[lit-ideas] Re: Anarchism and Leftism
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 19:32:52 -0700
Do you see what you've done in the note below, Simon. Through the repartee
you have ended up supporting Hizbollah and opposing both Israel and the US,
and this was the assumption, not even a point, merely an assumption I
thought obvious, that launched a thousand quibblers.
I'll pass over your comparison, your moral equivalency making the US as bad
as Militant Islam.
I note your assumption, contrary to the evidence, but advocated by Militant
Islam that Israel rather than Hizbollah and Hamas, initiated the war.
I note your surprise that "Liberal Democracy" has the word Liberal in it.
Perhaps I added it while you weren't looking.
You advanced confidently the assertion that there were more terrorists as a
result of US military action. When I said there were fewer you demanded
evidence. Gosh, why didn't I think of demanding evidence from you?
Militant Islam used to have Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq in its
camp. Each nation had thousands of Militant Muslims brandishing everything
from Kalashnikovs to Russian tanks at neighbors, Israel and the US. Those
nations are not presently doing that. There are fewer Militant Islamists
engaged in threatening activities as a result of Bush's actions. Now I hope
you aren't going to challenge each one of these nations as no longer being
in the Militant Islamic camps for I have discussed these matters several
times. I do sometimes hate repeating myself. And I hope you aren't going to
assert that the insurgents in Afghanistan (those who formerly supported the
Taliban) and the Sunni insurgents in Iraq (who had their bread buttered by
Saddam) were created by Bush.
I note that you believe that that the US (and its allies) have created
enemies as a result of Bush's policies. Well, that would be a trick, to
create Militant Islam and to create the Leftist alliance that supports
militant Islam. You say it would "nonsensical" not to believe this. Cough,
cough, hack, hack . . . really? What an amazing thing for Bush to have
created Militant Islam, or perhaps not created it but added to its ranks.
You obviously haven't read very much about Militant Islam because even they
don't believe that. It isn't in their ideology. It isn't in their
paradigm. But it is in the Marxist paradigm, the Marxist revolution. The
dirty evil-smelling capitalists oppress the proletarian masses until they've
had enough and revolt. The revolt is caused by Capitalistic oppression.
But if you read what Islamists say about themselves, they don't say that,
unless they are at a Leftist rally and want to say things to keep the
Leftists coming. Marxism isn't in their ideology. Sayyid Qutb liked the
way Stalin ran his country but he didn't like Stalin's ideology.
There are variations of Islamist ideology but great consistency among
Wahhabism, Salafism, Maududi, Al Banna, Sayyid Qutb and Ruhollah Khomeini.
Bush does not make any of these people believe what they believe, it is
their religion. They believe in a Fundamentalist form of Islam that
stresses stringent adherence to the Sharia and the Jihad as a primary means
for spreading Islam. National boundaries aren't important. There is just
the ummah. No part of the land of the ummah may be given up. Israel now
inhabits part of the Ummah's land and must be driven out of it. Bush had
nothing to do with the creation of this ideology. I know you think it
nonsensical not to see Bush's hand in there some place, but it isn't there.
It really isn't.
Another element in Militant Islam is the Secular Pan-Arabism. Pan-Arabism
is consistent with Islamism up to a point. It wants to eliminate the
boundaries created by Britain and France after WWI and have just Arabia. A
problem with Pan-Arabism is that the three most substantial members, Egypt,
Syria, and Iraq couldn't agree on who was going to be in charge. While
Pan-Arabism didn't have ambitions beyond Arabia, it did see a united Arabia
as a major world power with nuclear weapons, a major army and lots and lots
of oil. Islamism wanted to conquer the world. Pan-Arabism would be content
to equal the United States, the EU and China in power.
It doesn't make any difference whether the Madrid Bombers had a connection
with Al Quaeda or not. Al Quaeda does not equal Militant Islam. Al Quaeda
is but one element in Militant Islam. The Madrid Bombers supported the
Militant Islamic efforts to thwart the US attempts to turn Iraq into a
democracy that will be at peace with its neighbors (something less than a
Liberal Democracy but a move in the right direction as far as we're
concerned.) The Madrid bombers wanted to stop the Spanish support of the US
efforts in Iraq and succeeded. Did Bush create the Madrid bombers; well I
suppose you could argue that if the US wimped out the way that Spain did the
particular Madrid bombers might have chosen to vent their Islamism in some
other way. I don't know. It doesn't seem worth pursuing.
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Simon Ward
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 5:14 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Anarchism and Leftism
"Yeah right. After 1983 Israel kept a small buffer in Lebanon which was
especially important since Lebanon reneged on the treaty by leaving
Hizbollah in place. 1559 would have removed the buffer and made it that
much easier for Hizbollah to do what it ultimately did."
Interesting. So why has Israel been seeking to justify its aggression by
saying that it is working towards the implementation of 1559. Actually 1559
included the provision that Hezbollah would disarm, so to say that the
resolution, if implented, would have given Hezbollah freedom to act is to
miss the point. My guess is that you just don't like it because it's a UN
resolution.
"This is a well-known Islamist ploy. The Muslim Brothers of Egypt ... were
noted for their good works -- as well as a few assassinations."
Much like the US then...
"What part of "Liberal" do you not understand."
So it's not about democracy even, but a certain type of democracy, a type
that can deliver economic benefits to the US.
"There are much fewer Radical Muslims available to fight us as a result of
Bush's actions. "
1. Show me or point me towards evidence to support that.
2. As evidence to the contrary, the Madrid bombers and the London bombers
had no connection to Al Qaeda. Both attacks resulted from US action in Iraq.
To say that the US (and its allies) have not created enemies as a result of
Bush's policies is nonsensical.
Simon
Other related posts:
