Friday, 04 March 2011
There has been a lot of discussion in Latin America about the events unfolding in Libya. This article explains the position of the IMT, which is one of support for the uprising of the Libyan people, while at the same time condemns any imperialist intervention. We also critically examine the position adopted by Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.
Read the rest here
RENEGADE EYE
61 comments:
This is great. Any present+future Libyan civil war resulting in tens of thousands of casualties can now be added to the tallies in the Black Book of Communism in the name of non-interventionism. The imperialists have been completely exhonorated of any Gaddafi inspired future genocide of his own people by this article.
This report reads like typical propaganda piece that harkens back to the Stalinist days.
It has a paradoxical dualism to it that is baffling. It praises the Libyan rebels for asserting themselves in the face of oppression but offers no semblance of aid to them whatsoever. It furthermore, condemns anyone else (under the guise of "imperialism") to give aid.
This article explains the position of the IMT, which is one of support for the uprising of the Libyan people, while at the same time condemns any imperialist intervention.
One gets the impression, that Jorge Martin's sycophantic adoration of Hugo Chavez impairs his ability to form logical conclusions. After the report plainly states that Libyan rebels asked why Chavez and Gaddafi are on "friendly" terms he arrives at the incredible conclusion that Chavez is very much "admired" by same.
After reading this piece, one would think that IT'S ALL ABOUT HUGO CHAVEZ.
"I know one thing for certain. El Libertador (the liberator), Simon Bolivar, would never interfere in the political affairs of other nations..."
-La Espada (the sword) de Bolivar, Hugo Chavez.
...errrrrrr
Titan: What planet are you on?
Communism? Gaddafi privatized much of the economy in 2003.
Defense Secretary Gates doesn't see intervention as an option at this time. The US has this little problem in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
By the way, what about peaceful secular protesters shot by Maliki's police in Iraq.
Roman: This report reads like typical propaganda piece that harkens back to the Stalinist days.
It has a paradoxical dualism to it that is baffling. It praises the Libyan rebels for asserting themselves in the face of oppression but offers no semblance of aid to them whatsoever. It furthermore, condemns anyone else (under the guise of "imperialism") to give aid.
1) They aren't asking for aid.
2) Stalinist? Read real Stalinist sites before you say that. Some Maoists are pro-Gaddafy.
One gets the impression, that Jorge Martin's sycophantic adoration of Hugo Chavez impairs his ability to form logical conclusions. After the report plainly states that Libyan rebels asked why Chavez and Gaddafi are on "friendly" terms he arrives at the incredible conclusion that Chavez is very much "admired" by same.
After reading this piece, one would think that IT'S ALL ABOUT HUGO CHAVEZ.
1) The piece is directed at Chavez. He will be reading it.
2) Chavez is popular in the Arab world. He won't be if he continues on the wrong side.
Speedy: Contrary to Hillary, the extreme right and extreme left, the US is no position to intervene. That is the good part of the Iraq and Afghan war.
Titan: Another thing wrong with your comment, is your rhetorical use of a legal term, genocide. Guys like you make a joke of such concepts. Words lose their meanings, and that is unfortunate. Genocide is not trivial.
There's not a whole lot we can do about it anyway, short of declaring war and sending troops. Declaring and enforcing a no-fly zone would be tantamount to the same thing. It would require us to decimate Lybian anti-aircraft ordinance and personnel and patrol the friendly skies of a North African state the size of Alaska. Then we'll be on the hook there for another five years or more. I think I'll take a pass.
Pagan: The Libyan Revolution is no different than other revolutions occurring now.
Egypt and Iran are the most important. That is not new to you, that I would say that.
The US is tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Another thing wrong with your comment, is your rhetorical use of a legal term, genocide.
You're right. Made up rhetorical substitutes are much better suited for political purposes... but as for genocide being a strictly legal term, I wouldn't be so sure.
One's things for certain though... through liberal usage, terms like "Caracazo" lose ALL their force of meaning, especially given the socialist (not capitalist) nature of the former Libyan regime (vs subsequent/current reactions). So unless you're arguing that Libya BEFORE political liberalization was BETTER/MORE SOCIALISTICALLY PURE than the current regime, and that the rioters want the "old Gaddafi back, then perhaps "Caracazo" is not a very good choice of terms, either.
;)
In other words, perhaps a "linguistic purist" such as yourself should criticize and correct terms like "Caracazo" and offer "better ones" like "Tripolazo" before criticizing their political opponents use of words like "genocide".
But then, intellectual honesty was never a strong point with the so-called "Progressive" Left.
On second thought...
Do you agree with the authors usage? "Caracazo" implies an error in abandonment of socialist principles for more capitalist ones and a need to re-embrace socialism. Are you saying that if Gaddafi committed to re-embracing socialist principles and stepped back away from capitalism, his people wiould stop their rioting and re-embrace their dictator for life?
