Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: How would DU react to the 1930s and Hitler? [View all]freshwest
(53,661 posts)227. It's only a delusion if it doesn't come to pass. The caliphate is a tangible vision..
Sorry, but I am going to trot out this post of mine but there's a background leading to that speed and acceptance, coming from a different way of looking at the world:
Caliphate

A caliphate (in Arabic: خلافة khilāfa, meaning "succession"
is an Islamic state led by a supreme religious and political leader known as a caliph i.e. "successor" to Muhammad. The succession of Muslim empires that have existed in the Muslim world are usually described as "caliphates". Conceptually, a caliphate represents a sovereign polity (state) of the entire Muslim faithful (the Ummah, i.e. a sovereign nation state) ruled by a single caliph under the Constitution of Medina and Islamic law (sharia).[citation needed]
In its earliest days, the first caliphate, the Rashidun Caliphate, exhibited elements of direct democracy (shura).[1] It was led, at first, by Muhammad's immediate disciples and family as a continuation of the religious systems he had introduced.
The Sunni branch of Islam stipulates that as a head of state, a caliph should be elected by Muslims or their representatives.[2] Followers of Shia Islam, however, believe a caliph should be an Imam chosen by God (Allah) from the Ahl al-Bayt (the "Family of the House", Muhammad's direct descendents). From the end of the Rashidun period until 1924, caliphates, sometimes two at a single time, real and illusory, were ruled by dynasties. The first of these was the Umayyad dynasty, followed by the several other sometimes competing claimants and finally the Ottoman dynasty. Though non-political, the Ahmadiyya Caliphate had been the only caliphate in existence for over a century. In 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant proclaimed another.[3]
The caliphate was "the core leader concept of Sunni Islam, by the consensus of the Muslim majority in the early centuries".[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate
Look at all the countries we are talking about today. Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the little alphabet nations there.
Note the Ottoman Empire at its height. We're talking about all of the current nations as well as those that bordered it now:

Ottoman Empire (/ˈɒtəmən/; Ottoman Turkish: دَوْلَتِ عَلِيّهٔ عُثمَانِیّه, Devlet-i Aliyye-i Osmâniyye, Modern Turkish: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu), also historically referred to as the Turkish Empire or Turkey, was an empire founded by Oghuz Turks under Osman Bey in north-western Anatolia in 1299.[7] With the conquest of Constantinople by Mehmed II in 1453, the Ottoman state was transformed into an empire.[8][9][10]
During the 16th and 17th centuries, in particular at the height of its power under the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, the Ottoman Empire was a powerful multinational, multilingual empire controlling much of Southeast Europe, Western Asia, the Caucasus, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa.[11] At the beginning of the 17th century the empire contained 32 provinces and numerous vassal states. Some of these were later absorbed into the empire, while others were granted various types of autonomy during the course of centuries.[dn 5]
With Constantinople as its capital and control of lands around the Mediterranean basin, the Ottoman Empire was at the centre of interactions between the Eastern and Western worlds for six centuries. The empire was dissolved in the aftermath of World War I, leading to the emergence of the new state of Turkey in the Ottoman Anatolian heartland, as well as the creation of modern Balkan and Middle Eastern states.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire
As the Ottoman Empire collapsed, the Armenian Genocide occured and other nations were made. The Russians are tending to historical factions there.
That eventually included the state of Israel. Contrary to a mantra often repeated, Israel was not a gift from Europe and the USA for Nazi atrocities.
It had been contemplated in 1917:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
And also in 1926:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1926
True, it was an European creation, as were most of the other countries that evolved out of the fall of the Ottoman Empire. It just so happened that the rulers were different, is all that happened to that huge chunk of the world's surface. Looking at it in those terms explains the resistance of the parties involved to listen to the United Nations. Their viewpoint extends many centuries beyond the founding of that organization, or even the definitions of the nation state.
One side pushed one way over centuries, and then the other pushed back. We have movements in all the western nations, Russia, China, the islands and in the Americas that call for a world caliphate. This is not a conspiracy theory. It's how people organize themselves for what they think is a good thing.
Those who believe in setting up or expanding a caliphate believe it is a great plan to bring about world peace. There are costs along the road to empire. ISIL is showing us what they'll be. They want to bring back that empire and their version of peace in which all the people will agree on everything they say is the right thing to do.
The caliphate(s) once extended further and was contracted only by armed resistance. It was during long, bloody centuries. IMO, America is much too young to grasp this.
Our idea of how those regions in the two images here should fit onto a map, is not theirs. It was only a temporary hold. They have historical precedent for what they are doing. The more lands they can put in their resurrected empire, the more influence they'll have around the globe to establish their peace.
