Why not indirectly support the fight against.... [Archive]

JudeObscure84

6th March 2006, 21:18

U.S imperialism is by far a more significant threat. U.S imperialism, like any other imperialism creates extremism, Islamic or otherwise.

But Islamist ARE imperialist. They plan to re-create the Kaliphate from Indonesia to Spain.

Islamic extremists are in reality a dwindling handful of radicals without tangible power. The imperialists of the U.S are radicals with big bombs and no qualms about using them.

They are trying to gain power by toppling the states they believe are US clients. Some people said that about the Fascists in Europe but then they gained enough support to topple thier states.

I can't really follow your connection with Nazism???

The connection is that many leftists cant see the extremism of Islamists and dismiss it as an effect of US Imperialism. But the Islamists harbor a rejection to all notions of western thought including socialism. So thier view is different from the progressive that believes they are oppressed because of US foreign policy alone.
Using this same logic, the Treaty of Versailles, the depression and the humiliation of lassiez faire capitalism you could say that Fascism and Nazism, while abhorent, was a reaction to the oppression of capitalism and the elite western nations handling of WW1.

The record shows that U.S. imperialism "has no problem" with Islamic reactionaries...as long as they're willing to obey U.S. orders.

Bin Laden got his start fighting for U.S. imperialism in Afghanistan.

No Bin Laden got his funds from Saudi Arabia. There was a joint funding between the US, Saudi and Pakistan. Pakistan funded Saudi money to Bin Laden. In the famous interview with Robert Frisk, Laden denies recieving help from the US.

I don't think there's any question but that some of the Islamicists in Iraq are today "on the payroll" of the CIA.

Like who? The Kurish Peshmerga is a secular Socialist milita and the Badr Corps were only given a certain amount of time to keep the peace in the Southern Iraq before they were disolved into political factions.

JudeObscure84

6th March 2006, 21:30

Let me put it this way. The progressive marxist sees the extremism of the muslim world and thinks, oh this is all western capitalism's fault and our foreign policy towards israel and the like.

The Islamist sees the spreading of western culture as a disease on Islamic culture and the western client states are keeping muslims from thier Kaliphate. The extremism they're projecting is what the Koran demands and its not extreme to them but justice and thier revolutiionary struggle against western imperialism. To stop it they must spread their Islamic creed to all the former lands of the Ottoman Empire.

So nothing and I mean nothing that the Islamists can do will ever shake that guilty feeling the progressive has. Not the suicide bombers, not two planes ramming into the WTC, not even thousands of anti-semitic books published in the muslim world. Nothing they could ever do would be worse then what we have done or will do to them.

So obviously the progressive indirectly sides with the Islamist because he is the "oppressed".

Honestly, I would side with an NRA, John Bircher from Wyoming any day before a Seattle leftist when it comes to this war.

JudeObscure84

6th March 2006, 21:47

http://www.openfire.us/blog/archives/image...bollahnazis.jpg (http://www.openfire.us/blog/archives/images/2004/hezbollahnazis.jpg)

fascist or what? Hezbollah.

JudeObscure84

6th March 2006, 21:49

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/imag...&tt=10&ei=UTF-8 (http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fs earch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dhezbollah%2Bnazis%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3DFP-tab-web-t%26x%3Dwrt&w=576&h=414&imgurl=www.malas-noticias.com.ar%2FOtra%2520foto%2520con%2520nazis% 2520Hezbollah.JPG&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malas-noticias.com.ar%2FManoenaltoHiHitler.htm&size=27.6kB&name=Otra%20foto%20con%20nazis%20Hezbollah.JPG&p=hezbollah+nazis&type=jpeg&no=2&tt=10&ei=UTF-8)

LSD

6th March 2006, 21:51

I do have to ask though, are you guys literally stating that US Imperialism is far more a threat than Islamism?

Yes.

That's not to say, of course, that fundamentalist Islam is not a reactionary ideology, it's just that right now, it is simply not capable of exerting control or projecting power to the degree of the United States and Western capital.

Remember, for all the talk of "Islamofascists" and "world terrorism", fundamentalist Islam is hardly an organized entity. On the contrary, for the most part, fanatical Muslims are disparate, disconnected, and incapable of mounting a collective front.

Even ideologically speaking, it's difficult to nail down precisely what is meant by "Islamism". Is it the theocratic Shiism of Iran? The statist wahhabism of the Saudis? The radical salafism of Bin Ladin and his Ilk? Generic Hanbali-Sharia Sunnism?

The fact is there isn't even a coherent "Islamofascist" network, let alone a powerful one. "Al Qaeda", for all its "striking" accomplishments and continuous press coverage, is an amateurish nothing of a group. Compared with the brutal and experienced experts of the US military and corporate worlds, Bin Laden is a rank child in the world of terrorism.

The day that he poses a serious threat to the power of the United States is the day that George Bush converts to Islam.

But Islamist ARE imperialist. They plan to re-create the Kaliphate from Indonesia to Spain.

Do "they"? And who, precisely, are "they"? Do "they" have the tools or manpower to even attempt such a monumental feat?

People have been "planning" empires for as long as civilization has existed, but it's the empires that are actually there that we worry about.

Again, fundamentalist Islam is simply incapable of mounting the kind of campaign you are suggesting and, despite the hyperbole and polemics of the United States government, almost certainly never will.

It does provide a nice cover for all those excursionary ventures the US likes to undertake though, doesn't it?

Certainly worked in Afghanistan and Iraq!

You want to know why we don't support the US in its "fight against terrorism"? Because that fight doesn't exist.

There is no large-scale "shadow network" of evil geniuses about to blow up the free world and, what's more, your government is perfectly aware of that. It has published a pack of lies designed to disguise and justify its actions and you've bought into it wholeheartedly.

I guess we commies are just a little more cynical. :lol:

Nothing they could ever do would be worse then what we have done or will do to them.

On the contrary, there are many things that they could do that would be worse than what western imperialism has done ...they just haven't done any of them yet.

Suicide bombing? 9/11?

In total, all of these "Islamofascist" acts have killed, what, maybe 10,000 altogether?

Western imperialism has killed millions. It's oppressed millions more and is continuing to oppress them today. No one is suggesting that anti-semitism or murdering civilians is "good", we just recognize that its far less evil than what the US et al., have done.

The other key difference, of course, is that the victims of "terrorism" are front-page news, whereas the victims of capitalism are "externalities" on a quarterly report.

So we focus our attention on those who commit the greater crimes and those who recieve the least notice for it. Seems like we're right on both fronts. Not to mention that the roots of "Islamofascism" are firmly laid in western soil.

You may not like it, but the truth is most converts to all forms of radical Islam do so out of desperation brought on by western exploitation and expansionism. When people are miserable they turn to anything that offers them respite, even hate.

They see the west as oppressing them and they're right; they see turning back to Islam as the way out and they're wrong. But we are not going to "change their minds" or "convince them otherwise" ...nor is it our responsibility to.

Remember, for us, politics is not just abstract, it is the living struggle. And in real political struggle, you do what you can. Most of us here are living in the first world and so we cannot change minds in the arab world. But we certainly can and must try and change minds in the first.

We target the western world because we're in the western world and so we can have an effect. And because, in the end, the only way to end "Islamism", is to strike at its cause, in the west.

When global capitalism is no longer exploiting billions and international business is no longer starving half of the planet, then we can talk about "Islamic fascists" and all their "plans".

For the moment, we're a little preoccupied.

Abakua

6th March 2006, 22:01

I am of course ideologically oppossed to all religious fudamentalist groups. Where I live they are a minority, no Muslim has ever sought to oppress me - I would resist if they did. Within Islamic law many people are oppressed but only on a national level can this be confronted, from within.

Poverty and misery and fear are reasons to beleive in "jihad". To deny history and not accept the ugly consequenses of past abuses and furthermore - to continue to wreak bloody mayhem upon defenceless people, will only serve to nurture more and more fodder for the fanatics.

I think also that your use of "Islamicist" is incorrect. The majority of Muslims do not intepret the Koran or "jihad" in such literal terms.

Militant

6th March 2006, 22:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 10:29 PM
Poverty and misery and fear are reasons to beleive in "jihad".
I'll give you misery and fear, but this website (http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/transcripts/2003/mar/030307.joyce.html), which talks about suicide bombers, points out they aren't generally poor. They are from the middle class and educated, elements of the left have created a myth that these guys are dirt poor, and quite frankly, they're generally not.

The reasons for this are simple when you think about it. The poor need their children to work in order support the family, while middle class kids have the spare time to go to mosque five times a day, go to the camps and receive training.

Just thought you'd find that interesting.