Bwah-ha-ha-ha! THAT is funny! Gaddafi's Islamic socialism isn't "socialist" enough. The Marxist's think that Gaddafi and his people might "turn from Islam" and "embrace the true and proper" socialist path...
...ever delusional. THAT's the Left, all right! ;)
Hmmm...
It would appear the perhaps genocide IS the more accurate term for what's going on in Libya...
The extermination of "non-Arabs".
Did anyone read this article today? Here's my favorite part:
Hague's intelligence was bad, but the story seemed plausible because Venezuela's petrotyrant has a lot in common with Libya's mad-dog dictator. The two are best pals, reap high oil earnings, use their states to succor global terror groups and act like narcissistic clowns in public.
Most significantly, they identify with the remnants of the old Soviet "non-aligned" empire. Along with Cuba's Fidel Castro and Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega, they have managed to use international institutions to stay in power even after their experiments with communism have given out.
This is what was behind Chavez's offer to mediate the Libya dispute — not peace, but keeping Gadhafi in power at all costs, and for the sake of all tyrants.
Based on his own dozen years in power, Chavez has learned that international organizations are easy to manipulate. This is why a country like Libya can, against all reason, end up on the United Nations Human Rights Council. Only Chavez protested its booting last week.
Institutions and outside mediations also can set precedents. If Gadhafi somehow manages to stay in power as a result of U.N. help, Chavez might just be saving his own hide. His regime is falling apart, too, and it would send a useful message to Venezuela's opposition that resistance is futile if the Libyan revolution fails.
Now, after being forced to abandon "pure" Islamic socialism and return to capitalism in 2003, does anyone REALLY think that "all Gaddafi needs to do is return to socialism" and all will be well again in Libya?
Gaddafi positively KNOWS today that socialism is a recipe for economic disaster.
And Marxist dreams of Gaddafi returning to the "true path of socialism" are obviously "delusional".
Titan: What makes you think I'm with the "progressive left?" I'm a revolutionary socialist.
Caracazo is used, because this post will be read widely in Venezuela, including by Chavez. If you read the article, you'd know the author is calling this situation Ghaddafy's Caracazo. It's telling Chavez he's on the wrong side. What's your objection?
BBC today says the opposition controls most of Libya. Genocide no.
Where did you get the slightest idea, I was arguing Ghaddafy was "more pure" at anytime? Why put words in my mouth? I never called him a socialist of any kind ever.
THAT is funny! Gaddafi's Islamic socialism isn't "socialist" enough. The Marxist's think that Gaddafi and his people might "turn from Islam" and "embrace the true and proper" socialist path...
Nutty stuff. My post calls for his overthrow. Are you illiterate? The right finds conspiracies under every rock. Get out your Glen Beck chalk board.
Joe: Chavez was democratically elected. Elections in Venezuela are clean. They have state of the art voting machines. Libya isn't like that.
Chavez has muddled thinking, but is not a dictator.
Chavez is suffering from Too Long In Power-itus.
Titan, Joe: Is Saudi Arabia a socialist paradise? Try thinking less about the dole and more about ownership and control.
Saudi Arabia might be closer to it than any of you guys will ever manage to attain. I don't know that, but its something to think about. Isn't everything there either state owned or state subsidized. Just who in the hell is "the people" anyway. How much democracy has there ever actually been in a "People's Republic"? How much have "the people" actually owned? Good grief, I'm guessing not a hell of a lot. Of course that also depends on how you define "the people" LOL
“Muslims and Christians are close in Egypt.”
The latest example of how close they really are:
"Cairo (AsiaNews/Agencies) – A priest and three deacons are missing following an attack last night by about 4,000 Muslims in the town of Soul (30 kilometres south of Cairo) against the local Coptic community.
The mob attacked Christian homes and set fire to the Saints Mina and George Coptic Church, ostensibly because of a relationship between a Christian man and a Muslim woman.
Witnesses report the mob prevented the fire brigade from entering the village. Father Yosha, the priest of the small parish, and three deacons have been reported missing with different accounts of their fate. Some believe they died in the fire that devastated the church building. Others say they are still held by Muslims in one of the parish buildings.
When the Muslim mob attacked the church, they exploded five or six gas cylinders inside the church, desecrated the cross and pulled down the domes.
Soldiers stationed in the village of Bromil, seven kilometres from Soul, initially refused to go into Soul. When the army finally sent troops to the village, Muslim elders sent them away, saying that everything was "in order now." A curfew was imposed on the 12,000 Christians of the town.
The incident was sparked by the involvement of a Coptic man, Ashraf Iskander, with a Muslim woman. The father of the Muslim woman was killed by his cousin because he did not kill his daughter to preserve the family's honour. This in turn led the woman's brother to avenge the death of their father by killing the cousin. Muslims then blamed the murders on Christians."
