Arming the Kurds: Bad Idea?

[vijaya]

I'm a little bit ignorant when it comes to the actual dynamics and historical circumstances of the current crises Levant/Iraq region. Obviously I know the politics and corporate imperialist invasion of Iraq by the US has caused the instability of the whole region to reach unprecedented levels, and that this instability was perhaps the intention of US foreign policy all along.

But, when it comes to the Kurds, who ISIS actually are and what they stand for, their relationship to Al Qaeda and the potential consequences of current Western actions (arming the Kurds, air-strikes on ISIS, arming Syrian rebels etc etc); I could use an education.

Can anyone give a bit of insight into who the Kurds are, what their significance to the situation is, and whether arming them (or anyone else for that matter) isn't going to end up as another shit storm?

Note: I know so far as that Saddam was killing the Kurds.

Thanks.

[Karker]

I'm Kurdish just to let you know

At the end of WW1, the Kurds were promised an independent state by European imperialists. They later took back that promise. Ever since then Kurds have been forming groups to try and win back their stolen land. A lot of it was very Socialist and Communist in nature. I would be correct in saying the since the end of WW1 more than a million Kurds have been killed because of the policies of the countries in which they were forced to reside in. Ataturk banned the Kurdish language, and changed Kurdish names to Turkish ones. He called us "Mountain Turks". As you very well know Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds simply because we are Kurds. In Syria hundreds of thousands of Kurds were not even entitled to citizenship. They were called "foreigners" by the Baathist regime. Similar things occured in Iran.

So it's a very sad history. Our language was banned, our culture was banned, even identifying yourself as a Kurd was illegal.

[Sasha]

Kurdistan, the region where the Kurds live lies partly in Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran.
The Iraqi part has been defacto independent since the end of the first golf war.
The biggest problems with arming the Kurds with sophisticated weaponry (they had their own millitia called the peshmerga already for a long time) will be:
A. It will possibly enable the Kurds to conquer the towns in northern Iraq the lay a historical claim too but have been arabised by Saddam, since this is a major oil producing region this can further future ethnic strive and real independence of Kurdish Iraq which might destabilize other regions most notably Turkey but also Iran and Syria.
B. Iraqi Kurdistan is adminstrated by the Barzani clan, they stand in conflict with the PUK (who also have their own millitia) and the local version of the PKK (a former marxist-leninst group originating in turkey), electorally the Barzanis dominate Iraqi Kurdistan but esp in Syria and Turkey the PKK is dominant, this opens the possibility for renewed inner Kurdish violence, esp if the PKK hold on to their revolutionary program, where a well armed regular army stands against a experienced guerilla.

[Tim Cornelis]

the local version of the PKK (a former marxist-leninst group originating in turkey).

Wha'? Are you talking about the PCDA (?). They are not an actor or player of any significance in Iraqi Kurdistan. They received 4,000 votes in the latest election.

[Geiseric]

Of course its a terrible idea... Does anybody seriously still trust the US government with ANYTHING they do? The powers in the region need to deal with this, not the US, which would love more than anything to obtain more power in the middle east. Its not up to me about anything that happens apart from defying the US government.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Anyone who believes any US aid would come without strings attached is urged to buy my stock of completely legitimate, slightly cubic gold.

[DannyMorin]

Terrible idea.

Just like if Hitler had managed to invade Britain in WW2 there would have been British collaborators, as America invaded Iraq the Kurds collaborated. Not all Kurds are like this but many are, more than a significant minority. Many are the kind of racist, sectarian individualistic opportunists that Marxists should speak out against.

Notice how America did nothing while ISIS was rampaging through Sunni areas? But since the Kurds are willing American puppets and currently selling oil to Israel as it commits genocide in Gaza, they get saved.

I'm no fan of Islamic State, especially when they're fighting Assad, but this is one battle that I hope they win.

[Sasha]

Wha'? Are you talking about the PCDA (?). They are not an actor or player of any significance in Iraqi Kurdistan. They received 4,000 votes in the latest election.

Obviously at the moment not, but the fact they do successfully control and defend an area in Syria at the moment and intervened in Iraq against ISIS while the barzani pershmerga fled and left thousands to die could bolster their support, esp under former PUK supporters.
Which is also one of the reasons the NATO countries are pushing for the direct arming of thepershmerga, they fear the "designated terrorists" who "want to break up turkey" taking a more substantial role in a oil rich soon to be independent or federalised Iraqi Kurdistan.