6th March 2006, 22:42

You have to distinguish between more or less progressive islamists who do not want to impose their faith on other people and do not want to establish or enforce Islamic law like Hamas, the Al-Sadr movement, Ansar al Sunnah, and the Islamic Army in Iraq, from rightwing extremist islamists who do want to impose what amounts to fascism in the name of islam under a selective, misogynistic, clergy/scholar dominanted, capitalist rule, like SCIRI, Badr Brigades, Dawa party, Al Quada, Sistani's movement, the Salafi/Wahhabi islamists, and the government of Iran. I think its appropriate to support struggles against the later type, but the former type is generally harmless although obviously secular alternatives are better.

There are also essentially secular, pro-ba'athist semi-socialist organizations like the People's Mujahideen and Mohammad's Army which affiliate themselves with muslim culture but do not bring islam into politics.

Abakua

6th March 2006, 23:48

Originally posted by Militant+Mar 6 2006, 10:45 PM--> (Militant @ Mar 6 2006, 10:45 PM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 10:29 PM
Poverty and misery and fear are reasons to beleive in "jihad".
I'll give you misery and fear, but this website (http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/transcripts/2003/mar/030307.joyce.html), which talks about suicide bombers, points out they aren't generally poor. They are from the middle class and educated, elements of the left have created a myth that these guys are dirt poor, and quite frankly, they're generally not.

The reasons for this are simple when you think about it. The poor need their children to work in order support the family, while middle class kids have the spare time to go to mosque five times a day, go to the camps and receive training.

Just thought you'd find that interesting. [/b]
JOYCE: Atran says conclusions about what motivates suicide bombers and their supporters are still based on scant evidence. It's not an easy thing to study nor are there clear answers on how to stop the bombing.

:lol:

Certainly not by blowing them up!!

JudeObscure84

7th March 2006, 20:16

Nice little essays you guys have, all composed to appologize for the reactionary movements of today. But no serious mid east scholar believes in a single unified entity of Islamo fascism or Islamist ideology as a whole, anymore than the cold war produced similar exact Marxist movements.

The whole point is that radical movements whether Shia or Sunni, are expoliting the political situations in thier countries to produce hatred and violence. Whether its Wahaabist, Qubutist, Khomeni Shiaism or Salfist. It doesnt matter. They are still seeking revolution through violent means or political gain to win a state.

A perfect example of these movements gainging strength is Iran '79, Taliban in the 80's, Sudan in the 90's, and Northern Nigerian provinces in 00-02.

You have to distinguish between more or less progressive islamists who do not want to impose their faith on other people and do not want to establish or enforce Islamic law like Hamas, the Al-Sadr movement, Ansar al Sunnah, and the Islamic Army in Iraq,

Yes because its progressive to blow up Israelis. Kill the opposition that works with coalition troops. The Islamic army of iraq is so progressive when its affiliated with the Muslim brotherhood and responsible for the assination of Enzo Baldoni. And Ansar Al Sunnah beheaded a Turkish worker on one of thier websites! They are surely like the Green Party. :lol:

And did you badmouth Sistani, simply because he works with the coalition troops to bring about a peaceful end to the occupation? He got several organizations to lay down thier arms and join the Iraqi government.

There are also essentially secular, pro-ba'athist semi-socialist organizations like the People's Mujahideen and Mohammad's Army which affiliate themselves with muslim culture but do not bring islam into politics.

Oh darn. Maybe they're the real progressives? The MEK was primarily sponsored by Saddam Hussien and Mohammad's Army is an umbrella group for Baathist loyalists.

Remember, for all the talk of "Islamofascists" and "world terrorism", fundamentalist Islam is hardly an organized entity. On the contrary, for the most part, fanatical Muslims are disparate, disconnected, and incapable of mounting a collective front.

Does it matter if they're so disconnected. The West would prefer that! But the Iraq War is a proxy war in which states are funding thier interests in Iraq, like Syrian support for Baathist Loyalists and Iranian support for thier Shia proxies in southern Iraq.
The whole point is that they must not be allowed to topple a state and gain control of the resources.

Even ideologically speaking, it's difficult to nail down precisely what is meant by "Islamism". Is it the theocratic Shiism of Iran? The statist wahhabism of the Saudis? The radical salafism of Bin Ladin and his Ilk? Generic Hanbali-Sharia Sunnism?

what about the Catholic dogmatisism of Liberation theology. The anti-intellectualism/pro-peasent of Maoism. The "socialism in one country" of Stalinism. Olive Green Latin American socialist revolutions. Each one was different in thier bent.
Thats the way with all movements. Even in WWII Nazism was different from Italians Fascism and even that was different Spanish Falangism, The Rexus movement and Argentinian Peronism.

The day that he poses a serious threat to the power of the United States is the day that George Bush converts to Islam.

They pose as much a threat as the jews did in ancient rome but this time they can cause acts of terrorism on a mass scale and why do you think they are in such a hurry for an atom bomb? Thats the only way they feel they can win. They are a threat.

Do "they"? And who, precisely, are "they"? Do "they" have the tools or manpower to even attempt such a monumental feat?

They are trying to gain the tools but I dont actually believe they pose a dire threat to our existence, no. Its mainly because thier ideology is so repulsive.

You want to know why we don't support the US in its "fight against terrorism"? Because that fight doesn't exist.

There is no large-scale "shadow network" of evil geniuses about to blow up the free world and, what's more, your government is perfectly aware of that. It has published a pack of lies designed to disguise and justify its actions and you've bought into it wholeheartedly.

Tell that to the people that perished on 9/11, 3/11, Bali, Jordan and London. The fight exists but no one except maybe like John Birchers really believe they pose as much of a visible threat like the Fascists or the USSR.
But I would certainly not tout around the notion that they are not a threat and do not exist.

You have watched The Power of Nightmares one too many times. Not even Peter Bergen, believes the movie to be all that factual.

JudeObscure84

7th March 2006, 21:18

You guys remind me of Michel Foucault and his torrid love affair with the Iranian revolution.

LSD

7th March 2006, 23:45

Does it matter if they're so disconnected.

It does in terms of the "threat" that they pose.

Remember, your initial question was whether or not "US Imperialism is far more [of] a threat than Islamism". The issue of political unity and cohesion is very much relevent to the answer. If "Islamists" are not capable of political organization, they are certainly not capable of "posing a greater threat" than the monster that is western imperialism.

The whole point is that they must not be allowed to topple a state and gain control of the resources.

And who should get it instead?

The point that you're missing here is that while we do not want Iraq to fall into the hands of religious fundamentalists, we equally do not want it to fall into the hands of western imperialist capital.

Whoever finally manages to control Iraq will have achieved a temporary victory. The long-term significance of that victory, however, is very much in doubt. An Iraq lead by fanatical "Islamists" would be a very unstable one. For certain much of it would simply break apart to form independent states or merge with existing states.

At the very least, the leaders of an "Islamist" Iraq would be largely composed of men with very little experience in managing or co-ordinating the large-scale operations of an entire country.

Accordingly, they would be highly unlikely to be able to fully exploit the resources or significantly mobilze the population sufficiently to mount the kind of "jihad" you're envisaging.

Especially following the protracted civil war that is certain to precede any "Islamist" take-over, the idea that a devastated broken country lead by amateurs and dilletants will become a "terrorist powerhouse" capable of seriously harming the United States or western Europe is patently ludicrous.

An "Islamist" Iraq would be another Afghanistan, probably even weaker, in fact, as it would be fairly unlikely that it would be able to secure the relative peace that the Taliban managed with its neighbours.

Frankly, the "terrorist state" "nightmare scenario" is utter rubbish. The people of whom the United States governement insists we all be so afraid are simply not smart, resourceful, or powerful enough to do any of the things we're meant to fear they will do.

All the smart, resourceful, and powerful people are working for the US.

You see the US does have experience running countries. It's been doing it full-time since the turn of the last century. It has the money and connections to push its agenda and best people in the field to get it done.

A US-puppet Iraq is not particularly likely to be stable either, but it's quite likely to still serve US interests. More importantly, it's another win for western imperialism. It will only be another notch on a very very long belt, but it's a notch nonetheless.

Western imperialism is the greatest threat to humanity in the world today. When it is victorious, it moves us one step further from liberation; when it is defeated, however, it takes us one step closer to its eventual downfall.

Accordingly, it is our fervent desire to see it fail here.

what about the Catholic dogmatisism of Liberation theology. The anti-intellectualism/pro-peasent of Maoism. The "socialism in one country" of Stalinism. Olive Green Latin American socialist revolutions. Each one was different in thier bent.
Thats the way with all movements.

Perhaps, but the critical difference is while the examples you point to dissagreed with one another, they were still internally consistant.

Stalnists may have disagreed with Trotskyists, but the Stalinists still had the Red Army. What do the Salafists have? What do the radical Wahhabists have?

The discord among fundamentalist Islam does not mean that we face several "Islamic armies", it means that we face no "Islamic army" at all. There is simply not the ideological cohesion or political unity to make one possible.