Source
Do you still stand by that ludicrous statement?
Titan: This is great. Any present+future Libyan civil war resulting in tens of thousands of casualties can now be added to the tallies in the Black Book of Communism in the name of non-interventionism. The imperialists have been completely exhonorated of any Gaddafi inspired future genocide of his own people by this article.
Michelle Bachman came out against intervention. Is she a communist? Not pure enough for you?
The main interventionists are liberals as Hillary Clinton.
Pagan: Saudi Arabia might be closer to it than any of you guys will ever manage to attain. I don't know that, but its something to think about. Isn't everything there either state owned or state subsidized. Just who in the hell is "the people" anyway. How much democracy has there ever actually been in a "People's Republic"? How much have "the people" actually owned? Good grief, I'm guessing not a hell of a lot. Of course that also depends on how you define "the people" LOL
The "people" is a term consciously used by Stalinists, to imply class collaboration and at times national unity.
Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, obviously not a worker's government.
They are scared to death of the inevitable.
Sentinel: I looked up the incident on Google, and it was only covered by religion oriented papers except the "Hindustan Times."
I said that in the Egyptian Revolution, there wasn't religious strife or leadership.
O/T:
Ren, a little birdie told me it’s your birthday this week (I don’t know the date, sorry), so happy birthday whenever it is!
”Titan: What planet are you on?”
Have you looked at his blog? It’s not another planet, it’s another universe altogether… The US Far Right continues to be something to behold.
Chavez is of course wrong. I fear he’ll make the same mistake when the chips come down in Iran (not too long now). Press TV keeps preceding every bit of its very considerable coverage of the Arab uprisings with a screen saying ‘Islamic Awakening’ (dream on!)
Sentinel’s capacity to read catastrophic signs into single incidents remains undiminished.
The reason why I wouldn’t even trust the West with a Lybian no-fly zone lays squarely in the past. It’s really rather funny, this new-found American concern for (the fact that) creating a no-fly zone inevitably constitutes an act of war (by taking out any remaining air defences): how many years did it maintain such a no-fly zone over Iraq? Except we didn’t mind the previous chemical caprioles of Chemical Ali, as long as they were directed at Kurds or Iranians. “Attaboy, Sadders, way to go!”
The end of Realpolitik?
Michelle Bachman came out against intervention. Is she a communist? Not pure enough for you?
Moamar Gaddafi came out against intervention. Is he a communist? Not pure enough for you?
Hey, maybe Michelle Backmann is an Islamic Socialist!
Perhaps, like the author of this article, you should concentrate on keeping Hugo Chavez "pure enough" to try and avoid the Caracazo socialism has already inevitably dealt him.
It's getting harder and harder to subsidize his swelling ranks of non-productive poor thanks to Marx. Marx has baked "economic failure" into the communist pie.
Communism? Gaddafi privatized much of the economy in 2003.
...as the Libyan Colonel realized way back in 2003, Socialism doesn't work. Reality FORCED Gaddafi back to capitalism, just as reality will soon FORCE Hugo Chavez back to it.
The Caracazo is already baked in.
Renegade Eye:
“I looked up the incident on Google, and it was only covered by religion oriented papers except the "Hindustan Times."
Not sure what you are driving at here – are you implying it didn’t happen?
Or are you conceding that the MSM only publish what they see fit and totally ignore news across the board if they don’t like it?
Like, perhaps the news of (pre-civil war) Gaddafi admitting that so-called asylum into Europe was one big scam – as he was taking a $5b bribe for stopping the tide of illegal immigrants flowing from his country.
Film
“I said that in the Egyptian Revolution, there wasn't religious strife … “
Well, actually what you said is directly quoted above. But how would you know with such selective media reports?
Even the dreadful assault on Lara Logan wouldn’t have been reported had she not expressly ordered it to be; certainly the details are not widely known:
“… surrounded by as many as 200 men in Tahrir Square at the height of the anti-Mubarak demonstrations…
It has also been revealed that she was stripped, punched and slapped by the crowd, which was labelling her a spy and chanting 'Israeli' and 'Jew' as they beat her.”
Source
Renegade Eye:
I thought it was just a technical issue with a bad link – but no, you are actually censoring comments again.
What is wrong with you? What are you so afraid of? Why is OK for one to mouth off with impunity but no factual right of reply is allowed? Why have you become this petty little censor in recent times?
The worst part really is that you must be sitting at your PC non-stop in order to do it.
Sentinel:
Re. the Lara Logan incident, I can’t condone it in any way shape or form but considering how the US pap media, including CBS, have in the past blatantly been toeing the party line on the war in Iraq, have never questioned the West’s unconditional support for some Arab dictators (like Mubarak), stand almost like one man behind Israeli aggression towards Palestinians and Lebanese alike, it comes as no surprise to me that that mob decided to take justice into its own hands. Not to mention that the US since 9/11 is the most Islamophobic of all Western countries, with Islamophobic spat after Islamophobic spat.