[PhoenixAsh]

Seeing as IS have already stated they will push and advanced into Kurdish territory the Kurds are now trying to centralize a coordinated joing effort under single command to push IS back.

The question of US/EU arming of Kurds centralizes around which factions they will eventually arm. The choices won't be altruistic and will probably be entirely aimed at strengthening one faction over the other with long term strategic goals in mind.

[Geiseric]

Seeing as IS have already stated they will push and advanced into Kurdish territory the Kurds are now trying to centralize a coordinated joing effort under single command to push IS back.

The question of US/EU arming of Kurds centralizes around which factions they will eventually arm. The choices won't be altruistic and will probably be entirely aimed at strengthening one faction over the other with long term strategic goals in mind.

Or whether to arm them, at all?

[PhoenixAsh]

Terrible idea.

Just like if Hitler had managed to invade Britain in WW2 there would have been British collaborators, as America invaded Iraq the Kurds collaborated. Not all Kurds are like this but many are, more than a significant minority. Many are the kind of racist, sectarian individualistic opportunists that Marxists should speak out against.

Notice how America did nothing while ISIS was rampaging through Sunni areas? But since the Kurds are willing American puppets and currently selling oil to Israel as it commits genocide in Gaza, they get saved.

I'm no fan of Islamic State, especially when they're fighting Assad, but this is one battle that I hope they win.

O? So you take sides in bourgeois conflict and openly voice support for a theistic regime?

[Creative Destruction]

I'm no fan of Islamic State, especially when they're fighting Assad, but this is one battle that I hope they win.

jesus christ. will someone please restrict or ban this reactionary piece of shit already?

[Geiseric]

"Especially when theyre fighting Assad" was my favorite part of his post. Since Assad is such a great guy.

[PhoenixAsh]

Or whether to arm them, at all?

This is already a foregone conclusion. They WILL arm the Kurdish factions through the CIA.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The US will arm who it wants to arm and ignore us. They don't really care what we "support." What this will mean though is the Kurdish state entering more fully the network of Capitalist states participating in global trade. This gives the Kurdish leaders more capacity to demand recognition as an autonomous or even independent state and trade commodities without getting sued by the Iraqi government.

Its unlikely for the time being that the Kurds alone could really stop IS.



I'm no fan of Islamic State, especially when they're fighting Assad, but this is one battle that I hope they win.

"Who gives a fuck if some Takfiri nihilists commit genocide against some group I've never heard of, as long as they win and they spite the Americans"

[Rafiq]

Even if the Iranian - Syrian bloc comes out victorious what we should expect is a fundamental change in standards. Both of these countries, having changed their standards of their enemy will naturally give "concessions" - what we can expect is the astronomical increase in religiosity for even the secular Ba'ath state. If anything, Saddam has proven this to be very possible. ISIS is a victory for Islamism with or without a long-term victory. They have put new cards on the table which evidently Liberalism is unable to properly confront. They even admit this - Nigel Farage, a reactionary politician said, to paraphrase that British soldiers will not win fighting against Islamic fundamentalism (this has largely been the consensus of European pro-russia neofascism). So if those in power are openly conceding that they cannot fight Islamism - the implications are clear. Only Communism can save anything that is worth saving about Liberalism.

The kurds are relatively progressive and are not likely to succumb to Islamism - however they remain fervently nationalist with absolutely no potential of universalizing their standards on, for example women in Arab countries like Iraq. I think that we have yet again reached another deadlock where I say very soberly that Communism is the only real weapon that can bury the facade of Islamic revival in the dustbin of history - just as it was the only weapon against the facade of 'national revivals' like Italian and German fascism in their strive to return to the glory days of the Roman Empire.

It is fashionable to go around and call everything Fascist but ISIS is a dead ringer. The Taliban in Afghanistan simply organized and re-asserted the rule of landowners, but ISIS is not a modest national party. ISIS proclaims to have long-term and very over-reaching ambitions that make them especially different from something like the Taliban. Furthermore they are not transforming anything on an economic level and are presiding over areas which were relatively developed. ISIS is the most pure modern emulation of Fascism, the facade of national revival (With Islam perceived as its own nation or 'umma'), this faux grand spectacle of world change like the thousand year Reich, mass mobilization, and so on. It's surprising that no one can see this. ISIS looks a lot more like European Fascism than any caliphate in history, that is for sure - this is evidence that they DO have a place within the global paradigm of capital, or at least their ideology does.

