Communism + Islam

[Warren Peace]

The two greatest fighters against the Class Enemy right now seem to be Islamic freedom fighters and Communist rebels.

Although Islam is a religion, and religion doesn't mesh well with Communism/Anarchism, the Class Enemy is our common enemy. We are both against the genocidal Zionists of Israel and the far-right Christians of the US. We are both against the Western imperialism that has soiled Islam's holy land with the blood of tens of thousands of innocents.

In Europe, the terror attacks on London and the riots of our comrades in Scotland were very different (riots were not directed against civilians), but they were both against the G8 scum and both in protest of capitalism/imperialism. In the Philippines, Communist and Islamic freedom fighters are actually working together against the government.

I'm not saying we should support people who call communists "infidels" and would oppress us all with a brutal theocracy, but I think a great majority of Islamic fighters are our allies who want the same thing as us: freedom from oppression. Aren't we brothers and sisters of the revolution, comrades in the United Front?

"There is nothing in our book, the Koran, that teaches us to suffer peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That’s a good religion." -Malcom X

[bunk]

I think the Islamic militants want their own imperialism and want to be a ruling class themselves. While they may have convinced workers to fight for them and they may fight against western imperialism they are still our enemy.


In Europe, the terror attacks on London and the riots of our comrades in Scotland were very different (riots were not directed against civilians), but they were both against the G8 scum and both in protest of capitalism/imperialism.

Arggghhhhh, even if they were protesting the same issues they should be shunned for their methods

[Severian]

Originally posted by Revolt Now!@Jul 11 2005, 11:21 AM
The two greatest fighters against the Class Enemy right now seem to be Islamic freedom fighters and Communist rebels.
What? No. "Islamic freedom fighters" are not fighting against the class enemy. They are part of the class enemy. They are a capitalist political force, their leaders, like Osama bin Laden, are capitalists themselves, when they have come to power they set up capitalist regimes.


I'm not saying we should support people who call communists "infidels" and would oppress us all with a brutal theocracy, but I think a great majority of Islamic fighters are our allies who want the same thing as us: freedom from oppression.

Which groups do you think fall into the second category? All the ones I know of "call communists "infidels" and would oppress us all with a brutal theocracy."

[bolshevik butcher]

No, thesse islamic fundementalists are no different from any other religous fanatics. We shouldn't ally with them. I for one don't support their methods or cause.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 11 2005, 04:43 PM
No, thesse islamic fundementalists are no different from any other religous fanatics. We shouldn't ally with them. I for one don't support their methods or cause.
I agree. A man who will beat a women because she doesnt have enough clothes on or will kill innocent civilians with a bomb is no comrade of mine.

[BOZG]

Originally posted by Severian+Jul 11 2005, 07:58 PM--> (Severian @ Jul 11 2005, 07:58 PM)
Revolt Now!@Jul 11 2005, 11:21 AM
The two greatest fighters against the Class Enemy right now seem to be Islamic freedom fighters and Communist rebels.
What? No. "Islamic freedom fighters" are not fighting against the class enemy. They are part of the class enemy. They are a capitalist political force, their leaders, like Osama bin Laden, are capitalists themselves, when they have come to power they set up capitalist regimes.


I'm not saying we should support people who call communists "infidels" and would oppress us all with a brutal theocracy, but I think a great majority of Islamic fighters are our allies who want the same thing as us: freedom from oppression.

Which groups do you think fall into the second category? All the ones I know of "call communists "infidels" and would oppress us all with a brutal theocracy." [/b]
Completely agreed.

[viva le revolution]

Although a muslim myself(not an atheist or agnostic), i beleive that religion should remain in the sphere of the personal and not political. In the class struggle no religion will be recognized or discriminated against as separate. They will all be blocked out of the political sphere since religion functios on the basis of faith and beleif in the spiritual and unseen, it cannot be seen as following the rules of reason and rationality, thus it is dangerous as a reactionary element once it enters politics, but there is nothing wrong with it as long as the individual is concerned.
Thus, the class struggle cannot accomodate any such element.

[Phalanx]

The examples you give are quite terrible. Of course it's okay to have religious comrades amoung our ranks (I completely agree with viva le revolution, religion is supposed to be a personal, not political, force). But most of us aren't as concerned about Islams' holy sites in Iraq or Afghanistan, we're more worried about the people. I really think it would be terrible if we lent our help to any ultra religious group, be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and the like. Religious fanatics will only get in the way of our dream of a worldwide Communist revolution.
Besides, religion tends to create a class system of itself. Such as Islam, where many follow what their mullah tells them to do without question- I'm certainly not singling Islam out, because all religions tend to do this.

[Severian]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 11 2005, 03:39 PM
Although a muslim myself(not an atheist or agnostic), i beleive that religion should remain in the sphere of the personal and not political. In the class struggle no religion will be recognized or discriminated against as separate. They will all be blocked out of the political sphere since religion functios on the basis of faith and beleif in the spiritual and unseen, it cannot be seen as following the rules of reason and rationality, thus it is dangerous as a reactionary element once it enters politics, but there is nothing wrong with it as long as the individual is concerned.
Thus, the class struggle cannot accomodate any such element.
Yes, to avoid any possible misunderstanding:

I was speaking of the political tendencies commonly called "Islamic fundamentalist", "political Islam", "Islamist", etc. These groups usually call themselves simply Muslim or Islamic, with the understanding that others are not real Muslims.

Malcolm X is an example of a believer in the religion of Islam, whose politics were revolutionary, working-class oriented, and converging with communism in the last year of his life.

That cannot be said of any of these "Islamic freedom fighters".

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Chinghis [email protected] 11 2005, 10:42 PM

Besides, religion tends to create a class system of itself. Such as Islam, where many follow what their mullah tells them to do without question- I'm certainly not singling Islam out, because all religions tend to do this.
What's funny is that islam has no organized priesthood. The name of religion has been hijacked by these quacks!
All religions tend to have their fundamentalists trying to keep the people in the dark ages. These forces should have no co-operation whatsoever from any socialist or revolutionary parties.
There is no misunderstanding severian. Islam does suffer, like any other religion, from the disease of fundamentalism. The only difference is Islam's are more vocal.

