Islam

[Hassan-i Sabbah]

I didnt recognize any current topic about Islam. Hence, this topic could cover any discussions about Islam.

What do you think about the relationship of Islam and the resistance against imperialism and zionism in Middle East???

Your thoughts on Islamic organizations such as Hamas, Al-Qaeda etc. ??

Can the socilaists use the religion opium (practically for Islam and Middle East) against the invader forces???

The questions may be added by further discussions.

PS: I am a millitant atheist or materialist whatever, and my origins based on Islam..

[PigmerikanMao]

I think that the Muslim fighters should be supported so long as their campaigns are anti-Zionist and anti-Imperialist in nature. Once, however, they become overly fundamentalist, their movement lacks any revolutionary ability and should not be supported. Fatah, Hezbollah, and the PKK especially should be supported in this respect- but not groups such as Al-Qaeda, Hamas, or the Waziristan or Kashmir militants.

[Killfacer]

I do not suport Hamas or Hezbollah. Religious fundementalism of any kind, no matter how mild, is detrimental to the workers struggle and we should have nothing to do with them. These organisation undeniably have strong links to islamic fundementalism and therfore should not be supported.

I can't be bothered to argue about this and i know what i have said will be unpopular but i feel i should speak my mind.

Then again i have only ever received information from news channels so maybe my knowledge is a little incorrect.

If anyone could link to any sites which talk about the revolutuonary aims of Hamas or Hezbollah then i would love to read them. Also, if there is anything about how these organisations have nothing to do with islamic fundementalism then i would be extremely interested in reading them. However, if all your going to do is link to to be poorly made Hamas site which calls for a "people's revolution" then i think not.

[PigmerikanMao]

I do not suport Hamas or Hezbollah. Religious fundementalism of any kind, no matter how mild, is detrimental to the workers struggle and we should have nothing to do with them. These organisation undeniably have strong links to islamic fundementalism and therfore should not be supported.

Certainly even the most mild of Islamic fundamentalism is in some way detrimental to a worker's revolution, but what can be gained from making friendships with more moderate Islamists (Hezbollah/Fatah) very well may outweigh the costs of any detriment they may bring upon a movement. Take the organized resistance of China against Japan for example. During the years of cooperation between the KMT and CCP, the Japanese lost more troops than during the period of fighting between the two parties. Nationalism took its toll on the worker's and peasant's revolution in China, certainly, but what was ultimately gained in the defeat of Japanese Imperialism may well have been worth it.


I can't be bothered to argue about this and i know what i have said will be unpopular but i feel i should speak my mind.

The important thing is that you express your own ideas, even if the majority disagree.


If anyone could link to any sites which talk about the revolutuonary aims of Hamas or Hezbollah then i would love to read them. Also, if there is anything about how these organisations have nothing to do with islamic fundementalism then i would be extremely interested in reading them. However, if all your going to do is link to to be poorly made Hamas site which calls for a "people's revolution" then i think not.

It's more than obvious that Hamas and Hezbollah are Islamist parties, so you won't find anything about their having nothing to do with fundamentalism, but you may find that their attitudes towards socialism and democracy make them respectable at least.

Hezbollah: http://www.standwithus.com/pdfs/flyers/hezbollah_program.pdf

[Killfacer]

I can't support "islamist" parties. Just as if there was a christian party in england, i could not support them even if they had some good politics.

[PigmerikanMao]

I can understand why you couldn't, but I simply can't see myself as being idealistic enough to discredit possible, albeit temporary, allies due to conflicting ideology. If communists and other parties have a common enemy, I see no reason as to why they cannot enter into a temporarily mutually beneficial alliance. I guess I'm just too much of a realist.
:)

[Hassan-i Sabbah]

I can't support "islamist" parties. Just as if there was a christian party in england, i could not support them even if they had some good politics.

In Middle East, Islam became the flag of the resistance against zionists and imperialists. The fundementalist millitants do not die for Allah or heaven even they think so, they die for their own people, own country, own freedom. Any movement against wild imperialism in these territories (even an Islamic group's riot) will somehow help the struggle of the workers all around the world.

Dialectic or the conditions of England is obviously different than Middle East.

[synthesis]

What do you think about the relationship of Islam and the resistance against imperialism and zionism in Middle East???Most people here have thoroughly bought into Western propaganda and do not recognize that what we call "Islamic radicalism" is, by and large, an expression of "Third World" resistance to imperialism.

It is not pure zealotry; al-Qaeda, like almost every organization that practices suicide terrorism, is fundamentally nationalist in character. Many Westerners are ignorant to the concept of a "nation of Islam" transcending arbitrary ethnic or political boundaries.

It is also a "nationalism of the oppressed" as defined by Marx, not because it is inherently progressive but because it is a form of resistance against imperialism.

Additionally, calling the Taliban "fundamentalist" is like calling the Soviet Union "communist" - those people would certainly like you to believe it, since it provides the justification for their authoritarianism, but people who are familiar with the actual fundamentals of either ideology will laugh at you.

For example, when the Taliban destroyed those Buddhist idols, they were directly contradicting several verses in the Qu'ran.


[6:106] Follow what is revealed to you from your Lord, there is no god except He, and disregard the idol worshipers. [6:107] Had GOD willed, they would not have worshipped idols. We did not appoint you as their guardian, nor are you their advocate.
[6:108] Do not curse the idols they set up beside GOD, lest they blaspheme and curse GOD, out of ignorance. We have adorned the works of every group in their eyes. Ultimately, they return to their Lord, then He informs them of everything they had done.
[6:109] They swore by GOD, solemnly, that if a miracle came to them, they would surely believe. Say, "Miracles come only from GOD." For all you know, if a miracle did come to them, they would continue to disbelieve.
[6:110] We control their minds and their hearts. Thus, since their decision is to disbelieve, we leave them in their transgressions, blundering.


Or taxing twenty percent of the opium profits in Afghanistan and calling it zakat - the list goes on.

[Killfacer]

In Middle East, Islam became the flag of the resistance against zionists and imperialists. The fundementalist millitants do not die for Allah or heaven even they think so, they die for their own people, own country, own freedom. Any movement against wild imperialism in these territories (even an Islamic group's riot) will somehow help the struggle of the workers all around the world.

Dialectic or the conditions of England is obviously different than Middle East.

Since when is killing your own people in suicide bombings "dying for your people"?

[Killfacer]

I can understand why you couldn't, but I simply can't see myself as being idealistic enough to discredit possible, albeit temporary, allies due to conflicting ideology. If communists and other parties have a common enemy, I see no reason as to why they cannot enter into a temporarily mutually beneficial alliance. I guess I'm just too much of a realist.
:)

I fail to see how the "alliance" is mutually beneficial. You supporting them does nothing for them and i doubt they support the revolutionary left. How is it mutually benefitial?

[Hassan-i Sabbah]

Since when is killing your own people in suicide bombings "dying for your people"?

Most of the attacks that targets civillians are somehow related with the secret services of US and Israel. I would never support a suicide bomber that exploses among civillians. The primitive obsessions of some Islamic groups do not cast the resistance against the real enemy.

[synthesis]

Since when is killing your own people in suicide bombings "dying for your people"?

You're conflating consequences with intentions.

[Killfacer]

You're conflating consequences with intentions.

You're ignoring the fact that alot of the bombs go off in public spaces and don't kill any imperialist troops.