”The worst part really is that you must be sitting at your PC non-stop in order to do it.”
… is demonstrably false. You have on these pages here printed tirades against me not by the dozen but tens and tens and tens of them, without interruption or moderation, until the owner of this blog finally came home to the mess you created. Following which the comments in question, including mine, were deleted.
There's a big difference between Iraq and Libya. The international community stood as one in standing down the threat from Iraq in the nineties, and the resultant No-Fly Zone over Iraq was the result of a declared war against Iraq by the US along with a large coalition of allies. Once terms were arrived at and agreed to, Saddam spent the better part of ten years breaking every one of the conditions imposed upon him, which he brought upon himself.
He also disregarded with seeming impunity a number of UN resolutions. We didn't find out until after the second invasion of Iraq that he did so with collusion from several UN entities, from high ranking officials within the organization, to representatives of such nations as France and Russia.
The situation in Libya is markedly different. There has been no war declared or conducted against Qaddafi's Libya by any nation of the international community, at least not openly. The right to impose a No-Fly Zone or to declare war now is therefore a questionable one at best.
If there is a legitimate reason, let somebody else take it up for once. The US is already operating at a trillion dollar deficit, with more to come as far as the eye can see, with an accumulated debt of fourteen trillion and counting. We can't afford this bullshit anymore. If the rest of the world burns, it just burns.
We're not miracle workers, and in this region, that leaves you at a marked disadvantage.
Renegade Eye:
Happy Birthday, regardless.
“I can’t condone it in any way shape or form but considering how the US pap media…that mob decided to take justice into its own hands”
It was a sexual assault – common place in Egypt. And they thought they had a Jewish Israeli – not an American.
Islam means submit – so this new silly smear of “Islamophobia” merely means an irrational fear of submission. Which is really quite rational after all.
"You have on these pages here printed tirades against me not by the dozen but tens and tens and tens of them"
No Gert, you are no victim at all. Not even remotely. You reap what you have sow.
I have never initiated any of that, but I have reacted to you. If you really can’t see that, you need to look back over some of the remaining threads – I usually ask at least a couple of times for you to calm down on the personal jibes (as you did again here) and malice before I follow suit.
On this occasion all I did was reiterate the facts vis-à-vis Muslims and Copts in Egypt.
And the facts are against you.
This is my first post after a long absence from this site. I read the article and was pleased to see the critical stance it adopted toward Chavez's misguided defense of Gadaffi against the protestors who are calling for his overthrow. It shows to me that the IMT's support for Chavez is not blind and uncategorical. This is to me a good sign, especially since I'm far more skeptical as to the emancipatory possibilities of Venezuelan revolution. An interesting piece.
Also, not to be totally off topic, but knowing your enthusiasm for ballet and dance, Ren, can I ask what you thought of Black Swan? I personally enjoyed it a great deal.
Also, I'm pleased to see you read Chris Cutrone's fascinating piece on Egypt. What did you think of it?
Sentinel-
Islam means submit – so this new silly smear of “Islamophobia” merely means an irrational fear of submission. Which is really quite rational after all.
Damn well put. Fair notice, I'm stealing that, though when I'll use it I don't know. But that's a very accurate assessment of Islam and of most rational objections to it. Come to think of it, I don't know of any objections to it that are irrational. Any objection to that insane cult is rational by definition.
Titan: I don't own a Pure-O-Meter.
You're talking in circles. Ghaddafy never broke from communism, because he never was one.
No country ever prospered, without a strong state sector.
Where is the capitalist class in Libya?
Gert: Thank you for the birthday greeting.
Chavez is seriously wrong about Iran. It is not unnoticed by militant Iranians. Demonstrations planned for Women's Day there.
Sentinel: Thank you for the birthday greeting.
I don't know why the media didn't pick it up at all? Something like that is a major story.
Still the revolutionary upheaval was secular.
I never use the Islamophobia or Islamofascism. Neither are precise.
Pagan: Islam is no different than any other religion.
Ross: I added a new comment at CC's blog.
It hurts Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution, when the leaders support Libyan and Iranian dictators. Chavez's party the PSUV, is the largest labor party in history. When the IMT criticizes Chavez, it's from within. The right tries to portray Alan as Chavez's top advisor. That is obviously not true.
In Venezuela when the workers stopped the lockout in 2002, that was the major episode of worker's control in that era. Until most recently, Latin America was the leader in world revolution.
I loved The Black Swan. It was surreal and brilliant.
Well, that is good news. If Chavez continues to voice support for Middle Eastern dictators who strangle democracy and the hope of freedom, I should hope that the IMT would continue to be critical and perhaps even distance itself from the Bolivarian Revolution. A popular movement that rallies behind a leader with such views is not a movement to be supported, no matter how numerous its followers.