[viva le revolution]

A funny incident: I went to my local mosque and engaged in a debate with a mullah there. Throughout the course of the debate he kept re-iterarating about the equality of all mankind and the reason we should support the islamic political movements around the globe.Upon which i asked him that if all men are supposed to be equal then isn't communism the natural alternative, with tolerance of other religions alongwith an impartial system of justice with no religious connotations and laws binding on a muti-religious society, with a progressive outlook as espoused in islam, upon which he was dumbfounded and walked away.
p.s. a LOT of people in the mosque who were illeterate in the concept of communism then asked questions about it and showed genuine interest. not much, but a good sign.

[viva le revolution]

We must beat them at their own game!

[Phalanx]

Yes, we must try to diminish support for lunatic fanatics. You, viva le revolution, will be helpful to bringing Muslims closer to Communism. As I am Jewish (and a practicing one-but purely personal) I will try to bring Jews closer to Communism. We can isolate the fanatics and finally bring all people to one understanding. Without support, the fringe groups will fall.

[redstar2000]

I think we (communists/anarchists) have to make a careful distinction between people with whom we share the same or similar ideas and people who are accidental allies...who may be fighting the same enemy as we are but for entirely different reasons.

Muslim fundamentalists are engaging in armed struggle to drive western imperialists -- particularly the Americans and the British -- out of the Muslim world.

That is a useful service to us. If they are successful, they will have greatly weakened our own enemies -- the capitalist ruling classes of "our own" respective countries.

To the extent that we are capable of organizing a dynamic and vigorous anti-imperialist movement at home, we likewise are providing a "useful service" to them...helping to sap the morale of the soldiers they are fighting against.

But this "alliance" is a historical accident and won't last.

The time will come when communists/anarchists in the Muslim world will have to fight and smash Islam itself. People in those countries will never be really free until they get rid of that medieval superstition altogether.

I see nothing to be gained by temporarily pretending that this is not the case...and much to lose. If the Iraqi resistance, the Afghan Taleban, or even Al_Qaida inflict humiliating defeats on U.S. and British imperialism...I think that's great!

Without forgetting for a second that the day will come when real communists and anarchists will emerge in the Middle East...and will (with our help) inflict humiliating defeats on the defenders of Islam.

The enemy of my enemy is, as often as not, just the next enemy.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Anarchist Freedom]

Redstar you make a great point. While some of our goals are the same anti imperialism for one. We are to extreme on many other issues to create an alliance.

[Bugalu Shrimp]

Western imperialists are engaging in armed struggle to drive Muslim fundamentalists -- particularly the Taliban and the Suni -- out of the Muslim world.

That is a useful service to us. If they are successful, they will have greatly weakened our own enemies -- the fascist ruling classes of "their own" respective countries.

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh, we should accept comerdaes from all faiths. I have no problem with religous people being onside as long as they are socialsits. Sorry if my post above sounded anti-islamic.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 02:00 AM


But this "alliance" is a historical accident and won't last.

The time will come when communists/anarchists in the Muslim world will have to fight and smash Islam itself. People in those countries will never be really free until they get rid of that medieval superstition altogether.



Without forgetting for a second that the day will come when real communists and anarchists will emerge in the Middle East...and will (with our help) inflict humiliating defeats on the defenders of Islam.

The enemy of my enemy is, as often as not, just the next enemy.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
In the communist state, religion will be relegated to a personal hobby or belief. No indications of it will be in the political sphere.
An attack on religion means an attack on the religious establishment and organization. Realistically speaking religion itself as a beleif cannot be abolished and any attempt to do so will bring opposition from the people themselves.
Imposed athieism can be just as dangerous as imposed religion.

[Bugalu Shrimp]

I would rather side with Capitalists than any form of religious person. Most Capitalists have at least evolved beyond beleiving in "Gods & monsters".

[Paul R]

Originally posted by Anarchist [email protected] 11 2005, 09:07 PM
[QUOTE=I agree. A man who will beat a women because she doesnt have enough clothes on or will kill innocent civilians with a bomb is no comrade of mine.
[/quote]
I totally agree. A person who is willing to bomb innocent civilians is not someone I want to ally myself with

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Bugalu Shrimp+Jul 12 2005, 02:26 AM--> (Bugalu Shrimp @ Jul 12 2005, 02:26 AM) Western imperialists are engaging in armed struggle to drive Muslim fundamentalists -- particularly the Taliban and the Suni -- out of the Muslim world.

That is a useful service to us. If they are successful, they will have greatly weakened our own enemies -- the fascist ruling classes of "their own" respective countries. [/b]
This is an example of classical "Marxism"...with dust and cobwebs no less.

Marx and Engels, in common with many Europeans of their time, thought that backward societies in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, etc. "needed" western imperialism to "break their stagnation" and "shock them into historical motion".

However, I think it's now generally recognized among western revolutionaries that the imposition of imperialist domination radically distorts the "development" of the colonized economy.

Instead of a "normal" path of capitalist development, the imperialists "hyper-develop" that portion of the economy that is directly useful to the imperialists while forcibly maintaining underdevelopment in the vast remainder.

The client regimes established by imperialists in the colonized/neo-colonized countries are generally composed of the most reactionary elements in those countries that are willing to serve imperialism.

It was common in late 19th and early 20th century imperialist circles to speak of "civilizing" the natives of colonized countries and "preparing them for self-rule in a modern world", etc. That was largely bullshit then...and is now completely so.

A figure like Osama Bin Laden would be perfectly acceptable to the U.S.-U.K. imperialists as a dictator in any Muslim country...provided he was willing to carry out the orders of the imperialists.

It is not the Islamic variant of clerical fascism that the American-British imperialists find distasteful; it's Islamic clerical fascists who won't submit to American-British domination.

The obvious evidence for this is the long-standing alliance of American-British imperialists with a whole panoply of reactionary regimes in the Arabian peninsula. They are all, in one fashion or another, just as bad as the Taleban...but they know their place and obey their masters.


viva le revolution
Realistically speaking religion itself as a belief cannot be abolished and any attempt to do so will bring opposition from the people themselves.

Of course it can be "abolished". Possibly what you mean here is that it can't be abolished "by decree"...and if that's what you mean, then I would agree with you.