And until that day comes, "Islamicism" will remain a potentiary and not present threat.

They are trying to gain the tools but I dont actually believe they pose a dire threat to our existence, no.

Then what are they a threat to?

Western imperialism, you see, is actively oppressing millions right now. Not tomorrow, not "someday", now.

If you acknowledge that, for all their bluster, "Islamists" are largely paper tigers, then you have no alternative to come to the same conclusion that we did. Namely that excessive attention is being place on "defeating terrorism" and that the only progressive choice is to target the greater evil.

Its mainly because thier ideology is so repulsive.

A "repulsive ideology" is a justification for a good rebuttal, it's not an excuse for "war".

I hate "Islamism" just as much as you do, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to ignore reality.

Western imperialism is a massively greater threat than Islamic fundamentalism and I will speak and act accordingly.

Tell that to the people that perished on 9/11, 3/11, Bali, Jordan and London.

I'm sorry, but that's somewhat beyond my capacities.

Look, I'm not saying that fundamentalist muslims are not capable of killing people. Clearly they've shown themselves to be quite able. But then so has the Turkmenistan army, that still doesn't make them a primary threat in the world.

In the mid-nineteen-ninetees, the Aum Shinrikyo cult committed the worst act of domestic terrorism in Japanese history. Does that mean that we should start a "war against new age cults"?

You see, even adding up all of the victims from all of the incidents you listed above, we are still talking about well under 10,000 people. Compared to the death toll of western imperialism, that is nothing.

And so, while we abhor specific incidents of terrorism, we still must focus our attention on the greater threat and that is not "Islamism.

JudeObscure84

8th March 2006, 19:36

It does in terms of the "threat" that they pose.

Remember, your initial question was whether or not "US Imperialism is far more [of] a threat than Islamism". The issue of political unity and cohesion is very much relevent to the answer. If "Islamists" are not capable of political organization, they are certainly not capable of "posing a greater threat" than the monster that is western imperialism.

The issue of political unity is not relevant. I am not going to presuppose, a priori, that a monster exists in the name of western imperialism. I mean I am a capitailist so I obviously have a different view on what imperialism is and I dont regard it in a marxist sense as foriegn policy and globalization.

And who should get it instead?

The point that you're missing here is that while we do not want Iraq to fall into the hands of religious fundamentalists, we equally do not want it to fall into the hands of western imperialist capital.

Lets say for example that you had the chance to fight in the Spanish Civil War, a proxy war where the Free Western nations (abeit some companies) supported the Republican government vs. the fascist governments supporting Franco and the Falange.
I see the Iraq War in a rather smaller similar light. As a proxy war, the Islamists and Baathist loyalists are being funded by Syria, Iran and certain elements of Saudi Arabia. Each trying to build thier respective coalitions there against the Western powers. Why on earth would you remain on the bench this time around because you disagreed with the western powers? Why not support the Secular Kurdish Peshmerga,a member of the Socialist International?

Whoever finally manages to control Iraq will have achieved a temporary victory. The long-term significance of that victory, however, is very much in doubt. An Iraq lead by fanatical "Islamists" would be a very unstable one. For certain much of it would simply break apart to form independent states or merge with existing states.

At the very least, the leaders of an "Islamist" Iraq would be largely composed of men with very little experience in managing or co-ordinating the large-scale operations of an entire country.

Accordingly, they would be highly unlikely to be able to fully exploit the resources or significantly mobilze the population sufficiently to mount the kind of "jihad" you're envisaging.

Listen, Im not trying to make this out like they're a threat in the Lord of the Rings ultimate battle kind of way. What I am trying to say is that they are a threat in that region far more than western capitalism is which actually helped flourish some of their nations economy. I agree with Christopher Hitchens that their empire would never last or even get started because thier ideas are so repulsive and irregular for any state to be maintained. But the point is the loss of life under those regimes, the power they wield by menacing thier neighbors and fooling around with the international market.

An "Islamist" Iraq would be another Afghanistan, probably even weaker, in fact, as it would be fairly unlikely that it would be able to secure the relative peace that the Taliban managed with its neighbours.

Frankly, the "terrorist state" "nightmare scenario" is utter rubbish. The people of whom the United States governement insists we all be so afraid are simply not smart, resourceful, or powerful enough to do any of the things we're meant to fear they will do.

Im glad you are so highly optomistic about the near zero dangers of an Islamist Iraq, and are more concerned about a US client puppet state that will wield US interests in the mid east like captialism, democracy and human rights.
Its also interesting to note that you deny the terrorist state scenerio when it comes to Islamists but many in here repeat that Israel is a terroist state.

Accordingly, it is our fervent desire to see it fail here
Like Saigon and Cambodia, eh? ;)

Perhaps, but the critical difference is while the examples you point to dissagreed with one another, they were still internally consistant.
Oh so Islamist movements do not think that Islam is the only way and the enemies are Israel, liberal Islam and the US?

Stalnists may have disagreed with Trotskyists, but the Stalinists still had the Red Army. What do the Salafists have? What do the radical Wahhabists have?

What did they have Russia circa 1917? What did Mussolini have before his March of Rome but a bunch of blackshirts screaming "I dont give a damn, long live death?"And besides this is a more of proxy war between the US and terrorist and thier client states.

The discord among fundamentalist Islam does not mean that we face several "Islamic armies", it means that we face no "Islamic army" at all. There is simply not the ideological cohesion or political unity to make one possible.

And until that day comes, "Islamicism" will remain a potentiary and not present threat.

Im glad that we dont face Islamic armies. The US and the coalition are not hoping that they will gain an army so that we will have a visible enemy thus proving our interventions in the middle east as just. We are opposed to thier client states.

Then what are they a threat to?
Thier region, thier people and our economic interests.

Western imperialism, you see, is actively oppressing millions right now. Not tomorrow, not "someday", now.

To a Marxist.

If you acknowledge that, for all their bluster, "Islamists" are largely paper tigers, then you have no alternative to come to the same conclusion that we did. Namely that excessive attention is being place on "defeating terrorism" and that the only progressive choice is to target the greater evil.

No bascially what you are telling me is that: Nazism/Fascism is a result of the horrible policies of the bigger powers, the unregulated capitalism that led to the great depression, and the treaty of versailles that left the germans defeated, poor and oppressed. While I am opposed to thier ugly doctrine I think the US/UK are a much bigger threat then the Fascists because capitalism still is and seeks to oppress millions more.
Subtract Nazism/Fascism with Islamism and the lists of grievences with Islamist excuse for expansionism.

A "repulsive ideology" is a justification for a good rebuttal, it's not an excuse for "war".
A repulsive ideology can kill in great numbers.

I hate "Islamism" just as much as you do, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to ignore reality.
you certainly are if you think that Islamism is a cute paper tiger that wants to play power grab.

You see, even adding up all of the victims from all of the incidents you listed above, we are still talking about well under 10,000 people. Compared to the death toll of western imperialism, that is nothing.
The thousands killed in Taliban Afghanistan was nothing. The 2 Million black sudanese christians and animist killed by the Sudanese army was nothing. the thousands killed and oppressed by the Iranian clerics since '79 (makes the Shah look like a puppy). The mayhem these clones are inciting in Gaza, Jordan, Indonesia, Egypt and the Phillipines? Not to mention that even Human Rights Watch attributes the mass bullk of abuses and killings to the insurgents in Iraq.

The point is to not let them gain a state. Or to topple states that support them.

Whether Islamist or Baathist or Fatah. These ideologies in the mid east were spawned from the fascist and stalinist movements of the 30 and 40's. One is secular and the other is religious but two of these three groups have been influential in the fight against the coalition in the Iraq war.

And so, while we abhor specific incidents of terrorism, we still must focus our attention on the greater threat and that is not "Islamism.
Exactly like I have been insisting. nothing they do to us will ever top what we have done or will do them in your eyes. So western power or influence is much more a threat than Islamists. You are pretty much making my point for me.

YSR

8th March 2006, 23:22

Originally posted by "Jude"

Western imperialism, you see, is actively oppressing millions right now. Not tomorrow, not "someday", now.

To a Marxist.

This sure is a dumb comment. You're speaking on "revolutionaryleft.com" What were you expecting here, a bunch of bourgeois liberals? Why even bring this up? Yes, a lot of us are Marxists, or other radical leftists. And we believe that capitalism is bad (understatement). Congratulations, you've grasped the basic gist of all of our beliefs.

That being said, I appreciate your concerns, Jude. I don't like theocrats. I would support stopping them. However, I will not ally myself with the imperialists to do so. Furthermore, I think in your attempt to frame the "Islamists" as the bad guys, you've ignored the entire content of the radical argument, which I will repeat to you one more time: Capitalism is worse. Worse. Worse. There, I'm done. The more immediate concern to the plight of the average American worker is not far-off "Islamic threat," but the daily oppression by the elites.

