I feel this is a strawman. How exactly are you addressing what I said about Islamism not being inherent all over? Again, there are a handful of societies that are over this "promise." You're saying that Islamism is what people ultimately aspire to. If I'm being pedantic, your claims are way too broad. I don't disagree with your comparison to the effects of Marxism, but you're presenting a narrow view pitting Islamism with a western alternative when the alternative already exists in that world.Originally Posted by Montmorency
Still, this presents its own problems as elected western officials have little experience in foreign policy as opposed to the lifelong middle eastern presidents who have shown better compliance to international laws and peaceful complacency. Adventurist attitudes and impulsive actions have not made things better.Originally Posted by PFH
Again, this does not show in the policies chosen so far. It's one way of looking at it through some constructivist lens. The west often endorses torture methods by these regimes by sending terrorists there to carry out methods that are illegal in the west, constantly fund the Islamism they are supposed to be combatting, and break bread with dictators. I find it mind-boggling that nobody here wants to admit that western policy conflicts with the liberal vision they're supposed to encompass.Originally Posted by PFH
Agree to disagree at this point. There's some whitewashing here as if the west safeguards international laws and doesn't regularly violate them.
That was directed at him personally. Not all people from the west.Originally Posted by PFH
Bookmarks