I see the major task of the Marxist Left as being a reconstitution of progressive anticapitalist sentiment in the most advanced capitalist nations above all others. This means draining the swamp of such leftovers as the Maoists and other ultra-Stalinist groups, but will leave those who are willing to extend Marx's radical critique of capitalist society and offer a vision of a society fundamentally different from the one in which the world (yes, the whole world) currently lives.
Anyway, I agree with your assessment of The Black Swan. It was Portman's greatest acting performance since The Professional, and Aronofsky's direction was brilliant as usual. I love the way they dramatized the tension and dynamism of the performance, as well. While I was in Russia I actually saw the piece performed at the Bolshoi in Moscow. The cinematic rendition of the ballet was no less riveting.
You're talking in circles. Ghaddafy never broke from communism, because he never was one.
Really? Then what was this article all about? You said it was intended to influence Chavez, a "lesson" in not abandoning socialist principles. Now it's not? Here we go round again...
No country ever prospered, without a strong state sector.
I'll admit that the Article's of Confederation prevented repayment of America's Revolutionary War debt, but the Constitution (limiting government but expanding "State" power overall) was insufficient to prevent a Civil War allowing the federal government to usurp ALL 9th/10th State powers.
But America DID prosper between 1786 and 1861.
So perhaps a distinction is in order. There is "state" power and "State" power. I'm for using one to offset the excesses of the other.
Where is the capitalist class in Libya?
Where is the capitalist class in ANY socialist country? It's with those who control the flow of state funds... the Gaddafi and Chavez families.
Petro-socialism.
Sentinel:
”Islam means submit – so this new silly smear of “Islamophobia” merely means an irrational fear of submission. Which is really quite rational after all.”
Oh, ‘ere we go again, this time with cheap etymology.
ALL religions require submission: to G-d that is. Islam is no different from any other religion in that respect, in particular from both it’s parents Judaism and Christianity, both from which, shall we say, it ‘borrowed’ enormously (seemingly paradoxically more so even from Judaism, actually).
‘Crazy preacher men’ that want to convert the entire world by hook, by crook, or by the sword have existed and will continue to exist in all religions. Or have you forgotten how Christianity became a world religion that dominated religious life in Europe for centuries? (Hint: it’s NOT the Crusades)
Of Judaism is said it doesn’t proselytise and of today’s Judaism that’s true. But the early Jews must have preached and converted too: otherwise their fledgling religion would have gotten stuck in the sands of the ME before it had the slightest chance to even take root! But contrary to fledgling Christianity, Judaism simply didn’t have the luck of being picked up by the emperor of a large but somewhat waning empire, to be used as religious cement in the form of an official State Religion (Roman Catholicism, in essence) to try an avert the waning fortunes of said empire.
Similarly, Islam became a world religion by means of military conquest of the Arab peninsula and beyond.
Today, the Radical Muslims that want to ‘take over the world’ are a tiny minority of the entire group and they’re being dealt a possibly lethal blow by the current events in Tunisia, Egypt, Lybia, Jordan and Bahrain, where the calls clearly aren’t for Islamism but simply for freedom and democracy.
Islamophobia is a decent term because it implies that the sufferer from said affliction has a fear of ALL Muslims, which is highly irrational, has no real bearing in reality and is no different from anti-Jewish bigotry or other forms of ‘phobia’ like homophobia… You should know: you peddle every form of phobia going!
”You reap what you have sow.” [sic]
Hmmm… my own feeling is that any long rants against me like we’ve seen so many times in the past here, will not be blessed with great longevity.
All religions required adherence to a specific set of doctrines. That's what makes them religions. However, you will see next to none, and this is including Christianity and Judaism, that calls for the outright murder of those who refuse to convert. That is a doctrine that is unique to Islam among all religions.
And that is the stated doctrine too. It is embedded in the Koran, and in the consciousness of all its adherents.
I'll give you an example of a "good Muslim". It is none other than Osama Bin Laden. He practices what the Koran literally preaches. Therefore, be definition he is one of the world's best Muslims.
Anybody who opposes him and his tactics are by definition a "bad Muslim" because they clearly do not believe or practice what the Koran teaches.
Pagan:
”And that is the stated doctrine too. It is embedded in the Koran, and in the consciousness of all its adherents.”
If you’re going to come up with ‘bad quotes from the Koran’, then bear in mind that very similar, in fact parallel utterances can be found in the other two Holy Books too. The Old Testament for instance is a particularly vile, vindictive, racist, war mongering, misogynist piece of work, which glorifies collective punishment, genocide and rape. The reality is that texts that were penned x,000s or x,00s of years ago need interpretation by modern day religious scholars and theologians. And for the most part that is exactly what happens in all three monotheisms.
