Harry’s Place

“When all else fails, “Jews” and “Christian” West are there to lay the blame for all our ills. Conspiracy theories instead of scientific, rational thought holds sway across much of the Muslim world.” Excellent article. Of course, we have a very similar problem here. When our leaders launch aggressive wars that turn the Middle East into bloodbath, there are plenty of people ready to explain it is the very nature of the “Muslims” that are to blame. It is, we are told, a war of ideology - us enlightened Westerners versus them. Anyone who opposes the US domination of their country must be a fanatical hater of freedom. This is, in fact, the central thesis of the “decents” - nothing we do is our fault - blame the savages.

Time to start a dead pool on Sulehria.

Taking bets, how long till he’s killed?

No, it isn’t a very similar problem at all. It is a very different problem.

And I think you’ll be very hard pressed to find “Decents” who would argue that there is anything in the “very nature of Muslims” that is the cause of any problem. In fact, if you’ve been looking closely, you’ll see that the “Decents” have been arguing the absolute opposite of this.

It’s a powerful article.

Josh may be right that he ends up dead. On the other hand with that kind of clear-cutting rhetoric he might well end up as president.

Also Irie you fail to grasp that we’re not pitting peoples against each other, we’re pitting rights, freedoms, ideas against oppressive ideology.

It’s merciful that oppressive ideology is not some sort of racial characteristic. If that were the case then there would be no hope for humanity at all.

Wonderful article. Sadly, you can’t donate to the LPP online.

It is, we are told, a war of ideology - us enlightened Westerners versus them

yes this is I think what we are told by Chomsky and the STWC. The actual positions of those you call “Decents” are usually somewhat more nuanced (although we are able to empathise enough with the innate desire of middle-class british kids to be clown girls and reduce everything to a fourth-form understanding of Manichaeism.

Of course, we have a very similar problem here.

The Irie has the keenest reflexes in all Christendom.

TheIrie - Shut the fuck up you fucking idiot.

Excellent article, by the way.

Here’s what Bush said to the Guardian this week:

“The relationship with Tony Blair, first of all, is a relationship forged by fire. I have this idealistic streak and so does Blair. But we also understand that this idealism is a practical response to the world. He understands, like I understand, this is an ideological struggle”

“A lot of people hoped this wasn’t a war - they just kind of dismiss it as, oh, there’s some irritated guys making some moves. We viewed it as an ideological struggle that requires response through good intelligence, sometimes military action - obviously, sometimes law-enforcement - all aiming to dismantle cells and protect our people. But that ultimately freedom has to defeat the ideology of hate.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/15/georgebush.usa1

It’s an ideological war according to those who launched it. And before you tell me Bush isn’t reflective of the decents, here is Oliver Kamm today, praising him:

“The most fundamental decision in western security policy in the past seven years has not been the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. It has been the recognition that the most voluble adversaries of western society are not merely a criminal subculture, and still less an incipient liberation movement. Rather, they are a reactionary, millenarian and atavistic force with whom accommodation is impossible as well as intensely undesirable… The grand strategy pursued by the US under Bush has overestimated the plasticity of the international order, but it has got one big thing right. There is an integral connection between the terrorism that targets western societies and the autocratic states in which Islamist fanaticism is incubated.”

Excellent article.

Saddam *derserved* to be overthrown. The ideology that held this was 100% correct. Whether in *practical* terms, the war was the best way of doing this up for debate, but not the ideology that holds that everyone on this planet deserves a democratic voice free from tyrany.

I wil, however, withdraw this “there are plenty of people ready to explain it is the very nature of the “Muslims” that are to blame.”. Decents are far too careful with language to say anything like that. It is, rather an unspecified enemy, “a reactionary, millenarian and atavistic force with whom accommodation is impossible as well as intensely undesirable” to quote Kamm. The problem cannot possibly have anything whatsoever to do with the occupation of their country and the killing of their people (not only by terrorists - we’ve killed a lot too). That is heresy. Its the savages, see.

Irie, I think there’s a distinction to be made between Bush saying there’s an ideological struggle against Islamist terrorism and your claim that “decents” are engaged in a war against “Muslims”, who they see as “savages”. Still you managed to make Bush look quite nuanced and refined, which isn’t bad going.

I wil, however, withdraw this “there are plenty of people ready to explain it is the very nature of the “Muslims” that are to blame.”. Decents are far too careful with language to say anything like that. It is, rather an unspecified enemy, “a reactionary, millenarian and atavistic force with whom accommodation is impossible as well as intensely undesirable” to quote Kamm. The

Fuck me. I don’t suppose could be talking about the ideology of Islamism there, and not Islam in general, do you?

Excellent article. Of course, we have a very similar problem here.

Obviously you didn’t read the pissing thing, as the whole point was to compare the situation in Muslim countries unfavourably with that in the West.

W - I don’t “claim that “decents” are engaged in a war against “Muslims”, who they see as “savages”” - see my above qualification.