You see, religion needs "public life" in order to thrive. It needs to be "respectable". It needs "public demonstration" of its "importance". Deprived of those things, it "withers away" into insignificant cults and small groups of nutballs.

Had the USSR done something as simple as demolish all the Eastern Orthodox cathedrals, there would probably be almost nothing left of religion in the USSR today (as it is, there isn't all that much left anyway).

The way to "impose atheism" in any country is to remove all forms of superstition from public life -- no churches (or mosques), no recognition of "holy days", no public demonstrations of "faith", teach atheism in the schools, exile the clergy, and so forth. If religion is mentioned in public life at all, it should be spoken of with contempt -- a barbarous superstition that is beneath the dignity of civilized people (which it is, of course).

It might take a century to "get the job done"...but it is quite do-able.

And it's a job that needs doing!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[viva le revolution]

I agree with you that the downfall of religion is inevitable.
What i meant was that once the pomp and show of religion, the hold it has over public life in the form of ceremony and law, is abolished, then the downfall is inevitable.once the organized institution is destroyed, then role and nature of religion will change to one of insignificance.
However if you banish religion altogether,from the beginning,outlawing not only the public face but also the personal, then a thousand other bin ladens will be born and we will unintentionally give it new life.

[bolshevik butcher]

There will still be people with religous beliefs probaly but why shouldn't they be free to have them?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 12 2005, 11:52 AM
There will still be people with religous beliefs probably but why shouldn't they be free to have them?
No one cares about people's private delusions...be they fears of black felines or imaginary friends up in the sky.

It's when this crap "goes public" that problems emerge.

As the last 6,000 or so years have conclusively demonstrated.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Redvolution]

Originally posted by Paul [email protected] 12 2005, 12:11 PM

[QUOTE=I agree. A man who will beat a women because she doesnt have enough clothes on or will kill innocent civilians with a bomb is no comrade of mine.

I totally agree. A person who is willing to bomb innocent civilians is not someone I want to ally myself with [/quote]
Aye.
This situation is similar to the USSR, USA, and Middle east. The USA helped aid islamic terrorists to bring down the USSR, but once the "Godless communists" were out of their way, they sought to bring down the "Christian capitalists."

Or like the Chinese communists during WWII? (I think it was WWII, perhaps I'm wrong.)

It's kind of like the philosophical question: Is the enemy of my enemy my friend?

Perhaps now, but don't hold your breath once your mutual enemy is gone...

[Anarchist Freedom]

The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend sadly.

[Warren Peace]

This is a kickass discussion, I'm glad I started it. People are making great points, but I think some are confused about my idea. I clearly said that I wasn't talking about an alliance with fundamentalists. An example of what I mean by "Islamic freedom fighters" would be the Iraqi resistance, which does not include militants from Jordan that walked across the desert just to hack off people's heads, or the people that have come from around the Middle East to use car bombs on civilians.


I will try to bring Jews closer to Communism.

You'd think Judaism would be an obvious source of comrades, seing as Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky have Jewish backgrounds, and Jews and communists suffered together in Nazi concentration camps and resisted Hitler hand in hand. Sadly, I think many Jews today are deluded by Zionism, and support the Class Enemy.


Yeh, we should accept comerdaes from all faiths.

My point exactly! I'm just saying that Islam, being the religion that is suffering most from imperialism, will be a great source of comrades.


It's when this crap "goes public" that problems emerge.

But as long as we keep religion out of the political sphere, why not allow people to hold religious ceremonies?


The USA helped aid islamic terrorists to bring down the USSR, but once the "Godless communists" were out of their way, they sought to bring down the "Christian capitalists."

The USSR sent fighter jets to help Arabic countries fight Israel, which was good, but when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, they were not only capitalists, but imperialists.

[Free Palestine]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 07:58 PM

I'm not saying we should support people who call communists "infidels" and would oppress us all with a brutal theocracy, but I think a great majority of Islamic fighters are our allies who want the same thing as us: freedom from oppression.

Which groups do you think fall into the second category? All the ones I know of "call communists "infidels" and would oppress us all with a brutal theocracy."
Uh-huh, this coming from the guy who thinks every single Iraqi fighting colonialism in Iraq is a Salafist loon. I don't think so. I share every single one of your concerns about these guerrillas, but note that this resistance is extremely diverse, and I am sure there are units just attacking military targets.

The Iraqi people need to stand up to this US-Zionist colonial outrage and occupation. And at this point, no, I do not think the Salafists need to be fought. Later on, sure. I despise Salafism just as much as you do. FYI, there are Iraqi Christians, atheists, agnostics and seculars in the resistance - that's been proven. Do the Iraqis or do they not have a damned right to resist this outrage?

As terrible as these Islamists are, I like them better than these traitors like these Allawis, Chalabis, the rest of the Iraqi puppets, Fouad Ajami, Walid Phares. At least these Islamists, terrible as they are, at least they fight the enemy, they fight Israel and the fight US imperialism. It pisses me off. You look around, so many people ought to be taking these US-Israeli bastards, and these Islamist whackjobs are the only ones to pick up the ball. Wow, what a disappointment.

[Free Palestine]

Might I add that the case of Palestine is instructive for how a "national unity" resistance should be run. Prior to the founding of Hamas in 1987, Islamists in Palestine were hardly involved in the armed struggle - they spent most of their time, believe it or not, arguing about how long to grow one’s beard. If one took up arms, one was regarded as a “Communist”, since armed struggle against Israel was for “Communists”. There was a great deal of sectarian conflict in those days and the precursors to Hamas killed and wounded many Leftists, who the Islamists despised.

Around this time, Israel helped found Hamas as both a divide and conquer strategy against the Palestinians and to Islamicize the face of Palestinian struggle in order to make it less appealing on the international front. In many ways, this strategy was a complete failure. Before the founding of Hamas, the Islamists were attacking Leftists in Palestine all the time. This internecine conflict came to an end soon after the founding of Hamas. After things settled down a bit, the Palestinian resistance moved to a point of equilibrium called “national unity”. Presently, open Leftists and Communists in the PFLP and DFLP fight side by side, with no problems whatsoever, with the hardline Islamists in Hamas.

