The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[Man Called X]

http://xrsone.com/isis.htm

List of ISIS twitter accounts that Anonymous dropped today. Yay.

 

[gourimoko]

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.

Sorry, to interject into you and @jking948 's argument, but I've got to disagree with a few points you made.

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, the massive death toll, Black Friday, the theater burning (name escapes me) that killed 400 women and children, the continued use of the SAVAK to oppress opposition, and there was a substantial anti-imperialist, anti-American component (obviously due to installing the Shah).

I think it's false to state that Islamism was in anyway the driving force of the Revolution, no matter how Khomeini wanted to portray it. Political Islam was considered the solution to the problems of colonialization, imperialism, oppression, and yes, to your point, the absence of morality.

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.

Perhaps you're only referring to the leadership of the Islamic studies and seminar schools, which I suppose you could say weren't impoverished?]

You also said that:

"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."

I don't think this accurate represents the reality of the situation though. According to most modern accounts (i.e, The Rise and Fall of the Shah, 2009; A History of Modern Iran, 2008), Bakhtiar knew he had absolutely no choice but to allow the return of Khomeini. The revolution was already in progress and one of the chief issues was the exile of Khomeini.

A month prior to Khomeini's return the protestors in the streets, Islamist or not, where chanting "Bakhtiar nokar-e bee-ekhtiar" or Bakhtiar the powerless servant. To that end, Khomeini, from exile, declared Bakhtiar a traitor to the state of Iran.

Once the Shah had went into exile, in a matter of two weeks, Khomeini had returned. I don't think Bakhtiar ever thought Khomeini would support "a more secular government," by all accounts that I've seen, Bakhtiar wanted to appease the Islamic radical component of the revolution while simultaneously insulating them. He advocated that they should move towards establishing Qom as an autonomous religious city where Ayatollah Khomeini could practice a form of political Islam.

You also said "When Khomeini returned, he pulled millions into Teheran while openly calling for an Islamic state in which the religious heirarchy would be supreme."

Millions had already been in the streets... protesting the Shah, and the provision government thereafter.

So when you ultimately conclude that:

"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."

Whatever it's relevant strength? Sure, true.

" And that Islamist movement consisted almost entirely of people who were not living in poverty."

Not sure who you are referring to here? But those who participated in the Islamic Revolution in Iran were generally populists ranging the gamut of the socioeconomic spectrum.

But increased poverty, and the increasingly larger disparity of wealth was of chief concern to the protesters, so.. make of that what you will.

Then you end with: "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."

This is way off base, for aforementioned reasons. Yes, this component existed, but it was not one of the primary driving forces to the revolution. SAVAK, oppression, and anti-imperialism played a far greater role than Islamism.

But I'm not entirely following you guy's discussion; I just wanted to make some clarifications regarding your post.

 

[Jordan]

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.

@gourimoko hit most of my feelings about this part of your post. I'll add that most recent works, including Charles Kurzman, Asef Bayat, and Theda Skocpol all suggest that at the outset of the uprisings Islamists made up under 10% of the protesters. The reason Khomeini drew so much support was that he was a populist and that relates very well to Islamic economics. Thus people supported his economic policies first, which promised to solve class differentials that were spoken about significantly in the bazaars, followed by his religious policies.

There is absolutely zero contradiction in having an Islamist state that tolerates an anti-israel Jewish minority.

I'm confused. I thought Iran was an anti-Semitic, racist state? Which is it? Do they support various ethnic and religious groups or do they want death to Jews?

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.

Well considering you did not answer any of my Syria information I will assume I can extend it into this argument. This also stands for Egypt. For a great analysis read Timothy Mitchell's Rule of Experts: Egypt, Techno-Politics, Modernity.

No, I don't view them as mutually exclusive. I've claimed that class differences -- which, as you continuously ignore, encompasses but is not entirely reliant on poverty -- in many circumstances is a significant cause of Islamism and that does, sometimes, lead to terrorism.

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.

Of course, ISIS are Islamist terrorists. But, not all Islamists are Islamists terrorists. Hence why I do not believe, as you are not seeming to grasp, class-differences lead to terrorism.