“The problem cannot possibly have anything whatsoever to do with the occupation of their country and the killing of their people”

No, because in almost every Muslim country, the greatest killing, inculcation of terror and misery, and denial of civil liberties comes from the theocrats in power, not from “The West”. The slaughter in Iraq continues, but not by the coalition forces but by fanatical Islamists who blow up town markets and job queues. Ditto Afghanistan, Ditto Algeria, Ditto Pakistan, Ditto Darfur, and so on. From Saudi Arabia to Iran, it is not “The West” oppressing their citizens. Did you not *read* the article?

Decents are far too careful with language to say anything like that.

Of course Irie knows that underneath they are all sitting typing away in a replicla General Gordon uniform (just as they know he is sitting with a portrait of Vidkun Quisling on his bedside table.)

This kind of debate was quite funny about four years ago.

The Labour Party of Pakistan is a Marxist organisation and is what a Marxist group should be: secular, revolutionary, anti-militarist and pro-worker. It is always interesting to read the views of Marxists who are directly affected by the Islamic right. I wonder whether their Western comrades will listen empathically to their views, or will continue to work in solidarity with the violent anti-Communist Islamist reactionaries that terrorise South Asia.

I wil, however, withdraw this “there are plenty of people ready to explain it is the very nature of the “Muslims” that are to blame.”. Decents are far too careful with language to say anything like that

Yes, we’re clever racists, aren’t we?

Fuck off.

It is, rather an unspecified enemy, “a reactionary, millenarian and atavistic force with whom accommodation is impossible as well as intensely undesirable” to quote Kamm

Oliver Kamm was quite clearly not talking about ‘Muslims’ in general, but about Islamists.

So that little sentence tells us that you are either wilfully stupid, or you think that ‘Muslims’ as a whole are “a reactionary, millenarian and atavistic force with whom accommodation is impossible”.

Which is it?

OK - Islamists. I should have written Islamists, not Muslims. For the decent chap/lady, the problems in war are entirely due to the Islamists. whilst our governments, that launched the aggressive wars, are entirely blameless. That is what I’m arguing. Please scrub any implicit charges of racism I’ve made from the record - this wasn’t my intended point.

Marxists are preferable to Islamists in the same sort of way that cancer is preferable to AIDS (to paraphrase a Romanian newspaper on a presidential elections there a few years back)

For the decent chap/lady, the problems in war are entirely due to the Islamists. whilst our governments, that launched the aggressive wars, are entirely blameless.

This thread is making me nostalgic. Go on, write something about “root causes”.

dirigible - because your side of the argument (that argued for the war) has been proved so right, hasn’t it. Anyone for a little humility?

“Conspiracy theories instead of scientific, rational thought holds sway across much of the Muslim world. …”
There are interesting connexions between conspiracy theories, religion and science. Just as the explosion in scientific knowledge and thinking in Protestant countries and the contribution of jews to scientific thought in the last century seem to have been connected with the transfer of ways of thinking from religious to scientific topics it’ll be interesting to see the effect in the muslim world as belief in islam as an absolute and all-explanatoryn truth vanishes.

OK - Islamists. I should have written Islamists, not Muslims. For the decent chap/lady, the problems in war are entirely due to the Islamists. whilst our governments, that launched the aggressive wars, are entirely blameless.

You’re fairly scatterbrained, aren’t you?

We aren’t discussing “the problems in war.” The article is about a certain culture of paranoid conspiracism about the West in many Muslim countries, which stifles progress in dealing with the real problems that people in those countries face. You suggested that a similar situation existed in the West amongst Decents and others, in which we supposedly view Muslims as a homogenised mass. Now you’ve backpedalled and retracted that statement, how on earth have we got on to the “problems in war”?

My main issue with you is that you called it an excellent article, then went on to say that the same problem exists in the West, when the whole point of the article was comparing the situation unfavourably with that of the West. Which is it?

I mean, it can’t be both. Unless you happen to think it’s both an excellent article and completely wrong?

TheIrie wrote:

“Please scrub any implicit charges of racism I’ve made from the record - this wasn’t my intended point.”

you’d never imagine that TheIrie is an academic, where the choice of language is crucial and how words are used is even more important

from the outset in so many threads he argues in bad faith (assuming the worst of motives for his interlocturer’s but expecting the most charitable interpretation of his own sloppy statements).

TheIrie is best ignored

Well there’s no shortage of people in the West, in this country anyway, who imagine that all of our problems would be solved if we went back to some mythical time in the past which never actually existed. They usually mean the 1950s though, not the seventh century.

TheIrie - I take it you never passed the comprehension section in of your ‘O’ Level English paper…

Is The Irie really an academic? Student or lecturer?

“Is The Irie really an academic? Student or lecturer?”

Neither, merely a construct.

because your side of the argument (that argued for the war) has been proved so right, hasn’t it.

Military action has removed Saddam Hussein from power. So I think I have been proved right.

I’d have preferred slightly less jihadi action afterwards, obviously, but that’s another area where I differ from you.

Anyone for a little humility?

Oh go on, then, if you’re offering.