[PigmerikanMao]

I fail to see how the "alliance" is mutually beneficial. You supporting them does nothing for them and i doubt they support the revolutionary left. How is it mutually benefitial?
Well first of all, an alliance is not simply lip service. The point of an alliance is to cooperate militarily with another party in an attempt to destroy a more powerful third force. The mutual beneficial aspect of an alliance is that both sides would benefit from the end of their opponent. There are plenty of Islamist and Communist parties which have adopted the "enemy of the enemy is my friend" policy and have built cooperative alliances to fight capitalists, imperialists, and the like. Some instances are the armed struggles in South Asia against the Indian government, both done by Islamist Militants and the Naxalites. These groups, which have cooperated with eachother, have widened their base of support in the surrounding region as well as have expanded their power as the Indian capitalist government looses control of the countryside more and more each passing week. This too, is beneficial for both the Islamists, and Communists.

[Killfacer]

Well first of all, an alliance is not simply lip service. The point of an alliance is to cooperate militarily with another party in an attempt to destroy a more powerful third force. The mutual beneficial aspect of an alliance is that both sides would benefit from the end of their opponent. There are plenty of Islamist and Communist parties which have adopted the "enemy of the enemy is my friend" policy and have built cooperative alliances to fight capitalists, imperialists, and the like. Some instances are the armed struggles in South Asia against the Indian government, both done by Islamist Militants and the Naxalites. These groups, which have cooperated with eachother, have widened their base of support in the surrounding region as well as have expanded their power as the Indian capitalist government looses control of the countryside more and more each passing week. This too, is beneficial for both the Islamists, and Communists.

And what military support can any communists in the western world offer? None. So i ask again, when there is no tangible benefit for either side, why support fundementalists.

[PigmerikanMao]

And what military support can any communists in the western world offer? None. So i ask again, when there is no tangible benefit for either side, why support fundementalists.
Communists can provide military support, military support which would be greatly valued to foreign fighters as we are much closer to the main world enemy than they are. The problem is that communists do not fight anymore. The weather underground fought, so did the SLA (whether you dismiss these groups or not is irrelevant, they fought) as did other groups, but I have to concede that so long as communists, socialists, and anarchists refuse to actually engage in combat with their oppressors- there won't be much of a mutual benefit in the first world.

[synthesis]

You're ignoring the fact that alot of the bombs go off in public spaces and don't kill any imperialist troops.

Again, you are conflating consequences with intentions.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I didnt recognize any current topic about Islam. Hence, this topic could cover any discussions about Islam.

What do you think about the relationship of Islam and the resistance against imperialism and zionism in Middle East???

Long may it continue.


Your thoughts on Islamic organizations such as Hamas, Al-Qaeda etc. ??Not much, to be perfectly frank. I personally prefer for them to target US and Israeli troops, but they never ask me for advice. Just as well really.


Can the socilaists use the religion opium (practically for Islam and Middle East) against the invader forces???They can, but it'll come back to bite them in the ass, I'll bet. People should be motivated do "good stuff" because it's in their rational interests, not because it allegedly pleases some alleged heavenly master.


PS: I am a millitant atheist or materialist whatever, and my origins based on Islam..And I'm a militant atheist materialist, and I originate from a nominally Christian culture. Needless to say, I'm trying to get that crap out of my hair.

[Killfacer]

Again, you are conflating consequences with intentions.

You can't simply disconnect the consquence from the intention. They are linked.

[danyboy27]

you cant support fundamentalist just beccause they are attacking us troops.
its pure opportunism. those organization are too instable anyway to be trusted.

its verry hard to trust an organization that use chindren and people who got a mental disease to blow up public places in order to create chaos.

you can say whatever you want about us special ops and all that crap, there is a huuge number of these attack that are caused by religious nutsack.

i used to support hezbollah, but when i learned they used to hide rocket in civilian appartement block, faked to surrender to attack israeli soldier, they totaly lost my support.

[BobKKKindle$]

i used to support hezbollah, but when i learned they used to hide rocket in civilian appartement block,

What is wrong with hiding rockets in an apartment block? Your flaw consists in the fact that you try to draw a sharp distinction between Hezbollah and the Lebanese citizenry whereas in reality Hezbollah is rooted in and draws its strength from local communities (including Christians) and so any such distinction fails to convey how Hezbollah actually operates as an organization and political movement.


faked to surrender to attack israeli soldier, they totaly lost my support.

Again, what is wrong with this? Are you seriously suggesting that Hezbollah should not be given our support on the grounds that they refuse to "play fair" when confronted with one of the most powerful military apparatuses in the world? Israel maintains the oppression of Palestine and neighboring states through the use of fighter jets and tanks, and so it is legitimate for Hezbollah to use any means at their disposal in the struggle against this brutal system of oppression.

[monkeybusiness]

Most people here have thoroughly bought into Western propaganda and do not recognize that what we call "Islamic radicalism" is, by and large, an expression of "Third World" resistance to imperialism.

It is not pure zealotry; al-Qaeda, like almost every organization that practices suicide terrorism, is fundamentally nationalist in character. Many Westerners are ignorant to the concept of a "nation of Islam" transcending arbitrary ethnic or political boundaries.

It is also a "nationalism of the oppressed" as defined by Marx, not because it is inherently progressive but because it is a form of resistance against imperialism.

Additionally, calling the Taliban "fundamentalist" is like calling the Soviet Union "communist" - those people would certainly like you to believe it, since it provides the justification for their authoritarianism, but people who are familiar with the actual fundamentals of either ideology will laugh at you.

For example, when the Taliban destroyed those Buddhist idols, they were directly contradicting several verses in the Qu'ran.




Or taxing twenty percent of the opium profits in Afghanistan and calling it zakat - the list goes on.

I don't see anywhere in those passages where pagan shrines and idols are to be left alone. In Islamic tradition, pagan idols were routinely destroyed after an Arab tribe accepted Islam. After Muhammad conquered Mecca, he personally destroyed the idols in the Kaaba.

[Dean]

I didnt recognize any current topic about Islam. Hence, this topic could cover any discussions about Islam.

What do you think about the relationship of Islam and the resistance against imperialism and zionism in Middle East???

In the middle east and south asia, Islam is a very fundamental cultural force. Political movements almost always involve Islamic rhetoric for this reason. That said, I greatly respect Islamic attitudes towards struggle, social justice and some of the humanist Judaic trends present. Islam is marked by some very backwards traditions in regards to sexual and gender freedoms, but my understanding is that the extreme expression of these tendencies has largely come about throughout the 1970s as part of the general anti-liberal, anti-imperial movement. Much like Christianity, homophobia and violent anti-woman oppression appear to be reactive expressions of cultural defence rather than an effort driven basically by the church.


Your thoughts on Islamic organizations such as Hamas, Al-Qaeda etc. ??
Hamas is overwhelmingly a social organization. Islam is an incidental value, not a driving force. What people forget is that Hamas is both more willing to meet with Israeli groups and more willing to enter into peace accords than Fatah. Hamas fatal attacks in Israel or against Israeli citizens pale in comparison to Fatah attacks, the latter of which are primarily suicide attacks against civilians (Al-Aqsa martyrs) whereas Hamas attacks are rockets fired into adjacent, militarized settlements. Hamas simply is not a terror organization even in the mainstream sense.

Al-Qaeda is today little more than an expression of anti-Imperialism in Iraq. I don't think it has any significant relevance or is a meaningful movement at all.


Can the socilaists use the religion opium (practically for Islam and Middle East) against the invader forces???

