Am I an Anarchist?

[The Grand Nudger]

As we all know, if a people have always been deeply oppressive, it's not oppression when they continue to be so! It's freedom to fight for the right to oppress!

---

That is why I don't think that strict laws against narcotics, prostitution, porn and the like are bad. I am in favor of such laws. My libertarianism is not for these social issues but for political and civil liberty.

IOW, you're not a libertarian or an anarchist. I'm willing to bet you're an islamist whose only true grievance with governance is that it is not sufficiently magic book based.

[Cherub786]

As we all know, if a people have always been deeply oppressive, it's not oppression when they continue to be so! It's freedom to fight for the right to oppress!

---

That is why I don't think that strict laws against narcotics, prostitution, porn and the like are bad. I am in favor of such laws. My libertarianism is not for these social issues but for political and civil liberty.

IOW, you're not a libertarian or an anarchist.  I'm willing to bet you're an islamist.

Well that's why I put a question mark in the title of this thread. I don't know label accurately describes my views. But you have to admit there is a strong element of anarchism and libertarianism in it.
I'm not an Islamist because I'm a minority. Islamists want their country to be ruled by Islam. I have no such political agenda or views. My interest is in having religious liberty as I've explained throughout this thread, religious liberty for all.

I did, however, state that my political views are largely strategic and not firm principles, and that is certainly okay.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well that's why I put a question mark in the title of this thread. I don't know label accurately describes my views. But you have to admit there is a strong element of anarchism and libertarianism in it.

Not really.

I'm not an Islamist because I'm a minority.

.........?

Islamists want their country to be ruled by Islam. I have no such political agenda or views.

You don't think that islam is the answer, you mean?  Yeah..yeah, I get that you don't think that other peoples islam is the answer, but that's common between islamists.

My interest is in having religious liberty as I've explained throughout this thread, religious liberty for all.

The "liberty" to shake venomous snakes at kids while you slice off the tips and their dicks, pour blood down the bloodhole, wrap people in bags, and miseducate children..already noted, as is the fact that you are incapable of seeing that "religious liberty" has become a euphemism for regressive illiberalism.  

I did, however, state that my political views are largely strategic and not firm principles, and that is certainly okay.

There's some grand strategy at play in wishy washy non-principles......?

[WinterHold]

I studied in a Wahhabi school all my youth.
The famous hellish book of "Mohammed Ibn Abdul-Wahhab":كتاب التوحيد الذي هو حق الله على العبيد -The book of Tawhid- was ringing in my fucking ears for 12 years. This is the book behind most "Jihadist militias" in the world today, so never lecture me about what Wahhabism is or question my knowledge with it; instead I lecture you. اسمعوا واطيعوا ولو ولي عليكم عبد اسود كان راسه زبيبة, huh? Teaching kids that is pure evill; you know.

How is it evil?

It orders followers to kill gays, kill witches, ban music, kill apostates, obey the ruler blindly, massacre non-Muslims and take their money and women as booty...and more. But it's not our topic; we can discuss it in the Islamic section.

Sayed Qutb was a "Muslim brotherhood" affiliate; he never belonged to the Wahhabi death cult.

Syed Qutb is the single strongest influence on al-Qa'ida, and on Jama'at al-Jihad (the group that Zawahiri belonged to). His ideas about jahiliyyah is what gave birth to the modern Takfiri tendency.

But Sayed Qutb was dead long before the Afghan war start.
Wahhabies are older than Qutb with 200 years maybe.
And it is not our topic.

Wahhabism does not really have a political aspect to it. A "Wahhabi" is basically any Muslim that is against folk practices that are polytheistic and neo-pagan, like venerating tombs, trees, wearing amulets, etc. In that sense I would describe myself as a Wahhabi. Shaikh Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab was a great religious reformer, you could say the Martin Luther of Islam.

