3 ms·

You're pretty selective about the time periods you base your arguments on, ignoring anything before the 80s but you're certain there can't be another Chechen wa

You're pretty selective about the time periods you base your arguments on, ignoring anything before the 80s but you're certain there can't be another Chechen war 15 years after the last one - because it will always be bastion of stability now and tinderboxes aren't a thing. All of those countries listed have had liberal periods (Iraq - check your history) but you fail to explain how the complex causes for subsequent breakdowns can be simply distilled down to 'because Islam'. As if Mubarak or Gaddafi or Saddam were religious figures. Millions of Muslims stood ready to build on liberal reforms and died for it. You don't get to just ignore them because you can't deal with nuance. I could use the same logic to ask you to name one province under Russian rule that hasn't turned into a corrupt political dumpster fire. If Chechnya/Dagestan/Cherkess/Tatarstan etc. were the only such wastelands your case against Islam might be less empty - but it's the same for every oblast in the entire country. Russia is illiberal - because Putin hates liberalism - and that is why it will impose illiberal systems on its territories. That is enough of a reason to criticise it (because murdering critics and journalists for example is bad). Don't pretend it's hamstrung by the brutality of its uncivilised Muslims, that's just you projecting your bigotry. We don't like Putin -> We don't like his impact on Russia -> And you're damned right we're going to say something about it.

thriftwy 4y ago
If having liberal periods does not lead to better outcome for a country, this is a very bad news for liberalism. The prevailing narrative is such: A country is a poor and corrupt, then it becomes a liberal democracy and becomes a permanently stable, prosperous country. But that's not what happens to Muslim countries. After a "liberal period" they tend to resume being theocratic, autocratic or defunct, and barely solvent, states. Why have those periods at all then? What did those millions of Muslims die for? I don't think you are qualified to be in this discussion if you consider whole Russia a "dumpster fire", even more if you think Russia "turned into" a dumpster fire (compared to what period?). This shows a significant level of "liberal" bigotry and chauvinism. I visit Tatarstan's (one of the most economically developed regions) capital Kazan' every year and I don't consider it a "dumpster fire". Neither are its residents unless they happen to be acolytes in your "liberal democratic" cult.
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  Because it introduces an alternative to people who remember nothing but injustice, violence and corruption. We're not at the end of history, and don't know how such efforts will play out next year, or next decade. I notice you ignored my point about how Chechnya could also have another war in the coming decade too, as if Russia leaves anything resembling stability wherever it goes. No one says liberal democracies necessarily become permanently stable. You know nothing about political development if you believe this. In many ways it's considered the opposite in its early stages, fragile, needing constant work and refinements to build on incremental improvements. In these stages any ham-fisted strongman or warlord has a good chance to destroy the gains that have been made before informal institutions gain real authority. And when there is momentum behind old tribal, religious and feudal systems, this is a long, slow, vulnerable process. And during that time you'll observe gains and losses over literally decades. Which is why you'll see liberal reforms make small gains, then fail for a while before they can resume. But they build slowly and that's what people die for. This has been the case for every developed country in existence. You're happy to give Europe 300 years of ugly fighting to get to this stage but if Muslim countries can't succeed within 50 you'll call the end of the game now to reinforce your biased conclusions. But sure, keep using your myopia and lack of education to keep hating on the Muslims. The issue with Putin is he doesn't even try, because, like every autocratic asshole, he can make more power for himself and his friends this way than through real development. And he can count on weak-minded bigots with poor political and historical context to unquestioningly back his cynical aims. But forgetting about terminology, and without whatabouting your way out of it, explain how you can excuse a leader who who effectively makes himself president for life, poisons his opponents, secretly enriches himself, murders critical journalists, backs corrupt friends and jails protesters after show trials. Isn't the fact that he doesn't do just ONE fewer of these things enough to criticise him? Your argument by anecdote assumes political oppression and development should both be equally visible, ignoring clear statistical evidence on police use of torture, corruption and violence against journalists and activists. Lucky the Tatars immediately around you like what Russia has done to their land - because they have no choice or voice if they don't. Just see what happens to people who say otherwise, like Asan Akhtemov, Nariman Ametov and see what anti-insurgent animals did to Reshat Ametov. Maybe for your next holiday you can travel further south and ask some Tatars in Crimea how they are feeling about the totally not-corrupt, shining beacon of political enlightenment that is Russia right now. Since they're so free to give honest answers, just imagine how qualified to discuss you'll be then. Your baseless, paper-thin arguments blow over each time and all you can do is repeat them, ignore the criticism and latch onto tangential issues. It's getting kinda boring.