Professors on Palestinian campuses write openly atheist and blasphemous tracts against Islam and are not harmed. One of the top figures in the PLO is an acknowledged atheist and no one bothers him. There are large marches against suicide bombings. Hamas eschews all local law enforcement and refuses to implement an Islamic dress code. In Ramallah, one can walk into a bar and order a drink during Ramadan - the only place in the Arab World one may do this - and Hamas refuses to even issue an official denunciation. Hamas has never tried to shut down the numerous bars in Palestine.

Although Hamas is officially the Palestinian branch of Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas keeps this a big secret because the MB is so disliked in Palestine (it is regarded as an Islamic extremist organization). Most Palestinians are not even aware of the relationship. Last Christmas, Hamas members actually presented gifts and toys to churches in Bethlehem - an unthinkable act for a hardline Islamist group. Hardline Islamist imams in Gaza have called for Palestinian Christians and Muslims to fight side by side against Israel. Palestinian Christians, and some Muslims, wear whatever they please, and miniskirts and not unheard of, even in Gaza. The Islamists don’t like Western dress, and comments are made, but Hamas has never tried to enforce any kind of Islamic dress code in Palestine.

Palestinian papers are filled with articles that many hardline Palestinians would consider to be openly treasonous - calls for calling off the armed struggle, for settling for the most debasing peace agreements with Israel, for peaceful struggle a la Gandhi, for disarming the armed groups, etc. Through it all, Hamas and the hardliners generally keep their mouths shut and tolerate openly “sellout” positions, all in the name of national unity. Although the differences between the Left, the PLO and the Islamists are often very wide, there is not much discussion of these differences - they are all temporarily glossed over in the name of national unity.

PFLP and DFLP fighters, open Leftists, came out for the funerals of Hamas leaders Sheik Yassin and Abdulaziz Rantissi and were seen fighting in the battles with the IDF that erupted afterwards. Human rights organizations operate openly in Palestine, criticizing both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides, and the armed factions leave them alone. Most importantly of all, all Palestinian factions have deep roots in their communities and do not brutalize the people they live amongst. In many places, almost everyone in the community is part of the resistance in one way or another, from young kids to women to old folks - everyone serves some function. You can’t get closer to the people than that.

Journalists, politicians, government workers, UN employees, aid workers, Christians, Druze, students, innocent civilians, even ISF volunteers, have nothing to fear from Hamas, the most radical of the Palestinian factions. Hamas has never been known kidnap foreigners for ransom, or to behead prisoners, much less to do so on videotape. Hamas has never attacked a Palestinian school, store, campus, neighborhood, mosque, church, bar, press office, polling place, government office or hospital. Only informers for Israel have something to fear, and usually only after a serious investigation.

Even on the rare occasions when Hamas has taken an Israeli soldier hostage, the captives were treated fairly well, at least until Israel made the mistake of trying to “free” them. Hamas held them as ransom to try to get its own prisoners out of Israeli prisons. When Israel refused to negotiate and stormed the hideout, the guerrillas executed the prisoner, which is a crime, but that is still not the same thing as wanton execution of all enemy prisoners or beheading prisoners on tape and peddling the gorefest around the Internet. Even during the 90’s, while the PA spent much of its time arresting Hamas and Islamic Jihad activists as favors for the US and Israel, Islamic guerrillas generally refrained from attacks on the PA, a breathtaking show of self-restraint.

While controversy has swirled over the Palestinian terror tactic of suicide bombings against civilians, the world fails to recognize that almost all Palestinian attacks have been against military or settler targets in the Territories, and only a relative few attacks have occurred inside the Green Line. Palestinian guerrillas have repeatedly offered to cease all attacks on civilians inside Israel, only to be endlessly rebuffed. One gets the feeling that Israel wants a suicide attack inside the Green Line now and again to malign the enemy and feed its propaganda machine. Even here, though, Palestinian terrorists have taken a nuanced stance.

The point here is that all of these people - atheists, blasphemers, bartenders and bar patrons, women in miniskirts, “sell-outs” and compromise at any cost types, human rights activists, journalists, humanitarian workers, Leftists, Communists, feminists, Christians - are basically left alone! There may be some words exchanged here and there, but in general, no one threatens them, puts a gun to their head, beats them up, attacks them, tortures them, much less kills them or chops their head off on tape. This is the intelligent way to run a principled, intelligent, nationalist resistance to a colonizer, occupier or invader. Why? Because by fracturing and fighting amongst themselves, the resistance serves the needs of the occupier. Divide and conquer is the age-old colonial game and the smartest resistance movements try not to fall for it. The Iraqi Resistance has done exactly the opposite of the Palestinian resistance. Instance of uniting for national unity like the Palestinians, they are presently pursuing one of the most reactionary, backwards, barbaric, sectarian, fascistic, oppressive, domineering, racist, tribalistic, and downright stupid agendas imaginable.

[viva le revolution]

True, the PLO was founded as a secular organization. During the days of the cold war it remained as such. The boost for HAMAS and ISLAMIC JIHAD alongwith the islamic-fundamentalist element only got strong with the victory of Hizbollah in Lebanon which an islamist shia organization. So the Israeli assertion of the Palestinian cause as being synonymous with terrorism and islamic fundamentalism is thrown out the window.
The muslim world is wary of communism primarily because not of religious-fundamentalism but because of the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. If they had not taken that fateful step then communism would have been better received in the Arab world in an era of secular pan-arab nationalism.
It because of the soviet excesses that the muslim world is cautious. The aspirations of the muslim world and the left are the same, but because of the soviet invasion of Afghanistan and it's subsequent defeat and the long-standing problem in Chechnya, the muslim militant movements were pushed furthur toward the right, due to the defeat of the soviet union and it's eventual collapse the islamists were seen as the more powerful force in the eyes of the public, and thus world conflicts took on a religious face.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by Revolt Now!@Jul 12 2005, 08:27 PM

I will try to bring Jews closer to Communism.

You'd think Judaism would be an obvious source of comrades, seing as Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky have Jewish backgrounds, and Jews and communists suffered together in Nazi concentration camps and resisted Hitler hand in hand. Sadly, I think many Jews today are deluded by Zionism, and support the Class Enemy.