[Rafiq]

What people do not realize is that despite this grand spectacle ISIS is not changing anything about the fundamental social foundations of life. No return to the social period which the previous Caliphates presided over - they claim that their ideology is perfectly capable of presiding over life as it exists today. This makes them distinctly fascist.

[Tim Cornelis]

especially when they're fighting Assad

So you like Assad, the Kims, and you support laws banning all kinds of substances (meaning you're oblivious to that communism is stateless). You're a Tankie (or troll). Also this: "Who gives a fuck if some Takfiri nihilists commit genocide against some group I've never heard of, as long as they win and they spite the Americans".

[DOOM]

Well there's a debate within the german left, in which one side proposes to arm the kurdish forces to stop the IS. I have to say that this may not be a good idea, when it comes to mantaining stability in the NE and Mesopotamia, however, the IS fascists need to be dealt with.

What people do not realize is that despite this grand spectacle ISIS is not changing anything about the fundamental social foundations of life. No return to the social period which the previous Caliphates presided over - they claim that their ideology is perfectly capable of presiding over life as it exists today. This makes them distinctly fascist.

Oh my god thank you for writing this. IS-Islamism does indeed resemble fascism in some characteristics, for example the fusion of feudal and capitalist concepts, radical antimodernism and some sort of Naziesque collectivism (the Ummah - the Volksgemeinschaft).

[Rafiq]

Oh my god thank you for writing this. IS-Islamism does indeed resemble fascism in some characteristics, for example the fusion of feudal and capitalist concepts, radical antimodernism and some sort of Naziesque collectivism (the Ummah - the Volksgemeinschaft).

And quite honestly it's something we shouldn't trivialize either. IS might fall tomorrow but the underlying tendencies and the ideology will remain alive and well. Especially in this character - just think of the notion that everything, the past two hundred years from the French revolution to now has all been a sham, that the whole modern experience is one big rotten apple in history. As Communists today, I think if there is anything that should summarize our immediate position - it is the defense of modernity against both the reactionaries and postmodernists. A fundamental principle in Communism is that the legacy of the modern era, despite everything, despite all the disasters and horrors is still worth fighting for as claimants to modern history.

[DannyMorin]

"Who gives a fuck if some Takfiri nihilists commit genocide against some group I've never heard of, as long as they win and they spite the Americans"

The Kurds enjoyed being raped by the American invaders. Maybe they'll enjoy being raped by Islamic State too.

Or maybe not, since IS will stop them pimping their oil out to Western corporations and Israel.

[PhoenixAsh]

Don't mind the troll.



The Kurds enjoyed being raped by the American invaders. Maybe they'll enjoy being raped by Islamic State too.

Or maybe not, since IS will stop them pimping their oil out to Western corporations and Israel.

Your post is wrong on so many levels that I won't even begin to adress them. But since you are a troll I doubt this would have had any use.

[Hrafn]

I repeat for the like third time this week... why on earth is that troll still around here? Ban ban ban

[DOOM]

The Kurds enjoyed being raped by the American invaders. Maybe they'll enjoy being raped by Islamic State too.

Or maybe not, since IS will stop them pimping their oil out to Western corporations and Israel.

Wow, I sincerely hope you don't think being raped is enjoyable in some way.
So you're identifying "western" corporations with Israel, giving capitalism a face, an Israeli face, a jewish face?
I'm not even wondering about your statements anymore, after what you've said about zionist cabalism. Your antisemitic sentiment is more than obvious and I don't know how the BA didn't restrict/ban you already.

[Geiseric]

Islamism is very different from fascism in that it arises out of many groups of oppressed nationalities instead of oppressor nations. Such as America, Germany, or France. Islamism rises exclusively in countries where oppressor nations meddle in. Fascism rises in countries which are in the business of oppressing, colonizing, or imperializing.
Just sayin. Also they arent really merging a bourgeois state with international finance capital, islamism is the direct result of neoliberalism, not fascism.

[DOOM]

Islamism is very different from fascism in that it arises out of an oppressed nationality
Just sayin. Also they arent really merging a bourgeois state with international finance capital, islamism is the direct result of neoliberalism, not fascism.

You're completely ignoring the cultural and ideological roots and characteristics of fascism. What is an opressed nation? In which way is the "iraqi nation" opressed? Were the germans after WW I opressed too? I mean, the Versaille treaty did fuck up their economy pretty hard, didn't it?
What is the international finance capital and how does it relate to fascism? And how is Islamism the direct result of neoliberalism?

