"I hope that being an Islamist will in of itself – without necessarily having ties to violence – be grounds for keeping aliens out of the United States, much as being a communist was grounds for exclusion in an earlier era." – Daniel Pipes. Seriously, fuck him.
Can you explain why this is a bad thing? Are you confusing Islamists and Muslims?
No. Are you confusing Islamists (ie people whose reactionary political agenda you disagree with, much as I disagree with yours) with those Islamists who incite terrorism?
Look at it this way. You seemed genuinely pleased in Harry’s comments when John Tyndall died the other day. Fine. I don’t like that sort of expression of gloating even for the likes of Tyndall, but I’ll certainly not be shedding any tears either. But clearly you also think the country is better off without people who think women are inferiors, Jews are subhuman, homosexuals should be executed etc. You’re hardly alone in thinking this – such medievalism is contrary to the most basic British values, so of course it’s not welcome here. So why on earth shouldn’t our immigration policy reflect this view?
Yes but there’s a substantial difference between gloating in someone’s death (which is personal matter and nothing more), and introducing laws to purge the country of people you disagree with, which is the behaviour of a tolitarian state.
Islamists (ie people whose reactionary political agenda you disagree with, much as I disagree with yours)
introducing laws to purge the country of people you disagree with
This is what the decent/pro-Bush left and its friends mean when they say your lot don’t get it. You seem to think the dispute with Islamism is really just the same as the dispute between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. I don’t know how else one can interpret comments like these.
As for ‘behaviour of a totalitarian state’, that is just absurd beyond words. What sane country wouldn’t try to tailor its immigration policy so that it is to the benefit and satisfaction of the people already living here? We simply don’t want people who think Jews are apes and leeches coming into the country, and we’re under no moral obligation to take them whatsoever.
I see no qualitative difference whatsoever between this type of opinion and the anti-Semitic filth common in the earlier 20th century. I also find it somewhat ironic that the land of the free should be renamed the land of the free provided y’all ain’t Moslem, not to mention that the home of the brave seems to becoming the home of the knee-trembling insecure xenophobe afraid of the different.
What’s the difference, when you get down to the underlying psychology, of tailoring an immigration policy to the benefit of the indigenes, and tailoring an immigration policy to preserve the purity of our precious bodily fluids?
There is a problem with a small number of militant Islamists who are prepared to use terrorist methods. Such people do need to be dealt with, for sure. But I am increasingly of the view that this is being used as a fig-leaf to conceal the unpleasantly racist attitudes of certain groups of people.
I see no qualitative difference whatsoever between this type of opinion and the anti-Semitic filth common in the earlier 20th century.
Exactly my point! Why celebrate the death of men like John Tyndall and then go berserk when someone suggests we have enough of our own share of these sickos without taking other countries’ share, too?
What’s the difference, when you get down to the underlying psychology, of tailoring an immigration policy to the benefit of the indigenes, and tailoring an immigration policy to preserve the purity of our precious bodily fluids?
You actually think the idea that government policies should benefit the citizens of a country is some sort of return to 1930s eugenics? Words cannot express the crudeness and stupidity here. There’s just no space for debating with someone as irrational as this, whether genuinely or as a debating tactic.
I am increasingly of the view that this is being used as a fig-leaf to conceal the unpleasantly racist attitudes of certain groups of people
Well that’s a coincidence because I am increasingly of the view that anti-racism is being used as a fig-leaf to conceal the unpleasantly anti-Semitic attitudes of certain groups of people.
You wish to exclude from the country everyone who hasn’t realised that Jews (along with all other humans) are apes?
>the dispute with Islamism is really just the same as the >dispute between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party
I don’t think anything of the kind. But given that most Islamists would not support terrorism against Britain, we need these people as our allies since they’re the closest to the small terrorist minority. So if you launch a moral crusade not against terrorism but against a particular ideology which you happen to dislike then you’re (a) muddying the water, and (b) making the problem worse.
Islamists will have to be secretive, and will rightly feel that they are being unfairly treated: that British tolerance of dissenting voices somehow doesn’t apply to them. By excluding them from society on the basis of their political views, you will be pushing these people in the direction of becoming terrorists.
And no, I don’t like them any more than you do.
anti-racism is being used as a fig-leaf to conceal the unpleasantly anti-Semitic attitudes of certain groups of people
That’s right go ahead and tell us how The Left are all anti-semitic terrorist apologists.
Hang on, am I talking to Peter from Conservative Commentary, or Marc from USSNeverdock, I always get those two confused…
You seem to think the dispute with Islamism is really just the same as the dispute between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party
No, as Daniel Pipes correctly suggests, it’s the same as the dispute between the Conservative Party and the Communist Party. McCarthy was wrong and disgusting in the 1950s and Pipes is wrong and digusting today.
given that most Islamists would not support terrorism against Britain
Sorry, I don’t believe this for a second.
By excluding them from society on the basis of their political views, you will be pushing these people in the direction of becoming terrorists.
LOL! So they can be terrorists in Saudi Arabia or in Iran! (I don’t want Islamist terrorism in those countries, either, but I certainly don’t see why we should risk it here out of fear that otherwise it’ll become even more likely there. Indeed, isn’t the objection of folks like yourself to the war on terror that you don’t think it’s realistic to go around the Middle East trying to get rid of terrorists?)