I don't know if they are right or if they will prevail. I've talked to eager young people online who think it's beautiful and promote it with messianic zeal, very happy to convert others to what they think is a good and holy thing.
It makes sense to those who believe in this. Those who don't, either accept their doing it or oppose it or try to escape it. I've known people from Egypt, Lebanon and other nations who moved to the USA to get away.
Some Americans say nothing will change their own lives. They may be right about it all. But I think they're unrealistic, because in history people don't stop wanting because other ignore their movement. That's not how the world works in the long term.
There always seems to be something amiss in periods of peace. A lack of justice, most likely, so people continue to make war with each other.
Just a few things to consider without any judgment on my part and I doubt anything I could do would change the outcome of these things. And some may not even respect Wikipedia, either.
http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/10025357236#post23
I see no will expressed by Americans to stop this. Obama's limited action on this is meeting howls of derision from all sides. His latest speech is simply re-iterating what he said at the NATO summit in Wales, which I've posted along with the latest one.
Americans will vote on what their future will be in less than 60 days. Not deciding (or not voting) is still making a choice. I don't see us as up to the challenge, personally. The will is not there. No more than it was in the Thirties. I hope the re-post here for you clarifies my POV.
JMHO.
Caliphate

A caliphate (in Arabic: خلافة khilāfa, meaning "succession"
In its earliest days, the first caliphate, the Rashidun Caliphate, exhibited elements of direct democracy (shura).[1] It was led, at first, by Muhammad's immediate disciples and family as a continuation of the religious systems he had introduced.
The Sunni branch of Islam stipulates that as a head of state, a caliph should be elected by Muslims or their representatives.[2] Followers of Shia Islam, however, believe a caliph should be an Imam chosen by God (Allah) from the Ahl al-Bayt (the "Family of the House", Muhammad's direct descendents). From the end of the Rashidun period until 1924, caliphates, sometimes two at a single time, real and illusory, were ruled by dynasties. The first of these was the Umayyad dynasty, followed by the several other sometimes competing claimants and finally the Ottoman dynasty. Though non-political, the Ahmadiyya Caliphate had been the only caliphate in existence for over a century. In 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant proclaimed another.[3]
The caliphate was "the core leader concept of Sunni Islam, by the consensus of the Muslim majority in the early centuries".[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate
Look at all the countries we are talking about today. Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the little alphabet nations there.
Note the Ottoman Empire at its height. We're talking about all of the current nations as well as those that bordered it now:

Ottoman Empire (/ˈɒtəmən/; Ottoman Turkish: دَوْلَتِ عَلِيّهٔ عُثمَانِیّه, Devlet-i Aliyye-i Osmâniyye, Modern Turkish: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu), also historically referred to as the Turkish Empire or Turkey, was an empire founded by Oghuz Turks under Osman Bey in north-western Anatolia in 1299.[7] With the conquest of Constantinople by Mehmed II in 1453, the Ottoman state was transformed into an empire.[8][9][10]
During the 16th and 17th centuries, in particular at the height of its power under the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, the Ottoman Empire was a powerful multinational, multilingual empire controlling much of Southeast Europe, Western Asia, the Caucasus, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa.[11] At the beginning of the 17th century the empire contained 32 provinces and numerous vassal states. Some of these were later absorbed into the empire, while others were granted various types of autonomy during the course of centuries.[dn 5]
With Constantinople as its capital and control of lands around the Mediterranean basin, the Ottoman Empire was at the centre of interactions between the Eastern and Western worlds for six centuries. The empire was dissolved in the aftermath of World War I, leading to the emergence of the new state of Turkey in the Ottoman Anatolian heartland, as well as the creation of modern Balkan and Middle Eastern states.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire
As the Ottoman Empire collapsed, the Armenian Genocide occured and other nations were made. The Russians are tending to historical factions there.
That eventually included the state of Israel. Contrary to a mantra often repeated, Israel was not a gift from Europe and the USA for Nazi atrocities.
It had been contemplated in 1917:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
And also in 1926:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1926
True, it was an European creation, as were most of the other countries that evolved out of the fall of the Ottoman Empire. It just so happened that the rulers were different, is all that happened to that huge chunk of the world's surface. Looking at it in those terms explains the resistance of the parties involved to listen to the United Nations. Their viewpoint extends many centuries beyond the founding of that organization, or even the definitions of the nation state.
One side pushed one way over centuries, and then the other pushed back. We have movements in all the western nations, Russia, China, the islands and in the Americas that call for a world caliphate. This is not a conspiracy theory. It's how people organize themselves for what they think is a good thing.