[Geiseric]

You're completely ignoring the cultural and ideological roots and characteristics of fascism. What is an opressed nation? In which way is the "iraqi nation" opressed? Were the germans after WW I opressed too? I mean, the Versaille treaty did fuck up their economy pretty hard, didn't it?
What is the international finance capital and how does it relate to fascism? And how is Islamism the direct result of neoliberalism?

The german state and bourgeois had an overturn after WWI, to the point where the accellerated oppression of the jews, poles, and slavs was their only possible solution to their, and international capital's well being. So no the german nation was never colonized by France or England. They partitioned central europe, such as the rhineland, but the treaty couldnt simply break the german working class like we saw in Yugoslavia, where the term "balkanized" originated.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Islamism is very different from fascism in that it arises out of many groups of oppressed nationalities instead of oppressor nations. Such as America, Germany, or France. Islamism rises exclusively in countries where oppressor nations meddle in. Fascism rises in countries which are in the business of oppressing, colonizing, or imperializing.
Just sayin. Also they arent really merging a bourgeois state with international finance capital, islamism is the direct result of neoliberalism, not fascism.

(1) There is no reason to think that "Islamism" cannot emerge in an oppressor nation any more than "nationalism".

(2) When IS begins massacring Yazidis and forcing Christians to pay extra tax or die, they are taking the role of an oppressor nation.

[Rafiq]

The dichotomy between oppressor nations, and oppressed nations is wholly unscientific and only reinforces the legitimacy of national identity and consciousness - especially in instances where nations do not constitute an actual social class.

[Geiseric]

(1) There is no reason to think that "Islamism" cannot emerge in an oppressor nation any more than "nationalism".

(2) When IS begins massacring Yazidis and forcing Christians to pay extra tax or die, they are taking the role of an oppressor nation.

Im not pro islamism, im simply stating that it's wholly different from fascism. Islamism wouldnt exist if the ottoman empire wasnt carved up between european powers. If national self determination has been observed for the past hundred years, people in these regions wouldnt be attracted to HAMAS nor the muslim brotherhood, nor the Ayatollah.

Fascism is unique to conditions in advanced capitalist countries. They claim that their modern nation state I.e. the US is under attack from the oppressed minorities of which its wealth is dependent on. That is different from Islamism, which is an anti western, petit bourfeois ideology.

[Rafiq]

Im not pro islamism, im simply stating that it's wholly different from fascism. Islamism wouldnt exist if the ottoman empire wasnt carved up between european powers. If national self determination has been observed for the past hundred years, people in these regions wouldnt be attracted to HAMAS nor the muslim brotherhood, nor the Ayatollah.

Fascism is unique to conditions in advanced capitalist countries. They claim that their modern nation state I.e. the US is under attack from the oppressed minorities of which its wealth is dependent on. That is different from Islamism, which is an anti western, petit bourfeois ideology.

How then, do you explain the fact that Islamism was a regression from left wing secularism? Your argument would have more holding if Islamism was a direct response to imperialism. But the first manifestation of political Islam after the first world war was the Muslim brotherhood who were notorious for being agents of British imperialism. All other anti colonial movements after that were secular and Left Wing in character, with some exceptions, like Ben Bella's FLN espoused some Islamic rhetoric but hardly on the scale of HAMAS (really it just tied in with nationalist sentiment). Or take places like Iran, where the country was on the verge of an actual Communist takeover twice. The second time, the Islamist "anti imperialists" executed at least ten thousand communists.

I think people tend to overlook the fact that many Arab countries, their urban environments at least, were relatively westernized and secular. Religion wasn't nearly as much of a big deal as it is now. Talk to the grandparents of any middle easterner and they'll tell you.

[Hagalaz]

The US will arm who it wants to arm and ignore us. They don't really care what we "support." What this will mean though is the Kurdish state entering more fully the network of Capitalist states participating in global trade. This gives the Kurdish leaders more capacity to demand recognition as an autonomous or even independent state and trade commodities without getting sued by the Iraqi government.

Its unlikely for the time being that the Kurds alone could really stop IS.