THE IRIE: The problem cannot possibly have anything whatsoever to do with the occupation of their country and the killing of their people

Did the Iraqis have no other choice but to attack each other with bombs and electric drills because a foreign power toppled their government?

When the British conquered India it was to bring “commerce and civilisation”. When the American’s invaded Iraq it was to bring “markets and democracy” (Condi Rice quote). In historical perspective it is entirely clear what British interests were in India, and helping the population had very little to do with it. And when the British wanted to go into India, they suddenly turned the magnifying glass on the country. There were plenty of pretexts to be found - plenty of backward practises, suppression of women and so on. It is exactly the same today. The great powers want to conquer and occupy Iraq, for reasons of power and self interest. At the same time, in the tradition of the 19th c. British liberals, an army of “decents” pops up to justify these actions as for the good of the population being conquered. At the same time, as bodies pile up, the country infrastructure is destroyed, and an unmitigated disaster follows, these same “liberals” deny any responsibility for anything. This is “blaming others”. This is the central argument of Hitchens, Cohen, Kamm, HP and the decents in general.

TheIrie is one non sequitur after another.

I don’t see what bearing anything TheIrie just said has on anything else that has been said in this thread, on his accusations of bigotry, or the contradictions in his first post.

Is there a problem with the Harry’s Place server, and some posts are being eaten up? Because either I’m missing something, or TheIrie’s gone off the deep end.

Yes, The Irie.

You are right and everyone here is wrong.

Now fuck off.

Leave debate here to people with brains.

thanks

‘… bodies pile up, the country infrastructure is destroyed’

Nice wording. No indication of who is piling up the bodies and who is destroying the country’s infrastructure. Best not to look to closely into that. It might make it hard to place the blame where you want to.

When the British conquered India it was to bring “commerce and civilisation”.

British colonialism was a largely positive affair.

My ancestors found the ‘oppresssion’ of british colonialism far better than that of Czarist Russia.

That’s why they summoned the courage to cross thousands of miles of treacherous ocean on rat-infested ships.

Three cheers for Lord Raffles!

And pith helmets!

OT:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7459200.stm

Israel and Hamas ‘agree truce’

Oh good, I just hope the Israelis aren’t expecting “from Thursday” while HAMAS are thinking “for Thursday”.

Brett - your faith in the democratising mission is touching. Do you ever read the actual news from Iraq, like this new Amnesty report on the refugee crisis (4.7 million refugees estimated)? Like the Iraqi Prime minister complaining that the US is contravening Iraqi sovereignty? Like the joint statements of the trade unions, which HP and the like disregard because they oppose the occupation and privatisation of Iraqi resources. Like the million odd dead people. All this, chalked up to “democratisation” and “freedom”. Marvellous.

The sad part is that Farooq’s brilliant article will probably be read by more Westerners than regional Muslims. I’ve always believed that the biggest issue holding back the Islamic nations is the sense of “God willing” - enshallah. No modern society today, hoping to compete with the rest of the world can either economically or socially afford the huge expense of a controlling religion which at its heart, encourages adherents to blame others and even God, for their problems.

The problem is how to convince practically a whole continent of people that frooq speaks the ultimate truth about their dilemna, and their perceived inadequacy compared to the Western world and even much of the developing world.

It may take for all the oil to run out before they get there. And that will be a global catastrophe. I would not be surprised if in a few years the West transparently invades the ME and takes over the oil production. We may have to do that to avoid global starvation and chaos. The high oil price is not hurting us in the West anything like its hitting the most vulnerable in Asia and Africa.

Would we let the world starve because OPEC was fucking around with oil prices? I’d say invade if it meant a global oil market ( zero tolernace for speculators) with stable production and prices.

Highly relevant article. I look forward to Bob Pitt running with it.

I do believe TheIrie rather resembles - to mangle a phrase by George Orwell - a cuttlefish squirting out ink.

He has ben called on and retracted his mischaracterisation of Decents in general and Oliver Kamm in particular as purveoyrs of bigoted generalisations about Muslims. He has skimmed over the glaring contradictions in his first post. And he has flatly ignored the curiosity of talking about the bloodshed in Iraq without actually addressing who is causing it, that was flagged up by a couple of posters.

So now he’s uselessly preaching his standard line, backed up with a marvellous dollop of square quotes around the word democratisation despite being the only person to use that word in this thread and the laughable “million odd dead” figure.

Amazing stuff.

square=scare

To get back to the point of the article, I’m with Minoan. As insightful as the article is, the real problem is getting that message across to the greater body of people about whom the author is talking.

And, then, convincing them that he isn’t a Zionist or American stooge and himself part of the conspiracy.

it is a pity that no one has explained to TheIrie that one of the worse faults to make when arguing (or discussing ideas) is to misrepresent other people’s arguments, as he does time and again, above

if TheIrie erects any more strawmen then surely there will be a world-wide shortage of hay ?

I hope one of his fellow academics will remind him of these issues, basic argumentation for 15 year olds

“the real problem is getting that message across to the greater body of people about whom the author is talking.”