Socialists should declare solidarity with Muslims fighting against foreign aggression. This support should be critical, but it is important to frame the criticism correctly. Opposition to values like theism just aren't important as sexual and gender based equality, and those rights are certainly important enough to hold your tounge about the "god" issue and just criticise the transgressions against human rights.

In fact, the "anti-theism" as it seems to be expressed here is often nothing more than an elitist chauvinism driven by a misanthroptic attitude which views scientific accuracy as more important than social progress. To say that the theistic issue is fundamentally the flaw with these reactionary attitudes is comparable to saying that all the false attitudes that the U.S. public has are simply issues of stupidity. It is a dismissive, insulting and decidedly un-communist attitude.

[synthesis]

I don't see anywhere in those passages where pagan shrines and idols are to be left alone. In Islamic tradition, pagan idols were routinely destroyed after an Arab tribe accepted Islam. After Muhammad conquered Mecca, he personally destroyed the idols in the Kaaba.

That was because they were symbols of the old order which Islam had recently replaced and was still struggling to eradicate. There are no more Buddhists in Afghanistan, as far as I know, so I can't see how destroying those idols doesn't contradict that Quranic passage.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In fact, the "anti-theism" as it seems to be expressed here is often nothing more than an elitist chauvinism driven by a misanthroptic attitude...

It's elitist and chauvinist of me to believe that all humans are capable of living without a God-crutch? That's news to me.

Misanthropy? Who are you talking about? It can't be me, because in spite of it's natural flaws I believe the human species has vast untapped potential.

You know, that's the second time in as many days I've been called a misanthropist. If I really were a misanthropist, do you think I would waste a moment of my time here?


...which views scientific accuracy as more important than social progress.The two are inseperable. Science informs social policy, and only progressive societies are scientific.


To say that the theistic issue is fundamentally the flaw with these reactionary attitudes is comparable to saying that all the false attitudes that the U.S. public has are simply issues of stupidity. It is a dismissive, insulting and decidedly un-communist attitude.People in the US are taught to be stupid and apathetic. They're not born with it, and they're not immune to reason, education, or in extremis experiencing the pitiless indifference of the universe to their fate for themselves. The same goes for religion.

[Killfacer]

What is wrong with hiding rockets in an apartment block? Your flaw consists in the fact that you try to draw a sharp distinction between Hezbollah and the Lebanese citizenry whereas in reality Hezbollah is rooted in and draws its strength from local communities (including Christians) and so any such distinction fails to convey how Hezbollah actually operates as an organization and political movement.



Again, what is wrong with this? Are you seriously suggesting that Hezbollah should not be given our support on the grounds that they refuse to "play fair" when confronted with one of the most powerful military apparatuses in the world? Israel maintains the oppression of Palestine and neighboring states through the use of fighter jets and tanks, and so it is legitimate for Hezbollah to use any means at their disposal in the struggle against this brutal system of oppression.

How can they hide missiles in buildings with civilians in and then be shocked when they get blown up? I am not vindicating any of Israels frankly dispicable actions but why to Hezbollag continue to "hide" weaponry is residential areas, despite knowing that Israel has no problem with blowing up civilians?

[synthesis]

The oppressor defines the nature of the struggle.

[Killfacer]

The oppressor defines the nature of the struggle.

And the oppressed define the nature of the resistance.

[synthesis]

True - so why do you seek to define it for them?

If you're not a member of that oppressed group, and don't have any first-hand knowledge of their conditions, why would you think you have any kind of accurate idea as to what works in their situation and what doesn't?

[Killfacer]

True - so why do you seek to define it for them?

If you're not a member of that oppressed group, and don't have any first-hand knowledge of their conditions, why would you think you have any kind of accurate idea as to what works in their situation and what doesn't?

I don't claim to know what would work, but i do know that what they have been trying has failed.

[synthesis]

I don't claim to know what would work, but i do know that what they have been trying has failed.

Has it failed, or has it just not been successful yet?

I mean, you could say (and people did) that the violent tactics of the South African armed struggle in the 70's "failed" because they didn't work immediately.

People wanted them to stick to the Ghandi strategy, in spite of the fact that they'd been doing that for decades and that approach had genuinely failed. You can't peacefully demonstrate against a government that has no qualms about shooting every last demonstrator in the back. It's pointless.

But as the violence spiraled out of control in the 1980's and 90's, people were ready to do anything just to make it stop. That's how they actually came to negotiating the transfer of power.

Did the negotiations make everyone happy? Obviously not; it's not a negotiation if either side leaves entirely satisfied. But were they an improvement over the previous system? Obviously. Could they have happened in any context other than that of constant violent uprisings? Highly doubtful.

If anything, these "Islamic" movements need to be more ruthless. That way, the conditions are paved for a resurgence of anti-extremism and a coalition of moderates on both sides, and eventually the radicals will become obsolete as they are no longer necessary.

[Killfacer]

Has it failed, or has it just not been successful yet?

I mean, you could say (and people did) that the violent tactics of the South African armed struggle in the 70's "failed" because they didn't work immediately.

People wanted them to stick to the Ghandi strategy, in spite of the fact that they'd been doing that for decades and that approach had genuinely failed. You can't peacefully demonstrate against a government that has no qualms about shooting every last demonstrator in the back. It's pointless.

But as the violence spiraled out of control in the 1980's and 90's, people were ready to do anything just to make it stop. That's how they actually came to negotiating the transfer of power.

Did the negotiations make everyone happy? Obviously not; it's not a negotiation if either side leaves entirely satisfied. But were they an improvement over the previous system? Obviously. Could they have happened in any context other than that of constant violent uprisings? Highly doubtful.

If anything, these "Islamic" movements need to be more ruthless. That way, the conditions are paved for a resurgence of anti-extremism and a coalition of moderates on both sides, and eventually the radicals will become obsolete as they are no longer necessary.

I don't think comparing south africa to the middle east is a very accurate comparison. The situations are entirely different and any comparison is pointless.

I beleive the tactic has failed because there is still war, thousands have died and there is likely to be war for the forseeable future. If, in the distant future, the tactic is successful, then would the ends have justified the means? No. Surely some other way would have been more peaceful and less bitter.

[synthesis]

I don't think comparing south africa to the middle east is a very accurate comparison. The situations are entirely different and any comparison is pointless.They shared at least one common characteristic: A foreign oppressor - or their local proxies - who are willing to use any tactics at their disposal to keep an exploited people in their place.

Israel gets compared to apartheid South Africa all the time. It's a more accurate comparison than you might think.



I beleive the tactic has failed because there is still war, thousands have died and there is likely to be war for the forseeable future. If, in the distant future, the tactic is successful, then would the ends have justified the means? No. Surely some other way would have been more peaceful and less bitter.The only way that could possibly be more peaceful would be for the resistance movements to abandon any kind of meaningful struggle and simply accept their oppression. That would at least decrease the bitterness on the part of the oppressor.

There is a time when any resistance movement must recognize that its efforts at peaceful resistance aren't keeping anyone from getting killed except the other side.

Again, the oppressor defines the nature of the struggle - that phrase was actually coined by Mandela.

[Random Precision]

I don't think comparing south africa to the middle east is a very accurate comparison. The situations are entirely different and any comparison is pointless.

