Useful Idiots for Islam

[VladK]

We keep hearing denials that any significant part of left is in any way defending Islam, "we're just against bigotry directed at Muslims" they say. Really? I don't believe so and so this thread is to document the numerous idiocies of mainstream leftists in dealing with Islam. Their ultra-tolerant, ultra-accommodationist, spineless attitude.

1. Removing bare-breasted painting from a dining room because it might offend Muslims, ironically, we don't know of any single Muslim who even asked for it to be removed:
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2013/12/19/Painting-with-bare-breasts-removed-from-Swedish-Riksdag-dining-room/UPI-67251387480793/

2. A report from left-wing Runnymede Trust on "Islamophobia": http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/publications/pdfs/islamophobia.pdf

Notice how they define "Islamophobia":

1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
2. It is seen as separate and "other." It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
3. It is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist.
4. It is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and engaged in a clash of civilizations.
5. It is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.
6. Criticisms made of "the West" by Muslims are rejected out of hand.
7. Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
8. Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural and normal.

It's worth pointing out that number 1 to number 5 say nothing about Muslims, just Islam, as an ideology: "Islam" "It", these do not refer to individual Muslims or groups, but to the ideology itself as spelled out in the Qur'an, hadith and other sources. Second 1-5 are legitimate debate points. Obviously Islam is not a "monolith" but make no mistake, all mainstream interpretations of Islam are theocratic. Communism is a not a monolith either but nobody in their right minds would assume that it's so flexible it can mean anything. About "othering", no, it certainly doesn't share that much with Christian or humanist post-Christian countries or whatever terms you want to call Europe, America or the west in general. Islam rejects western notions of human rights or equality before the law.

"violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and engaged in a clash of civilizations" - Again, we see here that leftists are trying to shut off all critical discussion of Islam. If you want to prove that Islam is a peaceful religion, go for it, the sources are NOT on your side, but hey, it should be up for discussion without accusations of bigotry. "Political ideology, used for political or military advantage" - Would be pretty hard to deny. From its inception it was intended as both a religion and a political system governing all the main aspects of society. Sharia regulates trade, family matters, crime, foreign policy etc. It may not always be enforced but it doesn't make it non-political.

"Criticisms made of "the West" by Muslims are rejected out of hand."

This point maybe has some merit to it but again it shows how naive the left is. When criticism is made solely to advance the cause of Islam and take away your rights, it's not longer an honest discussion, it is psychological warfare. It is "demoralization" of your enemy, it is propaganda for cynical political purposes.

So when I hear for example a Muslim apologist saying "9/11 or some other terrorist act happened because of the US' imperialist foreign policy and Islam is a religion of peace hijacked by extremists, radicalized because the US was 'mean' to Muslims" I know it is propaganda and it sole purpose is to weaken, "demoralize" if you will, the US or the west as a world power, to force the west to retreat from the world stage so the jihadists can establish their "caliphate". (Not that they have much chance of doing that, I doubt the Saudi Royal family would agree to answer to some "caliphate", but that it their goal.)

Bush may not have been the brightest guy out there, he was Republican but fell for the "Islam is peace" lie, but there's a reason he said "we will not negotiate with terrorists".

It is the same kind of psychological warfare used by the Soviet Union, for example with the creation of the "World Peace Council".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Peace_Council
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures

The World Peace Council (WPC) is an international organization that advocates universal disarmament, sovereignty and independence and peaceful co-existence, and campaigns against imperialism, weapons of mass destruction and all forms of discrimination. It was founded in 1950, emerging from the policy of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to promote peace campaigns around the world in order to oppose "warmongering" by the USA. Its first president was the eminent physicist Frédéric Joliot-Curie. It was based in Helsinki from 1968 to 1999 and its headquarters are now in Greece.

In both cases the situation is the same. They're against war when the US does it. They're pro-war when their side does it. It's a farce. Islam and communism both have a bloody history of warfare and imperialism against non-Islamic/non-communist entities to draw a parallel here.


It's interesting that during the Cold War era, many leftists were also naive about the communist ideology, just as today they are naive about Islamic ideology, to quote Look magazine from 1967:

It works. Ponderously, fitfully, unevenly. But 50 years after the revolution that changed the world forever, the system it fostered wheezes with life. We strain to hear the sounds of discord and seize on every setback; but it's time to ponder some disconcerting realities. Grumps there are, and strugglesâ€" bitter struggles fought by angry, frustrated men. Yet, implausible as it seems to us, most Soviet citizens think they have a good thing going for them. They feel safe. They don't worry about hunger or loneliness or calamity. Raised in a controlled environment, they are without objective measure, but by their own meager reckoning of what constitutes freedom, most of them now feel free. Political terror has shriveled. The indices by which men everywhere gauge progress are rising. To the average Soviet citizen, no conceivable space spectacular planned for the jubilee year could surpass the importance of what is happening on earth. Barring the unexpected, 1967 will be the greatest year ever for Soviet industry and a fat one for agriculture, long the Communist jinx. ... If an honest democratic election where held in the Soviet today â€"involving legitimate alternatives, sufficient time and opportunity for their exposure and the assurance that those elected would serveâ€" the Communist party would win. This is not speculation. It is a conclusion based on on-the-spot observation and interviews by ten Look editors and photographers whose journeys through the Soviet Union for this issue totaled more than a year.

History repeats itself, I don't think we need to go into much detail about why the above article is a piece of propaganda trash.

