jump to last post 1-19 of 19 discussions (42 posts)

What is more dangerous : Imperialism or extreme Islamism ?

  1. Eng.M profile image76
    Eng.Mposted 7 years ago

    more dangerous for whome ?

    I think it depends

    but they both are affecting communities badly

    what do you think?

    1. Kevy Rae profile image80
      Kevy Raeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Islam is the only religion I know of that has an alarming number of members willing to kill innocent people in the name of God.  I know not all of them do, but not enough of those Muslims who believe that's NOT such a good idea ever say anything in protest of it.  They try to justify it, usually.

      I believe Muslims who are against killing are actually in the minority.  Even the majority of them who would never do a bombing or shooting themsleves, kind of throw a silent "thumbs up" when something like 9/11 or a bus bombing in Isreal happens..  After all!  We are infidels! 

      I am not a religious person at all, I'm agnostic.. I believe there probably is a higher creator, but it is probably nothing like the image that any religion on earth has made of it. 

      Just from my life observations, Islam is NOT a good a religion.  It's cruel to women, gays and non-believers, and PROUD of it!  One could say that about some Christians also, but at least they can't carry out the punishments that Muslims do in their lands!

      We never see or hear on the news about Bhuddists or Hindus or any of the hundreds of other various tribal religions on this planet jacking with everybody else!

      So yeah, I would say Islamic Exrtemists ARE a threat! 

      And what do you mean by "Imperialism"?  Us?  America?

      I don't know of any major democratic country in the world right now acting imperialistic..  That would require conquering and converting other peoples and their lands to our ways and making them our dominion.  I don't see that going on anywhere.  The Roman Empire did that very well, so did England for a while!  They civilized a lot of Africa amd other regions. 

      What we do, America, is sacrifice our sons and daughters to free people here and the around the world.  About 620,000 Americans died in the Civil War that resulted in the freedom of the black slaves and keeping intact of the Union.  116,000 Americans to help Europe in WWI, 406,000 in WWII, on and on..  There are more wars and actions I could cite.. Those numbers don't even include the wounded, just the killed!

      Our country goes out of it's way to give Americans' tax money as aid to countries who hate us, sacrifice our warriors' lives to free people in far off places and rebuild what we broke in the process!

      I'm frankly getting kind of sick of being so kind, because we sure don't get much thanks for it!  And when our own citizens question our motives, it's really disgusting! 

      Kevy Rae

      1. usmanali81 profile image60
        usmanali81posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        hhmmm, so you are an Agnostic, an upgrade of an Athiest who started believing in the Supreme Creator-God. May be in future you start saying that Ok God, we can not resolve our oun created mess, kindly send us a book and a messenger as a guide for us.

  2. 0
    Madame Xposted 7 years ago

    What's the difference?

    1. Eng.M profile image76
      Eng.Mposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      killing numbers

    2. Keith S profile image60
      Keith Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      the difference is with extreme Islam a woman would never be allowed access to this blog and she would be subject to the whims of her father who would marry her off to a man who thinks the only rights females have are the rights to serve men.

  3. LondonGirl profile image92
    LondonGirlposted 7 years ago

    Why the difference? Many extremist Islamists are incredibly imperialistic.

    1. RKHenry profile image79
      RKHenryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I absolutely agree.

  4. RooBee profile image82
    RooBeeposted 7 years ago

    Extreme anything is usually dangerous because it sits at the bottom of a long and slippery slope of fear, paranoia, brainwashing, ignorance, and all kinds of other nasty stuff.

  5. Capable Woman profile image80
    Capable Womanposted 7 years ago

    The "extreme Islamists" make me so sad...what a travesty for a whole group of people to have things turn out the way they have with the Muslims (of the Middle East, generally speaking). They have done nothing but regress over the last thousand years.

    Islam was the shining beacon of knowledge, culture and civilization a few centuries ago...far advanced beyond what the very loosely knit, warring, intellectually backward and unenlightened group of provinces known as Europe had going for them...what happened?

    This is what happens when religion goes terribly,TERRIBLY wrong.

  6. Pete Maida profile image59
    Pete Maidaposted 7 years ago

    Religious extremism of any kind is very dangerous.  Any power bent on world domination for their own gain can be deterred by power.  People who believe they fight for God will be willing to unleash a nuke without fear of reprisal.

    1. RKHenry profile image79
      RKHenryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      How's the book going?

      1. Pete Maida profile image59
        Pete Maidaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks for asking.  If I needed it for income I would have died of starvation a long time ago.