Actually the cases of South Africa and Israel have quite a lot in common. Both were settled by minority European groups under the assumption that the land was theirs to take. Both were eventually taken over by the British empire, which encouraged more European settlement in both places, and cleared the way for a transfer of power to European settler regimes after it withdrew in the aftermath of WW2. Once in power, those governments both adopted strategies of marginalizing the majority group (blacks or Arabs) and violently enforced an apartheid system while pretending to give the majority "free territories" in which they could have "seperate rule" (the various Free States in South Africa and the West Bank/Gaza Strip in Israel). Both pursued aggressive, expansionist policies against neighboring countries (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon for Israel and Namibia and Zambia for South Africa). And to top it off, the governments of Israel and apartheid South Africa were the best of friends right up to the latter's collapse.

So I think we can apply a lot that we learned from the South African struggle to what's going on in Israel.

[synthesis]

Thank you for explaining that which I did not have the patience to. The only thing I'd add would be that the policies of "free territories" and "separate rule" were merely smokescreens intended to remove the oppressed groups from the settler society's physical space while simultaneously strengthening the system of economic exploitation which had previously existed.

[Killfacer]

Actually the cases of South Africa and Israel have quite a lot in common. Both were settled by minority European groups under the assumption that the land was theirs to take. Both were eventually taken over by the British empire, which encouraged more European settlement in both places, and cleared the way for a transfer of power to European settler regimes after it withdrew in the aftermath of WW2. Once in power, those governments both adopted strategies of marginalizing the majority group (blacks or Arabs) and violently enforced an apartheid system while pretending to give the majority "free territories" in which they could have "seperate rule" (the various Free States in South Africa and the West Bank/Gaza Strip in Israel). Both pursued aggressive, expansionist policies against neighboring countries (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon for Israel and Namibia and Zambia for South Africa). And to top it off, the governments of Israel and apartheid South Africa were the best of friends right up to the latter's collapse.

So I think we can apply a lot that we learned from the South African struggle to what's going on in Israel.

No, we can learn nothing by drawing meaningless comparisons with other places. Why try and compare something because they have some small similarities. It's pointless and unhelpfull.

[Killfacer]

They shared at least one common characteristic: A foreign oppressor - or their local proxies - who are willing to use any tactics at their disposal to keep an exploited people in their place.

Israel gets compared to apartheid South Africa all the time. It's a more accurate comparison than you might think.

The only way that could possibly be more peaceful would be for the resistance movements to abandon any kind of meaningful struggle and simply accept their oppression. That would at least decrease the bitterness on the part of the oppressor.

There is a time when any resistance movement must recognize that its efforts at peaceful resistance aren't keeping anyone from getting killed except the other side.

Again, the oppressor defines the nature of the struggle - that phrase was actually coined by Mandela.

What are you suggesting? That the only way to resist is by getting civilians blown up? There is no reason to involve civilians. You can blame the oppressor all you like, but it does not get rid of the fact that Al-Queda have killed hundreds of their own civilians in meaningless and futile attacks.

Hezbollah is different but are you suggesting that resistance on their part has to involve hiding weaponry in civilian homes? It seems stupid to suggest that.

Why the whole islamic fundementalist thing aswell. You cannot support these groups when they manipulate people to hate others through religion. Its disgraceful.

[synthesis]

No, we can learn nothing by drawing meaningless comparisons with other places. Why try and compare something because they have some small similarities. It's pointless and unhelpfull.Why not articulate the reasons why you think such comparisons are meaningless? Present some cultural differences - something, anything - which can invalidate the above comparisons rather than simply dismissing them.

What is truly pointless and not helpful is simply dismissing the evidence which strongly indicates that their struggles are comparable in substance if not in form.


What are you suggesting? That the only way to resist is by getting civilians blown up? There is no reason to involve civilians. You can blame the oppressor all you like, but it does not get rid of the fact that Al-Queda have killed hundreds of their own civilians in meaningless and futile attacks.

Hezbollah is different but are you suggesting that resistance on their part has to involve hiding weaponry in civilian homes? It seems stupid to suggest that.For us to wholly condemn their tactics with no regard for context or historical trends would also be pointless and not helpful.

Nobody has the time or the energy to deal with that kind of meaningless idealism. There are material conditions which facilitate extremism on both sides and the solution is to create conditions which facilitate a resurgence of moderate politics.

Violence is a reaction to material conditions. So are moderate politics - in this case, they would be in response to the violence. In situations like this, when no one is willing to bend or break in order to facilitate change, the people who can make a difference have to get tired of that process before they're willing to do anything about it.

All you're doing by condemning a resistance movement's tactics is facilitating imperialism - ultimately, you're effectively negating the ethical grounds of the resistance movement. That does have a point and it is helpful - for the wrong side.

[synthesis]

One more thing...



Why the whole islamic fundementalist thing aswell. You cannot support these groups when they manipulate people to hate others through religion. Its disgraceful.Again, this kind of idealist nonsense effectively hampers us from an accurate understanding of the conditions in which the resistance movement exists.

"Religious fundamentalism" is merely the form taken by the hatred of the oppressor or any other group to which the "fundamentalists" are opposed. That hatred is in turn based on material conditions. Your interpretation oversimplifies the situation to the point of meaninglessness.

[Killfacer]

One more thing...

Again, this kind of idealist nonsense effectively hampers us from an accurate understanding of the conditions in which the resistance movement exists.

"Religious fundamentalism" is merely the form taken by the hatred of the oppressor or any other group to which the "fundamentalists" are opposed. That hatred is in turn based on material conditions. Your interpretation oversimplifies the situation to the point of meaninglessness.

You cannot over simplify the execution of homosexuals and the oppression of women. Islamic fundementalism isn't just the form of resistance, it's a form of oppression.

[Killfacer]

Why not articulate the reasons why you think such comparisons are meaningless? Present some cultural differences - something, anything - which can invalidate the above comparisons rather than simply dismissing them.

What is truly pointless and not helpful is simply dismissing the evidence which strongly indicates that their struggles are comparable in substance if not in form.

For us to wholly condemn their tactics with no regard for context or historical trends would also be pointless and not helpful.

Nobody has the time or the energy to deal with that kind of meaningless idealism. There are material conditions which facilitate extremism on both sides and the solution is to create conditions which facilitate a resurgence of moderate politics.

Violence is a reaction to material conditions. So are moderate politics - in this case, they would be in response to the violence. In situations like this, when no one is willing to bend or break in order to facilitate change, the people who can make a difference have to get tired of that process before they're willing to do anything about it.

All you're doing by condemning a resistance movement's tactics is facilitating imperialism - ultimately, you're effectively negating the ethical grounds of the resistance movement. That does have a point and it is helpful - for the wrong side.

I would list the cultural differences between south africa and the middle east if they weren't so many in number. Religion for starters.

For us to accept their tactics as perfectly fine, just because they are anti-imperialist in nature is simply not acceptable. If you are willing to support the killing of civilians in futile attempts then go ahead.

The problem with what your saying is that islamic fundementalism is far more than just a form of resistance. It's taken over all resistance to imperialism and turned it into some kind of holy war. You may call it "meaningless idealism" but i fail to see how not supporting the killing of civilians, the oppression of women and the killing of homosexuals is meaningless".

[synthesis]

Resistance can come in the form of indigenous modes of oppression as opposed to foreign modes of oppression. It's not our favorite kind of resistance, but it is still resistance against imperialism.

Again, context is everything.

[synthesis]

I would list the cultural differences between south africa and the middle east if they weren't so many in number. Religion for starters.

Obviously, there are cultural differences between South Africa and the Middle East. I also asked you to provide reasons why they invalidate the evidence provided which indicates that the struggles are comparable in substance if not in form.