According to Christianity, Jews are the fallen people: they neither recognise Jesus as a Messiah, nor as the Son of G-d, highly blasphemous in the Christian theology (and point of origin of antisemitism). Yet how many modern Christians would proclaim like dumb sh*t Ann Coulter that ‘Jews need perfecting. Yeah!’
How many modern Christians do, like John Hagee and his Christians United for Israel cult, believe modern Israel is in fact a battle field upon which Armageddon will be fought and that when the Second Coming of Christ happens, Jews will have to recognise Him as the Son of G-d, convert en masse or miss the Rapture (and thus burn in Hell for al off Eternity)?
Does the existence of Ann Coulter and John Hagee (and his tribe) mean that Christians are antisemites?
”I'll give you an example of a "good Muslim". It is none other than Osama Bin Laden. He practices what the Koran literally preaches. Therefore, be definition he is one of the world's best Muslims.”
Oh, ain’t that cute: an Islamophobe and self-appointed ‘expert’ on Islam, all rolled into one, ROFLOL!
So, my self-proclaimed Islamologist, what say you to the majority of Muslim scholars that vehemently contest what you say? ‘Hey dude, chill: I know best. I maybe a pagan but old bin’s got it right. Now go and blow up some stuff’?
You’re trying to rationalise your own irrationality…
And Pagan:
You might want to ask yourself why the American administration at the time of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan decided to so enthusiastically supported bin Laden and his group (al Qaeda), to the tune of an estimated $6,000,000,000?
Has this really just degenerated into an argument over religion?
How many modern Christians do, like John Hagee and his Christians United for Israel cult, believe modern Israel is in fact a battle field upon which Armageddon will be fought and that when the Second Coming of Christ happens, Jews will have to recognise Him as the Son of G-d, convert en masse or miss the Rapture (and thus burn in Hell for al off Eternity)?
Does the existence of Ann Coulter and John Hagee (and his tribe) mean that Christians are antisemites?
No, nor does it mean that John Hagee and Anne Coulter are anti-Semites. They damn sure aren't advocating going around murdering Jews, or defending those who do, like real anti-Semites do.
Hagee is just repeating what's in the Bible, which states the Battle of Armageddon will be fought in Israel. How do we know it means that? Because Armageddon happens to be a place in Israel. That's why its called the Battle of Armageddon in the first place. Actually, Har-Magedo, I believe.
And yes, the early Gospel writers of the New Testament Bible could easily be construed as anti-Semitic, I don't deny that. That's because most Jews would never dream of converting to Christianity. It was a rival cult back in those days, and rival cults tend to denounce each other. The Jews denounced the Christians as well, you know.
Even the various cults of pagan Greece and Rome were to a point rivals with each other. That's not such a big deal.
But again, even the early Christians were not commanded to go around killing Jews, any more than the cults of Athene and Ares went around murdering each other.
That's just the difference.
What Gert Says-
"Islam is a religion of peace, and Muslims are no different than any other people of any other religion".
What Gert Really Means-
"Oh Pleeeez Mr. Muslim don't blow me up or hack my head off I promise I'll be nice to you. Waaaaaaaaaa"
The only thing worse than religion is people debating about religion on the internet.
“Oh, ‘ere we go again, this time with cheap etymology … ALL religions require submission”
Do you really not know that the very word 'Islam' (الإسلام) is Arabic for 'submit'?
So to use such an idiotic smear as “Islamophobia” is to literally accuse someone of having an irrational fear of submission.
But then, like all of these words, they are designed to close down debate and intimidate – not add to debate and liberate.
“You should know: you peddle every form of phobia going!”
Once more you have made it personal and once more broken the second rule of commenting here. You do it every time.
So once more: Are you going to stop with the personal insults and respect the rules of the blog?
“Hmmm… my own feeling is that any long rants against me like we’ve seen so many times in the past here, will not be blessed with great longevity”
Hmmm… my feeling is that your attempts at stirring up trouble on this blog like we’ve seen so many times in the past here, will not be blessed with great longevity.
Pagan:
”What Gert Really Means-
"Oh Pleeeez Mr. Muslim don't blow me up or hack my head off I promise I'll be nice to you. Waaaaaaaaaa"”
You’ve now descended into silliness quicker that I thought you would. It must be a real headache for you to live in a country where an estimated 7 % of the population are in fact Muslims. Do you cross the street when one approaches you, to avoid having your ‘head hacked off’? I wouldn’t put it past you…
Sentinel:
”Do you really not know that the very word 'Islam' (الإسلام) is Arabic for 'submit'?”
Sentinel’s main modus operandus: resort to literalism, as if anything can ever be proved with it.
Which part of:
ALL religions require submission: to G-d that is. Islam is no different from any other religion in that respect
… didn’t you understand?
”Once more you have made it personal and once more broken the second rule of commenting here. You do it every time.”