Speaking of which, has anyone else considered the racist undertones of the whole "Islamist" debate? The right-wing certainly has been quick to label anyone who disagrees with Isreal's policies as an "anti-Semite". Have we considered this about the Muslim world?

JudeObscure84

9th March 2006, 05:45

Furthermore, I think in your attempt to frame the "Islamists" as the bad guys, you've ignored the entire content of the radical argument, which I will repeat to you one more time: Capitalism is worse. Worse. Worse. There, I'm done. The more immediate concern to the plight of the average American worker is not far-off "Islamic threat," but the daily oppression by the elites.

Thats all I wanted to know. I was just questioning your presupposition of thinking that capitalism is much worse than Islamist.

I also have a question about the historical context of this. Do you think anyone would ever write a novel in the Orwell fashion like Homage to Catalonia, where the idealistic young man goes off to fight the fascists in Civil War Spain, only this time set in Iraq? Would any of you read a book about either an Islamist, a Sunni Nationalist or a Baathist loyalist who is romantisized in his fight against the evil fascist imperialist powers of the coalition?

I mean certainly alot of anarcho-syndicalist didnt mind signing up to fight alongside half the Republicans who were capitalist and were recieving aid from the US.

Atlas Swallowed

9th March 2006, 14:00

Thier are alot of Jewish and Christian wackos also. The ones who are usually pulling the strings worship power anyway and just useing peoples superstitions as a tool.

YSR

11th March 2006, 03:50

Originally posted by Jude
Would any of you read a book about either an Islamist, a Sunni Nationalist or a Baathist loyalist who is romantisized in his fight against the evil fascist imperialist powers of the coalition?

Sure. I doubt I would agree with the chap, but it'd be worth looking at.

I mean certainly alot of anarcho-syndicalist didnt mind signing up to fight alongside half the Republicans who were capitalist and were recieving aid from the US.

Remember, we (referring collectively to the radical left) are not utopians. We're pragmatic. The fascists had to be fought. Also, northern Spain was an amazing radical place then. Unfortunately, the short-term goals of the American capitalists were the same as ours at that time. But you can bet, had we won, that the anarchists would have started fighting with the Republicans before long. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend, just not my enemy for a little while.

If the above made any sense, I'm proud of myself. As I reread it, it's terribly written.

Oh-Dae-Su

11th March 2006, 04:12

i can't believe some of the stuff i read. Although it is true that Islamic Fundamentalism did arise from imperialism, what the fuck do we Americans have to do with anything!!?? we just support Israel and we liberated Kuwait for god's sake!!

first of all to those ignorant out there, Islamic Fundamentalism started out with the Battle of Algiers, which were the Algerian rebelling against the French presence in Algeria, it of course united the people under the fact that they were "muslims", so this is how the separatists used "religion" as a tool to unite the people and fight the "opressors". But actually after the French were gone, some wanted the country to be secular and another faction wanted it to be an Islamic country, hence why even after the French left they kept having fucking civil wars until the 1990's and shit.

As for Bin Laden, he was not fighting "US IMPERIALISM IN AFGHANISTAN" :blink: WTF!!??? it was called the USSR which invaded Afghanistan in the 1980's buddy ok, we just supplied with arms and training Bin Laden, so he was not fighting us. It was only after him and his mujahadeen biddies finished the war with the Russians that they had nothing to do, so they had to go and find another "imperialist" enemy. So it was in the Gulf War in 1990 that the Bin Laden vs USA thing started, because the Iraqi's were a threat to Saudi Arabia, and since Bin Laden was bored he asked the Saudi royal family that he was going to aid them on defending Saudi Arabia against Iraq, but the royal family refused and accepted the USA as the defenders. Of course this pissed of Bin Laden, because of course, "ITS A SIN TO ISLAM FOR INFIDELS TO BE PRESENT IN OUR HOLY HOLY LAND"....

so thats how the AMERICAN IMPERIALISM lead to Islamic Fundamentalism :lol:

Loknar

11th March 2006, 05:33

I* don’t see how American Imperialism can be blamed for the creation of Islamic fundamentalism. America has always supported the Arab world from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia to Egypt (after the peace with Israel).

THe Islamists want to go back to the good ole days of the Caliphate and if America wasn’t here bossing everybody around they would still go for it.

Oh-Dae-Su

why is it our fault that that pissed off Osama? The Saudi Royal family frankly did the smart thing. Saudi Arabia is not the mountains of Afghanistan, it is a flat open desert and they would have been machine gunned by the Iraqi army.

Also, this left wing bullshit about supplying OSama during the 80s is entirely misleading. Osama was a mere faction of the Mujahadeen. Leaders like Massoud were the true Mujahadeen. In fact, it was Pakistan who brought the Taliban to power because we no longer had interest in Afghanistan after the Russians left.

That was the Cold war. The Russians supplied the Vietnamese, so we returned the favor. Afghanistan was Russia's Vietnam and that was what happened in the Cold war.

Israel also was supported by Russia at first. Russia just switched to the Arabs because they saw more strategic value in it.

And, why is it our fault that these people get pissed off? We support Israel, so they want to cut our throats? So should we stop supporting Israel because they want us to?

Islamic fundamentalism is a problem but it can entirely be blamed on America. Why don’t we blame it on them? Why are we making excuses for them to act like this is the 10th century and we're all riding around in camels cutting each others heads off?

Oh-Dae-Su

11th March 2006, 05:53

Loknar, if you read my post closely, you will realize that i question the same things you question, examples:

"why is it our fault that that pissed off Osama?"
"And, why is it our fault that these people get pissed off?"

also, the "left wing bullshit", is not bullshit at all, it is true my friend, we did support the mujahadeen, because remember it was at the height of the Cold War, and our most vicious enemy was the USSR, and if they were the enemy of whoever the hell else, even if it was Chechen terrorists, we would have supported them, either directly or indirectly, but yeah the CIA did have operations of aid and training in Afghanistan, although im not sure they actually did make contact with Bin Laden or Bin Laden's men, but i know they aided mujahadeen fighters, in fact in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, i saw a program the other day on TV where it showed that the governments payed whoever owned American made RPG's so that the current insurgents wouldn't use them. So our military aid is obvious right there.

and like i said on my previous post, although looks like you missed it man, HELLO IM ALSO A RESTRICTED MEMBER, im with you bro. lmao, to say Islamic Fundamentalist was created by American Imperialism is total bullshit, with no way to back it up, because like i said Islamic Fundamentalism started with yes imperialism, but the French in Algeria, North Fucking Africa not the Middle East, and we are just the latest target thats all. But yeah in this one i def. have to agree its leftist bullshit, another way to try to blame capitalism and of course AMERICA! the DEVIL INCARNATED ON EARTH , lmao :rolleyes:

Loknar

11th March 2006, 06:22

Oh i know we supported Osama. but people make it sound as if there was just this 1 man Osama and he qas the sole leader of the Mujahadeen. This is completely untrue.

Yes the French did a hell of a job in Algeria. But in any event, I dont see it as the west's fault (though it is our problem obviously) because some children want to go back to the good ole days.

JudeObscure84

12th March 2006, 05:46

Its not the west's fault. Thats just what marxists across the span of the globe believe so they can feel a connection with the oppressed people of the Arab world. They dont get that these modern reactionary elements in the Muslim world have existed since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Since even before the west cut up the lands.
Alot of these folks here suffer from false consciousness. they cannot address the contours of reality right now. they see the iraq war or the war on terror and they see the smirking face of George W Bush and that is all that infuriates them. Not, Baathist boots stomping on peoples rights for 30 years or the Taliban turning Afghanistan into a medieval landwaste.

If anything the US had more of a moral obligation to rid the world of two of the most reactionary fascist regimes on the planet.

JudeObscure84

12th March 2006, 05:54

Oh i know we supported Osama

We did NOT support Bin Laden and the Arab Afghans. That was Saudi Arabia through funds funnelerd in through Pakistan on order by the CIA.

"We were never at any time friends of the Americans. We knew that the Americans support the Jews in Palestine and that they are our enemies. Most of the weapons that came to Afghanistan were paid for by the Saudis on the orders of the Americans because Turki al-Faisal [the head of Saudi external intelligence] and the CIA were working together."

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005.../24-318760.html (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html)

JudeObscure84

15th March 2006, 07:31

I also want to point one thing out. It seems as though that most people on the "right" of the Iraq issue were speaking of sectarian violence and the terrorists instigating civil strife since day one. While the people on the "left" were jabbering on about a united resistence front against the coalition.