Those who believe in setting up or expanding a caliphate believe it is a great plan to bring about world peace. There are costs along the road to empire. ISIL is showing us what they'll be. They want to bring back that empire and their version of peace in which all the people will agree on everything they say is the right thing to do.
The caliphate(s) once extended further and was contracted only by armed resistance. It was during long, bloody centuries. IMO, America is much too young to grasp this.
Our idea of how those regions in the two images here should fit onto a map, is not theirs. It was only a temporary hold. They have historical precedent for what they are doing. The more lands they can put in their resurrected empire, the more influence they'll have around the globe to establish their peace.
I don't know if they are right or if they will prevail. I've talked to eager young people online who think it's beautiful and promote it with messianic zeal, very happy to convert others to what they think is a good and holy thing.
It makes sense to those who believe in this. Those who don't, either accept their doing it or oppose it or try to escape it. I've known people from Egypt, Lebanon and other nations who moved to the USA to get away.
Some Americans say nothing will change their own lives. They may be right about it all. But I think they're unrealistic, because in history people don't stop wanting because other ignore their movement. That's not how the world works in the long term.
There always seems to be something amiss in periods of peace. A lack of justice, most likely, so people continue to make war with each other.
Just a few things to consider without any judgment on my part and I doubt anything I could do would change the outcome of these things. And some may not even respect Wikipedia, either.
http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/10025357236#post23
I see no will expressed by Americans to stop this. Obama's limited action on this is meeting howls of derision from all sides. His latest speech is simply re-iterating what he said at the NATO summit in Wales, which I've posted along with the latest one.
Americans will vote on what their future will be in less than 60 days. Not deciding (or not voting) is still making a choice. I don't see us as up to the challenge, personally. The will is not there. No more than it was in the Thirties. I hope the re-post here for you clarifies my POV.
JMHO.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
283 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Translation: I can't counter the merits of you entire post, so I will try to mock it.
joeglow3
Sep 2014
#170
Bernard Sanders (I-VT) - "There is no question that ISIS is a dangerous and brutal organization,"
FrodosPet
Sep 2014
#97
“Harder than anything we’ve tried to do thus far in Iraq or Afghanistan” is how one U.S. general
Hissyspit
Sep 2014
#198
How did DU react to the Bush gang's 'terror' claims? You don't have to go back to Hitler
sabrina 1
Sep 2014
#33
I see you here too. I don't take orders from anonymous, strangers on the internet. As I was saying
sabrina 1
Sep 2014
#169
It goes to show what an upstanding DU member so are when they make statements like that
davidpdx
Sep 2014
#159
The president as well as others have pointed out that our enemies are no longer nations
davidpdx
Sep 2014
#157
Hitler started out as one crazy man, before he got a country's government behind him.
pnwmom
Sep 2014
#174
most of my posts against hitler and what i suggest we should do would be hidden
samsingh
Sep 2014
#6
First, they complain about a speech before it's made, then about a war that hasn't begun.
NYC_SKP
Sep 2014
#9
Reading comprehension is often lacking. I read what DI said and agreed, but others
RKP5637
Sep 2014
#130
ISIS isn't the military powerhouse that Germany was. ISIS can field about 20,000 fighters whereas
neverforget
Sep 2014
#10
Neither was al-Qaeda and yet, they managed to give us the most devastating attack on American soil.
Drunken Irishman
Sep 2014
#11
And look where that got us? A war in Afghanistan that we are still fighting, Al Qaeda still exists
neverforget
Sep 2014
#15
It was Saudis who launched that attack, and it only succeeded because the normal precautions
sabrina 1
Sep 2014
#36
Next time I'll put on a tin foil hat and go down the conspiracy rabbit hole just for you
krawhitham
Sep 2014
#272
And Hitler took over a country with a willing populace, vast resources and a military that was
neverforget
Sep 2014
#28
Iran doesn't have nukes. They have nuclear reactors but no nukes and Iran wants nothing to do
neverforget
Sep 2014
#62
so we continue to do what we've been doing and expect a different result? it makes no sense
neverforget
Sep 2014
#243
I disagree with Iran supplying nukes to a group that hates them. The reason we are in Afghanistan is
freshwest
Sep 2014
#73
I didn't intend to suggest that Iran would ally themselves with ISIS/ISIL.