For us to accept their tactics as perfectly fine, just because they are anti-imperialist in nature is simply not acceptable. If you are willing to support the killing of civilians in futile attempts then go ahead.

The problem with what your saying is that islamic fundementalism is far more than just a form of resistance. It's taken over all resistance to imperialism and turned it into some kind of holy war. You may call it "meaningless idealism" but i fail to see how not supporting the killing of civilians, the oppression of women and the killing of homosexuals is meaningless".

And as a member of one of the imperialist societies to which these movements are opposed, your condemnation means what, exactly?

Jack shit, it would appear, except for providing a source of sympathy with the "civilizing" forces of the West.

[synthesis]

How can they hide missiles in buildings with civilians in and then be shocked when they get blown up?

I know, I know... blaming the victim is fucking awesome.

I mean, how can women wear mini-skirts and then be surprised when they get raped?

[danyboy27]

its not beccause the west armies act like retard that it justify people against them to be retards has well.

anyway, i think movements like hezbollah are doomed to fail, same goes for israel, for the main reason that they mixt together military and politics/religion.

sun tzu said it, you cant manage a state with the rigidity of an army, and you cant manage an army with the kindness of a state.

[Killfacer]

I know, I know... blaming the victim is fucking awesome.

I mean, how can women wear mini-skirts and then be surprised when they get raped?

I'm pretty sure i condemned israel for doing it. I am not blaming the victim. It just seems as though common sense went out of the window and hezbollah decided that they may aswell put more civilians at risk than neccessary.

[Killfacer]

Obviously, there are cultural differences between South Africa and the Middle East. I also asked you to provide reasons why they invalidate the evidence provided which indicates that the struggles are comparable in substance if not in form.



And as a member of one of the imperialist societies to which these movements are opposed, your condemnation means what, exactly?

Jack shit, it would appear, except for providing a source of sympathy with the "civilizing" forces of the West.

So why is it so important for you to show support for groups which kill homosexuals and oppress women when your support does "jack shit"?

[synthesis]

So why is it so important for you to show support for groups which kill homosexuals and oppress women when your support does "jack shit"?

I don't support them in any absolute sense. I simply provided some context for the seemingly paradoxical argument that an escalation of violence would quicken the road to peace.

Even if I did "support" them (on a messageboard on the Internet) it would still be more productive than condemning them. In general, what's good for imperialism is bad for our agenda, and all you accomplish by focusing on the transgressions of the other side is provide a source of sympathy with imperialism and the civilizing mission of the West.

[Dean]

It's elitist and chauvinist of me to believe that all humans are capable of living without a God-crutch? That's news to me.
No, as usual you have constructed a straw-man. Of course I believe that all humans have the capability to be atheists.


Misanthropy? Who are you talking about? It can't be me, because in spite of it's natural flaws I believe the human species has vast untapped potential.

You know, that's the second time in as many days I've been called a misanthropist. If I really were a misanthropist, do you think I would waste a moment of my time here?
I haven't referenced you in my post explicitly or incidentally. That you feel already that you need to defend yourself shows that you think some other part of my post was critical of you, and I welcome you to address that instead of going off on these tangents.


The two are inseperable. Science informs social policy, and only progressive societies are scientific.
Actually, I would agree with you here, except for the apparent black-white notion of progress. The U.S. has been a leader in technological advances, specifically military-bound, but at the same time has been incredibly reactionary. The scientific community is both markedly progressive and reactionary. While scientific advances tend to have an ultimately progressive tone and application, their immediate use is always marked by the reactionary systems they exist within. I don't think it is reasonable to say that only progressive societies are scientific, unless we are using very archaic definitions for "progress."


People in the US are taught to be stupid and apathetic. They're not born with it, and they're not immune to reason, education, or in extremis experiencing the pitiless indifference of the universe to their fate for themselves. The same goes for religion.
I agree with you for the most part. What I don't agree with is that attitude that we need to focus on the issue of god. What we need to do is present moral systems which are objective and non-superstituous. Human beings aren't "fixed" by attacking fundamental values alone, but by being given the opportunity to take on better, more rational attitudes. The "god" value is a tool to attain moral oneness with the human race; if people find better, more direct moral systems (such as communism) than their "god" value will be tossed to side rhetorically, factually or or in both ways. If they refuse to give up the "god" notion but take on a productive, communist mode of social interaction, I have no problem with them but a bit of pity.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No, as usual you have constructed a straw-man. Of course I believe that all humans have the capability to be atheists.

I didn't say that you didn't believe that - your comments seemed to be tarring all anti-theists with the same brush, and as an anti-theist I wanted to clear things up.


I haven't referenced you in my post explicitly or incidentally. That you feel already that you need to defend yourself shows that you think some other part of my post was critical of you, and I welcome you to address that instead of going off on these tangents.So if you felt someone was misrepresenting communism or whatever, you wouldn't speak up?


Actually, I would agree with you here, except for the apparent black-white notion of progress. The U.S. has been a leader in technological advances, specifically military-bound, but at the same time has been incredibly reactionary. The scientific community is both markedly progressive and reactionary. While scientific advances tend to have an ultimately progressive tone and application, their immediate use is always marked by the reactionary systems they exist within. I don't think it is reasonable to say that only progressive societies are scientific, unless we are using very archaic definitions for "progress."Conceded. But if the creationists in the US get their way, then American biological science will almost certainly suffer. They don't have to touch the major universities, just cause enough damage at the high-school level - after all, most university applicants go through high-school.

US biological science will also suffer if the current administration's position on stem cell research is upheld by subsequent administrations. So I would amend my previous statement to say that societies are only scientific insofar as it doesn't contradict widely-held religious/moral positions. For example, in Iran, stem cell research is flourishing because the clergy there define human life as beginning three months after conception.


I agree with you for the most part. What I don't agree with is that attitude that we need to focus on the issue of god. What we need to do is present moral systems which are objective and non-superstituous. Human beings aren't "fixed" by attacking fundamental values alone, but by being given the opportunity to take on better, more rational attitudes. The "god" value is a tool to attain moral oneness with the human race; if people find better, more direct moral systems (such as communism) than their "god" value will be tossed to side rhetorically, factually or or in both ways. If they refuse to give up the "god" notion but take on a productive, communist mode of social interaction, I have no problem with them but a bit of pity.The only religious matter I addressed before you posted in this thread is the idea of socialists "using" religion, which I disagreed with. The "focus" is all in your head.

[Salabra]

Can the socilaists use the religion opium (practically for Islam and Middle East) against the invader forces???


They can, but it'll come back to bite them in the ass, I'll bet. People should be motivated do "good stuff" because it's in their rational interests, not because it allegedly pleases some alleged heavenly master.

Well said!


. In fact, the "anti-theism" as it seems to be expressed here is often nothing more than an elitist chauvinism driven by a misanthroptic attitude which views scientific accuracy as more important than social progress. To say that the theistic issue is fundamentally the flaw with these reactionary attitudes is comparable to saying that all the false attitudes that the U.S. public has are simply issues of stupidity. It is a dismissive, insulting and decidedly un-communist attitude.

And here I was thinking that uncompromising militant atheism was integral to the Marxism of Lenin and the Bolsheviks.


Most people here have thoroughly bought into Western propaganda and do not recognize that what we call "Islamic radicalism" is, by and large, an expression of "Third World" resistance to imperialism.

BALL-derdash. It is, as you yourself admit in the very next paragraph, a species of nationalism — albeit with a sickeningly generous dose of religious fundamentalism.