Now it seems like programs like on Air America and Democracy Now there is nothing but talk about sectarian violence and civil war. What happened to the mass popular resistence movement like the Viet Cong, that George Galloway was arguing for in hsi debate with Christopher Hitchens?

What happened to the endorsements by Tariq Ali, Arundhati Roy and Naomi Klein? Now it seems like all the resistence is doing in Iraq is killing civilians and trying to start a civil war rather than fighting the coalition. Like the people on the right have been saying for the past three years.

Nothing Human Is Alien

15th March 2006, 07:55

The whole point is that they must not be allowed to topple a state and gain control of the resources.

Yeah, cuz the US just spent all that time and energy doing it first! :lol:

As for Bin Laden, he was not fighting "US IMPERIALISM IN AFGHANISTAN" WTF!!??? it was called the USSR which invaded Afghanistan in the 1980's buddy ok, we just supplied with arms and training Bin Laden, so he was not fighting us.

If you'll reread it he said "Bin Laden got his start fighting for U.S. imperialism in Afghanistan." You must have missed that word, read slower next time.

Objectively that is what happened.. the biggest winner of the downfall of the Dem Rep of Afghanistan was the U.S.

Secondly, the USSR didn't invade Afghanistan. The DRA asked the USSR for military assistance to defeat a U.S. and Saudi backed counter revolutionary band.

Finally, the Mujadeen didn't defeat the Red Army, nor could they have. The Red Army was withdrawn in a cowardly act by the revisionist Boris Yeltsin and his cohorts.

JudeObscure84

15th March 2006, 08:00

If you'll reread it he said "Bin Laden got his start fighting for U.S. imperialism in Afghanistan." You must have missed that word, read slower next time.

Ive already debunked this myth. He was fighting for Saudi Arabia on behalf of his own interests. The US did not back the Afghan Arabs.

Objectively that is what happened.. the biggest winner of the downfall of the Dem Rep of Afghanistan was the U.S.

No, the Afghani people.

Secondly, the USSR didn't invade Afghanistan. The DRA asked the USSR for military assistance to defeat a U.S. and Saudi backed counter revolutionary band.

Thank you, George Galloway.

Finally, the Mujadeen didn't defeat the Red Army, nor could they have. The Red Army was withdrawn in a cowardly act by the revisionist Boris Yeltsin and his cohorts.

sure.

Yeah, cuz the US just spent all that time and energy doing it first!

It wasnt just the west. And Arab countries have slaughtered more Arabs then western intervention.

Intifada

15th March 2006, 16:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 07:34 AM
I also want to point one thing out. It seems as though that most people on the "right" of the Iraq issue were speaking of sectarian violence and the terrorists instigating civil strife since day one. While the people on the "left" were jabbering on about a united resistence front against the coalition.

Now it seems like programs like on Air America and Democracy Now there is nothing but talk about sectarian violence and civil war. What happened to the mass popular resistence movement like the Viet Cong, that George Galloway was arguing for in hsi debate with Christopher Hitchens?

What happened to the endorsements by Tariq Ali, Arundhati Roy and Naomi Klein? Now it seems like all the resistence is doing in Iraq is killing civilians and trying to start a civil war rather than fighting the coalition. Like the people on the right have been saying for the past three years.
The Iraqi resistance was united in the early days after the invasion.

The last two years or so have seen a gradual increase in sectarian violence, which of course relieves the pressure on the foreign occupiers. US tactics in Iraq have been to divide, and consequently conquer, Iraq. Having said that, the continued occupation is still not wanted by the Iraqi people.

JudeObscure84

15th March 2006, 19:09

The Iraqi resistance was united in the early days after the invasion.

A union of sunni nationalists, baath loyalists and Islamists. other factions gave up arms and joined the political establishment.

The last two years or so have seen a gradual increase in sectarian violence, which of course relieves the pressure on the foreign occupiers. US tactics in Iraq have been to divide, and consequently conquer, Iraq. Having said that, the continued occupation is still not wanted by the Iraqi people.

The "occupiers" have been saying that there was sectarian violence and that they were trying to instigate civil war. Al Zarqawis group said they were going to do this since day one. The problem is not that the US is trying to divide the nation but that its trying to unify a nation with differing sectarian backgrounds.

Intifada

15th March 2006, 20:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 07:12 PM
A union of sunni nationalists, baath loyalists and Islamists. other factions gave up arms and joined the political establishment.
No, Shia and Sunni Iraqis were fighting effectively side-by-side against the common enemy that are the US-led occupying forces.

The "occupiers" have been saying that there was sectarian violence and that they were trying to instigate civil war. Al Zarqawis group said they were going to do this since day one. The problem is not that the US is trying to divide the nation but that its trying to unify a nation with differing sectarian backgrounds.

"Al Zarqawi's group" is simply "a drop in the ocean" in terms of Iraqi insurgency. The insurgency is not monolithic, it is made up of many groups, and the fact is that "Al Zarqawi's group" was and is not the driving force behind the insurgency.

I agree with the following journalist (who has been inside Iraq):

Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches (http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/2005_10_30.php)

The US is using tactics that heighten the probability of civil war by rushing through this Washington DC- imposed timeline for the political process. That coupled with using state-sponsored civil war, where they have a US-backed Iraqi puppet government that is using the Kurdish and Shia army to fight a primarily Sunni resistance. While most people are loath to the idea of civil war, it is being instigated by the US and their puppet government.

I don't know if you remember September 2005, when undercover British SAS officers in Basra were arrested after acting suspiciously, to say the very least.

Dressed as Arabs, the two soldiers were driving a white car that was packed with weapons and explosives, when Iraqi police challenged them at a security checkpoint.

One Iraqi policemen was killed, and several others were wounded.

What was the British SAS doing in Basra? (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/sep2005/basr-s28.shtml)

It really is the classic imperialist tactic of divide and conquer.

Indeed, the "Salvador Option" has been employed by the Washington and its puppets in Iraq, and this has predictably propelled the country further into Civil War.

Iraq's Secret Militias (http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Images/gupta0505.html)

The fact is, the biggest threat to the US in Iraq is a unified Iraqi resistance that could challenge the occupiers effectively. History has shown all too clearly how much the Americans and Britain fear Arab nationalism.

Abdul Karim Kaseem comes to mind.

JudeObscure84

15th March 2006, 20:22

"
Al Zarqawi's group" is simply "a drop in the ocean" in terms of Iraqi insurgency. The insurgency is not monolithic, it is made up of many groups, and the fact is that "Al Zarqawi's group" was and is not the driving force behind the insurgency.

I never said they were a big group but that they carrying out what they said they were going to do; instigate civil war. Dahr Jamail is an "independent" jounralist unembedded with any affiliated group, army or newsource. He goes on these fanatical extremist shows like Flashpoints with Dennis Bernstien. Ocassionaly he appears on Democracy Now, where they flaunted the CIA death squad rubbish.( I think hes been on the BBC once or twice). They tarnished the reputation of the Peshmerga as a paramilitary death squad that will suppress oposition. The Badr Corps while on thier own agenda are no where near as repulsive as the Iraqi Resistence groups that behead thier captures, blow up schools and fight any opposition supporting the coalition.

I knew Dahr Jamail and the WWS was whacked but not this whacked to assume that the Kurds were the new "contras" and that the US is trying to start a civil war. OMG, the lefties have Nicaragua and El Salvador on the brain. You people really think that this is another one of that? :lol:

Intifada

15th March 2006, 20:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 08:25 PM
I never said they were a big group but that they carrying out what they said they were going to do; instigate civil war.
I was just pointing it out.

Dahr Jamail is an "independent" jounralist unembedded with any affiliated group, army or newsource. He goes on these fanatical extremist shows like Flashpoints with Dennis Bernstien.

[emphasis added]

Wow, what a response.

:rolleyes:

Typical of a Neo-Con idiot.

Ocassionaly he appears on Democracy Now, where they flaunted the CIA death squad rubbish.( I think hes been on the BBC once or twice).

Are you denying that the US has proposed and it seems put into practice - with their Iraqi puppets - the Salvador Option in Iraq?

Death squads operated from inside Iraqi government, officials say (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/14083330.htm)

They tarnished the reputation of the Peshmerga as a paramilitary death squad that will suppress oposition.

It seems as though the Kurdish Peshmerga are involved in "suppressing" the Sunni insurgency.

The Badr Corps while on thier own agenda are no where near as repulsive as the Iraqi Resistence groups that behead thier captures, blow up schools and fight any opposition supporting the coalition.

That makes their crimes alright then...

Pathetic. <_<

The whole response to my post (which you largely ignore) was truly pathetic.

Nothing Human Is Alien

15th March 2006, 21:20

Ive already debunked this myth. He was fighting for Saudi Arabia on behalf of his own interests. The US did not back the Afghan Arabs.