I actually think most Pakistanis are anti-Islamist, including deeply socially conservative people. Secularism - which, in the South Asian context, means religious equality and tolerance rather than the absence of religion - also has a fairly large constituency in the country. The problem is not with the people, it is with a powerful Saudi-influenced Sunni clergy and its alliance with the military. There is also a deep-seated insecurity in the establishment about national identity in a country that has little to unite it beyond religion. Independence for the secular-minded Bengali nationalists has prompted the largely Punjabi establishment to intensify the use of religion and hatred of India in national identity in order to quell Sindhi and Balochi nationalism and Pashtun tribalism and control the direction of Kashmiri nationalism. But if there was an absence of political and religious violence, if there was no corruption and freedom of speech and association, the Islamists would have little influence in Pakistan and perhaps the country would not exist, at least in its present form.

TheIrie wrote:

I wil, however, withdraw this “there are plenty of people ready to explain it is the very nature of the “Muslims” that are to blame.”
…..
OK - Islamists. I should have written Islamists, not Muslims.

TheIrie, how about simply withdrawing almost every comment you’ve ever posted here, and starting again.

Theirie has clouded the debate somewhat. I think most people accept that the article hit the nail on the head. The more interesting questions are:

Why is critical thought so absent from mainstream Islamic societies?

and

What can we do to promote critical thought in the Islamic World?

Are the problems in the article related to dictatorships, the poor standard of education in Islamic countries, the lack of an ‘Islamic Enlightenment’ or is Islam incompatible with modern, secular life?

As a modern conservative (or Liberal fundamentalist) I have to admit to some disappointment that people of my persuasion are almost unknown in Islamia, while people of the Left are doing their best in very difficult circumstances to carry the fight for freedom to their lands.

I do not know why this is, but suspect that true Liberalism is too simple and obvious an ideology and its reasoning too subtle to counter virulent Islamism, while Marxism does at least have handles for activists to clutch.

However, even Brezhnev could not make Marxism stick in Afghanistan, so they have a very long way to go. I wish Farooq good luck in his struggle, but hope that, should he succeed, his country will not end up looking like Belarus or North Korea.

Gene - underneath my mumbling, is a coherent argument, one that should make you uncomfortable. You might try engaging with it?

I actually think most Pakistanis are anti-Islamist, including deeply socially conservative people.

The Islamist parties do terribly in elections.

“Why is critical thought so absent from mainstream Islamic societies?”

The problem with this question is that it lumps all Islamic societies together. Criticism of Islamic fundamentalism is not absent from Muslim society in South Asia. There is an active and vibrant liberal intelligensia and some fairly powerful, if often corrupt, secular Muslim figures. Likewise in Turkey and south east Asia. The problem is not the absence of debate, but the violence meted out to rational, secular, socialist and liberal people by Islamist militants and the authorities. Ordinary people, who wish to just get on with their lives, are afraid and lack confidence. The party to which Mr Sulehria belongs is under constant threat from these forces and its leaders have been repeatedly arrested by the Musharraf regime, although they are only armed with words.

TheIrie wrote:

“Gene - underneath my mumbling, is a coherent argument, one that should make you uncomfortable. You might try engaging with it?”

if there really is a coherent argument in your posts, then try to articulate it yourself, don’t expect others to disentangle your erratic thinking and clumsy articulation

Why should anyone engage with your argument Irie?

You aren’t even addressing the subject of this article, you are instead droning on about a topic of your own choosing.

This is why other people try to send you out to play on the railway line.

“You aren’t even addressing the subject of this article, you are instead droning on about a topic of your own choosing.”

I also see people droning on and on about what this Irie guy said instead of the subject of the article.

” Do you ever read the actual news from Iraq, like this new Amnesty report on the refugee crisis (4.7 million refugees estimated)? ”

Oh right. Do you remember when 3 million refugees _returned_ to Afghanistan, and therefore you said that the overthrow of the Taliban was a good thing?

Oh no, wait, you didn’t.

P.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7459200.stm

Israel and Hamas ‘agree truce’

That’s Morgoth’s cue to come here and rant about Judases and Masada.

P.

More news from Iraq, which of course has nothing whatsoever to do with the ongoing resistance and violence:

“The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent.”
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2008/0606dollars.htm

“Amid all the talk about the US military “surge” in Iraq, little has been said about the accompanying “surge” of Iraqi prisoners, whose numbers rose to nearly 51,000 at the end of 2007. Global Policy Forum’s Ciara Gilmartin states that “US forces hold nearly all detainees indefinitely without charge, an arrest warrant or the opportunity to defend themselves.” Human rights monitors, including the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI), are denied access to detention centers in Iraq by US officials. This lack of oversight not only increases the likelihood of detainee abuse, but also violates international human rights law. (Foreign Policy in Focus)”
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/torture/2008/0507surgeprison.htm

Keep blaming the Islamists.

now that the Iraqi “resistance” are also fighting the Islamists, which side are you on, Irie?