It is not pure zealotry; al-Qaeda, like almost every organization that practices suicide terrorism, is fundamentally nationalist in character. Many Westerners are ignorant to the concept of a "nation of Islam" transcending arbitrary ethnic or political boundaries.

BALL-derdash again. Most ‘leftists (like most bourgeois liberals) simply will not allow themselves to see that these ‘martyrs’ really do believe in what they preach, and in this they are no different from the christian fundamentalists in the US who murder doctors for ‘killing babies.’

Most Westerners are quite familiar with religious zealots who want to ‘transcend … arbitrary ethnic or political boundaries’ in the interests of their invisible friend, thank you very much.


It is also a "nationalism of the oppressed" as defined by Marx, not because it is inherently progressive but because it is a form of resistance against imperialism.

Sucking up to extreme mediaevalism on the premise of “solidarizing with the oppressed” is not quite what Marx meant.


Resistance can come in the form of indigenous modes of oppression as opposed to foreign modes of oppression. It’s not our favorite kind of resistance, but it is still resistance against imperialism.

Again, context is everything.

So, stoning women for ‘committing adultery,’ flogging women for associating with men to whom they are not related, throwing acid in the faces of women who wear ‘western, jezebel dress,’ shooting female teachers for teaching girls to read, and beheading or pushing walls over on lesbians and gays are all OK — because they’re done in the name of ‘resistance to imperialism’ (oh, and ‘it’s part of our culture’ too)?

No wonder much of the soi-disant ‘left’ is little more than a bad joke, even among those who should logically be attracted to it.

[ComradeMan]

@Salabra

And here I was thinking that uncompromising militant atheism was integral to the Marxism of Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

Yeah, not sure I take the Bolshevik line but I hear where you are coming from- Funny how Zionists base their credo on a religious interpretation of history, as do Christian fundamentalists- but when it comes to Islamic fundamentalists it's suddenly different.


BALL-derdash. It is, as you yourself admit in the very next paragraph, a species of nationalism — albeit with a sickeningly generous dose of religious fundamentalism.

Anyone who knows an iota about Islamist fundamentalist would admit that it is theocratic imperialism.:thumbup1:

BALL-derdash again. Most ‘leftists (like most bourgeois liberals) simply will not allow themselves to see that these ‘martyrs’ really do believe in what they preach, and in this they are no different from the christian fundamentalists in the US who murder doctors for ‘killing babies.’

I agree again, I don't care what the religion is- a fanatic is a fanatic is a fanatic. The Left seems to want to bury its head in the sand about this issue.

Most Westerners are quite familiar with religious zealots who want to ‘transcend … arbitrary ethnic or political boundaries’ in the interests of their invisible friend, thank you very much.

The Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the centuries of Anti-Semitism, the fact that people are still killing each other in the Six Counties and the Yugoslavian War.... agree again...

Sucking up to extreme mediaevalism on the premise of “solidarizing with the oppressed” is not quite what Marx meant.

Solidarising with the oppressed means removing the causes of their oppression which might also be within their own culture and not always from without.

So, stoning women for ‘committing adultery,’ flogging women for associating with men to whom they are not related, throwing acid in the faces of women who wear ‘western, jezebel dress,’ shooting female teachers for teaching girls to read, and beheading or pushing walls over on lesbians and gays are all OK — because they’re done in the name of ‘resistance to imperialism’ (oh, and ‘it’s part of our culture’ too)?

Exactly---! :thumbup1:

No wonder much of the soi-disant ‘left’ is little more than a bad joke, even among those who should logically be attracted to it.

I am sad to say it, but I have to agree.

[ComradeMan]

Original post questions:-

I didnt recognize any current topic about Islam. Hence, this topic could cover any discussions about Islam.

What do you think about the relationship of Islam and the resistance against imperialism and zionism in Middle East???


There is none. In my opinion Islamists are just another form of theocratic imperialism.

Your thoughts on Islamic organizations such as Hamas, Al-Qaeda etc. ??


I would not insult Islam by calling them Islamic groups, they are Islamists, fanatics and idiots who besmirch Islam and decent Muslims.

Can the socilaists use the religion opium (practically for Islam and Middle East) against the invader forces???


I am not sure what you mean. However, the "invader" forces have by and large invaded their former allies and thus it's a war between factions of imperialism, the way I see it at least. I honestly, with all due respect, don't see how Islam per se can coexist with leftist principles unless the progressive voices in Islam come to the fore.

[synthesis]

Holy shit, we've got a Lazarus at 3 o'clock.


BALL-derdash. It is, as you yourself admit in the very next paragraph, a species of nationalism — albeit with a sickeningly generous dose of religious fundamentalism.

Sure. Nationalism is one form of resistance to imperialism. I don't really see the contradiction between your statement and mine.


BALL-derdash again. Most ‘leftists (like most bourgeois liberals) simply will not allow themselves to see that these ‘martyrs’ really do believe in what they preach, and in this they are no different from the christian fundamentalists in the US who murder doctors for ‘killing babies.’

Of course they believe in what they preach. The point is not what they think or what they say, it's what they do and why they do it.


Sucking up to extreme mediaevalism on the premise of “solidarizing with the oppressed” is not quite what Marx meant.

Interesting way of framing the debate, although I'm not sure it's a useful one.


So, stoning women for ‘committing adultery,’ flogging women for associating with men to whom they are not related, throwing acid in the faces of women who wear ‘western, jezebel dress,’ shooting female teachers for teaching girls to read, and beheading or pushing walls over on lesbians and gays are all OK — because they’re done in the name of ‘resistance to imperialism’ (oh, and ‘it’s part of our culture’ too)?

Yes. :rolleyes:

Atrocities are committed everyday, but only a select few are used to morally legitimize imperialism.


No wonder much of the soi-disant ‘left’ is little more than a bad joke, even among those who should logically be attracted to it.

Are you saying that soi-disant leftists are a bad joke, or that the left is soi-disant and therefore a bad joke? And how are you qualifying this argument? I'm a little hesitant to agree with your statement that a political analysis on an Internet message-board is responsible for the decline of leftism in the West.

[ComradeMan]

Sure. Nationalism is one form of resistance to imperialism. I don't really see the contradiction between your statement and mine.


Leftists do not support nationalism movements.

"The workers have no country".


The nation is a cultural construct which is in itself the result of the class system. Now this statement can be interpreted in different ways, but when it comes to nationalist, imperialist theocratic movements I don't think there is a solid leftist argument for supporting them any other than perhaps "my enemy's enemy is my friend"- which history has shown all too often to be disastrous.
"We oppose absolutely all national oppression and acknowledge the right of oppressed people to resist, yet we think that a nationalist response can never address the real problems. Although oppressed nationalities can succeed in gaining a share of power or even their own state, as long as they remain divided into classes, the fundamental problems return. Although Northern Ireland may get a police force that won't discriminate against Catholics, it'll still have a police force that will happily baton-charge strikers. Palestine may get its own state but the majority of the population will continue to be little more than slaves to the big capitalists of the region, and although it might be nicer to be ordered around by Arafat's stooges than by the Israeli army, it's still just taking orders."
Chekhov Feeney- Workers Solidarity Movement
http://struggle.ws/ws/2002/ws70/nation.html

Of course they believe in what they preach. The point is not what they think or what they say, it's what they do and why they do it.


This is the most pathetic excuse making I have come across. You are judged by your actions and words in this world. Of course the reasons behind things are valid but they do not change the fact- the same would apply in court. If I am poor and hungry and steal something from a shop, however sympathetic the court, I am still a thief.