No one ever said Bin Laden didn't fight in his own perceived interests. It just so happened that his interests matched the much greater interest of the U.S. imperialists and other reactionary Islamic elements in the region, which is why they fully backed him and the rest of the counter revolutionaries.

And that you would say that the US didn't back them is a pure revision of history.

"In Afghanistan he fought with the Hezb-i-Islami group of mujahideen, whose training and weaponry were mainly supplied by the CIA.

He was not alone. American officials estimate that, from 1985 to 1992, 12,500 foreigners were trained in bomb-making, sabotage and urban guerrilla warfare in Afghan camps the CIA helped to set up."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/yemen/Story/0,2763,209260,00.html

"Between 1978 and 1992, the US government poured in at least US $6 billion (some estimates range as high as $20 billion) worth of arms, training and funds to prop up the mujaheddin . Other western governments, as well as oil-rich Saudi Arabia, kicked in as much again. Wealthy Arab fanatics, like Osama bin Laden, provided millions more. ...

"Washington's favoured mujaheddin faction was one of the most extreme, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. ... Osama bin Laden was a close associate of Hekmatyar and his faction."
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2001/465/465p15.htm

"As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow's invasion in 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar — the MAK — which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war.

"What the CIA bio[graphy] conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan's state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA's primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow's occupation." ...
http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp

"In 1986, bin Laden brought heavy construction equipment from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan. Using his extensive knowledge of construction techniques, (he has a degree in civil engineering), he built "training camps", some dug deep into the sides of mountains, and built roads to reach them.

"These camps, now dubbed "terrorist universities" by Washington, were built in collaboration with the ISI and the CIA. The Afghan contra fighters, including tens of thousands of mercenaries recruited and paid for by bin Laden, were armed by the CIA. Pakistan, the US and Britain provided military trainers. ...

"Al Qaeda (the Base), bin Laden's organisation, was established in 1987-88 to run the camps and other business enterprises. It is a tightly-run capitalist holding company — albeit one that integrates the operations of a military force and related logistical services with `legitimate' business operations."
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2001/465/465p15.htm

No, the Afghani people [were the biggest winner of the overthrow of the DRA].

Really?

Before:
"Under tribalism and feudalism, life expectancy was thirty-five and almost one in three children died in infancy. Ninety per cent of the population was illiterate. The new government introduced free medical care in the poorest areas. Peonage was abolished; a mass literacy campaign was begun. For women, the gains were unheard of; by the late 1980s, half the university students were women, and women made up 40 per cent of Afghanistan's doctors, 70 per cent of its teachers and 30 per cent of its civil servants." - Journalist John Pilger

After
" When the Taliban took over Afghanistan in 1994, women and girls in Taliban controlled portions of the country suffered great restrictions. This is just a brief glimpse of the horrors that they were forced to endure...

* Women in Afghanistan under the Taliban were not allowed to attend school, whereas previously there had been thousands of female students. There were a few home based schools and some schools in rural areas which quietly operated to educate girls.
* Women under the Taliban were forbidden to work outside the home, except in limited circumstances in the medical field.
* Women under the Taliban were not allowed to deal with men shopkeepers.
* Women and girls were not allowed to appear outside the home unless wearing a burqa (a head to toe covering.) Their only vision came from a three inch square opening covered with mesh. The burqa was previously worn, but was not an enforced dress code.
* Women were forbidden from appearing in public without a male who was a father, brother or husband.
* Women were no longer allowed to use cosmetics.
* Women could not wear high-heeled shoes or shoes which produce a noise when walking.
* Women could not travel on the same bus as men.
* Women were no longer allowed to play sports or enter a sporting club.
* Women were banned from wearing brightly colored clothes, since those are sexually appealing.
* Women could not laugh loudly (no stranger should hear their voice.)
* Windows in houses that had female occupants had to be painted over.
* Women’s and girls’ medical access was cut. Female doctors treated women, but that number was greatly reduced.

Taliban militia punished for violations of these rules on the spot. Women had been beaten on the street if an inch of ankle showed under their burqa; if they were found to move about without an explanation acceptable to the Taliban; if they made noise when they walk...

Women were not the only ones abused by the Taliban. Many men suffered, were taken prisoner, killed or they disappeared for actions such as wearing a beard of insufficient length or being of a different ethnicity or political background."
http://womensissues.about.com/library/weekly/aa102601a.htm

Yeah, you're right.. the Afghanis were the winners. :rolleyes:

Thank you, George Galloway.

Nice ad hom. Now how about responding to the actual content?

It's laughable that when the puppet regime of South Viet Nam "requested" aid, it was "the duty" of America to respond.. but when the legitimate government of Afghanistan requested military assistance from the USSR, it was an "invasion". :lol:

sure.

So.. you're saying the mujadeen [i]did defeat the Red Army?? So why was is that they didn't topple the government of the DRA until almost a year after Yeltsin withdrew the Red Army?

JudeObscure84

15th March 2006, 22:00

Wow, what a response.

Typical of a Neo-Con idiot.

what a response indeed. Im sorry if I dont tend to believe backwashed Berkeley radicals. and not believing it does not make me a "neo-con idiot".

Are you denying that the US has proposed and it seems put into practice - with their Iraqi puppets - the Salvador Option in Iraq

Yes, the Iraqi Kurds and Shias are not death squads and the oppositon are sunni nationalists and islamists instigating the civil war. The Al-Sadr movement, Ansar al Sunnah, and the Islamic Army in Iraq, are all the real death squads that have been involved in numerous beheadings and street fights. People's Mujahideen and Mohammad's Army are another insurgent group I wouldnt mind the Kurds crushing. Islamic Front for the Iraqi Resistance is proly one of the only two groups that seek to only fight the coailition and even then some side with Islamists like The National Front for the Liberation of Iraq.
But all of this is besides the point because you first would have to believe that the US is in Iraq for narrow interests. Some of the "lesser" resistence movements still spout out anti-semitic conspiracy tales in thier flyers about a zionist-american takeover. So if this is your resistence then I would hope for it to be dismantled by more effective militias operating under the mandate of the Iraqi government.

It seems as though the Kurdish Peshmerga are involved in "suppressing" the Sunni insurgency.

Good.

That makes their crimes alright then...
no they joined the government coalition and opted for politics not warfare.

The whole response to my post (which you largely ignore) was truly pathetic.

do not think that you have dazzled me with your narrow links. its ahistorical to compare this to El Salvador.

JudeObscure84

15th March 2006, 22:12

No one ever said Bin Laden didn't fight in his own perceived interests. It just so happened that his interests matched the much greater interest of the U.S. imperialists and other reactionary Islamic elements in the region, which is why they fully backed him and the rest of the counter revolutionaries.

And that you would say that the US didn't back them is a pure revision of history.

You still havent proven anything. The plan was for CIA funds to be funneled through a joint operation with Saudi Arabia and the Pakastani Intellegense service as the middleman. The US funded the Afghan rebels. If these rebels worked with whoever the Saudis financed, fine. But as Bin Laden said there was no direct funneling of money to Bin Laden or the Afghan Arabs. The CIA's mistake was to not check up on who the Saudis were funding and negating that.

Yeah, you're right.. the Afghanis were the winners.

woops I was meaning to say that the Afghans were not the winners. I must've misread you. :blush: I was actually arguing for the removal of the Taliban. the whole thing you posted just proves to me how you can google anything to prove a point. :lol:

Nice ad hom. Now how about responding to the actual content?

It's laughable that when the puppet regime of South Viet Nam "requested" aid, it was "the duty" of America to respond.. but when the legitimate government of Afghanistan requested military assistance from the USSR, it was an "invasion".

South Vietnam was an ally. The USSR was an expansionist police state.

So.. you're saying the mujadeen did defeat the Red Army?? So why was is that they didn't topple the government of the DRA until almost a year after Yeltsin withdrew the Red Army?

Their story is like that of the reality of the American revolution. there was a defeat but the interal problems of the empire led it to leave the colony. thats the closest i can interpret to.

Intifada

16th March 2006, 19:35

Yes, the Iraqi Kurds and Shias are not death squads

Nice to see another chicken-hawk deny the truth.

People's Mujahideen and Mohammad's Army are another insurgent group I wouldnt mind the Kurds crushing.

Kind of like how Saddam Hussein mercilessly crushed Shia rebels and slaughtered innocent Kurds, with US support.

Things never really change do they?

So if this is your resistence

It's my resistance?

no they joined the government coalition and opted for politics not warfare.

You obviously enjoy denying the facts, with what are essentially lies.

Oh well, another useless reply.

No surprise there.

JudeObscure84

16th March 2006, 22:43

Nice to see another chicken-hawk deny the truth.