You must not hang around many Jews then, my friend. The fact is, most Jews aren't Zionists, they are actually quite disgusted by the Israeli government. That remark is like saying "Most Muslims support Al-Qaeda and other fundementalists". It is just a foolish remark to make. It's also a sweeping generalization, so I'd say try to work on not doing that.

[Warren Peace]

You must not hang around many Jews then, my friend. The fact is, most Jews aren't Zionists, they are actually quite disgusted by the Israeli government.

You're right, sorry. It's just that every time I've talked to a Jew about the Intifada, they've been supportive of Israel. I know there must be a lot of anti-Zionist Jews, I just haven't met any yet. I hope I didn't offend you, comrade.


That remark is like saying "Most Muslims support Al-Qaeda and other fundementalists". It is just a foolish remark to make. It's also a sweeping generalization, so I'd say try to work on not doing that.

Now you know how I felt when I said that we should welcome Muslims as our allies, and everyone assumed I was saying we should support Al Qaeda and terrorist attacks against innocent people.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Free Palestine
Might I add that the case of Palestine is instructive for how a "national unity" resistance should be run...

This is the intelligent way to run a principled, intelligent, nationalist resistance to a colonizer, occupier or invader. Why? Because by fracturing and fighting amongst themselves, the resistance serves the needs of the occupier. Divide and conquer is the age-old colonial game and the smartest resistance movements try not to fall for it. The Iraqi Resistance has done exactly the opposite of the Palestinian resistance. Instead of uniting for national unity like the Palestinians, they are presently pursuing one of the most reactionary, backwards, barbaric, sectarian, fascistic, oppressive, domineering, racist, tribalistic, and downright stupid agendas imaginable. -- emphasis added.

Wow!

I don't know, of course, if the Palestinians are as "good" as you say they are or if the Iraqis are as "bad"...but that was a very impressive post.

There is one thing though...I get the impression that the Palestinians are constantly on the "defensive" -- while the Iraqis seem to be constantly attacking the imperialists.

If the Iraqis are such "gross fuckups", how is it that they are able to "carry the battle to the enemy" so consistently?

And, likewise, if the Palestinians are a "model" of how to do it right, how is it that they always seem to be on the receiving end of the crap while only rarely being on the attacking end of things?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Free Palestine]

Redstar, allow me to elaborate. By the way, I am on the record as offering my unconditional support for the Iraqi resistance. The point I was trying to make, however, was that from the point of view of the Iraqi resistance, the best thing to do would be to cast aside all sectarian nonsense and try to unite as many groups as possible against the occupiers. This is what a sensible, intelligent, nationalist resistance does. Even in a region where tribal politics holds sway, the fighters close ranks in the name of “national unity”, as the guerrillas in Palestine have done.

The resistance is now mostly Sunni Arab, and are becoming more and more extreme, with a movement towards Salafism or Wahhabism, the most extreme Sunni Islam with roots in the Arabian Gulf. And the Leftist, nationalist, and unified front type groupings gradually seem to give way to this extreme fanatical Sunni Salafist Islam, which now almost dominates the Iraqi resistance. With each passing month, more and more Shia are alienated from the resistance too. In the areas they control, the Sunni fanatics have imposed an insane, brutal and stupid version of Islamic law. Even Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Sudan are not as harsh as them with some of the things they've done (shutting down schools, threatning/shooting women for wearing blue jeans, beating drivers who were listening to music thats not religious music, threatning women who refuse to wear hijab, flogging alcohol sellers or bombing stores that sell alcohol, et cetera).

When a guerrilla faction is reduced to ruling and surviving through terror and not through the deep, passionate support of the people, that resistance faction is utterly failing in one of the primary rules of guerrilla war, cited from Mao to Che to the finest war colleges on Earth, that the guerrillas need to gain support from civilian populations through good deeds and by the passionate commitment to the guerrilla cause of the people the guerrillas live amongst. The people’s support for the guerrilla works best when freely given and not coerced - terrorizing the people you claim to represent only gets one so far.

[Severian]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jul 12 2005, 06:56 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jul 12 2005, 06:56 AM)
Bugalu [email protected] 12 2005, 02:26 AM
Western imperialists are engaging in armed struggle to drive Muslim fundamentalists -- particularly the Taliban and the Suni -- out of the Muslim world.

That is a useful service to us. If they are successful, they will have greatly weakened our own enemies -- the fascist ruling classes of "their own" respective countries.
This is an example of classical "Marxism"...with dust and cobwebs no less. [/b]
Heh. No. It's a mirror-image of your position. (Perhaps deliberately mirrored?) Bugaloo Shrimp says nothing resembling Marx's comments about an economically progressive aspect of colonialism....(which were probably true at the time but no longer apply.)

(BTW: Marx on the First War of Independence in India (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/09/16.htm) Very appropriate to the "war on terrorism", which the "Sepoy Rebellion" and its suppression parallel in a number of respects.)

And Shrimp's position contains...about as much truth as yours. On the one hand, you have the advantage that U.S. imperialism is our main enemy, while these reactionary fundamentalists are pikers.

On the other, he has the advantage that U.S. imperialism actually is eliminating some of these enemies, while al-Qaeda and other Islamists are the perfect enemy for imperialism. They couldn't ask for a better one.

So, recognizing the elements of truth in both:
U.S. imperialism is, at the moment, going after a lot of reactionary regimes and forces which are our enemies too. In doing so, it's creating unintended consequences which can benefit our class. Anytime controlled forces are set into motion, uncontrolled forces are also set into motion. And when thieves fall out, honest men are sure to gain. Political space is opening up across the Middle East due to Washington's actions, and it can be exploited.

Rather than lining up with any of our enemies, who will happily cut our throats tomorrow if not today, we should take advantage of their temporary conflict to organize and fight for our own interests.

Which is what workers' organizations - and others - across the Middle East are in fact doing. Recent events in Lebanon, for example, reflect various political forces there taking advantage of the present moment to press for the longstanding - and correct - demand for Syrian withdrawal.

No workers' organization in that region thinks there's anything progressive about any of these "Islamist" group just because they're anti-American. There may be cases where temporary cooperation for a particular objective is possible - for example in Palestine, or in early-90s Algeria protesting the canceled election.