No; "Wahabbism" is a movement founded by "Mohammed Ibn AbdulWahhab":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

Wahhabism (Arabic: الوهابية‎, [i]al-Wahhābiya(h)[/i]) is an Islamic doctrine and religious salafi movement founded by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.[1] It has been variously described as "ultraconservative",[2] "austere",[3] "fundamentalist",[4] or "puritan(ical)";[5][6] as an Islamic "reform movement" to restore "pure monotheistic worship" (tawhid) by devotees;[7] and as a "deviant sectarian movement",[7] "vile sect"[8] and a distortion of Islam by its opponents.[3][9] The term Wahhabi(ism) is often used polemically and adherents commonly reject its use, preferring to be called Salafi or muwahhid.[10][11][12] claiming to emphasize the principle of tawhid[13] (the "uniqueness" and "unity" of God),[14] for exclusivity on monotheism, dismissing other Muslims as practising shirk, (idolatry).[15] It follows the theology of Ibn Taymiyyah and the Hanbali school of jurisprudence, although Hanbali leaders renounced Abd al-Wahhab's views.[6]

Wahhabism is a cult.

Osama bin Laden was a Saudi. The Taliban studied at the hands of the Sauds. enough said; your post is a "names sandwitch", trying to overwhelm my point and my facts with the names of people who had nothing to do with the Afghan war.

Yes, but Bin Laden was influenced by Zawahiri who was not a Saudi. Zawahiri was an Egyptian. He is the one that poisoned Osama's mind and made him adapt the Takfiri ideology.

And all the names I mentioned were deeply involved in the Afghan war.

Roses are red
Violets are blue
Osama is a terrorist
A Saudi; too

The Taliban were refugees in Pakistani camps, who studied in Wahhabi schools sponsored by Saudi Arabia, just like my previous comment told you quoting from wikipedia.
Since you love names, check Osama bin Laden's nationality.

Wrong, the Taliban founders were students of Deobandi madaris. Do you know the difference between Saudi Salafism and Deobandism, the latter originating from Deoband, India?
Deobandis are muqallidin of the Hanafi school, while Salafis reject Taqlid. Deobandis acknowledge and promote Sufism. Deobandis are Maturidis in theology, while Salafis are Athari in theology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen#Afghanistan

[/url]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen#cite_note-13]However, the mujahideen did not establish a united government, and many of the larger mujahideen groups began to fight each other over power in Kabul. After several years of devastating fighting, a village mullah named Mohammed Omar organized a new armed movement with the backing of Pakistan. This movement became known as the Taliban ("students" in Pashto), referring to how most Taliban had grown up in refugee camps in Pakistan during the 1980s [b]and were taught in the Saudi-backed Wahhabi madrassas, religious schools known for teaching a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. [/b]Veteran mujahideen confronted this radical splinter group in 1996.

Keep repeating "Baathism" like a parrot is very laughable -if you excuse me-; the Baathist are long gone. The "CD" is getting old, you know.

Assad is a Baathist. The Baathists are not long gone. The Baathists just went underground after 2003. They were the driving force behind the terrorism and so-called insurgency post-Saddam. And guess who were the brain behind ISIS? Baathist military officers!

The brain behind ISIS is the same brain behind the Afghan war.
BTW; where is ISIS now? they look like a proxy that came to Syria to "do a certain task and leave".

[Cherub786]

Not really.

If you say so

I'm not an Islamist because I'm a minority.

.........?
Generally speaking, you can only be an Islamist in a Muslim-majority country. In that sense I am an Islamist. I want Muslim majority areas to be ruled by Islamic law
But as a minority, I am in favor of secularism. Not the laicite model of France which is a butchering of true secularism


You don't think that islam is the answer, you mean?  Yeah..yeah, I get that you don't think that other peoples islam is the answer, but that's common between islamists.

Yes there are different forms of "Islamism". But technically I'm not an Islamist because I'm a minority and I prefer secularism and absolute religious liberty. There are some deluded individuals who advocate Islamic rule here in the Western hemisphere, despite the fact that we are 1-5% of the population. Obviously not going to happen nor should it happen. Islamic law is only meant to rule in an area where Muslims have significant numbers.
But I am in favor of our Muslim communities having our own tribunals and voluntary courts for settling family, estate and other areas of law that are non-criminal, similar to how some Jewish minority communities have rabbinic courts.