It is indeed my personal conviction that you are a racist on so many levels, an opinion that would be shared by just about anyone who’s read the opinions you’ve spouted about anything ‘foreign’, whether they be Jews, Blacks, Muslims or Aborigines, on your own now defunct blog, as well as a some others, including mine, BEAJ’s Judeophobewatch, not to mention this blog too.
As regards the rules of this blog, I’m sticking to them. Will you?
There aren't any Muslims that live around me, and hopefully there never will be. And if they did, yes, I'd go out of my way to avoid any contact with them. I don't like them and what they stand for, and I'm not going to pretend that I do.
By the way, you would do well to avoid them yourself. You do know they believe gay people should be executed just for being gay, right? As homophobic as a lot of Christians are, at least they don't believe in that.
That's why guys like you come across as such outright hypocrites. You insult Christians all day long for just opposing equal rights for gays, or gay marriage, but you give a pass to a group of people that will execute them publicly, and make a crowd spectacle out of it.
Why is it again I am supposed to take you seriously.
Pagan:
”That's why guys like you come across as such outright hypocrites. You insult Christians all day long for just opposing equal rights for gays, or gay marriage, but you give a pass to a group of people that will execute them publicly, and make a crowd spectacle out of it.”
Yeah, put another straw man on the barbie.
I don’t give a free pas to ANYONE who opposes gay rights, whether they be Christians, Muslims or atheists. But I note that while the Holy Books condemn homosexuality most Christians or Muslims do not in fact discriminate against gays but a small and loud minority does.
Your jibe at me insinuating I’m gay is typical of your thinking: if someone stands up for someone else’s rights they must be part of that group, right? Because who on Earth would stand up for someone else’s rights, eh? That must be seriously counterintuitive in that ‘ME FIRST’ world of yours.
Sorry to disappoint but I’m not gay. But I’ll gladly take you to a gay bar, consensually of course…
Renegade Eye:
Gert is clearly here to troll again and is once more in breach of your rules – and quite clearly and entirely gratuitously attacking other people on your blog once again.
Pagan:
”I don't like them [Muslims] and what they stand for, […]”
Why Pagan, what DO they stand for? They all stand for the same thing?
Do you like, I dunno, Christians and ‘what they stand for’? I mean what DO Christians ‘stand for’?
These groups aren’t monolithic, Pagan, far, far from it…
Whether you are gay or not is irrelevant. The main point is you criticize Christians for homophobia, and you generally paint them all with a broad brush when you do so, certainly conservative Christians, but I have never heard you offering even the slightest criticism of Muslims who do far, far worse than the vast majority of conservative Christians would do, or would want to do.
You stand up for them all the time, and are always on their side. You go out of your way to make excuses for them, all the time. You defend their rights to their religious beliefs, constantly.
Anybody would assume you are gay, because the vast majority of time you are on here, or anywhere else, you are always defending Muslims. The one and only thing that gets you off message is if someone criticizes or insults gays. Then all of a sudden you are a fierce, pro-gay activist. No other cause, no other issue, is sufficient to get you off of your pro-Muslim rants.
So yes, I think you're gay for that reason. If you're not, it doesn't necessarily prove I'm wrong, only that you might need to crack that closet door open just a little bit wider.
Unless of course that's another reason you're secretly scared to death of the Muslims.
Gert:
"Sentinel’s main modus operandus: resort to literalism, as if anything can ever be proved with it"
Islam means submit.
Therefore to use such an idiotic smear as “Islamophobia” is to literally accuse someone of having an irrational fear of submission.
"It is indeed my personal conviction that you are a racist"
It is indeed my personal conviction - shared by many others - that you are an Anti-Semtite on so many levels, an opinion that would be shared by just about anyone who’s read the opinions you’ve spouted about anything ‘Israelis’, whether they be Ashkenazi, Shepardic or Mizrahi on your own blog, as well as many others, including mine, Harrys Place, not to mention this blog too.
As regards the rules of this blog, I’m sticking to them. Will you?
Titan:
So perhaps a distinction is in order. There is "state" power and "State" power. I'm for using one to offset the excesses of the other.
You're not serious.
The article is telling Chavez not to support a dictator. Nothing to do with purity, a concept you introduced.
Ross: The process in the Bolivarian Revolution is not much different than the Arab Revolution. People don't realize that there is going to be up and downs. I think several governments will come and go, until there is worker's power. In addition there is going to be defeats and setbacks.
Our method of raising demands, is more effective than doing something as denouncing Chavez. The IMT wrote a letter to Mousavi, saying if you support democracy, you will call for the overthrow of the Iranian Islamix Republic. Many Iranian protesters support Mousavi. Instead of "Down with Mousavi," we say why don't you break with the government? Whatever he does, we win.
I'm closer to Gert, on the Islam subject. I have nothing profound to add.
I'm going on to another topic.