OilemFirchen
Sep 2014
#75
I have to add, that I agree with you, but that Iran has a powerful backer: Russia.
freshwest
Sep 2014
#98
Let's hope so, fresh.. ‘Apocalyptic’ Isis beyond anything we've seen, say US defence chiefs .. "
Cha
Sep 2014
#107
What I find most concerning is the speed and acceptance. As you said, "They want a new home
RKP5637
Sep 2014
#136
It's only a delusion if it doesn't come to pass. The caliphate is a tangible vision..
freshwest
Sep 2014
#227
So you supported the Bush Doctrine then? Don't know if you noticed, but apparently it has
sabrina 1
Sep 2014
#39
Once upon a time the Nazis were just a bunch of blowhards and malcontents
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2014
#116
You're right, this hole isn't nearly deep enough and we should keep digging. Great plan. nt
LeftyMom
Sep 2014
#206
So you too supported the Bush Doctrine?? And here I thought DU was opposed to
sabrina 1
Sep 2014
#43
That depends. In this scenario, would our nation be arming the Germans?
SolutionisSolidarity
Sep 2014
#21
Just as there was zero credible al-Qaeda was a threat to the US, right?
Drunken Irishman
Sep 2014
#50
I fear that some are making believe they live in Luxembourg or some tiny place...
NYC_SKP
Sep 2014
#29
I know, right? Some here were even against us getting rid of Saddam! Maybe they love dictators and
Chathamization
Sep 2014
#30
I remember, those who opposed that illegal invasion were Saddam Lovers. Just saw
sabrina 1
Sep 2014
#46
Yep. People here are saying the same thing that Bush and his lackeys were saying in '03.
Chathamization
Sep 2014
#124
Perhaps if you can see why "ISIS" is not like Hitler you can also see how silly it is to compare
Chathamization
Sep 2014
#180
More like parallels to the rhetoric that got us into Iraq. No, not parallels; the same arguments.
Chathamization
Sep 2014
#189
Eh, nice nonsequitur. You and the OP made the analogy; no one accused Obama of making it. N/T
Chathamization
Sep 2014
#200
Wha…? That statement says nothing about Obama. You and the OP are made the analogy, and that’s what
Chathamization
Sep 2014
#215
Saudi Arabia needs to step up and take care of their affairs. The rest of us can only lament.
mia
Sep 2014
#38
After reading this, all I can say is that it might be time for you to become "Sober Irishman". n/t
BlueStater
Sep 2014
#41
FDR's fireside chats arguing for lend-lease would have been met with mockery and disgust
Nye Bevan
Sep 2014
#48
Most Americans held that view until Pearl Harbor, then WTC. Excellent rant, though.
freshwest
Sep 2014
#59
power corrupts, I think that's the nature of humanity. I agree with you & President Obama,
Sunlei
Sep 2014
#65
In January 1938 he could have. Hitler had not yet 'reunited' the ethnic Germans in Austria and
pampango
Sep 2014
#172
Ermächtigungsgesetz (1933), Dachau (1933), Nuremburg Laws (1935), Saarland (1935),
rug
Sep 2014
#188
Our involvement in World War I ultimately led to his rise a few years later.
Drunken Irishman
Sep 2014
#115
no surprise from me. Looking at all the "Obama is a war monger" threads, I wouldn't expect anything
still_one
Sep 2014
#101
Hitler and the Nazi regime was unique in all human history committing industrial scale genocide.
gordianot
Sep 2014
#96
There have actually been quite a few in the history of man. You also left out China and the
still_one
Sep 2014
#100
The list in the 20th century is almost endless but Nazi Germany is still unique for all time.
gordianot
Sep 2014
#143
How did DU react when Obama ordered the seals to illegally enter Pakistan and eliminate bin laden?
still_one
Sep 2014
#102
Not well. Some were appalled. Some were jubiliant. The first group hated on the second.
freshwest
Sep 2014
#112
Well said. The OP and most responses have focused on ISIS and what the US should and shouldn't do
pampango
Sep 2014
#120
You forgot the first rule of analogies. First one to make a Hitler comparison, loses the argument
NightWatcher
Sep 2014
#179
If we had funded, and continued to find Hiltler in the first place, we'd suggest prosecuting those
grahamhgreen
Sep 2014
#185
Many DUers would throw Roosevelt under the bus and say it was all his fault.
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#186
Right, the same DUers who are all over DU saying the war on ISIS is the same as the 2003 Iraq war
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#192
Sure sign of someone losing an argument is when a ROFL is used instead of actually making one.
Dawgs
Sep 2014
#271
Exactly! And they are the same members who have complained about Obama daily.
Major Hogwash
Sep 2014
#252
Well, why don't you explain to me how this trashy Limbaugh-like smear of an OP,
Hissyspit
Sep 2014
#261
Your moral argument is as juvenile and dishonest as it was when Rumsfeld made it.
Marr
Sep 2014
#239