 

[Marcus]

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/03/08/iraq-opinion-polls/24276663/

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."

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.

 

[Sebastian]

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.

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.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

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

Yes, but that begs the question of what was being repressed. Though I'd agree I worded it badly (that's what happens when I try to summarize, I suppose), so I'll try again. One cornerstone of the Shah's policy was secularization. That did not go over well in Iran, the majority of whose population was not as westernized socially/religiously as they were economically. The Shah and Savak (about which I know a fair bit) had long been able to keep a lid on their secular opposition -- particularly the trade unionists/Marxists and National Front types. They'd lock up or "disappear" those deemed to be "troublemakers", and those groups simply didn't have enough popular support to do much about it. But they couldn't keep the lid on once the mullahs weighed in, and their opposition was based on the forced secularization/westernization, etc..

I'd agree with Abrahamian that the real trigger was the death of Khomeini's son in a car accident, which he blamed on the Shah and Savak. The Shah responded by condemning Khomeini (then in exile) and the Shah v. mullahs game was on. The general pattern during the revolutionary period was that the Shah would be fairly successful at quelling disturbances by the secular groups, but simply couldn't cope when the mullahs would call for action because they simply commanded more people. Things like the theater fire became much bigger when the Khomeini blamed that on Savak as well.

Anyway, two key events demonstrate the greater public support for the Islamists -- the gargantuan rally when Khomeini returned in February 1979, which made it clear where the real power resided, and the overwhelming referendum for the Islamist constitution.

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 agree completely with the bold -- it's my entire point. My point is not that none of the Islamists (or other revolutionaries) were in poverty, but rather that a great many of them were not. Therefore, jking's argument that poverty is the root cause of Islamism is clearly not true, because Iran is a great example of Islamism arising among large numbers of people in the (relative) absence of poverty.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

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 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.
.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I'll add that most recent works, including Charles Kurzman, Asef Bayat, and Theda Skocpol all suggest that at the outset of the uprisings Islamists made up under 10% of the protesters.

At the [I]outset[/I] -- and those initial protests were successfully defused, for the most part -- that's correct. But that's kind of the point. There wasn't enough strength to get rid of the Shah [I]until [/I]the Islamists weighed in.
[quote]I'm confused. I thought Iran was an anti-Semitic, racist state?[/quote]

I didn't say it was [I]racist[/I], though I certainly believe it is anti-jewish. But what would [I]you[/I] call this:

[B]'Kill all Jews and annihilate Israel!' Iran's Ayatollah lays out legal and religious justification for attack[/B]

Read more: [URL='http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097252/Kill-Jews-annihilate-Israel-Irans-supreme-leader-lays-legal-religious-justification-attack.html#ixzz3UvyEfHOn'][U]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097252/Kill-Jews-annihilate-Israel-Irans-supreme-leader-lays-legal-religious-justification-attack.html#ixzz3UvyEfHOn[/U][/URL]
Follow us: [URL='http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=MailOnline'][U]@MailOnline on Twitter[/U][/URL] | [URL='http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=DailyMail'][U]DailyMail on Facebook[/U][/URL]

The mere fact that Iran tolerate the bare existence of a very small (and rapidly dwinding) Jewish community, doesn't prove otherwise.

[I]At the time of the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, there were approximately 140,000–150,000 Jews living in [/I][URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran'][U][I]Iran[/I][/U][/URL][I], the historical center of Persian Jewry. [B]About 95% have since migrated, with the immigration accelerating after the 1979 [/B][/I][URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution'][U][I][B]Islamic Revolution[/B][/I][/U][/URL][I][B], when the population dropped from 100,000 to about 40,000[/B].[URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iran#cite_note-csmonitor.com-60'][U][60][/U][/URL] Following the Iranian Revolution, some 30,000 Iranian Jews immigrated to [/I][URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel'][U][I]Israel[/I][/U][/URL][I], while many others went to the [/I][URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States'][U][I]United States[/I][/U][/URL][I] and [/I][URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Europe'][U][I]Western Europe[/I][/U][/URL][I].