  7. usmanali81 profile image60
    usmanali81posted 7 years ago

    Imperialism, Capitalism, Communism, Marksism, Socialism, Atheism, Humanism, Zionism and Freemasonry are the worst enemeys of mankind. Today, all of these ISMs are feard of ISLAM that is why they are degrading Islam by any means because it's the only remaining ideology who can expose their hidden agendas and evil plots to misuse mankind. Even the current Zionists use to buy mercenaries, feed them with money, food and weapons just to degrade Islam.

  8. JonTutor profile image61
    JonTutorposted 7 years ago

    Dude back up your crazy delusion with some credible links... Where do you get your information from... Now don't tell me from those terrorist training schools.  I checked out your writing in Islam... and you seem to be a religious nut case. Get a life.

    1. Shil1978 profile image87
      Shil1978posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Lol - he doesn't have any credible links. He's living in a delusionary world, wherein everything bad that happens in the Muslim world is somehow a zionist conspiracy.

      He was arguing on the other thread that the Taliban were a creation of Zionists and Western powers. Lol - now can you match that? No links - no evidence. Nothing!!

      1. countrywomen profile image77
        countrywomenposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Shil- Even I find that "zionist/mason" conspiracies incredible. smile

        Edit: Kevy Rae, thanks to folks like Usman who inspired me to write the hub about western nations.

        1. Shil1978 profile image87
          Shil1978posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          CW - You wouldn't believe what some of these guys come up with. They find a conspiracy in almost everything - they are pastmasters at it. According to them, "Ajmal Kasab" (the Pakistani involved in the Mumbai massacre) is a Hindu (at least that is what they kept on saying before the Pakistani Govt. admitted to his Pakistani nationality. Why did they deny? Because he wore a red thread/band on this wrist that most Hindus wear. They've had TV programmes that have played on this angle for days - so you can well imagine how deep this conspiracy mindset runs. Its a disease really.

          Now, Mr. Usman here has been projecting the Taliban as being the creation of Westerners/Zionists. Isn't that ridiculous. The Taliban were born and bred in Pakistan and brainwashed in Pakistani madrassas, but yet this guy can say with a straight face that the Taliban are a conspiracy of other countries smile

  9. countrywomen profile image77
    countrywomenposted 7 years ago

    Shil- As far as Taliban are concerned there is some proof that initially US govt was involved(CIA) when it was trying to overthrow Soviets in Afghanistan. But yes all those conspiracies are mind boggling. He posted a joke site called brasstacks which was full of misleading information and conclusions. Here is one link where it is mentioned how the media operates in certain countries(you would have to watch it completely to know where I am getting at): smile http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xld9Kd7rjsg

    1. Shil1978 profile image87
      Shil1978posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yes - the US was involved during the time when they were fighting the Soviets. However, then it became a Pakistani operation. They propped them up, trained them, armed them. No wonder then that only 3 countries recognized the Taliban, Pakistan being one of those countries. So - guess who had the most to gain from propping up the Taliban?

      Yeah - I do know about that brasstacks joke site. It's downright funny. However, can you believe that they give this guy so much importance as to put him on TV shows, and have him as a strategic expert. Lol - its the reason I called it a disease. These guys like conspiracy theories - rather they thrive on them.

    2. LondonGirl profile image92
      LondonGirlposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Not at all - the USA (CIA) supported the Mujahideen, not the Taliban. The Taliban didn't exist, then.

      1. countrywomen profile image77
        countrywomenposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yes you are right. CIA supported all the mujahideen against soviets and later one among the groups of Mujahideen took control over Afghanistan. And that group became the Taliban which incidentally was only recognized by 3 nations. US surely would never support such regressive ideology which it became subsequently when in power. Thanks, LG I just read this article http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html . Have a good weekend. smile

        1. LondonGirl profile image92
          LondonGirlposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I do a lot of Afghan-related work, so I know something about this. The group of Mujahideen who took over in Afghanistan didn't become the Taliban. The Taliban was a separate group who beat the Mujahideen.

      2. bgamall profile image87
        bgamallposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Unocal armed the Taliban. It was the use of a private corporation by the US government. It is common knowledge. That is why, IMO. Unocal was considered a national security company that we could not let the Chinese buy. It is currently owned by Chevron.