Britain has been careful about extremists and racists from abroad for quite some time. British laws and decisions by Home Secretaries of both parties have kept men including Louis Farrakhan and William Pierce from visiting this country on precisely the sort of grounds Daniel Pipes is advocating. I believe strongly in free speech, but I don’t believe the country has any obligation to poison its own political climate and public discussion by welcoming foreign extremists and inflammatory racists.
I don’t think the Left is filled with anti-Semites, but one only had to listen to this week’s Any Questions to hear it in frightening quantities from a Radio-4-listening BBC audience. I don’t have any reason to think you are an anti-Semite either, Larry, but I also ask you to consider who will be most pleased at the sort of jokes you make about the anti-Semitic filth that is spread against Jews by Islamists. We both know why Islamists go on and on about Jewish people being apes, and it’s not because they’re pedantic about Darwinism.
Can someone give me a working definition of "Islamism" please? It is in my dictionary. Defined as "= Islam"; Islamist (a) an orthodox Muslim; (b) an expert in or student of Islam. M19.
I believe Christopher Hitchens coined the present usage, as a contraction for ISLAMic fascISM. To me it’s just another "ism" and like "Bin Ladenism" and there’s another I found last night which I’ve forgotten, they just seems to be the products of some demented sociologist with not enough proper work to do.
Already it seems degenerating into being a more buzzy (and pejorative) word for "Islam."
I generally use it in line with the Wikipedia definition – ie someone who thinks a Caliphate would broadly be a good idea, although their commitment to, and willingness to use violence in, bringing it about may vary. Pretty much exactly like a communist, really.
Only because people like John make it so.
When I discuss Islam with Muslims, for example a professional woman who has returned to Afgahnistan, she is perfectly clear about what an Islamist is.
As you know Dave words change in meaning, and Islamist has a very clear meaning.
If you want to hear a Muslim voice describing it, then I suggest you read. Inside Al Qaeda by Mohamed Sifaoui – an Algerian.
He is absolutely scathing about the naivety, and often deliberate blindness, of liberals in Western countries.
isn’t the objection of folks like yourself to the war on terror that you don’t think it’s realistic to go around the Middle East trying to get rid of terrorists?
Yes it is, what’s your point? I didn’t suggest for a second that we should risk it here out of fear that otherwise it’ll become even more likely there. Are you deliberately misunderstanding me? I’m suggesting that by acting in a way prejudiced against Islamicists *here*, that it’ll become more likely *here*.
I have no objection to barring entry to the country to people who are inflammatory racists, i.e who come here specifically to incite racial hatred, etc.
But Pipes is not advocating that. He’s advocating screening people for their views and barring all Islamicists from entering. Even *if* it’s true all Islamists are racist (and I don’t accept that and I agree with Dave that we’re missing an important definition here), then they would hardly be unique in that, and it would be totally false to suggest that they’re all inflammatory racists, that is to say they’re all in the business of stirring up racial hatred. It would be still less true to suggest that many of them support terrorism against Britain.
So if you want bar entry to people who wish to come here to advocate acts of terrorism, then I’m with you. But it you want to proceed on the basis of a thought crime, then you’re going to whip up paranoia, make matters worse, and turn British society against precisely the young Muslims who we need above all else not to think that British society is against them.
I was perhaps unfair there given John’s last comment!
"As you know Dave words change in meaning, and Islamist has a very clear meaning."
Could you tell me what it is then, please, Eric?
Well, the wikipedia page that John points to is a better starting point than your dictionary.
I’d then recommend you invest in some books, starting with the one I mentioned before, then Berman’s Terror and Liberalism. You might also enjoy reading some of Christopher Hitchen’s work.
In fact this would be a useless reading list to get compiled.
In fact this would be a useless reading list to get compiled.
Ho ho. I meant useful.
Eric I’m sure you’re not suggesting that we follow Algeria’s example when it comes to dealing with Islamists!!
Eric, sorry to be a pain, but you did say, "Islamist has a very clear meaning."
Why won’t you give a definition? I’m not asking you to unicycle on a tightrope across the Grand Canyon while balancing a ball on your nose, and reciting pi. I’m asking for a definition of a word which you say has a clear meaning. This clear meaning escapes me.
I know what "cancer" means without having studied medicine. Why should I read several books to grasp one word? If these books are essential to using the word properly, shouldn’t this debar most commentators?
See Dave, you just don’t "Get It". Stock up on the Bruschetta!
There are also many different types of cancer and grading within them.
Islamist has a very clear meaning, like cancer, but again there are various interpretations and sects – and willingness to use violence for their ends. Witness MAB’s willingness to work with Galloway, and the death threats he received from another group. If pushed I could give you a definition concerning people who believe Islam is political system which should run the state to varying degrees of fanaticism, but why simplify a complex issue. You’re a bright enough chap to educate yourself, and then be able to recognise it when you see it.
Dsquared stop being an arse. Sifaoui’s book is largely concerned with Islamists in Paris and London – not Algeria.
oh I see sorry. I will try, but to be honest being an arse is something that’s in the blood and there’s not much that can be done to shift it.
"McCarthy was wrong and disgusting in the 1950s": why do people keep repeating this tired old half-truth? Disgusting, yes: he didn’t have much, or any, evidence, and it was all just a cynical attempt to advance his career. (Remind you of anyone called Tony?). But he wasn’t wrong (obviously not reminding you of someone called Tony): the decrypts that were realeased much later left no doubt that there had been pretty effective penetration of the Federal government. In fact, I gather that it was worse under FDR and that Truman’s people cleared a lot of them out, which does rather imply that they knew what had been going on, doesn’t it?