Also: "Islamic fundamentalism" is long-term in decline, and has been for years. The rise of al-Qaeda and its strategy of striking directly at the "West" is a product of failure and desperation....fundamentally the failure to overthrow the Arab regimes considered anti-Islamic. Less and less, do any of the "Islamist" groups even have any plan or hope for doing so.

The broad trends of history, including secularism and women's rights, are against them. They represent a desperate right-wing backlash against the inevitable.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Free Palestine+Jul 12 2005, 02:44 PM--> (Free Palestine @ Jul 12 2005, 02:44 PM)
[email protected] 11 2005, 07:58 PM

I'm not saying we should support people who call communists "infidels" and would oppress us all with a brutal theocracy, but I think a great majority of Islamic fighters are our allies who want the same thing as us: freedom from oppression.

Which groups do you think fall into the second category? All the ones I know of "call communists "infidels" and would oppress us all with a brutal theocracy."
Uh-huh, this coming from the guy who thinks every single Iraqi fighting colonialism in Iraq is a Salafist loon. [/b]
Oh crap, this is going to be yet another Iraqi resistance thread, huh? It was more interesting when everyone thought it was about fundamentalism...that's what my post was about.

Everything that can be said about the Iraqi resistance has been said, in this thread for example. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36791&st=0)

I've explained 50 times that I think most of the Iraqi resitance is Ba'athist-led - heck, I've quoted Iraqi resistance sources saying so - but that doesn't stop Free Palestine from saying I think they're all Salafi.

And I've asked 50 times for someone to explain which Iraqi armed resistance groups, specifically, they think are more progressive - no luck. "Free Palestine" managed to avoid it again in that post. (I was asking about Islamic fundamentalist groups that time, but FP apparently thought differently. And didn't answer either way.)

So really, I'd rather discuss "Islamic fundamentalism". Or, heck, Palestine.

But thanks for acknowledging the truth about the political direction the "Iraqi resistance' is heading in. The Ba'athists are part of that direction as well; more and more reactionary "Islamic" crap; more and more sectarian violence against the Shi'a and Kurds, closer and closer alliance with "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" and similar groups.

Most of what you say about Palestine is probably true; my biggest disagreement would be on the suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians. Your particular points on that are true, but I think the net effect is to overly downplay it, considering this tactic has had a major effect on the course of the intifada. And on what Israel has been able to do, politically, in response.

Redstar:

There is one thing though...I get the impression that the Palestinians are constantly on the "defensive" -- while the Iraqis seem to be constantly attacking the imperialists.


That's an inversion of reality...the Palestinians have carried out a lot of attacks within Israeli territory, while the Iraqi resistance hasn't carried out any attacks within the U.S., has it? So who's more on the offensive?

In the history of modern conflict between imperialist countries and colonized peoples, the Palestinians are wholly unique, in having achieved a 3:1 death ratio during the second intifada. More typical in that history: the first Gulf War's 148 U.S. dead to an estimated 150,000 Iraqi dead. Or look up the ratios for the Vietnam War or the battle of Isandlhwana...and the imperialists lost both of those.

Heck, the ratio of Iraqis to Americans killed by the resistance is probably now higher than 3:1. Maybe much higher.

The Palestinians' are always getting beat up because the challenge before them is so tremendous; the enemy is on their doorstep. Israel can't just withdraw and go back across the sea like the British Empire pulling out of so many places, often without much of a fight. A withdrawal from the occupied territories, and especially any recognition of the right of return, even partial, would undermine the very existence of the Israeli apartheid state. Not so much in military terms, as they always claim, but politically.

But despite that, and despite the second intifada apparently winding down in more-or-less defeat, Israel is now withdrawing from part of the occupied territories. I know, that's a fake and a fraud, turning Gaza into the world's biggest prison and the West Bank into scattered Bantustans, but it's a testament to the strength of the struggle that Israel withdraws from a single square inch.

The Iraqi resistance will win at most a bigger share in the new regime for Sunni Arabs and ex-Ba'athists. Wait and see.

[Bugalu Shrimp]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 09:37 AM
Also: "Islamic fundamentalism" is long-term in decline, and has been for years. The rise of al-Qaeda and its strategy of striking directly at the "West" is a product of failure and desperation....fundamentally the failure to overthrow the Arab regimes considered anti-Islamic.

And is this erosion not an effect of Capitalism in those regions?

[Severian]

Only in the sense that almost every development is a product of the evolution of capitalism.

Islamic fundamentalism is not counterposed to capitalism; it is a capitalist political tendency.

The decline of Islamism is a product of its bankruptcy as a pretender to anti-imperialist leadership. Which has been partly been masked by the more advanced bankruptcy of other varieties of bourgeois nationalism, and by the betrayals of Stalinist and other pseudo-Marxist groups.
An article on this (http://www.themilitant.com/2005/6901/690136.html)
One of these letters to the editor comments further (http://www.themilitant.com/2005/6905/690535.html)

[viva le revolution]

I must disagree there with you severian, the Islamists are counterposed to capitalism, The islamists are against western-style capitalism and the whole movement has arisen out of imperialist expansionism. Their goal is not one of capitalism but of an islamic theocracy, a society incorporating certain capitalist tendencies but a society ruled by religious dogma not by market rules.
They take action justifying it not by financial incentive but with religious arguements even if it is counter-productive to the market situation.
A whole different society with different guiding principals.

[viva le revolution]

A society made up not on economic oppression but on religious oppression.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Free Palestine+--> (Free Palestine)The resistance is now mostly Sunni Arab, and are becoming more and more extreme, with a movement towards Salafism or Wahhabism, the most extreme Sunni Islam with roots in the Arabian Gulf.[/b]

I was very puzzled by this. Though it may or may not be true (I certainly hope it isn't), yet it seems unlikely that Salafists are directly involved in the resistance...


