Take out the word nation from above and replace it with religion. It could be said that the world is under threat of Islamic Imperialism, as those who follow the Koran closely want the entire world to submit to Allah - and will obviously turn to violent ways in order to have their dream come true...

Your point being?

Why has no taken this issue up? The term "imperialism" is often attributed by Muslims to USA, Britain, and Israel (with the latter being a completely laughable suggestion), while it is in fact their cause which is the most imperialistic.

Imperialism seems suggests a kind of organized, systematic effort, and this is anything but. I know what you mean, though. What you're describing as imperialism can be said of Western corporate culture too.

I agree that some people can view Western-style corporations ability to out-compete domestic businesses as Imperialism. They essentially conquer local markets.. But they are hardly organized "cartel style". Cross-corporation systematic organization is usually the goal of unions. Perhaps that can be called "Imperialism of the Proletariat?"

You can't apply the term imperialism to Islam, since it is a religion and not a nation. If you do, you have to say the same thing for Christianity (which was systematic, calculated, and oppressive for well over one thousand years).

Yes I know... I pointed that out in the first post. And yes, what you say about Christianity is true. I was merely pointing out the irony of today's world in which the Muslims say that it is Israel who is "imperialistic" when in reality it is quite the opposite.

I dunno dude. Some if not most Muslim nation's laws are based on the Koran. I think it could be argued that the current nations are extensions of the religion, and when those nations act, they are acting on behalf of the religious leaders (the Mullahs of Iran or the Taliban for example). Their aggression and teh desire for Calipha is, IMHO, imperialist.

I would say it's been >100 years since Christainity has been imperialist.

You make it sound as if Islam wasn't.

Might one be justified in asserting that Islam was from the very beginning both a political and a religious movement, while Christiniaty was initially apolitical (at the very least not to the same extent as Islam), and only later donned the robes of statehood?

I think you cats need to look at jesus' role in islam .especially in shite islam and the concept of "the mahdi". There is no huge difference between the beliefs of the rapture christians and the shite muslims . It's the same shit

But if you think about the democractic peace theory, which every US president adheres to since the 80's, it fits the definition of imperalism perfectly, without replacing any words at all.

What does Jebus have to do with Islamic Imperialism?



I don't follow. How is the DPT a form of imperialism? Can you give 2 examples of this I could use a reference? I really can't think of any time that DPT has been used for "direct territorial acquisitions" by any US President since the 80's.

Yes, but the US isn't fighting Imperialism... I was just making a point that Muslims claim they are victims of imperialistic powers, when in fact they are the Imperialists.

Well, my point was that the DPT is an example of imperialism itself. the DPT achieves peace by converting other countries to democracies/our form of government. in practice, this is often done with force, and hence "the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation", "by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas", and "the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence"




point taken

I guess if I had to apply the term, it sure as hell is imperialistic. The fundamentalists are definitely imperialistic, just like a relatively small part of the Christian population in the United States is - the same people who think they are doing the work of God in the Middle East (especially in Israel).

Yes, a temporary use of force, for example post WWII Japan, has been used to create democracy. But it's not a permanent condition. I would say that China's take over of Tibet would be "Imperialist". I would not say that the US's actions in Afghanistan are. Just because the US installs a democracy somehwere doesn't mean we are "gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas". We influencing them true, but were are not conducting "the extension or imposition of power, authority" nor annexing their land.

I would be more convinced by the argument that the behavior of multinational corporations overseas is a form of economic Imperialism. Of course, this is not performed by the US government so it cannot be attributed to it.

I would think that Britains merchantilist system with the American colonies is a pretty textbook example of imperialism. Despite the fact that those in the colonies were British citizens, they were subject to a different set of economic rules set up so as to benefit Great Britain. I can see certain aspects of this in US foreign policy, but if we were to take steps, to say, eliminate all tariffs and subsidies then we would no longer be hypocritical in calling for free trade. Although we have artificial barriers as to what they can sell us and sometimes flood their markets with our foodstuffs, we do not prevent them from going to others to purchase commodities, and thus fail to be guilty of imposing a truly merchantilist system. That is, if I remember US History at all.

I see your argument, but i interpreted "imposing your form of government onto someone else" as "gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas", even for a very short amount of time, it would still be imperalism for that short amount of time. In the case of post WWII japan, it was an imperalistic action on the US's part imo, because Japan did not want a democracy, but they had no other options. however it turns out to be beneficial to Japan in the long run, does not mean the actions of the US then was not imperalistic.