[B]On March 16, 1979, [/B][/I][URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habib_Elghanian'][U][I][B]Habib Elghanian[/B][/I][/U][/URL][I][B], the honorary leader of the Jewish community, was arrested on charges of "corruption", "contacts with Israel and [/B][/I][URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism'][U][I][B]Zionism[/B][/I][/U][/URL][I][B]", "friendship with the enemies of God", "warring with God and his emissaries", and "[/B][/I][URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_imperialism'][U][I][B]economic imperialism[/B][/I][/U][/URL][I][B]". He was tried by an [/B][/I][URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Revolutionary_Tribunal'][U][I][B]Islamic Revolutionary Tribunal[/B][/I][/U][/URL][I][B], sentenced to death, and executed on May 8,[URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iran#cite_note-littman3-53'][U][53][/U][/URL][URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iran#cite_note-61'][U][61][/U][/URL] one of 17 Iranian Jews executed as spies since the revolution[/B].[URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iran#cite_note-62'][U][62][/U][/URL]

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.[URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iran#cite_note-63'][U][63][/U][/URL] [B]The current Jewish population of Iran is 8,756 according to the most recent Iranian census.[/B][URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iran#cite_note-Agent_France-Presse-64'][U][B][[/B]64][/U][/URL][URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iran#cite_note-65'][U][65][/U][/URL]

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 [B]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.[URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iran#cite_note-66'][U][66][/U][/URL] 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 [/B][/I][URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Sabbath'][U][I][B]Jewish Sabbath[/B][/I][/U][/URL][I][B]. 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.[/B]

Instead of expelling Jews en masse like in Libya, Iraq, Egypt, and Yemen, the Iranians have adopted a policy of keeping Jews in Iran.[URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iran#cite_note-67'][U][67][/U][/URL] 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. [B]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."[URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iran#cite_note-68'][U][[/U][/URL][/B]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iran[/url][/I]

[quote]Well considering you did not answer any of my Syria information....[/quote]

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 [I]alone [/I]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.

[quote]I've claimed that class differences -- which, as you continuously ignore, encompasses but is not entirely reliant on poverty...[/quote]

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought you initially argued that [I]poverty [/I]was the root cause of Islamism. But if not, then fine. So we now[I] agree[/I] that poverty is not the root cause of Islamism?

[quote]-- [B]in many circumstances is a significant cause[/B] of Islamism and that does, sometimes, lead to terrorism.[/quote]

Regardless of whether or not I agree with that, it means we [I]at least[/I] agree that there are circumstances in which "class differences" are [I]not [/I]a significant cause of Islamism. What are the cause/causes in [I]those [/I]cases?

And just so you think I'm not just trying to be a dick, there is a huge difference between there existing a [I]correlation[/I] between class and Islamism in particular nations, and those class differences actually being the[I] cause [/I]of Islamism.

[quote]Hence why I do not believe, as you are not seeming to grasp, class-differences lead to terrorism.[/QUOTE]

Well, I'm certainly not grasping that particular sentence. You need to reword it.

 

[gourimoko]

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..

This hits home for me a great deal. Almost my entire family has served and actively serves in the military, and it was my goal throughout high school as well - but circumstances changed the course of my life, for better or worse.

 

[Jordan]

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...

At the [I]outset[/I] -- and those initial protests were successfully defused, for the most part -- that's correct. But that's kind of the point. There wasn't enough strength to get rid of the Shah [I]until [/I]the Islamists weighed in.

That's fine, but Islamists were not the majority of protestors. They simply had the means to change the tide. You see the same thing in Syria today. Do most of the protestors hold the same belief system as ISIS? No, of course not. But, Assad purposely targeted the moderates, mainly centered in Aleppo, while allowing ISIS to live. ISIS has been the most successful because they have weapons from the 2003-2010 Iraq war. 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 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'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. That's because, although the media would not make this clear, the Iranian regime does more than try to build nuclear weapons and be a thorn in the side of the west. The regime has been great, historically, for supporting Iranian business. This has changed because of Washington's sanctions; however, all that has created is a populace who is anti-America, and that has very little to do with Islam.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

I'm not sure if you were involved in the thread, but earlier I gave a huge analysis of the three theoretical frameworks for analyzing Islamism. If you want I can copy and paste it again here but, effectively, there are ideational and institutional frameworks that also lead to Islamism.