Pontius Pilate: What is truth?
To infitada it is apparently what he reads from political rags with an agenda to undermine any effort of a stable democracy in Iraq. Instead the Kurds and Shias are now death squads but the insurgents are freedom fighters?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060313/ap_on_...i_ea/iraq_claim (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060313/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_claim)
The government is even employing Sunni militia groups to target insurgents.

Kind of like how Saddam Hussein mercilessly crushed Shia rebels and slaughtered innocent Kurds, with US support.

Things never really change do they?

When Saddam crushed the Shia rebels in the biggest slaughter of Muslims by an Arab leader (with the exception of Jordan) the US was not supporting him. The Kurds and Shias have every right to eliminate the reactionary forces of former Baathist loyalists, Sunni nationalists and Islamists.

It's my resistance?

I didnt mean it literally but many people in your camp seem to seek solidarity with the insurgents to rid it of "imperialist powers".

You obviously enjoy denying the facts, with what are essentially lies.

Oh well, another useless reply.

No surprise there

Yes, thats what they are, all lies. I am going to trade in AP, BBC, NPR,Reuters, Al-Jazeera for Darj Jahmail, WSW, Flashpoints, Democracy Now or whatever other Berkeley basement operated under the half-light of a cat-shit powered lamp newsource. :lol:

Intifada

18th March 2006, 18:34

Instead the Kurds and Shias are now death squads

Militias on the Rise Across Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/20/AR2005082001317.html)

Shiite and Kurdish militias, often operating as part of Iraqi government security forces, have carried out a wave of abductions, assassinations and other acts of intimidation, consolidating their control over territory across northern and southern Iraq and deepening the country's divide along ethnic and sectarian lines, according to political leaders, families of the victims, human rights activists and Iraqi officials.

The government is even employing Sunni militia groups to target insurgents.

The claim was the first Internet posting by the Anbar Revenge Brigades and could not be independently verified.

How reliable.

:rolleyes:

When Saddam crushed the Shia rebels in the biggest slaughter of Muslims by an Arab leader (with the exception of Jordan) the US was not supporting him.

Bullshit.

The US was actively giving Saddam Hussein weapons despite reports that he was "misusing" them.

In 1994, reports of a US Senate Committee, stated that from 1985, if not earlier, through to 1989, a whole mass of biological materials - which were capable of producing slow and painful deaths - were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers pursuant to applications and licensing by the US Department of Commerce.

The Senate report highlighted the fact that "these biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of being reproduced". The Committee stated "that these micro-organisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare programme".

Moreover, the report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical-warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities and chemical-warhead filling equipment.

These exports continued until at least the 28th of November 1989, despite the mere fact that Saddam Hussein had been reported to be engaged in chemical warfare, and possibly biological warfare, against Kurds, Iranians and Shiites.

The Kurds and Shias have every right to eliminate the reactionary forces of former Baathist loyalists, Sunni nationalists and Islamists.

So you have no problem with terrorist activities against whole populations, simply because they are "Sunni" Muslims...

Thanks for clearing that up.

many people in your camp seem to seek solidarity with the insurgents to rid it of "imperialist powers".

If US imperialism is defeated in Iraq, it would be great.

That does not mean, however, that I ally myself with the very fabric of the majority of the insurgency.

Andy Bowden

18th March 2006, 20:30

South Vietnam was an ally. The USSR was an expansionist police state.

South Vietnam was also a police state - granted, Vietnam today has engaged in repression against the working class, but it doesn't change the fact that Ho Chi Minh would have won an all Vietnam election by far, a fact even admitted by the Americans.

JudeObscure84

18th March 2006, 20:59

Militias on the Rise Across Iraq

Shiite and Kurdish militias, often operating as part of Iraqi government security forces, have carried out a wave of abductions, assassinations and other acts of intimidation, consolidating their control over territory across northern and southern Iraq and deepening the country's divide along ethnic and sectarian lines, according to political leaders, families of the victims, human rights activists and Iraqi officials.

So let me guess, these are the new Contras? Even though the suspected rounded up are either insurgents, suspected insurgents or "dissenters" in the midst of chaos. I dont look at this as black and white though. I admit this is a bit much, and even the British army in control of those areas say it is so. I do not condone it but it doesnt otherwise denounce the entire mission because these groups would be and are going to be dismantled into the Iraqi Army eventually.

The claim was the first Internet posting by the Anbar Revenge Brigades and could not be independently verified.

How reliable.

The Sunni tribes in al-Anbar have formed the "Al-Anbar Revolutionary Group," intended to fight Al-Qaeda, while asserting Sunni rights in the province. Although generally opposed to the idea of a Shia-dominated government of Iraq, the local tribes seem likely to be willing to support one if they are allowed some measure of regional autonomy, including the presence of government police and army units if they are primarily composed of Sunni personnel.

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iraq/articles/20060223.aspx

Bullshit.

The US was actively giving Saddam Hussein weapons despite reports that he was "misusing" them.

In 1994, reports of a US Senate Committee, stated that from 1985, if not earlier, through to 1989, a whole mass of biological materials - which were capable of producing slow and painful deaths - were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers pursuant to applications and licensing by the US Department of Commerce.

The Senate report highlighted the fact that "these biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of being reproduced". The Committee stated "that these micro-organisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare programme".

Moreover, the report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical-warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities and chemical-warhead filling equipment.

These exports continued until at least the 28th of November 1989, despite the mere fact that Saddam Hussein had been reported to be engaged in chemical warfare, and possibly biological warfare, against Kurds, Iranians and Shiites.

I meant the Shia upsrising in 1991 during the Gulf War where Bush told them to rise but left for dead like a re-run of the Bay of Pigs. Look, I fail to see the point of instigating the idea the we supported so toppling him is logically inconsistent. I doubt the Kurds and really cared that much since they are our staunchest allies.
What you are arguing is that because a nation sent a ship to round up slaves then changed this policy 20 years later and sent an armada to stop the slave trade, that I should be against the second because I was against the first?
Plus, I find it ironic that all of the complaints during the Cold War from leftists were that we should change our policy of supporting tyrants to supporting the democratic fighters, yet today they were the biggest advocates of containment.

So you have no problem with terrorist activities against whole populations, simply because they are "Sunni" Muslims...

Thanks for clearing that up.

I doubt that the Shia and Kurdish militas are targeting the whole of the population. The Human rights abuses need to be acknowledged and put to a halt by our shoddy US/UK planning there. You really need to stop pinning me as someone who see this as black and white. Yet, I still see a Democratic Iraq as a better option than what the other side wants.

If US imperialism is defeated in Iraq, it would be great.

That does not mean, however, that I ally myself with the very fabric of the majority of the insurgency.

You may say that but you dont seem to quite grasp it. What you are basically saying is that you would rather indirectly side with the people who want chaos in Iraq because you view the US as a much bigger for. Thats read to me as (and please correct me if I am wrong), in WWII you would indirectly side (while not condoning) with the Fascists, Nazis and Phlangists because there were a few anti-imperialist socialist militias who believed Americas entry into WWII was seen as a bigger threat to Europe.

JudeObscure84

18th March 2006, 21:20

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10874-2003Apr11?language=printer)

I am not some Sean Vannity supporting American neo-patriot. I am a third wave positionist like Paul Berman, Christopher Hitchens and Norman Gera. I think it was a moral thing to eliminate someone we supported at one time, and help install a democratic government.

вор в законе

18th March 2006, 22:57

We did NOT support Bin Laden and the Arab Afghans.

:lol:

S G-Bang

19th March 2006, 00:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:47 PM
"The Jackal" is a Muslim?

Well, we know what jackals feast on, don't we? :lol:

The record shows that U.S. imperialism "has no problem" with Islamic reactionaries...as long as they're willing to obey U.S. orders.

Bin Laden got his start fighting for U.S. imperialism in Afghanistan.

I don't think there's any question but that some of the Islamicists in Iraq are today "on the payroll" of the CIA.

The "Green Zone Geniuses" never know when they might need a mosque blown up. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Why don't you frame your analysis in a Cold War context like it should be?

The USSR was the U.S.'s mortal enemy. Any means possible to combat them was acceptable, including Osama, who was no threat to the U.S. at that time.

Intifada

19th March 2006, 13:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 09:02 PM
I do not condone it but it doesnt otherwise denounce the entire mission because these groups would be and are going to be dismantled into the Iraqi Army eventually.
It is evidence of repression and murder, rather than the freedom and justice that the US claims it invaded Iraq for. Moreover, dissolving such groups into an Iraqi Army is not the solution.

The Sunni tribes in al-Anbar have formed the "Al-Anbar Revolutionary Group," intended to fight Al-Qaeda, while asserting Sunni rights in the province. Although generally opposed to the idea of a Shia-dominated government of Iraq, the local tribes seem likely to be willing to support one if they are allowed some measure of regional autonomy, including the presence of government police and army units if they are primarily composed of Sunni personnel.