Atrocities are committed everyday, but only a select few are used to morally legitimize imperialism.


Two-wrongs do not make a right. No one in their right mind thinks that this is about legitimising imperialism and to my mind Islamist fundamentalism is just another form of imperialism. Communists can fight communists, leftists can fight other leftists and factions of imperialism can also squabble.
Are you saying that soi-disant leftists are a bad joke, or that the left is soi-disant and therefore a bad joke? And how are you qualifying this argument? I'm a little hesitant to agree with your statement that a political analysis on an Internet message-board is responsible for the decline of leftism in the West.


Good use of hyperbole here. The soi-disant left is the left that conveniently fails to apply leftist principles when it suits them.

[Jazzratt]

Resistance can come in the form of indigenous modes of oppression as opposed to foreign modes of oppression. It's not our favorite kind of resistance, but it is still resistance against imperialism.

Again, context is everything.

With that being the dcase then surely "resistance to imperialism" isn't automatically a good thing. It seems fucking stupid to put up with being oppressed just so that you have the privelege of not being oppressed by someone who lives somewhere else. It seems particularly perverse to cheerlead for people dying in droves just so they can be brutalised at the behest of those within their arbitrary borders rather than those without.

[Hiero]

How can they hide missiles in buildings with civilians in and then be shocked when they get blown up? I am not vindicating any of Israels frankly dispicable actions but why to Hezbollag continue to "hide" weaponry is residential areas, despite knowing that Israel has no problem with blowing up civilians?

In regards to this comment you are missing a fundemental point. Israel has made residentional civilian areas into war zones.

There is not definite line between military and civilian in paramilitary wars, where one nation is under constant oppression and there is not offical military population. When people claim that the people of Gaza are barbaric because they "use" children soldiers they faily to realise that Israel made these children soldiers, because bombs were being droped outside their schools and killing their parents.

Your criticism of Hezbollah for "using" "civilian" areas for storing misiles is reliant on an imperialist vision of nation-states as a guidence for morality of war. The fact of the matter is that 3rd world oppressed in many cases have to reside in war zones that were created by the imperialists. If they store missiles here it is not because they are evil or irresponsible, it is because they lack the national indepedence to created the modern concept of military and civilian division.

[freepalestine]

.


...... What people forget is that Hamas is both more willing to meet with Israeli groups and more willing to enter into peace accords than Fatah. Hamas fatal attacks in Israel or against Israeli citizens pale in comparison to Fatah attacks, the latter of which are primarily suicide attacks against civilians (Al-Aqsa martyrs) whereas Hamas attacks are rockets fired into adjacent, militarized settlements. ......
where did you get that info from????

[synthesis]

With that being the dcase then surely "resistance to imperialism" isn't automatically a good thing. It seems fucking stupid to put up with being oppressed just so that you have the privelege of not being oppressed by someone who lives somewhere else. It seems particularly perverse to cheerlead for people dying in droves just so they can be brutalised at the behest of those within their arbitrary borders rather than those without.

What is the alternative? I'm not "cheerleading" for anyone. I am simply trying to provide a balance for the contemporary tendencies of "Hitchensism" - that is, the philosophy that radical Islam is so much worse than imperialism that the latter should be espoused to counteract the former when, in fact, we wouldn't have the former without the latter.

[synthesis]

Leftists do not support nationalism movements.




No offense, but I'm not really interested in your opinion on what leftists should or shouldn't do.




"We oppose absolutely all national oppression and acknowledge the right of oppressed people to resist, yet we think that a nationalist response can never address the real problems. Although oppressed nationalities can succeed in gaining a share of power or even their own state, as long as they remain divided into classes, the fundamental problems return. Although Northern Ireland may get a police force that won't discriminate against Catholics, it'll still have a police force that will happily baton-charge strikers. Palestine may get its own state but the majority of the population will continue to be little more than slaves to the big capitalists of the region, and although it might be nicer to be ordered around by Arafat's stooges than by the Israeli army, it's still just taking orders."
Chekhov Feeney- Workers Solidarity Movement
http://struggle.ws/ws/2002/ws70/nation.htmlOf course. I'm not asserting that radical Islam is as ethically valid a form of resistance to imperialism as a genuine socialist people's movement, and I would probably be prudent to avoid those connotations in the future.

The point is that people very rarely consider radical Islam in the same context as other national liberation movements. It is considered as bad or worse than Western imperialism, and I just don't think that's the case.


This is the most pathetic excuse making I have come across. You are judged by your actions and words in this world. Of course the reasons behind things are valid but they do not change the fact- the same would apply in court. If I am poor and hungry and steal something from a shop, however sympathetic the court, I am still a thief. Where you see "excuse-making," I see contextualization. How can you have a proper understanding of any situation without understanding its context? I don't think you can.

[ComradeMan]

No offense, but I'm not really interested in your opinion on what leftists should or shouldn't do.


No offense, but then what are you doing on a revolutionary left group? This is a solid leftists and internationalist principle.

Of course. I'm not asserting that radical Islam is as ethically valid a form of resistance to imperialism as a genuine socialist people's movement, and I would probably be prudent to avoid those connotations in the future.

Good- because radical Islam- bad nomenclature to start with, let's say "radical Islamists" are not a valid form of resistance to imperialism at all. They are merely a different form of imperialism that is fighting it out with the "dominant" form of imperialism at the moment.

The point is that people very rarely consider radical Islam in the same context as other national liberation movements. It is considered as bad or worse than Western imperialism, and I just don't think that's the case.

I don't think that's true at all. But once again, internationalists and/or leftists do not support national liberation movements. The second point is valid enough but when a said group or groups use terror tactics and enforce reactionary medieval interpretations of religion on their "own" peoples etc etc it doesn't do much for their PR. :D

Where you see "excuse-making," I see contextualization. How can you have a proper understanding of any situation without understanding its context? I don't think you can.

I see the excuse-making in the failure to take responsibility for their own actions and on the part of the apologists for somehow skirting around the main issue that radical islamists are reactionaries and counter-revolutionary.

[Kléber]

"radical Islamists" are not a valid form of resistance to imperialism at all. They are merely a different form of imperialism that is fighting it out with the "dominant" form of imperialism at the moment.
Islamic nations are certainly capable of imperialism but the dominance of Islamism in the anti-imperialist movement should be seen as a political failure of communism, rather than delegitimizing anti-imperialist struggles under a reactionary banner.

[ComradeMan]

Islamic nations are certainly capable of imperialism but the dominance of Islamism in the anti-imperialist movement should be seen as a political failure of communism, rather than delegitimizing anti-imperialist struggles under a reactionary banner.

1. What dominance of Islamism?
2. Anti-Western is not de facto synonymous with anti-imperialist.

I found this article in the Asia Times that makes interesting reading too.

"But without Qutb, present-day Islamism as a noxious amalgam of fascist totalitarianism and extremes of Islamic fundamentalism would not exist. His principal "accomplishment" was to articulate the social and political practices of the Muslim Brotherhood from the 1930s through the 1950s - including collaboration with fascist regimes and organizations, involvement in anti-colonial, anti-Western and anti-Israeli actions, and the struggle for state power in Egypt - in demagogically persuasive fashion, buttressed by tendentious references to Islamic law and scriptures to deceive the faithful. Qutb, a one-time literary critic, was not a religious fundamentalist, but a Goebbels-style propagandist for a new totalitarianism to stand side-by-side with fascism and communism.