Pagan:
What’s entirely missing from your account is the thick waves of dislike, mistrust and plain old hatred that in the US emanates mostly from the US Right and mostly from Conservatives to all things Islam. See for instance the widespread belief that Obama is a Muslim. Or the ‘ground zero “mosque”’ kerfuffle. The reductionist nonsense about Mohammed being a pedophile. The increasing conflation between Radical Zionism and anti-Islam advocates like Pamela Geller. The ongoing obsession with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Right from the off (9/11) the Left (US and elsewhere) warned that these atrocities could lead to an indiscriminate backlash against innocent, ordinary Muslim citizens. Predictably (going by the past) we were right. Predictably we were tarred with the same brush: branded as traitors and ‘muzzielovers’. Plus ça change… eh?
In Europe, well before 9/11, Muslims were being targeted by the usual Far Right suspects (BNP, National Front, Front National, Vlaams Blok etc etc), not as Muslims per se but as ‘aliens’ who ‘take our jobs and take our women’. The same morons have since 9/11 found a new stick but the victims are the same people.
On account of all of this a Ha’aretz contributor asked himself very recently and very rightly: ‘Is Europe losing its mind again?’ I’ll let you guess what he was referring to. But I can assure you his question applies to the good ole’ US of A too: scapegoating minorities in times of crisis (real or perceived) is as old as Mankind, wherever…
The comment deleter is the NOT SERIOUS party.
As for MY seriousness...
More on the status of Women's Rights in Egypt since the sexual assault of the Western Reporter...
...of course, Islam just couldn't be the problem, could it?
Stick a fork in Europe. It's done. France is the only country there with the guts to pass laws against Islamic misogyny and what do they get for their trouble? Vilification from a large and growing, and rabid, Islamic minority. If there is a growing groundswell of support in Europe for removal of this cancer in their midst, it is only because of the actions of the radicals themselves. If Muslims allowed themselves to be integrated in European society and lived in peace as loyal citizens of their adopted countries, this problem would not exist, or would be a very minor one at best.
But they are incapable of doing so, and the larger their numbers grow, the worse the problem gets.
Ask not for whom the bell tolls, Gert. It tolls for thee. And if the chief bell ringer ends up looking oddly like a certain little man with a funny little mustache, by that time you're one and only worry will be whether or not the next paper hanging corporal is or is not a Muslim.
You'd better hope the answer to that question is a resounding NO. But if the answer is instead YES, I'd advise you to acclimate yourself to a position to your general Southeast. You know, the position you will be expected to bow towards five times a day.
The only other question you might ask is, whose fault is this? Why did this happen? Will it be the fault of those who refused to see the growing danger, or of those who refused to bow down and accept it?
You will know the answer to that question by the inevitable, final result.
Just don't expect the US to come bail you out or extinguish the flames of the next European bonfire. I'm reasonably sure that by that time, the vast majority of Americans will have learned the hard lessons of intervention in foreign affairs and will have finally come to appreciate the wisdom of President Washington's warnings in regards to such foolhardy foreign policy.
You will have created this problem. You are on your own. Deal with it. Your future will at least hopefully provide a valuable lesson to Americans as to the nature of the inherent danger of nursing this viper at your breast.
By the time you're old and gray, if you make it that long, you will remember this conversation, and will weep biter tears of anguish.
Pagan:
There’s certainly one large grain of wisdom in your diatribe:
”Just don't expect the US to come bail you out or extinguish the flames of the next European bonfire. I'm reasonably sure that by that time, the vast majority of Americans will have learned the hard lessons of intervention in foreign affairs and will have finally come to appreciate the wisdom of President Washington's warnings in regards to such foolhardy foreign policy.”
But I’ve almost got admiration for your comic book imagination: ‘Jews taking back the Sinai’, ‘nuclear holes where Damascus used to be’ and now dreams of a Muslim free US (because if you complain about Muslims in Europe, please realise the American numbers of Muslims still slightly exceed European ones and be consequent). You might also want to suggest conquering all of the Arab/Muslim world and astroturfing over any remaining Muslim/Arab influence there. That oil really was our birthright to begin with, right?
Now when you’re done removing the Muslim undesirables, which group you don’t like will be next? Who will, in your eyes, be ‘loyal’ enough to be granted the privilege of being American (because abiding by the Law clearly isn’t ‘loyal’ enough for you). And will the last man standing please turn off the light?
Ren: where are your progressive friends? Have they decided to surrender this territory to the Far Right? Shame on them if so…
Gert: My blog has always had combat. People come and go.
I think people are moving from blogging, to Facebook.
This discussion is pointless.
Islam was fine with Ronald Reagan. He liked circling Russia with Islamist governments.
Speedy G: The states rights logic, leads to support for the right to practice slavery.
Pagan: There is a dialectic eith assimilating Muslims. They become more European. They watch MTV etc.
Post a Comment