What do you mean “now” tim? They have been from day one. And I’m not on any side in Iraq. I’m British and I want to hold my government accountable for waging a war of aggression which has destroyed a country and a people.

the Sunni “resistance” have always fought Al Queda?
Now thats a world exclusive, Irie.

A couple of points, TheIrie:

–If you put more thought into your comments before clicking “Submit,” you wouldn’t have to backtrack so often and you’d probably be treated more respectfully here, even by people who largely disagree with you.

–You do occasionally make fair points, and I’ve acknowledged some, but they tend to be lost in your almost reflexive eagerness to blame the US, the UK and Israel for most of the problems in the Islamic world.

You haven’t got a clue tim.

Educate me Irie.

Why is critical thought so absent from mainstream Islamic societies?

Because Islam discourages independant thought and innovation, while at the same time encouraging fatalism.

When one is imbued , right from the get-go, with the unquestioned opinion that Islam is already perfect in every way, it only follows that any and all imperfections present in the Muslim world must necessarily be the result of malevolent and impure outside influences.

Keep blaming the Islamists.

Why don’t you talk to some Iraqi Christians, Mr Irie.

If the allied forces are to be assigned any blame at all, it would have to do with underestimating the hatred and potential for violence rampant among those eager-beaver, bearded Islamists.

In your haste to denounce The West, you end up denying ordinary Iraqis, no matter their religious affiliation, the chance at a better life.

Anyways, this thread’s about an article that appeared in a Pakistani publication, and has nothing at all to do with Iraq or America.

He is a brave journalist.

Gene - I shall try to take that constructively.

The problem, perhaps, that there are at least a half dozen comments above that support my original, now withdrawn assertion that “When our leaders launch aggressive wars that turn the Middle East into bloodbath, there are plenty of people ready to explain it is the very nature of the “Muslims” that are to blame.” Chris P hepled out above with “Why is critical thought so absent from mainstream Islamic societies?” (I suspect Chris P knows very little about Islamic Societies) J.P chims in with “Because Islam discourages independant thought and innovation, while at the same time encouraging fatalism.” These people are real lunatics. I sometimes conflate them with the HP writers, and “decents” which is my mistake.

Aside from the debate about the “decents” and the “savages”, one of the key points Sulehria observes is that Islamic countries have poor records on human rights, and that Muslims are under-represented in Nobel prizes. The UN commissioned several Arab Development Reports, written by Arab intellectuals that offered alarming statistics about the shortcomings of Arab societies (which are predominantly Islamic) in such areas as education, freedom of expression and democracy.

Surely the point of this article is that at a time when China, India, several Latin American states, and other Asian and African states are demonstrating economic growth or progress in other indices such as health, education, democracy etc, there is a wide-spread malaise in much of the Muslim world. Is this the case?

Iran has a highly educated populace and Turkey is evolving as a democracy, but many areas of the Muslim world are manifesting a plurality of problems. Is this article not addressing part of that debate?

The Irie,

Might I suggest you go away and read the 2003 Arab Human Development Report. It is not a Neocon or Decent document. You can find it here

Translation is one of the important channels for the dissemination of information and communication with the rest of the world. The translation movement in the Arab world, however, remains static and chaotic. On average, only 4.4 translated books per million people were published in the first five years of the 1980s (less than one book per million people per year), while the corresponding rate in Hungary was 519 books per one million people and in Spain 920 books.

Neil - Do you think I’m in anyway denying that the points raised about the Arab world in this article are incorrect? I don’t know why you’d think that when I heartily commended the article.

Suffolk Booy, great minds etc.

that should read “correct”. I think the article is correct, if you can make it through all the double negatives!

Irie,

You know, I’m not that interested in what you think.

Why did you ask me then?

I didn’t .

I suggested you go and read something.

J.P chims in with “Because Islam discourages independant thought and innovation, while at the same time encouraging fatalism.” These people are real lunatics.

That would be chimes in

And if you’re unaware of just how fatalistic Islam can be, then I suggest you read up on it via older, more reliable tomes that appeared in print prior to the 70s….something I doubt you’d have the courage to do.

Inshallah!

Dan is right to say that some Islamic societies are more enlightened than others, but Farooq’s point was surely that there is an obvious reactionary and supremacist strain in populist Islam whether it be in Europe, Asia or the Middle East. Of course the vast majority of Muslims lead peaceful and blameless lives but Muslims must start to question why so many of their co-religionists are blowing themselves up or rioting over cartoons.

Those who refernce the Arab Human Development Report are right; cultural freedom is just as lacking as political freedom in the Arab world and the majority of Islamic states. Sadly I fear that people like Farooq are in the biggest minority of all; those who are not afraid to speak out.

Well, chaverim, that was TheIrie for you. Again.