"Who gives a fuck if some Takfiri nihilists commit genocide against some group I've never heard of, as long as they win and they spite the Americans"

So genocide is okay as long as it spites amerika?:huh:

[John Nada]

Im not pro islamism, im simply stating that it's wholly different from fascism. Islamism wouldnt exist if the ottoman empire wasnt carved up between european powers. If national self determination has been observed for the past hundred years, people in these regions wouldnt be attracted to HAMAS nor the muslim brotherhood, nor the Ayatollah.No, it'd still exist. Just like there's Christian dominionist. Although it does seem like a lot of the Middle East's problems date back to the end of WWI.
Fascism is unique to conditions in advanced capitalist countries. They claim that their modern nation state I.e. the US is under attack from the oppressed minorities of which its wealth is dependent on. That is different from Islamism, which is an anti western, petit bourfeois ideology.Do you think Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Croatia, OUN Ukraine, Nanjing-China, ect. were fascists and advance capitalist during WWII?
How then, do you explain the fact that Islamism was a regression from left wing secularism? Your argument would have more holding if Islamism was a direct response to imperialism. But the first manifestation of political Islam after the first world war was the Muslim brotherhood who were notorious for being agents of British imperialism. All other anti colonial movements after that were secular and Left Wing in character, with some exceptions, like Ben Bella's FLN espoused some Islamic rhetoric but hardly on the scale of HAMAS (really it just tied in with nationalist sentiment). Or take places like Iran, where the country was on the verge of an actual Communist takeover twice. The second time, the Islamist "anti imperialists" executed at least ten thousand communists.Doesn't the modern Islamist movement trace it's origins to the Afghan-Soviet War? In a way it could be considered a reactionary "liberation theology". I do think Islamism is very close to fascist, thought I hate how calling Islamism that is associated with Hitchens(when he went rightward) and other apologist for imperialism. Also I think it also has anti-racist and internationalist beliefs when it comes to fellow Muslims(could be wrong on that), whereas fascism is ultra-nationalist.
I think people tend to overlook the fact that many Arab countries, their urban environments at least, were relatively westernized and secular. Religion wasn't nearly as much of a big deal as it is now. Talk to the grandparents of any middle easterner and they'll tell you.This shit makes me very sad :(.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Im not pro islamism, im simply stating that it's wholly different from fascism. Islamism wouldnt exist if the ottoman empire wasnt carved up between european powers. If national self determination has been observed for the past hundred years, people in these regions wouldnt be attracted to HAMAS nor the muslim brotherhood, nor the Ayatollah.

Fascism is unique to conditions in advanced capitalist countries. They claim that their modern nation state I.e. the US is under attack from the oppressed minorities of which its wealth is dependent on. That is different from Islamism, which is an anti western, petit bourfeois ideology.

Fascism exists in countries that have historically been marginalized (Rafiq provided some good examples)

It should also be noted that fascism did emerge in countries which had, for a variety of historical reasons, lost out on the Imperialist expansion of the 1800s. Fascism was also very critical of aspects of liberal bourgeois culture (of course, after appropriating that which they saw as useful).


So genocide is okay as long as it spites amerika?:huh:

Uhm ... I don't think you get what I was saying. I was actually mocking that mindset.


Doesn't the modern Islamist movement trace it's origins to the Afghan-Soviet War? In a way it could be considered a reactionary "liberation theology". I do think Islamism is very close to fascist, thought I hate how calling Islamism that is associated with Hitchens(when he went rightward) and other apologist for imperialism. Also I think it also has anti-racist and internationalist beliefs when it comes to fellow Muslims(could be wrong on that), whereas fascism is ultra-nationalist.

There have been Islamists for much longer than that. The Muslim Brotherhood has been around since before the Cold War, and Shiite Islamists took power in Iran during the late 70s. Sunni militancy certainly gained a new level of credibility with the war in Afghanistan though.

[Rafiq]

Also I think it also has anti-racist and internationalist beliefs when it comes to fellow Muslims(could be wrong on that), whereas fascism is ultra-nationalist

Nationalism is a sham technically speaking - something like a nation is not necessarily dependent on ethnicity. Rather, Islamists construct an entirely new nation, an 'umma' of which all Muslims are a part of. In that sense Islamism is fervently nationalist, all the characteristics of nationalism are there: A homogeneous Muslim culture, identity, of which all who are excluded are foreign and alien.


This shit makes me very sad :(.[


If you have any further interests there is a useful wikipedia article on the subject which can further provide you links to other works pertaining to the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_revival

Of the bourgeois reactionary ideologues one of the main premises is that Islam goes through revivals cyclically: This legitimizes the Islamic revival in the 1970's by tracing it back to comparable trends throughout the past one thousand years. It is completely bunk. The religious revival in the Middle East possess absolutely no national, political or social lineage to the "Muslim revivals' of the middle ages. Just a historical coincidence.