And it can be said that the Salafi/"Wahhabi" scholars have spoken about Iraq, and they have advised the Muslims to supplicate to their Lord to relieve from the Iraqis the afflictions of being ruled by the socialist Ba'thist oppressor Saddam Hussein, and to relieve them of the sufferings of being unjustly occupied by foreign forces. More specifically, they have made the important clarification that these hardships are a result of what the Muslim masses have brought about by their own hands, in disobedience to the Creator, and that these afflictions will only be removed from them as the Prophet Muhammad (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) said, "…Allah will send upon you humiliation and will not remove it from you until you return to (practicing) your religion (correctly)," not by entering into blind jihads led by the misguided that only increase the tribulations of the entire Muslim community.

http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/wahhabis-fighting-in-iraq.htm

The Salafist "line" appears to be one of piety and submission to imperialism...something that would certainly go a long way to "justifying" the 50+ years of submission of "Saudi" Arabia to U.S. imperialism.

From what I can tell from this site, the sympathizers of Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda -- who are a very small part of the resistance -- have no use for Salafism at all and regard it as no different than heathenism.


Free Palestine
In the areas they control, the Sunni fanatics have imposed an insane, brutal and stupid version of Islamic law. Even Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Sudan are not as harsh as them with some of the things they've done (shutting down schools, threatening/shooting women for wearing blue jeans, beating drivers who were listening to music that's not religious music, threatening women who refuse to wear hijab, flogging alcohol sellers or bombing stores that sell alcohol, et cetera).

Again, this sounds more like Basra than like Baghdad...more Shia than Sunni. Of course that doesn't mean that Salafism doesn't have a following in some Sunni communities who may well attempt to impose their medieval values on their neighbors -- but I question whether any Salafists are participants in the resistance at all.

It's "not like them" to do that.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 13 2005, 03:16 PM
I must disagree there with you severian, the Islamists are counterposed to capitalism, The islamists are against western-style capitalism and the whole movement has arisen out of imperialist expansionism.
Yes, they're opposed to imperialism and the "West"...because they're bourgeois nationalists.


Their goal is not one of capitalism but of an islamic theocracy, a society incorporating certain capitalist tendencies but a society ruled by religious dogma not by market rules.

If you look at any of the "Islamic" states they have all had capitalist economies. Sometimes with extensive state regulation, but that's not incompatible with capitalism. A far greater degree of nationalization can have the goal of promoting the national capitalist development of a Third World country.

One of the major pillars of support for the Islamic Republic in Iran, for example, has always been the merchants of the bazaar. For the Taliban, it was the "transport mafia" who trucked goods through Afghanistan to avoid Pakistani tariffs...they benefited from the Taliban's temporary imposition of stability, suppression of local militia checkpoints and shakedowns, etc.

The market does rule, with or without sharia.


They take action justifying it not by financial incentive but with religious arguements even if it is counter-productive to the market situation.

No capitalist party justifies itself by proclaiming "we are the party of the almighty dollar and the rich!"

****

Redstar is cooking on another planet; he should look up any of the information available on how the mujahedeen ruled Falluja. And the al-Qaeda-ists, the people westerners call "Wahhabi", and many other Sunni fundamentalists all consider themselves Salafists. It's a fairly broad, even catchall term.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
Redstar is cooking on another planet; he should look up any of the information available on how the mujahedeen ruled Fallujah.

Poke noted. :D

I do not think Fallujah was "typical" of Iraq as a whole...in this article it was described as "Alabama in Arabic"...

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=...19&s=parentiweb (http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20040719&s=parentiweb)


And the al-Qaeda-ists, the people westerners call "Wahhabi", and many other Sunni fundamentalists all consider themselves Salafists. It's a fairly broad, even catchall term.

Perhaps that is true; I do not know. But surely the "Wahhabi-ists" are the "major league" Salafists in that part of the world...and their "line" does seem to be one of "piety and submission".

As to "home-grown" Iraqi Sunni fundamentalists, I suppose it's possible they might use the word "Salafists" to describe themselves...at the risk of being confused with the much wider known "Saudi" Arabian variant.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 13 2005, 03:16 PM
I must disagree there with you severian, the Islamists are counterposed to capitalism, The islamists are against western-style capitalism and the whole movement has arisen out of imperialist expansionism. Their goal is not one of capitalism but of an islamic theocracy, a society incorporating certain capitalist tendencies but a society ruled by religious dogma not by market rules.
They take action justifying it not by financial incentive but with religious arguements even if it is counter-productive to the market situation.
A whole different society with different guiding principals.
Actually I might have been off a bit, or overly hasty, in my earlier response to this, on thinking it over...there may be a semi-feudal element behind some of this Islamist stuff. To say how much, you'd have to analyze, in each country:

* the pre-capitalist elements in the economy;
*how much support the Islamist parties got from semi-feudal landlords, tribal shieks, etc;
*how close Islamist clergy are tied to those elements and whether those clergy should be considered more capitalist or semifeudal elements;
*to what extent the Islamist programs and actions benefited those classes.

Of course if this was a significant factor it'd just make these parties even more reactionary.

But in most countries, even those with important semifeudal elements, I'd argue the interests of landlords, etc. are intertwined with the interests of the capitalist classes.

[viva le revolution]

Well in the society i live in, the Islamic parties basically get their support not from the business community in Karachi or whatever but in the northern areas and southern areas all the way in the tribal areas with landlords etc. In this scenario, religious fundamentalism is supported by the feudalistic elements of society that are opposed to commercialization in the major cities and oppose multinational corporations which are frequently marked for vigilante attacks.
So it would be safe to assume in this case that religious-fundamentalism being a feudal-based product is inherently antagonistic to the comparatively more secular bourgeois element.

[jvs]

What you have to ask yourself here is, what is needed to be fought against most? The excesses of capitalism and bourgeois oppression, or the religious fanatics who seek to impose their religion on the world?

Is the enemy of the enemy our friend?

In this case, I believe, yes and no. Let them have their terror and destruction against capitalism. It does no harm to us. But we ought not to ally with them. From what I know of their organisations, they wouldnt accept it anyway.

When they do their attacks, don't see it as a victory for Islam, see it as a defeat for capitalism, and that is something we should rejoice in.

Many countries such as Syria were staunch allies of the great Soviet Union. Today they struggle to remain free from US imperialism. They people fight for freedom, as we do, however they have the wrong reasons.

[Toussaint]

The debate is interesting, but, i fear, we tend to think about these groups and ideologies without thinking enough about the social forces in movement behind.

