Too many Muslims have a black-and-white view of Muslim states/regimes where they are either total craven sellouts or righteous striving beacons of independence. Very few governments fall into either camp the first thing to note as Muslims, imho, is that every Muslim country as an independent country is necessary. I don't mean "nation-states" but just independent Muslim authority. Whether it's Turkiye or Senegal or Somalia or Pakistan or Malaysia or Iraq or Sudan.

0 comparison lol, Western media spent a decade vilifying him and US military spent yrs targeting him. We have the receipts so cheap rhetoric and silly comparisons like this dont work

https://twitter.com/Coates____/status/1949194085123957149

Bcos Western media puff-pieces their clients, ppl w/o understanding of politics assume that anybody they say nice things about must be in their pocket. That is just not true, partly bcos it isnt a hive-mind but more importantly b/c the decisive factor is what said person does

Not singling out ppl, but MASSIVE red flag when people who overuse "Islamicate" word wonder why we backward Muslims aren't building a civilization, why can't we mobilize our resources & make a Muslim version of 1800s Austro-Hungary, so cooked, do we even HAVE a"Gate of Felicity" Such ppl like Andalusia, Ottomania, medieval Iraq/Iran for the aesthetics&civilizational-pointscoring. Tend to be massively elitist,pompous,& yet quite funnily ignorant of actual Muslim history or tradition (of empires) outside that one Brill book they bought at exorbitant price

Muslims who don't want to fight w/o it suiting a particular highbrow aesthetic keep pretending it is hopeless to militarily confront oppressor "we too weak they too civilized stronk". last century is actually full of examples of either successfully, or semisuccessfully, doing so. Since the year 1920:
Successful cases: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangsamoro, Chad, Indonesia, Turkiye.
Semisuccessful cases: Bosnia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Morocco, Somalia, Syria, Yemen.
I'm sure I've missed a few but these were off the toppa my scalp

A lot of China nationalists try to undermine Uyghur/"Xinjiang" narratives by citing Soviet support to the 1940s East Turkistan emirate. Its true if exaggerated but they neglect that Soviets were also helping Mao at that point, and Mao subsequently seized power In short, its selective to point out Soviet support for the East Turkistan emirate while ignoring that Soviets also assisted the China commies, i.e., the origin of todays regime. Why is one bad and not the other