[Geiseric]

Religion is important to most americans. 90% of black americans identifiy as religious. Youre claiming that religious people are given to reactionary ideology more often than non religous people.That doesnt mean most arab speaking people are islamist. That is the implicit point youre making.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Religion is important to most americans. 90% of black americans identifiy as religious. Youre claiming that religious people are given to reactionary ideology more often than non religous people.That doesnt mean most arab speaking people are islamist. That is the implicit point youre making.

I disagree that Rafiq intentionally or unintentionally implied that. He was saying Islamism emerged in Arab (and non-Arab Muslim) society under specific historical conditions.

[Geiseric]

I disagree that Rafiq intentionally or unintentionally implied that. He was saying Islamism emerged in Arab (and non-Arab Muslim) society under specific historical conditions.

Of course, but does he bother to recognize what specifically those conditions are? Does his idea include the small factor of the splitting up of the region into imperialist fiefs by the main powers? And that this impetus simply rises due to reactionary members of the oppressed nationalities?

[Rafiq]

And that this impetus simply rises due to reactionary members of the oppressed nationalities?

First, let me make something clear: Most Americans might identify as religious, but this is nowhere near the magnitude of the Islamic revival in the Middle East. Even then, I agree: as a result of the developments of neoliberlaism there has been a general religious revival: Including a Christian religious revival (moral majority, etc.). It's intensity, though, has not reached the levels of that in the Middle East. And why? The Christian revival perfectly reproduced their condition, while the Islamic religious revival demanded fundamental political implications.

Second, you are wrong again. The fiefs established were not necessarily predisposed to conflict, but their political structure. For example, the French constitution for the new Lebanese government laid the basis for the future exemplification of ethnic and religious tensions. But after the takeover of Nasserism and Ba'ath ideology this was rendered obsolete. Actually what was likely to have occurred was the UAR, or the United Arab Republic including Egypt, Syria and Iraq. It was political differences and rivalry that made this impossible, not imperialist meddling.

I think my point is that anti-imperialism or the "rise of the oppressed peoples" (which by the way is explicitly anti-scientific, to talk of "oppressed nations") already took the character of modernized, secular Left Wing movements.

You posit that the rise of Islamism is an expression of the "oppressed" peoples of the Middle East: Tell me then why there is recorded historical evidence that puts Saudi Arabia largely responsible, with the development of Islamism as an intentional development fostered to suppress the influence of Marxism Leninism and Arab Nationalism. The Saudi Arabian state, in it's own words, encouraged the development of Islamism as an alternative to modern secularism. Of course there are a number of other complicated historical factors: But to say that it was some kind of organic expression of 'oppressed national consciousness' is vulgar and obscene. Islamism rose as a response to radical bourgeois liberalism in the Middle East. Even Iranian Islamism, which is distinct from other Islamist trends, rose as a response to Iranian Communism. But of course, I'm sure in the eyes of some westerners, it's easier to see Arabs as a bunch of barbarians who only know how to express their dissatisfaction with Imperialism through "what they know" which is Islamism. Except this would be a completely ignorant and historically baseless assessment.

[Rafiq]

It's not like when Arab countires were westernized and secular, they were "oppressed by imperialists". On the contrary, westernization and modernization occurred in the most "Anti-Imperialist" states like Egypt and Syria. The vestiges of backwardness were backed by the same Imperialist powers you claim Islamism was a response to. It's not like the Arab people(s) were all oppressed with relative women's rights (by radical bourgeois standards), secularism and modernization, only to have Islamists rise, like the blue people from Avatar and "take back their home". The only exception might be Lebanon, where the Christian political factions were vehemently pro-western and not backward in the feudal sense: Even then, their opponents were nationalists and Marxist-Leninists (until the rise of Islamism, of course).

[Geiseric]

Except that syria and egypt arent really anti imperialist, and their governments thrive on oppressing the working class. The best example of my point is Afghanistan, if you know jack about their history you would know that the taliban wouldnt exist without the US directly funding them. Also your point about Iran is wrong, seeing as the Ayatollah overthrew the Shah who was put in place by the US after Mossadegh was murdered. He (mossadegh) was Iran's first choice, but the CIA changed that and made the conditions necessary for Islamism.

[Rafiq]

So Islamists who at first benefited Imperialists, only to turn against them = organic response of the "oppressed" peoples against imperialism? I don't think so. How can fucking Islamists be anti-Imperialists but not the Arab nationalists of whom Imperialists found a greater threat? By the way, I don't buy into any of that shit. I think anti-imperialism could only ever be Communist, class based in character, and not national. But by your own presumptions, based on your own views.

And I said WERE anti-imperialist, that is before the rise of Islamism. Okay, let me rephrase that: They posed a strategic threat to the big bad US and its allies of whom you claim were responsible for the rise of Islamism. I agree, but not in the sense that Islamism was a "natural" response to them. When we say they helped foster Islamism, we don't mean it in the sense that "they were asking for it". We mean it in the sense that they actually helped support and fund Islamists.

[Geiseric]

In some cases such as HAMAS, the Syrian opposition, and the Taliban they did fund them directly at major points. There is even evidence HAMAS is funded by Qatar, a close US ally. In the case of ISIS and Khomeini, the role of imperialism was more indirect, in that the proxies set up by the US was unacceptable to the working class which lacked a Tudeh, or Iraqui labor party, to channel those tensions into a secular, socialist direction. Either way it is caused by Imperialism, as in the idea of political Islam wouldnt exist if NATO never meddled in the region.

[Rafiq]

Imperialism is a global system. It is a present form of global capitalism. So logically Imperialism and Islamism have something to do with each other. That isn't what we're talking about though. You said Islamism was a logical result of "oppressed" peoples fighting oppressor nations. Yet you concede that Islamism was directly prompted, at least partially, by those "oppressor nations".

[Geiseric]

Those trends emerged only when the socialist parties were liquidated, people whove never considered supporting HAMAS are now changing their minds due to the recent offensives. There is a relationship, which is indisputable, between the stages of repression of people in the region and their implicit support for Islamist organizations, as the lesser of two evils becomes a question of life or death.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Those trends emerged only when the socialist parties were liquidated, people whove never considered supporting HAMAS are now changing their minds due to the recent offensives. There is a relationship, which is indisputable, between the stages of repression of people in the region and their implicit support for Islamist organizations, as the lesser of two evils becomes a question of life or death.

That doesn't distinguish it from fascism. After all, German and Italian workers and petit bourgeois businessfolk were repressed by German, Italian and international Capital. They responded to this oppression by supporting Leftist movements, but many moved towards fascism when the Left collapsed.

I don't know if I agree with Rafiq that Islamism as seen by IS is a form of "fascism" but the disanalogy you are drawing through the divide between "oppressor" and "oppressed" states is not the way to draw that distinction IMO.

[The Modern Prometheus]

The Kurds enjoyed being raped by the American invaders. Maybe they'll enjoy being raped by Islamic State too.

Or maybe not, since IS will stop them pimping their oil out to Western corporations and Israel.

What in the name of christ do you have against the Kurds? Not only do they have to deal with government oppression but now also a Islamic militant group that is as ready to use the most barbaric practices to impose their radical and almost universally condemned interpretation of Islam. This must be stopped before it get's worse as this movement is basically trying to kill off anyone and anything that does not fit their ignorant view of Islam. It's not exactly as much of a international menace as the rise of fascism was (yet anyway) but why make the same mistake as many Socialists did back then. Which was to try and stay neutral until the Nazi's where at the door step of the Soviet Union. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense especially when you know that the likes of ISIS cannot possibly let any Socialists survive in their areas as they see it as much of a enemy to radical Islam as it is to Capitalism. Radical Islam just like any religious extremists can co operate with Capitalism but not with Socialism thus we are both of their natural enemies.

Personally i fully support the PKK in this fight as they are essentially doing what the Iraqi Shia led and American funded army was supposed to be doing. But since they ran like shits and left all those modern weapons behind (you either take them with you or destroy them you don't let them get into the hands of the enemy) i don't see perhaps passing along the PKK some weapons as a bad thing as they are pretty battle hardened fighters and have nowhere to run to. They are already showing themselves as the group most capable of being able to take on ISIS so it would make sense to support a group that is secular and very progressive by the standards in that region. Not to mention that they seem to be the only ones helping the Yazidis and preventing a full scale genocide from happening here. Granted since they are not Liberals but rather big bad Socialists i doubt the US will take them off their terrorist organization list anytime soon.

[Revolver]

Those trends emerged only when the socialist parties were liquidated, people whove never considered supporting HAMAS are now changing their minds due to the recent offensives. There is a relationship, which is indisputable, between the stages of repression of people in the region and their implicit support for Islamist organizations, as the lesser of two evils becomes a question of life or death.

The socialist parties were effectively liquidated long before the "recent offensive" against the Gaza Strip. Yes, there is a relationship between those two developments, but that does not support any inference that the Sunni Islamists in ISIS/ISIL/IS are any less comparable to fascists. And understand, there is a wide gulf between supporting Hamas' legitimate resistance to the Occupation and its political goals or its other, less than honorable tactics. Moreover, Hamas is not the same as ISIS, not even close.