    3. usmanali81 profile image60
      usmanali81posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      conspiracies, conspiracies, conspiracies smile these are now facts my dear

  10. bgamall profile image87
    bgamallposted 7 years ago

    Regardless of whether we like the Taliban or not, and I don't, we set them up and armed them to fight Warlords. We invited them to Texas and we tried to bribe them to build a pipeline to the Caspian Sea where Daddy Bush and Haliburton have major investments. They refused and we booted them out, using 9/11 as an excuse.

    As far as Islam versus our imperialism: Islam is generally weaker and is little threat to the United States. Neocon imperialism is dead set on provoking Russia. A war between Russia and the United States would destroy the world.

    So, which do you all think is more dangerous. Corporatism that would lead us to WW3 is even potentially more dangerous than the fascism of Hitler. The neocons are wacko and could care less about the security of the United States. They want to take over the world, and that was the aim of PNAC. This is the story of what the neocons are doing to the American people: http://hubpages.com/hub/Dont-Let-Republ … -Scare-You

    1. Will Apse profile image90
      Will Apseposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I more or less agree with this, except, I don't think the neo-cons are mad. They are simply more explicit in their aims and more ruthless in their methods than liberal groups with the same agenda.

      However you look at it, dominant nations try to shape the world to suit their needs. America wants a world where American business can operate freely anywhere. The business of America, after all, is business. Anyone who stands in the way is the enemy.

      The soviets were the most 'evil' enemy because they allowed no US business at all in within their empire.

      Those few groups still holding out against the US model are doing so because they fear complete extinction of their cultures and beliefs. Liberals will speed their end as happily as neo cons but use a little less violence (maybe)and upset their allies less (maybe).

  11. bgamall profile image87
    bgamallposted 7 years ago

    From Wikipedia listing for "Taliban" Londongirl:

    Foreign powers, including the United States, were at first supportive of the Taliban in hopes it would serve as a force to restore order in Afghanistan after years of division into corrupt, lawless warlord fiefdoms. The U.S. government, for example, made no comment when the Taliban captured Herat in 1995 and expelled thousands of girls from schools.[84] These hopes faded as it began to be engaged in warlord practices of rocketing unarmed civilians, targeting ethnic groups (primarily Hazaras) and restricting the rights of women.[85] In late 1997, American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright began to distance the U.S. from the Taliban and the next year the American-based Unocal, previously having implicitly supported the Taliban in order to build a pipeline south from Central Asia, the oil company withdrew from a major deal with the Taliban regime concerning an oil pipeline.

    1. LondonGirl profile image92
      LondonGirlposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yes - but not during the Soviet invasion, "As far as Taliban are concerned there is some proof that initially US govt was involved(CIA) when it was trying to overthrow Soviets in Afghanistan."

  12. 61
    prince1244posted 7 years ago

    Imperialism and extreme Islam, wow. Extreme Islam is a minority view and will never succeed. Imperialism succeeded and foster capitalism which foster extreme Islam. Go back to the era of the colonial masters,it radicalized the local population seeking independence form the colonial master. This not a justifaction for extremist just stating the facts. Well the answer they both are terrible

  13. myra636 profile image59
    myra636posted 7 years ago

    I see one problem hear and that is no one on this thread has said that the Taliban and others like them are not the most poplar with other Muslims. Most Muslims do not believe in killing they live by the same commandments as the rest of us I am a Catholic and I am married to a Muslim I have been to Morocco it is a Muslim country and very open they are the same. That is part of the trouble.that. Most Americans are grouping all Muslims together with the Taliban and it is not fear that no one stans up for the others, oh by the way I am an American my family has been here since the late 1700 I am sorry if I got carried away but I hear it all the time.How  many of Muslims do you know before you talk about them. I have seen extreme Christans all so. My apologizes if I angered any one.

    1. bgamall profile image87
      bgamallposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I understand your feelings. I am sure no one here links the Taliban with other Muslims. But even so, the US through Unocal armed the Taliban, put up with their beliefs, all so that Daddy Bush could have his pipeline to the Caspian Sea. So much of the muslim world has been manipulated by the western world in history, and mostly through oil. And the prime culprits have been Great Britain and the United States.

      Yes, Londongirl, I had thought the Taliban was given arms by the CIA but that isn't correct. The company Unocal gave them the arms. Some say Karsai is connected to Unocal but I don't know if there is proof of that.