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.

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.

Well, I'm certainly not grasping that particular sentence. You need to reword it.

I never said class-differences lead to terrorism. I said they lead to Islamism. So while in some cases this leads to terrorism, I am not naive enough to believe the transition from Islamist to Jihadist occurs because of class differences.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

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...

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".

That's fine, but Islamists were not the majority of protestors.

They were not the majority of protestors at first because they were not participating at first. Not because they were outnumbered in society overall.

You see the same thing in Syria today. Do most of the protestors hold the same belief system as ISIS? No, of course not.

Just to be clear, I'm not equating all "Islamism" to ISIS.

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?

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.

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.

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"?

The only thing you need as evidence is that, per the article I mentioned previously, the Jewish community supports the regime.

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. And a country whose recent leaders have called for the death of Israel in a big ball of fire, justified the destruction of Israel and the killing of all jews, etc.. 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?

They say what they say because they hope the regime will leave them alone if they do.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That is correlation.

Let me make this point a bit more clear by giving an example. You could correlate police violence with the economic class of victims, but that doesn't mean that it is the economic class that is the underlying motivation/cause of that police violence.

Perhaps the real reason you see a correlation between economic class and police violence is because there is a correlation between race and economic class as well. And that race is actually the key causal factor in police violence, not economic class.

If you're going to try to draw a causal connection from a statistical correlation, you have to remove all other variables. And that's why I'm asking about Iran, and about all those wealthy-middle class Islamists. Until you determine the causes of their radicalization, you can't remove those variables from the analysis you're doing in Syria and elsewhere.

 

[gourimoko]

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.

If you reject the driving forces of these philosophies then how can you possibly hope to understand them?

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.

The bolded is false.

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.

Doesn't make logical sense. Finding causation is one of the first principles to scientific study and ultimately understanding.

In other words, if you want to get rid of racism, you have to address it head on its own merits.

Equating Islamism to racism makes no sense.

Same with religious extremism of any stripe, including Islamism.

Islamism, isn't necessarily extremist. There exists a spectrum of interpretation with respect to Sharia.

"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".

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.

 

[Jordan]

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".

I would not consider myself a Marxist, however, I do really appreciate the structural analysis aspect of Marxian though. Let me rephrase my argument. I think the reason people going Islamist movements has a lot to do with a variety of factors. As you and Gour discuss, the West Bank probably has a role. What I would posit, though, is that part of the reason people support Hamas and Hezbollah is less to do with their ideology and more to do with the welfare these groups provide all citizens. The most recent study -- that uses a variety of probate tests and interviews -- of this dynamic is Compassionate Communalism by Melani Cammett. Nonetheless, my wording of "root cause" is probably incorrect. I believe all theoretical frameworks (institutional, ideational, and structural) have an impact on people joining Islamist groups. With that said, I ultimately do believe that regimes in the Middle East are different than those in the West. As Maha Abdelrahman put it when discussing the labour movement during the Egyptian uprisings:

"Unlike the pro-democracy movement, which was mainly made up of young and middle-class workers, the Labour movement has gained less academic attention. One reason is because much academiic literature has argued for the decline of class politics, yet, as Beinen puts it, Egyptian workers have not received the message that class struggle in unfashionable."

Thus I believe that due to the nature of how regimes in the region treat their population class struggle plays a much more significant role than it does in the West. I suppose the only thing I could tell you is when you talk to people who live in the Middle East class-struggle, which manifests itself in the aforementioned Israel-Palestine issue, is much more important than it is in the West.

They were not the majority of protestors at first because they were not participating at first. Not because they were outnumbered in society overall.

Do you have evidence to support this? I've cited three academic articles that empirically dispute this.