thriftwy 4y ago

If having liberal periods does not lead to better outcome for a country, this is a very bad news for liberalism. The prevailing narrative is such: A country is a poor and corrupt, then it becomes a liberal democracy and becomes a permanently stable, prosperous country. But that's not what happens to Muslim countries. After a "liberal period" they tend to resume being theocratic, autocratic or defunct, and barely solvent, states. Why have those periods at all then? What did those millions of Muslims die for? I don't think you are qualified to be in this discussion if you consider whole Russia a "dumpster fire", even more if you think Russia "turned into" a dumpster fire (compared to what period?). This shows a significant level of "liberal" bigotry and chauvinism. I visit Tatarstan's (one of the most economically developed regions) capital Kazan' every year and I don't consider it a "dumpster fire". Neither are its residents unless they happen to be acolytes in your "liberal democratic" cult.

Sporktacular 4y ago
Because it introduces an alternative to people who remember nothing but injustice, violence and corruption. We're not at the end of history, and don't know how such efforts will play out next year, or next decade. I notice you ignored my point about how Chechnya could also have another war in the coming decade too, as if Russia leaves anything resembling stability wherever it goes. No one says liberal democracies necessarily become permanently stable. You know nothing about political development if you believe this. In many ways it's considered the opposite in its early stages, fragile, needing constant work and refinements to build on incremental improvements. In these stages any ham-fisted strongman or warlord has a good chance to destroy the gains that have been made before informal institutions gain real authority. And when there is momentum behind old tribal, religious and feudal systems, this is a long, slow, vulnerable process. And during that time you'll observe gains and losses over literally decades. Which is why you'll see liberal reforms make small gains, then fail for a while before they can resume. But they build slowly and that's what people die for. This has been the case for every developed country in existence. You're happy to give Europe 300 years of ugly fighting to get to this stage but if Muslim countries can't succeed within 50 you'll call the end of the game now to reinforce your biased conclusions. But sure, keep using your myopia and lack of education to keep hating on the Muslims. The issue with Putin is he doesn't even try, because, like every autocratic asshole, he can make more power for himself and his friends this way than through real development. And he can count on weak-minded bigots with poor political and historical context to unquestioningly back his cynical aims. But forgetting about terminology, and without whatabouting your way out of it, explain how you can excuse a leader who who effectively makes himself president for life, poisons his opponents, secretly enriches himself, murders critical journalists, backs corrupt friends and jails protesters after show trials. Isn't the fact that he doesn't do just ONE fewer of these things enough to criticise him? Your argument by anecdote assumes political oppression and development should both be equally visible, ignoring clear statistical evidence on police use of torture, corruption and violence against journalists and activists. Lucky the Tatars immediately around you like what Russia has done to their land - because they have no choice or voice if they don't. Just see what happens to people who say otherwise, like Asan Akhtemov, Nariman Ametov and see what anti-insurgent animals did to Reshat Ametov. Maybe for your next holiday you can travel further south and ask some Tatars in Crimea how they are feeling about the totally not-corrupt, shining beacon of political enlightenment that is Russia right now. Since they're so free to give honest answers, just imagine how qualified to discuss you'll be then. Your baseless, paper-thin arguments blow over each time and all you can do is repeat them, ignore the criticism and latch onto tangential issues. It's getting kinda boring.