  14. countrywomen profile image77
    countrywomenposted 7 years ago

    The plot gets thicker and thicker. Bgamall, there are some folks here who thrive on such fodder to support there conspiracy theories. I know US directly or indirectly did have some role but US isn't to be blamed for what Taliban became later. It is a fundamentalist group that prefers people to live by stone age rules. Can US undo what it has already done? US has taken its share of flak and whenever it bombs on innocent civilians it does publicly apologize(internally conducting inquiry/punishing those responsible). Even the terrorist organizations hurt innocent civilians but there never is any acceptance of blame(forget about apologies). Even I love peace and agree US needn't get involved in so many areas but when it does(except for incidents like Guatanamo or Abu Ghraib) it does also provide relief/rehabilitation by way of providing for schools/hospitals/roads and other infrastructure rebuilding efforts. As much as I like US not to get involved unnecessarily in world arena but I still feel somewhat uncomfortable with this terrible bad mouthing of US happening all the time. I guess I will stop here. Have a great weekend. smile

  15. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago

    Imperialism is a traditional form of governance. It is an established accepted entity, which will enforce strict discipline and obedinece to the rulers in their country.

    Islamism is a faith... it is a religion. It has no governing mandate in a country. Acceptance of that faith is the main thing. But if Islamists go on the offensive, and prove dangerous, it always boomerangs, only to bring misery and  destruction to themselves. Because, there are other religions also in a country. When affected by Islamist fury, they will retaliate.

    1. Will Apse profile image90
      Will Apseposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Some people like to have a say in their lives. Strange people with self resect and a belief in their own worth.

    2. bgamall profile image87
      bgamallposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Imperialism is a traditional form of governance? Does that make its pillaging and stealing legal or ethical? If George Bush is not tried for murder in this life he will be judged in the next. He cannot escape, and neither can Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest. They are doomed to pay for their sins. That is my opinion. I don't write much about my religious views but I believe that justice will be perfected, just not here.   

      As far as your statement Will, it could very well be that much of the neocon agenda gets carried out anyway. We are still in Afghanistan and will be until the end of time, maybe. Yet Bush is long gone. 

      As far as the Taliban is concerned, they are repressive and abusive and cannot be defended. But, our greedy government will work with anyone in order to make a buck and control the world.

      1. Will Apse profile image90
        Will Apseposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I don't like the routine destruction of whole cultures and the genocide that has been a big part of the normal pattern of human history since the year zero.

        On the other hand there are a few hopeful signs now and again. After the first big European expansion in South America by the Spanish, the Catholic Church was horrified at the loss of life.
        They met to debate if South American Indians had souls, decided they had and the Church offered some protection if the indians converted.

        Many preferred to eat dirt and die (literally).

        When the Philippines came up for colonisation the Spanish King only allowed it as long as not a single life was lost.

        So we move on a little. American imperialism is less destructive to cultures that are capable of adapting than French or British imperialism (though there is room for debate perhaps).

        Whatever happens, nations will never 'be nice' to each other and European culture will continue to expand unless some nation can stop it militarily (not many contenders here).

  16. soni2006 profile image47
    soni2006posted 7 years ago

    I think both Imperialism and extremism have their own bad traits.....

    1. bgamall profile image87
      bgamallposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I absolutely agree, but my point is that the imperialist have the power to destroy the world. The extremists don't, at least yet.

  17. lxxy profile image61
    lxxyposted 7 years ago

    Imperialism is a catch all term for a lot of things, but it all boils down to an excuse to invade and subjugate.

    As for as Islam? Well, it's not the first time religion has been used to invade and subjugate, either.

  18. ledefensetech profile image81
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    Both.  When you reduce Islam and Imperialism to their basic points, it's all about control.  Specifically control over people's lives.  All sorts of justifications are used from "submitting to the will of Allah" to "white man's burden".  The idea itself doesn't change although the names and players often do.

  19. BP9 profile image60
    BP9posted 7 years ago

    I believe that Imperialism had a hand in creating the type of collective resentment amongst the islamic community in arab countries that spawned extremism in Islam. 

    That said, I do believe that Imperialism is (in causal terms) more dangerous than extremism in Islam/Islamism.  Imperialism is basically based on a guiding concept of expansionism, be it political, economic or corporate.  Said expansion has it's motivation in bolstering the pre-iminent position of the apex or head of said empire.

    Islam as a faith does not espouse expansionism as a way of governing or in religious proselytization.  The Q'uran speaks of non-compulsion in religion and teaches tolerance of all faiths that embrace God.  Extremism in Islam enters the picture when adverse social, political and economic conditions amongst largely muslim populations benefit those outside said communities.

    Islam can be perverted to inspire extremist behavior in adherents.  Imperialism is extremist at it's root, as it seeks only to feed a few very well at the expense of starving majorities.