The "liberty" to shake venomous snakes at kids while you slice off the tips and their dicks, pour blood down the bloodhole, wrap people in bags, and miseducate children..already noted, as is the fact that you are incapable of seeing that "religious liberty" has become a euphemism for regressive illiberalism.  

I obviously don't agree with snake handling.

As for circumcision, it is not slicing off the tip of the dick (ouch!). It is cutting off the foreskin.

Pouring blood down bloodhole? I don't know what that is.

Wrapping people in bags? No, the burqa is in my view a very elegant and modest dress for women.

Miseducate children? I would say that's what the public schools are doing.

I did, however, state that my political views are largely strategic and not firm principles, and that is certainly okay.

There's some grand strategy at play in wishy washy non-principles......?

I'm against authoritarianism and I'm definitely against communism and fascism. That is my principle.

As for religious liberty for all, that is to protect my own religious liberty as a minority. As I said, I think snake handling is strange (didn't Jesus Christ tell the devil you shall not tempt the Lord your God when the devil told him to jump off a cliff?)
But if certain Christian denominations want to practice snake handling, more power to them. As long as a religious practice is not harming someone else it should be allowed. If it is wrong to allow people to risk harming themselves voluntarily, the number one leading cause of unnatural death would be banned.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you say so
.........?
Generally speaking, you can only be an Islamist in a Muslim-majority country. In that sense I am an Islamist. I want Muslim majority areas to be ruled by Islamic law
But as a minority, I am in favor of secularism. Not the laicite model of France which is a butchering of true secularism

..............................dude you're an islamist, lol.  You fear that, as a minority islamist, some other guys islam would bury you to the neck in sand and stone you till dead...your "secularism" is not a genuinely held position or even secular....but a conceit in the face of the known brutality of islamism.  

Yes there are different forms of "Islamism". But technically I'm not an Islamist because I'm a minority and I prefer secularism and absolute religious liberty. There are some deluded individuals who advocate Islamic rule here in the Western hemisphere, despite the fact that we are 1-5% of the population. Obviously not going to happen nor should it happen. Islamic law is only meant to rule in an area where Muslims have significant numbers.
But I am in favor of our Muslim communities having our own tribunals and voluntary courts for settling family, estate and other areas of law that are non-criminal, similar to how some Jewish minority communities have rabbinic courts.

You think that things which have nothing to do with you being an islamist make you "not an islamist", and then opine upon those things that do make you an islamist.  Here's the thing, it just drips off of you, lol.

I obviously don't agree with snake handling.

As for circumcision, it is not slicing off the tip of the dick (ouch!). It is cutting off the foreskin.

Pouring blood down bloodhole? I don't know what that is.

Wrapping people in bags? No, the burqa is in my view a very elegant and modest dress for women.

Miseducate children? I would say that's what the public schools are doing.

The islamist has common islamist greivances.  Quelle surprise.  

I'm against authoritarianism and I'm definitely against communism and fascism. That is my principle.

As for religious liberty for all, that is to protect my own religious liberty as a minority. As I said, I think snake handling is strange (didn't Jesus Christ tell the devil you shall not tempt the Lord your God when the devil told him to jump off a cliff?)
But if certain Christian denominations want to practice snake handling, more power to them. As long as a religious practice is not harming someone else it should be allowed. If it is wrong to allow people to risk harming themselves voluntarily, the number one leading cause of unnatural death would be banned.

I think that you're for the despot in the sky, more than against authoritarianism on earth.  Not an anarchist, not a libertarian...an islamist. It's common for islamists (or any religionist, really) to call for tolerance when they percieve themselves in a position of weakness or vulnerability, as you do. OFC, when they get an ounce of the "liberty" they seek..it's suddenly all death to the unbelievers, and you are kinda fond of warlords and guns..... lol. That's my two cents.

[WinterHold]

I don't know how anyone could imagine that a ruling dynasty is "godforsaken".  Nothing happens but by the will of allah..and they seem to be doing splendidly! 

For all the hubbub, MBS is the very picture of an effective and efficient prince.  That's what makes him so dangerous, lol.  He's handsome, rich, well connected, a smooth talker, seemingly benevolent to his people in the face of those who would oppress them, while being ruthless and decisive in the business of crushing any competition to his authority or legitimacy.

On the other hand I don't know how somebody could not see that most ruling dynasties ended and some of them didn't even complete the 100 years span.

---

Yes, that is what I was saying to cherub786: the U.S won that war, and utilized its allies perfectly (used the men from Saudi Arabia, used the intelligence reports of Pakistan, and used its own media and propaganda and weapon technology) to form a deformed strong fist that took the USSR down for good.

The future brought the Russians back as they learned from the Afghani experience, and flipped the table against the U.S.A: Russia created its own Islamic proxy -represented in the Shiite camp in the Middle East- to confront the American Sunni proxy.

Russia is supporting Assad (a Shiite), Iran (a Shiite state) while the U.S is supporting Saudi Arabia (a Sunni state).

The soviets weren't good at the game. But Putin has plans to change that.

I acknowledge the Americans, CIA and Pentagon greatly helped the Afghan mujahideen, especially with those stinger missiles. It was a beautiful operation, and it was for a good cause. How does that change anything?

The point I'm making is that the Afghan people were simply having none of that communist nonsense. It was only after the Americans saw their thirst for freedom and their willingness to fight did they realize they had an opportunity to undermine the Soviets without getting their own hands dirty.
If the Afghan people just sat back and allowed their country to become a Soviet satellite state like all those satellite states in Eastern Europe, there would never have been this opportunity to help the Mujahideen.
What this shows us is that certain peoples have different temperaments and different political cultures. Some like the Afghans obviously value freedom a lot and are allergic to authoritarianism.

Yes. It means that thousands of Sunni Muslim youth were led by Saudi Arabia to do America's dirty work in Afghanistan, once the soviets retreated America invaded and took its place.

The Afghan people are also having none of this capitalist mumbo jumbo; 'merica; hell yeah. They die in both cases.

You said it yourself: America used the Sunni ignorant Jihadists as their donkeys into the cold war with Russia. I bold that part in your comment.

[The Grand Nudger]

The gods are capricious.  They giveth, and they taketh away.  : shrugs :

[Dr H]

I’d like to have a discussion with anyone that has an interest in political theory.
Presently I am taking a course on political science in college. Whereas previously I was quite apolitical and apathetic to politics, from this course I discovered a whole new dimension to life which I am keen to explore.
I think my politics tend toward anarchism or anti-statism. I want maximum individual liberty from the corrosive state. I have no respect for the concept of the modern nation state, the social contract, and the rule of law.
Over time, the state has grown more powerful while people are less and less free. Religious liberty is specifically on a steep decline. Daily I read news reports of how religious freedoms are being curtailed in the name of security, social order and cohesiveness, in places like communist, atheist China, authoritarian Russia, autocratic Middle Eastern states and even supposedly secular Europe.

I'm an anarchist.  What would you like to discuss?

And is there a particular reason you favor extra-large font?
It rather comes off as if you're shouting at us.

[Cherub786]

I’d like to have a discussion with anyone that has an interest in political theory.
Presently I am taking a course on political science in college. Whereas previously I was quite apolitical and apathetic to politics, from this course I discovered a whole new dimension to life which I am keen to explore.
I think my politics tend toward anarchism or anti-statism. I want maximum individual liberty from the corrosive state. I have no respect for the concept of the modern nation state, the social contract, and the rule of law.
Over time, the state has grown more powerful while people are less and less free. Religious liberty is specifically on a steep decline. Daily I read news reports of how religious freedoms are being curtailed in the name of security, social order and cohesiveness, in places like communist, atheist China, authoritarian Russia, autocratic Middle Eastern states and even supposedly secular Europe.

I'm an anarchist.  What would you like to discuss?

And is there a particular reason you favor extra-large font?
It rather comes off as if you're shouting at us.

Font has been fixed.

After some discussion though I figured out I'm not exactly an anarchist.
But since you're here why don't you explain your position on religious liberty