Hitler's early 1933 accession to power in Germany was widely cheered by Arabs of all different political persuasions. When the "Third Reich" spook and horrors were over 12 years later, a favorite excuse among those who felt the need for one was that the Nazis had been allies against the colonial oppressors and "Zionist intruders". Many felt no need for an excuse at all and simply bemoaned the fact that the Nazis' "final solution" to the "Jewish problem" had not proved final enough. But affinities with fascism on the part of the Muslim Brotherhood and other segments of Arab and Muslim society went much deeper than collaboration with the enemy of one's enemies, and collaboration itself took some extreme forms.

Substitute religious for racial purity, the idealized ummah of the rule of the four righteous caliphs of the mid-7th century for the mythical Aryan "Volksgemeinschaft", and most ideological and organizational precepts of Nazism laid out by chief theoretician Alfred Rosenberg in his work The Myth of the 20th Century and by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf, and later put into practice, are in all essential respects identical to the precepts of the Muslim Brotherhood after its initial phase as a group promoting spiritual and moral reform. This ranges from radical rejection of "decadent" Western political and economic liberalism (instead embracing the "leadership principle" and corporatist organization of the economy) to endorsement of the use of terror and assassinations to seize and hold state power, and all the way to concoction of fantastical anti-Semitic conspiracy theories linking international plutocratic finance to Freemasonry, Zionism and all-encompassing Jewish world control.

Not surprisingly then, as Italian and German fascism sought greater stakes in the Middle East in the 1930s and '40s to counter British and French controlling power, close collaboration between fascist agents and Islamist leaders ensued. During the 1936-39 Arab Revolt, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of German military intelligence, sent agents and money to support the Palestine uprising against the British, as did Muslim Brotherhood founder and "supreme guide" Hassan al-Banna. A key individual in the fascist-Islamist nexus and go-between for the Nazis and al-Banna became the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini - incidentally the later mentor (from 1946 onward) of a young firebrand by the name of Yasser Arafat.

Having fled from Palestine to Iraq, el-Husseini assisted there in the short-lived April 1941 Nazi-inspired and financed anti-British coup. By June 1941, British forces had reasserted control in Baghdad and the mufti was on the run again, this time via Tehran and Rome to Berlin, to a hero's welcome. He remained in Germany as an honored guest and valuable intelligence and propaganda asset through most of the war, met with Hitler on several occasions, and personally recruited leading members of the Bosnian-Muslim "Hanjar" (saber) division of the Waffen SS.

Another valued World War II Nazi collaborator was Youssef Nada, current board chairman of al-Taqwa (Nada Management), the Lugano, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and Bahamas-based financial services outfit accused by the US Treasury Department of money laundering for and financing of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda. As a young man, he had joined the armed branch of the "secret apparatus" (al-jihaz al-sirri) of the Muslim Brotherhood and then was recruited by German military intelligence. When Grand Mufti el-Husseini had to flee Germany in 1945 as the Nazi defeat loomed, Nada reportedly was instrumental in arranging the escape via Switzerland back to Egypt and eventually Palestine, where el-Husseini resurfaced in 1946."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DK08Ak03.html

[Kléber]

Yeah, it's a crap ideology. A communist militia trying to negotiate a united front with Islamists to fight imperialists together, had better be careful they walk out of that meeting alive. But in some countries people are legitimately fighting against imperialism with crappy ideologies in addition to crappy weapons.

[freepalestine]

1. What dominance of Islamism?
2. Anti-Western is not de facto synonymous with anti-imperialist.

I found this article in the Asia Times that makes interesting reading too.

"But without Qutb, present-day Islamism as a noxious amalgam of fascist totalitarianism and extremes of Islamic fundamentalism would not exist. His principal "accomplishment" was to articulate the social and political practices of the Muslim Brotherhood from the 1930s through the 1950s - including collaboration with fascist regimes and organizations, involvement in anti-colonial, anti-Western and anti-Israeli actions, and the struggle for state power in Egypt - in demagogically were over 12 years later, a favorite excuse among those who felt the need for one was that the Nazis had been allies against the colonial oppressors and "Zionist intruders". Many felt noitself took some extreme forms.

Substitute religious for racial purity, the idealized ummah of the rule of the four righteous caliphs of the mid-7th century for the mythical Aryan "Volksgemeinschaft", and most ideological and organizational precepts of Nazism laid out by chief theoretician Alfred Rosenberg in his work The Myth of the 20th Century and by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf, and later put into practice, are in all essential respects identical to the precepts of the Muslim Brotherhood after its initial phase as a group promoting spiritual and moral reform. This ranges from radical rejection of "decadent" Western political and economic liberalism (instead embracing the "leadership principle" and corporatist organization of the economy) to endorsement of the use of terror and assassinations to seize and hold state power, and all the way to concoction of fantastical anti-Semitic conspiracy theories linking international plutocratic finance to Freemasonry, Zionism and all-encompassing Jewish world control.

Not surprisingly then, as Italian and German fascism sought greater stakes in the Middle East in the 1930s and '40s to counter British and French controlling power, close collaboration between fascist agents and Islamist leaders ensued. During the 1936-39 Arab Revolt, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of German military intelligence, sent agents and money to support the Palestine uprising against the British, as did Muslim Brotherhood founder and "supreme guide" Hassan al-Banna. A key individual in the fascist-Islamist nexus and go-between for the Nazis and al-Banna became the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini - incidentallyan honored guest and valuable intelligence and propaganda asset through most of the war, met with Hitler on several occasions, and personally recruited leading members of the Bosnian-Muslim "Hanjar" (saber) division of the Waffen SS.

Another valued World War II Nazi collaborator was Youssef Nada, current board chairman of al-Taqwa (Nada Management), the Lugano, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and Bahamas-based financial services outfit accused by the US Treasury Department of money laundering for and financing of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda. As a young man, he had joined the armed branch of the "secret apparatus" (al-jihaz al-sirri) of the Muslim Brotherhood and then was recruited by German military intelligence. When Grand Mufti el-Husseini had to flee Germany in 1945 as the Nazi defeat loomed, Nada reportedly was instrumental in arranging the escape via Switzerland back to Egypt and eventually Palestine, where el-Husseini resurfaced in 1946."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DK08Ak03.html
you complain that nationalism(which includes zionism)shouldn't be supported by leftists.fair enough.yet you post this article ,whatever that has to do with the topic.maybe you could mention the background to the original backers of al-husseini ...

[ComradeMan]

you complain that nationalism(which includes zionism)shouldn't be supported by leftists.fair enough.yet you post this article ,whatever that has to do with the topic.maybe you could mention the background to the original backers of al-husseini ...

It's quite obvious what this has to do with topic, secondly why do you have to bring Zionism into this? Is the only justification that certain reactionay groups have the one about Zionism? Please....

[freepalestine]

hmmm?

[Salabra]

So, stoning women for ‘committing adultery,’ flogging women for associating with men to whom they are not related, throwing acid in the faces of women who wear ‘western, jezebel dress,’ shooting female teachers for teaching girls to read, and beheading or pushing walls over on lesbians and gays are all OK — because they’re done in the name of ‘resistance to imperialism’ (oh, and ‘it’s part of our culture’ too)?


Yes. :rolleyes:

You pathetic animal — you ought to have your arse kicked from whatever rathole you’re hiding in all the way to Antarctica and back again.

It’s no wonder that women and gays feel unwelcome on this board.