I wonder if David releases he has published an article by someone who writes for the “neo-nazi” magazine, Counterpunch? Doesn’t this make David somehow an affliate of the neo-Nazi’s (by the same standards applied to Inayat Bunglawala for example)? Is David a fascist?

http://www.counterpunch.org/sulerhia10312005.html

He’s also written a really excellent piece on the “anti-Imperialism of fools” here:

http://www.agitprop.org.au/nowar/20050405_fs_anti_imperialism_of_fools.php

I’ll sum up - Imperial is a real problem in the world: “Mossadeq met a bloody end in 1953. The CIA removed this Iranian aristocrat, a direct descendant of Qajar dynasty, in collaboration with Iranian religious elements. The CIA spent five million dollars to help the pro-West mullahs rent a mob, and restored the Shah of Iran to the throne. Tudah was silenced, sidelined. Indonesia and Iraq underwent bloodbaths almost simultaneously. A military-mullah-CIA troika massacred a million people in Indonesia, with lists provided by the CIA. Soldiers in collaboration with young Nahdlatul Ulema volunteers unleashed a ‘jihad’ against ‘red devils’ across the archipelago. In Iraq, the Baath party did the dirty work (in 1963, and then 1967-68), since the religious elements commanded almost no support in a country striving for a socialist revolution. A decade later, an example was made out of Bhutto. A khaki-green mullah-military alliance, backed of course by the CIA, sent him to the gallows. Meanwhile, Anwar Sadaat effectively rolled back the Nasser-era process in Egypt by granting full freedom to the Muslim brotherhood and Islamic jihad. The case of Afghanistan is too fresh for memory to need much jogging: Osama was brought from Saudi Arabia to oust Dr Najib’s secular government.”

But the phoney anti-Imperialists are “Imam Khomeni, Osama bin Laden, Mulla Muhammad Omar and the Qazi-Fazal duo.” (spot on!). The real anti-Imperialists, who are worth of support/emmulation are “Nasser’s nationalisation of the Suez Canal, Mossadeq’s nationalisation of oil, Saekarno’s Bandong summit or Bhutto’s nuclear policy [...]
Castro, Dr Allande, Sandanistas, and now Hugo Chavez in Latin America.” The latter actually challenge empire, he argues, correctly, whilst the former he argues are a temporary headache. Spot on.

it seems that Counterpunch has lifted that article from the Pakistani Labor Party

http://www.laborpakistan.org/articles/pakistan/saabweapon.php

it is a shame that TheIrie has yet to master google? (or much else)

Some time ago, I read of some researchers who had studied the behaviour of people involved with religious cults of various types. One of their findings was very interesting. Some of their subjects had been heavily invested in the world ending on a certain date. When that date came and went, without incident, the cult members did not repudiate their earlier convictions, they clung to them even more. They became more intransigent than ever. They just had too much invested in the concept to admit it had been demonstrably wrong.

The followers of islam are brought up to understand that they are inherently superior to the rest of the world, by virtue of their religion. The royalty of the human race, most favoured by god.

But they have been hit by a number of setbacks. First of all, we have had a global information revolution. Everyone knows the things that once were only known by seasoned travellers. Suddenly, every muslim population in the world now sees evidence of their own comparative backwardness. They are like steerage passengers on a liner who have just found out there is a first class lounge, and they aren’t in it.

Another problem is the way the web has become a discussion forum for ordinary members of the public. So islam is now getting rather a lot of feedback it would rather not have. The steerage passengers are enduring the scorn of everyone else from the deckhands up, and the rats are giving them a wide berth.

So the islamic world is retrenching. Finding all sorts of risible conspiracies to transfer blame away from itself. Anything will suffice. So while I don’t blame this journalist for trying, and it was a sterling effort, I see no prospect of success. Nothing short of a massive trauma will cure the islamic world of its malaise.

that could be said of many religious groupings

Roman Catholics? The Holy See? infallibility? the Inquisition? you go to hell, we go to heaven?

English Protestants? empire mentality? Missionaries? The White man’s burden?

the United States “fundamentalists”? manifest destiny, etc

when you seek to essentialise these groupings, you can paint a very black picture, which is crudely selective and doesn’t take account of history, development or economic issues

it also plays directly into the hands of the extreme Islamists by trying to caricature every Muslim as a bloodthirsty fanatic, which is both wrong in stupid, trying to generalise about 1.5 billion people is rather silly, isn’t it?

so if you wouldn’t seek to essentialise other groupings then don’t do it to Muslims, it is neither sensible or productive

TheIrie is a village idiot who has cognitive difficulties discerning between rain falling on his head and a bucket of piss dumped on his head. Both are wet and therefore equivalent.

“The CIA removed this Iranian aristocrat, a direct descendant of Qajar dynasty, in collaboration with Iranian religious elements.”