The islamic groups in Irak or Palestina, or the Hezbollah in Lebanon are movements of mass resistance against the opression. If they were not, they would have been crushed a long time ago. But they are going stronger, at the contrary. If you think (i do) their ideology is archaic, reactionary and often feudal, then you cannot explain why they are so strong if you don't acknowledge their actual nature of expression of a popular resistance against opression.

This is why i support their struggle against the imperialism and colonialism.

But, i think these movements are conducted no by an ideology, but by representants of classes we cannot consider as anti-imperialist or even progressive. And they are armed, which means they will tend to solve the leadership contest by the arms. This leads to an other point, we have to support the resistance against imperialism, but in this support we must try to help by all means available the workers'groups or parties.

Among these groups, you may have some day islamic groups, which mix an islamic identity with marxist analyses and a revolutionary program, like they exist in Latin America. At the moment, these groups do not exist, for a very simple reason, the weakness of the working class independant movement. We have to support every attempt of building independant workers organisations, unions, associations, parties. Independant which means not islamic, not christians, nor marxist (speaking about the unions, not the parties, of course), just workers organisations to defend the workers'interests. In these organisations, the islamic beliefs are welcomed as mong as they are individual, private, just as other beliefs among the militants. What should gather people around are the workers'demands, as workers, united in their diversities.

On an other hand, the situation in Europe is an other one. Here, you have to work towards the whole working class, and muslims are a part of it. Fact is racism and discrimination have built a wall in many countries between the workers'organisations and parts of the working class. These tend to see Islam (we are talking about Islam) as an identity to resist against the discriminations. And soldarize with the colonised world. Our interest is to go and talk with them, offer them a place in the struggle to overthrow the capitalist state, in the unity of the working class and all the oppressed of the societies, women at the first place. If we demand them to let their faith to the door or to hide it (under the pretext to keep it "private"), we simply shall mis the point. The point is the unity behind the working class, the demands of the working class. And among these demands, freedom of choices and thoughts, effective equality of rights are enough to unite the vast majority of the society, atheists, believers, or marxists, workers, unemployed, youth, women, and national minorities (understanding women are not a minority).

[mo7amEd]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 12 2005, 08:51 PM
The point here is that all of these people - atheists, blasphemers, bartenders and bar patrons, women in miniskirts, “sell-outs” and compromise at any cost types, human rights activists, journalists, humanitarian workers, Leftists, Communists, feminists, Christians - are basically left alone! There may be some words exchanged here and there, but in general, no one threatens them, puts a gun to their head, beats them up, attacks them, tortures them, much less kills them or chops their head off on tape. This is the intelligent way to run a principled, intelligent, nationalist resistance to a colonizer, occupier or invader. Why? Because by fracturing and fighting amongst themselves, the resistance serves the needs of the occupier. Divide and conquer is the age-old colonial game and the smartest resistance movements try not to fall for it. The Iraqi Resistance has done exactly the opposite of the Palestinian resistance. Instance of uniting for national unity like the Palestinians, they are presently pursuing one of the most reactionary, backwards, barbaric, sectarian, fascistic, oppressive, domineering, racist, tribalistic, and downright stupid agendas imaginable.
Not everybody would like to unite with those who before the invasion slaughtered your families. And I can understand them although the main goal should be getting rid of the occupation.

[mo7amEd]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 13 2005, 03:16 AM
The resistance is now mostly Sunni Arab, and are becoming more and more extreme, with a movement towards Salafism or Wahhabism, the most extreme Sunni Islam with roots in the Arabian Gulf. And the Leftist, nationalist, and unified front type groupings gradually seem to give way to this extreme fanatical Sunni Salafist Islam, which now almost dominates the Iraqi resistance. With each passing month, more and more Shia are alienated from the resistance too. In the areas they control, the Sunni fanatics have imposed an insane, brutal and stupid version of Islamic law. Even Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Sudan are not as harsh as them with some of the things they've done (shutting down schools, threatning/shooting women for wearing blue jeans, beating drivers who were listening to music thats not religious music, threatning women who refuse to wear hijab, flogging alcohol sellers or bombing stores that sell alcohol, et cetera).
Thats thanks to Al Zarqawi and "Alqaida in Iraq", their main goal since Bin Laden started his carrer was to create an Wahhabi state and get rid of any influence from the western world. When US invaded Iraq the Wahhabis saw a perfect oppurtunity to begin their war in Iraq. And that was perfect for the US whom needed to fight some kind of terrorism in Iraq in the name of "War on Terrorim". Thats why you only see the wahhabi resistance. In reality before this war there where no wahhabis in Iraq, and Iraq was the most secular arab country.

And still it's not like the wahhabis have big support in Iraq, the only support they have is proberly by the Baathists and a small number of Iraqis. The common Iraqis that fight the occupation doesn't do it for the wahhabis cause of the baathists cause, or as Severian sees it, because the Iraqi sunni wants to regain power, it's because they're sick of the occupation.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 05:29 AM
In this case, I believe, yes and no. Let them have their terror and destruction against capitalism. It does no harm to us.
Of course it does. They attack the workers organizations in the Muslim countries, and anyone who doesn't comply with their theocratic dictates. Especially when in power, but even when not. They also conduct bigoted attacks on "infidels" and "heretics", deepening division in the working class in these countries.

[Severian]

Originally posted by mo7amEd+Jul 22 2005, 06:51 AM--> (mo7amEd @ Jul 22 2005, 06:51 AM)
Free [email protected] 12 2005, 08:51 PM
This is the intelligent way to run a principled, intelligent, nationalist resistance to a colonizer, occupier or invader. Why? Because by fracturing and fighting amongst themselves, the resistance serves the needs of the occupier. Divide and conquer is the age-old colonial game and the smartest resistance movements try not to fall for it. The Iraqi Resistance has done exactly the opposite of the Palestinian resistance. Instance of uniting for national unity like the Palestinians, they are presently pursuing one of the most reactionary, backwards, barbaric, sectarian, fascistic, oppressive, domineering, racist, tribalistic, and downright stupid agendas imaginable.
Not everybody would like to unite with those who before the invasion slaughtered your families. [/b]
Yes, exactly. The resistance's methods flow from their goals.

They don't have the goal of uniting all Iraqis against the occupation; nor would it be possible to unite Iraqis behind their goals.