Just to be clear, I'm not equating all "Islamism" to ISIS.

I was confused because it seemed you were conflating Islamism and terrorism. Fair enough though, that was my bad.

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.

Please explain this contradiction. Nothing inherent in Islam causes Islamism but it can result in religious intolerance which is what is bad about Islamism? I'm confused, again, please explain.

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"?

If they really wanted to kill all of the Jews wouldn't they start in Iran? If they really wanted to kill the Jews why would Iranian Jews support the regime?

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?

http://www.sephardicstudies.org/iran.html

You should read that article. Iran hosts the largest Jewish community in the Muslim world. Khomeini when he returned from Paris in the 1970s issued a fatwa urging protection of Jews. Jews enjoy the same rights in Iran as other citizens. Yes, there are definitely problems but I don't see how they are any worse than those faced by Muslims in Lebanon or Palestinians in Israel. If you are arguing religion leads to intolerance, I 100% agree. IF you are arguing Islam, not other religion, leads to intolerance, that is where I have a problem.

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.

For the third time, the Iranian revolution was primarily dominated by Marxists and Populists. Islamists, however, had more of the infrastructure to seize power after the fall of the Shah. This had nothing to do with the number of Iranians who were Islamists. Kurzman, Bayat, and Skocpol all support this with empirical evidence.

Again, and I am getting tired of repeating this, I do not believe structural forces cause all Islamism. I do believe, however, that they play a larger factor than the other two constructs. My Syria evidence is more than A and B occurring at the same time so A causes B. You get really cute pulling logical fallacy stuff, and I appreciate you calling people out on it, but it only stands if you can actually refute my argument. You have given no evidence that refutes my claim in Syria. Moreover, Timothy Mitchell provides the same type of evidence in Egypt. So please, try and refute my argument about Syria rather than just claiming logical fallacies. Right now, and excuse the irony, you are pulling a "fallacy fallacy" where you claim a fallacy is occurring without providing evidence that points to the contrary.

 

[Sebastian]

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.
.

I count family members as one and the same as the veterans; should have written that rather than assume people would think that. Ultimately, it is the families that sacrifice the most.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

If you reject the driving forces of these philosophies then how can you possibly hope to understand them?

But there isn't a single driving force or factor. Radical Islamists come from all segments of society and from many different nations -- without any commonality that has yet been identified in this thread. The reason a particular individual adopts those beliefs may be very personal to him/her. Why are some attracted to those beliefs, when others in virtually identical societal circumstances are not?

Shit, you've got some nutbag, relatively affluent western women who go there believing they'll fill some hole in their lives. Their motives may be completely different from those of a jihadi young man from western Libya. But you can still treat the disease itself even if you don't exactly understand how a particular person contracted it.

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.

It makes perfect sense in the context of combating either. The "causes" or "driving force" of racism may vary wildly between individuals, and yet, we can still combat it directly by pointing out how/why it is wrong, and convincing people that no matter how they got to that point, it is unacceptable.

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.

Guess we just needed to get a bit more touchy-feely with the Nazis, then. Because that was an "opposing philosophy" too, right?

Anyway, you seem to be assuming that a single congruent reference point actually exists in the first place. I don't see the evidence of that. And if so, what is that 'congruent reference point"? Jking claims it is economic class. What do you claim it is?

Because I think I'm the one being open-minded in terms of not trying to cram the same motive down the throats of all those individuals. I accept that motives vary widely between individuals, and that it actually would be closed-minded to assign a preferred "congruent reference point" to all those individuals.

To focus on jking's economic point, the reality is that not only will the poor always be with us, but economic differences will always be with us as well. Moreover, we lack the practical ability to eliminate those differences anyway, even in our own nation. Therefore, even if jking was right about poverty and economic class in general being the driving force behind Islamism (which doesn't explain all those wealthy and middle-class Islamists, but whatever...) it's a conclusion that leads nowhere because we cannot stop that alleged "cause".

And again, the majority of people living in those same economic conditions are not becoming radical Islamists. Which means there is something else driving those people other than economic conditions.