If you are trying to suggest that the mullahs gained power in 1979/80 because the CIA worked with a part of the religious establishment to overthrow Mossadeq nearly 40 years previously, then you are barking mad. The mullahs and the bazaaris were instrumental in the overthrow of the Qajars and the toppling of Mussadeq. A certain faction of mullahs succeeded in gaining power after the overthrow of the Shah, although they were only one group involved in the revolution. There has always been a self-serving element within the Shia clergy that has sought to influence political events in Iran (this goes back to the Safavids in the 16th century), although Shi’ism has traditionally been strongly against religious intervention in the affairs of the state for doctrinal reasons. It is simply absurd to pin the blame for the destruction of Iran by the current theocracy on the events of 1953. Your source has probably been listening too much to the dying remnants of the Jebhe Melli, who wrongly believe he was some kind of genius. Mossadeq’s nationalisation programme was a complete disaster for Iran and he was far from democratic. Left in power, Mossadeq would have become more dictatorial than the Shah and Iran would have become a Soviet puppet state. If you knew anything about Iranian history, you’d know that Russian influence in Iran, which goes back to the Czars, has always been more malign than American or even British influence - although Iranians themselves are taught from an early age that whatever goes wrong it is the fault of the British.

The current regime in Iran is not simply a headache for US “imperialism”, whatever that is, it is a major threat to world security, including our security here in Britain. The problem is the Americans and British have been kicking down ant hills and making a great mess mess, while ignoring the elephants in the living room: Iran and Pakistan. These are the incubators of global terrorism, they are the exporters of suicide bombers and they are the nuclear proliferators.

With regards to Iran, Khamenei has continued to export Islamic terrorism and is currently destabilising Yemen and attempting to return the Arab state to civil war, although no-one seems to care enough about the consequences of allowing Tehran to do this. In fact, Iran is using the Hezbollah model to set up a number of armed Islamist groups throughout the developing world, particularly Africa, and using business organisations to acquire technology and materials for the construction of nuclear bombs.

The trouble is that the Western powers made such a mess of Iraq and got it so wrong on Saddam’s WMDs that they are now far less effective in dealing with the biggest danger, particularly at a multilateral level: Iranian expansionism. Mark my words, within 10 years the Iranian regime will be ready to hold the world to ransom, if it has not imploded by then. But apologists like you will continue to blame the overthrow of Mossadeq for everything that has gone wrong in the world.

I don’t disagree with your assessment of other religions, and their many adherents who are convined of their own exclusive access to paradise after death. But in general, the entry fee involves considerable humility and self-denial during life. And the great thing about heaven, is none of us down here has any idea who is already living high on the hog up there. Indeed, sparks might fly if we ever found out.

Things are less opaque down here on Earth though.

Only islam has a doctrinal demand for it’s followers to subjugate all non-believers right here on earth, to wage war, take slaves, and become wealthy from the spoils. And the scripture promises that every time they go into battle, they will win. God will make it so.
As in when he said : “Their blood and their property is halal for you”.

But he hasn’t, has he?

Dan “If you are trying to suggest that the mullahs gained power in 1979/80 because the CIA worked with a part of the religious establishment to overthrow Mossadeq nearly 40 years previously, then you are barking mad.”. Firstly, they are not my words, they are Farooq Sulehria’s words (the subject of this post). Secondly, he isn’t talking about 1979, he’s talking about 1953. Secondly, you are wrong about Mossadeq. He was a secular, democratic leader. His crime was that he wanted to nationalise Iran’s oil. You can’t criticise Soviet influence in Iran, if you support US coups which are absolutely at the root of the problems in the region today. If the US hadn’t installed the brutal Shah, there would have been no 1979 revolution by the phoney anti-imperialists, as Sulehria describes them. I would draw parallels here with Lenin and Mugabe - generally speaking revolutions tend to be very blunt intruments for change, which frequently fill power vacuum’s with criminals who are at least as bad as the old order. By contrast, when change is via reform, by the sober, democratic dialogue, things seem to work out much better. But any chance of this in Iran has been consistently denied, and its denied today. Bush is a gift to Ahmedinejad, as Iranian dissidents (like Akbar Ganji) keep pointing out.

The problems in the Middle East are numerous, but one highly significant problem is the meddling of outside players, from Britain, to Russia to the US. These powers have propped up their puppets in the region, whilst orchestrating coups and even launching wars against their opponents. This is so clear from the history of the region, I don’t know how anyone can deny it, or pretend that what is happening today isn’t part of the same trend. It comes back, again, to “blaming others”.

TheIrie is nothing but cliches, antisemitism and bad faith.
But I have a question, since the worm says: “By contrast, when change is via reform, by the sober, democratic dialogue, things seem to work out much better. ”

Ok. I want Ahmadinejad to stop pursuing the development of the atomic bomb. That is a change I and the US want to induce. Explain to me how a dialogue between the US and Iran can be “democratic”.

Great article - has Farooq Sulehria been demounced as a zionist stooge yet?

“you are wrong about Mossadeq. He was a secular, democratic leader.”

You really don’t know what you are talking about. Mossadeq stopped elections when he felt his party could win no more seats in the Majlis. He abolish secret ballots before conducting a plebiscite on his rule, in which he won the kind of level of support normally associated with despotic rulers: something like 99.9%. He illegally dissolved the Majlis and imposed emergency rule. There was little democratic about his short reign.

“His crime was that he wanted to nationalise Iran’s oil.”