I don't see what you are trying to prove here.

It is pretty much common knowledge that the vast majority of insurgents are opposed to "al Qaeda in Iraq". Indeed, during the last elections, armed insurgents protected voting booths from potential attack by those affiliated with al Zarqawi.

I meant the Shia upsrising in 1991 during the Gulf War where Bush told them to rise but left for dead like a re-run of the Bay of Pigs. Look, I fail to see the point of instigating the idea the we supported so toppling him is logically inconsistent.

The US and its relationship with Iraq, over last half century or so, prove without any doubt that they don't give a fuck about the Iraqi people. The only thing that matters to Washington are US interests. The abandonment of the Shias in 1991 is only one small piece of evidence of this attitude. Iraq was never invaded because Bush cared about the Iraqi people.

It was all about the oil (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A18841-2002Sep14).

I doubt the Kurds and really cared that much since they are our staunchest allies.

The Kurds are not too happy at the minute, though, are they?

Kurds take out anger on Halabja monument (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4816018.stm)

What you are arguing is that because a nation sent a ship to round up slaves then changed this policy 20 years later and sent an armada to stop the slave trade, that I should be against the second because I was against the first?

:blink:

You have to be an absolute deluded idiot to believe that the US invaded Iraq, after imposing crippling sanctions on the people, because they somehow care about the Iraqi people.

Plus, I find it ironic that all of the complaints during the Cold War from leftists were that we should change our policy of supporting tyrants to supporting the democratic fighters, yet today they were the biggest advocates of containment.

You still support tyrannies, as long as they give you something back.

Islam Karimov.

Musharraf, or "The General", as Bush so eloquently put it.

Israel.

To name but a few.

Yet, I still see a Democratic Iraq as a better option than what the other side wants.

A "democratic Iraq" can never come into being when the country is being occupied by a foreign power, that still happens to be able to bomb whole cities, as they are doing right now.

What you are basically saying is that you would rather indirectly side with the people who want chaos in Iraq because you view the US as a much bigger for.

I support the Iraqi people who risk their lives by targeting the US and UK troops that have invaded and occupied their country. They do not want chaos, they want the freedom to be able to control their own futures.

Thats read to me as (and please correct me if I am wrong), in WWII you would indirectly side (while not condoning) with the Fascists, Nazis and Phlangists because there were a few anti-imperialist socialist militias who believed Americas entry into WWII was seen as a bigger threat to Europe.

Believe me, I will correct your stupid assumption.

During the Second World War, Nazism/Fascism was the biggest threat to the world, and as a result, I would have supported the campaign led by the Soviet Union, Britain and the allies, if I were alive at the time.

However, that would not mean that I would ally myself with the ideologies of the likes of Churchill.

JudeObscure84

19th March 2006, 17:50

It is evidence of repression and murder, rather than the freedom and justice that the US claims it invaded Iraq for. Moreover, dissolving such groups into an Iraqi Army is not the solution.

Its is evidence of corrupt powers taking advantage of the chaos in Iraq. Disolving these groups into a singel union where they're checked and balanced ius alot better than seperate militas in seperate regions.

I don't see what you are trying to prove here.

It is pretty much common knowledge that the vast majority of insurgents are opposed to "al Qaeda in Iraq". Indeed, during the last elections, armed insurgents protected voting booths from potential attack by those affiliated with al Zarqawi.

The vast majority of insurgents are still beheading people, killing journalists and the like. Find me some real insurgents that resemble revolutionary struggles of the past.

The US and its relationship with Iraq, over last half century or so, prove without any doubt that they don't give a fuck about the Iraqi people. The only thing that matters to Washington are US interests. The abandonment of the Shias in 1991 is only one small piece of evidence of this attitude. Iraq was never invaded because Bush cared about the Iraqi people.

It was all about the oil.

You are exactly proving my point that you believe that US foreign policy is a single entity, as if it rolls out like a science that can never change. this is untrue. And our actions in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Somalia prove that. our interests in the iraq war are written out in the national security stradegy.
I cannnot believe that your are touting out that Iraqi Oil Myth. Not eve Scott Ritter believes in that mess.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...10/22/ixop.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;$sessionid$3FHVTIRTESEFTQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQ WIV0?xml=/opinion/2002/10/22/do2203.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2002/10/22/ixop.html)

The Kurds are not too happy at the minute, though, are they?

Kurds take out anger on Halabja monument

The Kurds are angry at the corruption of the local government led by Barzani and the KDP. they feel the US hasnt help correct the neglect. I for one agree with them as did Mike Tucker (rip) the author of Hell Is Over and George Packer author of Assassin at the Gate. Yet, both were very pro-war and one still is.

You have to be an absolute deluded idiot to believe that the US invaded Iraq, after imposing crippling sanctions on the people, because they somehow care about the Iraqi people.

bush gave a speech at the UN in 2002 to outline the reasons for removing Saddam. The reasons for the US stradegy is layed out in the NSS.

You still support tyrannies, as long as they give you something back.

Do you want us to topple everyone?

Islam Karimov.

The US and Uzbek relations soured and they are removing the k2 base.

Musharraf, or "The General", as Bush so eloquently put it.

If it wasnt for him, AQ Khan woudld be leader of Pakistan.

Israel.
:lol: gee...ok.

To name but a few
very few.

JudeObscure84

19th March 2006, 17:56

Believe me, I will correct your stupid assumption.

During the Second World War, Nazism/Fascism was the biggest threat to the world, and as a result, I would have supported the campaign led by the Soviet Union, Britain and the allies, if I were alive at the time.

However, that would not mean that I would ally myself with the ideologies of the likes of Churchill.

So in turn, The US is the fascist parallel and you fight with the secular insurgents, but your wouldnt ally yourself with the Islamists, eh? Again name me a resistent group that you would consider legit. And even so it maybe so small in the midst of other insurgent groups that it would be overshadowed. Thus, again to prove my point you indirectly side with the bulk of the fascist insurgents because you believe the US is a bigger threat.

Intifada

19th March 2006, 19:26

Its is evidence of corrupt powers taking advantage of the chaos in Iraq.

Yes, so the fact that the US is known to have supported, or at least brought up, the idea of a "Salvador Option", does not make you a tad suspicious, when death squad activity does indeed come to the surface?

With past US policy considered, I think it is very suspicious to say the least.

Disolving these groups into a singel union where they're checked and balanced ius alot better than seperate militas in seperate regions.

Kinda like the US military, yeah?

:rolleyes:

You are exactly proving my point that you believe that US foreign policy is a single entity, as if it rolls out like a science that can never change. this is untrue. And our actions in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Somalia prove that. our interests in the iraq war are written out in the national security stradegy.

Your examples only prove my point.

And do you really think I should read an article by David Frum of all people, after you attempted to discredit my sources?!

Stay off the crack son.

bush gave a speech at the UN in 2002 to outline the reasons for removing Saddam.

Laughable lies.

Laughable lies about WMD and links to al Qaeda.

If that does not make you think about the true reasons Bush invaded Iraq, I don't know what will.

Do you want us to topple everyone?

Being seen as hypocrites will not help your "War Against Terror".

Indeed, it will only lead to further anti-Americanism, the best recruiting tool bin Laden could hope for.

So in turn, The US is the fascist parallel and you fight with the secular insurgents, but your wouldnt ally yourself with the Islamists, eh?

I never called the US "fascist".

Your assumptions cloud your judgement.

I have already dealt with this issue, and if you cannot understand my position, then I suggest you simply quit making yourself look like a total fool.

Metalsocialist

20th March 2006, 13:29

hey jude

you are looking at a symptom of a wider disease. brought about by centuries of a imperialsit system. this is like calling the greem colouring of gangrene a bigger threat than the actual infection.

militant islam is a response to the NEKOLIM.
lets compare america with militant islam

america = heavily populated largely uneducated country under strong centralised government. fundementalist christian right control of power, because the left wing and moderate right have been portrayed for the last 6o yrs as commie bastards who will murder you in your beds /poison your hamster etc etc
Army=Large well equiped, Has Nukes i repeat HAS NUKES (!)
economy= massive, world dominant, has a need for expansion to take control of capital. large armaments industry that forms a corner stone of the economy

in short USA is a nation with an overlarge economy that cant be supported by the homeland. based an a economic idea that gears the economy to physical
expansion. it has the army to take over the world, a government willing to do it and an need to do other wise it will collapse

Islam

large population however this is spread over many countries. most governemnts distrust each other and range from liberal democracies (indonesia, Turkey) to sharia dictatorships (iran Saudi). many governemnts are unstable, none have large and well trained armies. only pakistan has nukes (irans nuclear capabilites at the moment are negligible and are unlikely to develope to a great extent

america is a large nation that needs to create war to safeguard its economy - islam a religion spread over more than 30 countries mostly in the third world