Source: http://roborant42.appspot.com/show/entry/5024

3. Another useful idiot who mingles with Islamic jihadists in Gaza: http://www.youtube.com/user/harryfear/videos

He goes to Gaza to bring back a distorted view of reality and put the sole blame on Israel, just as left-wing journalists once went to USSR to bring distorted fantasies about the supposedly functional Soviet system. (which wasn't)

4. Let's remember that during the Iranian revolution in 1979 leftists also sided with the Islamists in an alliance of convenience and when they served their purpose, they were simply killed off as the Islamic worldview does not tolerate the leftist worldview.

[Mister Agenda]

Since your first link was the mainstream leftis media (UPI) reporting on a politician who made an unnecessary concession to his idea of what would offend Muslims, in direct contradiction to your point, I assume the rest of your screed is equally well thought-out. 

[stromboli]

Vlad, since you have come on the forum your posts have all been on the same topic with the same agenda. You are not looking for a dialogue or discussion but trying to push your agenda and expect us to agree with it. A forum is a place for discussion, not a place to air your personal diatribe.


Remember the "freefall" thread? You are doing the same thing.

[Solitary]

Being criticized is one thing, but being a terrorist based on your religion is quite another, whether it be Islamic, Christian, or Judeo myths. The weak shall inherent the earth and be buried in it. Solitary

[VladK]

Vlad, since you have come on the forum your posts have all been on the same topic with the same agenda. You are not looking for a dialogue or discussion but trying to push your agenda and expect us to agree with it. A forum is a place for discussion, not a place to air your personal diatribe.


Remember the "freefall" thread? You are doing the same thing.

Feel free to tell which part of the post you disagree with.

[Hakurei Reimu]

I am not responsible for anything any other person says or does, even if they claim to be on the left and claim to represent leftist ideals. I call an idiot an idiot based on their idiocy, not on their affiliation.

[VladK]

I am not responsible for anything any other person says or does, even if they claim to be on the left and claim to represent leftist ideals. I call an idiot an idiot based on their idiocy, not on their affiliation.

The term "useful idiot" has a very specific meaning and actually doesn't relate to intelligence much. To some extent I found PZ Myers to be a useful idiot for Islam when he criticized Pat Condell as a "racist" (LOL!) without any evidence to back it up other than his critical attitude to Islam, but PZ's not an otherwise stupid person, he's a man of science. A useful idiot is someone who supports or sympathizes with a cause without knowing much about it or without knowing the full implications of it. Often he is held in contempt by the very people he supports, for example an idealistic leftist person who defended the Soviet Union as "not such a bad model" or excused its atrocities as a necessary evil to bring about the beautiful paradise society of equality and social justice.

Likewise, I can assure you, devout Muslims do NOT have a favorable view of liberals like PZ Myers. Nobody is going to reward him for supposedly standing up for the "poor oppressed" Muslims against the "big bad racist" Pat Condell, in a Sharia state he would executed for blasphemy and being an open atheist.

Okay, you may say "but PZ criticizes all religion", that may be the case, but it's only paying lip service. He's obviously not a man of action. He think that if you just talk "logic" and "reason" somehow it work and the Muslim world will all become modern and secular. Let's be real... There is no Muslim country that became secular through "logic and reason". Ataturk crushed political Islam in his country, he didn't negotiate with it and yet Erdogan is trying to take it back. Would PZ support for example a strong American foreign policy aimed at curtailing Sharia regimes in the same manner they did with the Soviet Union and communism? Unlikely given his political choice. Then again, I gotta admit that many Republicans are also compromised and don't really seem to understand the full extent of the problem. Bush too was suckered by the lie that "Islam is a religion of peace". But if anything will be done, it will NOT originate on the Democrat side or with any left-wing party anywhere in the west, that I am certain of.

When Obama was elected he went to Cairo to give an hour long speech about how Islam is a religion of peace and how the west owes its science to Islam.

The current head of the CIA, John Brennan, also believes that lie that Islam is a religion of peace:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VQbAhqHoAo

What's really disturbing is that Brennan's knowledge of Islam seems to come from the time he lived in Saudi Arabia. Surely he MUST be aware of the oppression of women and others going on in there, mandated by Islamic law?? He's either naive or a liar, yet he's the head of the CIA...


With that said, if you're on the left but think Islam is a problematic religion, I just have to ask, which left-wing party anywhere in the western world shares that sentiment because I can't think of a single one that isn't compromised by political correctness.

[josephpalazzo]

If you had used "useful naivety" instead of "useful idiots" perhaps your point of view would have attracted more constructive discussion. Just saying...

[VladK]

The term is well-established, I didn't make it up, most people should know what it means.

Anyway there's certainly enough room for constructive discussion here. I already presented here a number of specific facts (some with links) that can you discuss, comment on, refute if you believe I have been inaccurate etc.

Here's another funny thing: http://www.quitpalestine.org/

"Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism" LOL, you can't make this stuff up. Don't these people have any idea what the Palestinian Authority does to gays?

[josephpalazzo]

The term is well-established, I didn't make it up, most people should know what it means.

Yes, and it carries a whole lot of baggage, and a lot of people here would resent being tagged with that lot.

[Solitary]

Religion of Peace? Bull shit! http://youtu.be/qoMeUcC_M20   Solitary

[Hakurei Reimu]

I repeat, VladK: "I am not responsible for anything any other person says or does, even if they claim to be on the left and claim to represent leftist ideals. I call an idiot an idiot based on their idiocy, not on their affiliation." With the additional caveat of 'idiocy' may refer to a specific tack in one's head rather than a generalized low intelligence. PZ Myers can be an idiot at times, especially outside his field of study.