Again, a history lesson is needed. The nationalisation of the oil industry was little more than theft and Britain responded with sanctions and the removal of British engineers from Iran, leading to the closure of the Iranian oil industry. If all governments acted on a whim to confiscate the property of foreign investors and arbitrarily rescind contracts just to get their hands on some cash, the world would be in chaos. Perhaps you’d want this. The fact is that Iran’s oil industry is now in state hands and the current regime is incapable of managing it. Iran’s oil industry is in terminal decline in state hands (why do you think a country with 10 per cent of the world’s oil reserves is rationing fuel?) and few Iranians are benefiting from the oil wealth. I doubt it would have been much different under Mossadeq.

“You can’t criticise Soviet influence in Iran, if you support US coups which are absolutely at the root of the problems in the region today.”

I didn’t say I supported US involvement in the military coup that ousted Mossadeq. But the US simply hastened the inevitable. Mossadeq would not have been less brutal than the Shah, given the direction he was leading Iran in at the time. And he was by no means a vanguard for a socialist revolution.

“when change is via reform, by the sober, democratic dialogue, things seem to work out much better.”

Tell me, what “reform” was achieved under Khatami? Was the violent crack-down on the student uprising an example of “sober, democratic dialogue”? I’ve met some of those who were rounded up and tortured during the uprising who are now living in asylum in the West. I don’t think they’d share your belief that Khatami’s “reform” was sober! Or are you going to blame Khatami’s failings on the 1953 coup?

“any chance of this in Iran has been consistently denied, and its denied today. Bush is a gift to Ahmedinejad, as Iranian dissidents (like Akbar Ganji) keep pointing out.”

Ha! So we have to elect people that please the Iranian regime so they will stop funding terrorists and oppressing their own civilians? Perhaps you forgot that Bush was elected before Ahmadinejad, so how can he be a gift to Ahmadinejad?

Iran was sponsoring terrorism long before Bush came onto the scene, under Rafsanjani, Khatami and Ahmadinejad. They never needed Bush as an excuse to impose their “revolution” on Iranians and attempt to export it outside Iran.

TheIrie - I think I know you… Are/were you a lecturer at Durham University?

Dan - you are very poorly informed on Iranian history. Everything you just wrote is completely wrong.

concerning TheIrie, I hate to say, I told you so :)

“you are very poorly informed on Iranian history. Everything you just wrote is completely wrong.”

Where was I wrong? You think I was wrong in stating that Mossadeq was not a democrat? Read something about the nature of his rule, please, and then tell me what was democratic about it.

As for oil, I agree that the terms of the D’Arcy concession - approved in the early days of the Iranian oil industry - were unfair and that any country negotiating oil contracts today would insist on at least 40%, not the meagre revenue terms under D’Arcy. But Mossadeq was not even willing to concede 50%. He just nationalised it (illegally), precipitating a collapse in production due to Britain’s economic sanctions and withdrawal of British expertise. Britain could have gone for arbitration in The Hague, but in the mean time Mossadeq would have capitulated to the Soviets (led by Stalin at the time) in order to bring production online. If Mossadeq had not been so provocative both towards the institutions that existed in Iran and towards foreign countries, Iran may have made the transition to a liberal constitutional monarchy, with the Shah’s powers limited. He gave Britain and the US a reason to intervene in Iran’s internal affairs. If he had not, if he had been more politically astute in the renegotiation of the D’Arcy concession, no-one would have cared what happened to the Shah’s powers. He was the architect of his own downfall.

US coups which are absolutely at the root of the problems in the region today. If the US hadn’t installed the brutal Shah, there would have been no 1979 revolution

At the root of the problems in the region today are boneheaded repeatathons like The Irie who actually believe that a CIA black ops propaganda campaign in 1953 is at the “root of all the problems in the region today”. Interestingly enough, the Shah trumpeted the very same message as he explained to Mike Wallace in this interview.

Dan - you are very poorly informed on Iranian history. Everything you just wrote is completely wrong.

Irie/Andrew is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black and I collect my 5 pounds. Unless the comment above addressed to Dan was typed by someone parodying Andrew, the most compassionate view would be to assume Irie has lesions in his brain.

Excellant article that sums up well the problems in the Islamic World including the nasty fact that the leading killers of Muslims have been their fellow Muslims. Islamic Terrorists, whether Saudi-backed Sunnis or Iranian-backed Shias have murdered far more Muslims usually of the opposite Sect, Shia or Sunni, then they have non-Muslims. In Pakistan, for example, the overwhelming majority of those murdered by increasing deadly Sunni Terrorists have been members of Pakistan’s Shia Minority including Benazir Bhutto.

OT, but related:
“A Case of Exploding Mangoes” (2008) is being called a “brilliant, satrical first novel” and is based on the suspicious 1988 plane crash that killed Pakistan’s previous military dictator, General Zia ul-Haq and US Ambassador Arnold Raphel along with several other Pakistani generals. The author, Mohammed Hanif, a graduate of Pakistan’s Military Academy has written a wonderful story that owes equally to Joseph Heller and Salman Rushdie. Google the tittle, “A Case of Exploding Mangoes” for more information and reviews.