, I think I've been pretty clear in saying that there is not something "inherent" in Islam that leads to either Islamism or terrorism. I have said that I think there are aspects of Islam that can more easily lead to religious intolerance, but I have also said I believe those things can be changed.
You didn't address the article quoting the Iranian leadership as justifying the destruction of Israel and the killing of all Jews. That wasn't from 1979 -- that was from 2013. How is that not "anti-Jew"?
Honestly, did you read all of the article I posted? The government appoints the heads of Jewish school and requires them to be open on the Jewish Sabbath. The last Jewish paper to protest against that was shut down. You now have fewer than 9,000 Jews in a country of nearly 80 million, when there used to be 150,000. What do you expect that tiny minority of Jews to say? We know what happens when non-Jewish dissidents challenge that regime. Can you imagine what they'd do to Jews who publicly stated their opposition to the regime, or support for Israel?
You're still doing the correlation thing. And you didn't answer the question I asked of what "caused" Islamism in Iran. It's an important question because once you've identified a cause from a place that doesn't fit your theory, we can then look and see if that cause is present in those other nations as well... Well, that's where we disagree, because there are far too many Islamists whose beliefs don't appear to have any link at all to their economic class. There's something else going on. And just as one alternative, gourimoko has argued previously that a major driver of radical Islam is the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, which has absolutely zero economic affect on 99.5% of the Muslim world... That is correlation.
I'd just add that though the number of people who served in the military during that time is small, the "military family" including veterans, and the close friends and families of those who did serve there, was larger.
I agree with your criticism of "war weariness" though. I think that was just a label of convenience that those who opposed the war put on their opposition to try to gain support/greater legitimacy.
.
If you reject the driving forces of these philosophies then how can you possibly hope to understand them?
Doesn't make logical sense. Finding causation is one of the first principles to scientific study and ultimately understanding.....Equating Islamism to racism makes no sense.
The "here's why" is not always apparent, hence the need to find a congruent reference point with the opposing view and work from there. That's why it's important to understand the opposing philosophy to address it's concerns from their vantage point, rather than your own. With respect, I think you've more or less summed up closed-mindedness in just these few paragraphs.