Your analysis actually supports the inference that the takfiris are fascists. They only gained ground after both the left and more moderate nationalist elements were rendered obsolete. There are many more similarities to historical fascism, but the point is that there is nothing in your analysis that refutes the argument they are modern analogues of fascism. The most glaring problem is actually their internationalism but that is more of a historical quirk than anything else. After all, the relevant nationalist model is much more akin to white nationalists who do not recognize the relevance of borders than it is to the pan-Germanic form of National Socialism. I doubt we would deny that white nationalists are fascists. It is not, of course, racialist in the way that non-Italian fascist movements were, but that also says very little. When you look at the class character and the development over time, ISIS is much more comparable to fascism than it is to any national liberation movement.

[Geiseric]

The socialist parties were effectively liquidated long before the "recent offensive" against the Gaza Strip. Yes, there is a relationship between those two developments, but that does not support any inference that the Sunni Islamists in ISIS/ISIL/IS are any less comparable to fascists. And understand, there is a wide gulf between supporting Hamas' legitimate resistance to the Occupation and its political goals or its other, less than honorable tactics. Moreover, Hamas is not the same as ISIS, not even close.

Your analysis actually supports the inference that the takfiris are fascists. They only gained ground after both the left and more moderate nationalist elements were rendered obsolete. There are many more similarities to historical fascism, but the point is that there is nothing in your analysis that refutes the argument they are modern analogues of fascism. The most glaring problem is actually their internationalism but that is more of a historical quirk than anything else. After all, the relevant nationalist model is much more akin to white nationalists who do not recognize the relevance of borders than it is to the pan-Germanic form of National Socialism. I doubt we would deny that white nationalists are fascists. It is not, of course, racialist in the way that non-Italian fascist movements were, but that also says very little. When you look at the class character and the development over time, ISIS is much more comparable to fascism than it is to any national liberation movement.

Fascism can rise despite any leftist movement not gaining mass support. It has to do with the petit bourgeois class that loses its place in an advanced capitalist country, in an epoch of decay. Fascism is the petit bourgeois answer to a depression. Gaza isnt an advanced capitalist country, as Israel is (whose real fascists for some reason havent been mentioned in this thread) and the conditions necessitating fascism simply dont exist anywhere in the middle east. Theyre no more fascist than Pol Pot was. Theyre backed by bourgeois, sure, thats true, but theres a difference between that and actual fascism.

[Revolver]

Whether fascism can arise without a failure of the left, the historical record shows that fascist movements gained momentum after failed revolutionary movements from the left. I am not disputing that fascism can arise in Israel or other advanced capitalist countries (whether Italy and Germany constituted advanced capitalist economies at the time is also open to debate). I am disputing that it requires advanced capitalism, and also that it is petit bourgeois in character.

Your definition excludes the Phalangists of Lebanon, notwithstanding their self-identification as fascists and their use of both Italian fascism and the Spanish Falange as a model. The Hutu power movement also clearly had fascist characteristics.

Regardless of the fascist label, I am more disturbed by the argument that ISIS represents the oppressed or is somehow meaningfully anti-imperialist, neither of which is true. The nihilism of the takfiris is a dead end for class consciousness and the liberation of the working class.

[The Modern Prometheus]

Fascism can rise despite any leftist movement not gaining mass support. It has to do with the petit bourgeois class that loses its place in an advanced capitalist country, in an epoch of decay. Fascism is the petit bourgeois answer to a depression. Gaza isnt an advanced capitalist country, as Israel is (whose real fascists for some reason havent been mentioned in this thread) and the conditions necessitating fascism simply dont exist anywhere in the middle east. Theyre no more fascist than Pol Pot was. Theyre backed by bourgeois, sure, thats true, but theres a difference between that and actual fascism.

ISIS isn't fascist. Totalitarian yes but not fascist though hey do share some of the same characteristics. Fascism somehow became a catch all phrase of any government or movement that is authoritarian which is ignoring the very characteristics of fascism.

Fascists are essentially the vanguard of capitalism and see themselves as the only solution in fixing it. They wage war against the left yes but also the old bourgeois who they see as decadent. It is a petite bourgeois ideology but at the same time there have certainly been many high bourgeois who have been fascists as well. Capitalism in the part of the world ISIS is in is hardly developed enough yet to fail.

[PhoenixAsh]

From 1:30 onwards...

D_GzHyEWkJY