Multiculturalism, Terror and Shariah

In their attempts to move the discussion away from the foreign policy role in terror, the government have returned to the theme of multiculturalism.

The position of the pro-war elements on this is strange. On one hand they tell us that there is a global evil ideology we must confront in a violent way, but on the other they say that the terror threat is the result of the failed policy of multiculturalism at home. The two positions cannot sit with each other. Surely if the Al-Qaeda strand of thinking is global, then whatever we did at home does not matter? Did terrorists breed in Afghanistan because of the Taliban's position on multiculturalism?

The government's argument

The argument of the government goes roughly as follows. Asians have lived parallel lives in this country for too many years, and because of this segregation, they care nothing at all for white people and are thus quite willing to blow them up on public transport.

This is simply not true. For one, Al-Qaeda have regard for nobody's lives, and white people should not take it personally. US, UK, and Australian targets have been hit in Muslim countries, resulting in the deaths of many hundreds of their co-religionists. For Al-Qaeda, there are no rules to the game. They kill, and it doesn't matter about your creed or colour in pursuit of their goals.

The second count on which it's not true is that it bears no resemblance to the bombers we know about to date. Richard Reid the shoebomber was a white convert. The July bombers all spoke English. One was a teaching assistant, one worked in his father's fish-and-chip shop, one was married to a white Englishwoman, and one was known to have gone on wild drinking binges (thus passing Jon Snow's integration test).

Despite the facts, the government's latest attempt to keep the narrative about terror where they want it has again succeeded. Ruth Kelly, Communities Secretary, has been at the head of the latest charge against the Muslim community. After calling for the debate on multiculturalism, she has since said that all "extremist" and "isolationist" Islamic schools should be "shut down". Schools shouldn't be "trying to change British society" (wonder what her Catholic friends make of that). The government has benefited from the similar peddled myth of extremist imams foaming at the mouth from pulpits across the country.

Liberals give-in on multiculturalism

Pro-war Rod Liddle commented in his Sunday Times column about how supposedly liberal left-leaning figures like Kelly and the head of the CRE had so suddenly become right-wing on the multiculturalism issue:

When an ICM poll of Britain’s Muslims in February this year revealed that some 40% (that is, about 800,000 people) wished to see Islamic law introduced in parts of Britain, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality responded by saying that they should therefore pack their bags and clear off. Sir Trevor Phillips’s exact words were these: “If you want to have laws decided in another way, you have to live somewhere else.”

My guess is this: if such a statement had been made by a member of the Tory party’s Monday Club in 1984 — or, for that matter, 1994 — he would have been excoriated and quite probably would have been kicked out of the party. “If you don’t like it here then go somewhere else” was once considered the apogee of “racism”. People who did not like it here were exhorted to exert their political muscle and change the status quo.

Similarly, Kelly, in her address to the commission that I mentioned earlier, said the following: “There are white Britons who do not feel comfortable with change. They see shops and restaurants in their town centres changing. They see their neighbourhoods becoming more diverse.”

Quite remarkable stuff, really. And motivated, I suppose, by the Labour party’s unhappy experiences in Barking and Dagenham, where the indigenous white working class voted en masse for the British National party at the last council elections. Margaret Hodge, Frank Field and Anne Cryer had earlier warned that resentment was growing swiftly within Labour’s traditional, but neglected, inner-city and white-flight blue-collar vote. But can you imagine it being uttered by anyone to the left of Ron Atkinson, the former television football pundit, 10 or even five years ago? It has the faint whiff of Enoch Powell about it.

The reason that many areas have concentrated Muslim populations is due to the dual influence of push-and-pull factors. Push, in terms of plush places like Kensington were slightly out of the economic reach of immigrants. Pull, in terms of what Liddle says is perfectly understandable from the white population - to be with people they have much in common with. When Brits go abroad, this is what they do. What Muslim immigrants didn't do here though, was throw anyone out. The phenomenon of "white flight" is all too little talked about. When ethnics move into the neighbourhood, the natives get on the move.

The call for Shariah in Britain

Liddle also spoke of shariah. The call for this has been a godsend for those who love bashing Muslims, even if it was only one "Muslim leader" that did so last week. On this, Shahid Malik has received a kicking from a rabbi for his aping of Trevor Phillips in telling Muslims to "go and live in Saudi" if they want shariah:

SHAHID MALIK MP has given an energetic response to Lord Ahmed’s charge that he — Malik — is doing the BNP’s work for them by telling Muslims who want to live under sharia law to “go and live somewhere where they have it” (News Review, last week).

Other minorities — including many Jews — would feel uncomfortable at Malik’s suggestion. Britain is our home. Why leave it? All legal systems evolve. If sharia or halacha (Jewish law) have something to contribute to British law then let the debate begin. That, surely, is what civilised societies do.

Rabbi Brian Fox
Menorah Synagogue
South Manchester

This call for shariah needs to be framed in terms of what exactly Muslims are asking for. The Guardian found even more Muslims than the Telegraph wanting it - 61%. However, Liddle and others wouldn't care to quote it because that poll actually defined what the respondents meant by shariah - civil matters like divorce, inheritance and custody. No one is calling for beheadings or stonings. Shariah already exists in many forms in this country. I am married under shariah, there are halal bank accounts, and meat is slaughtered according to Islamic law. It's nothing to panic about.

I would though strongly urge the calls for shariah enshrined in legislation to stop. They are only damaging the community and providing ammunition against us. The priority surely has to be making friends of the 53% of Britons who see Islam as a "threat". These calls for shariah do not help. If you want want your inheritance to be divided according to Islam, get a Will. If you want to safeguard yourself in event of a divorce, get a prenup. None of this will be enshrined in legislation any time soon, and it doesn't need to be. If some other area of legislation will benefit from change, then join with similar thinking non-Muslims in arguing its merits on a policy-by-policy basis.

Civil War from Bradford to Brick Lane

I would also point Muslims to an article by the historian Niall Ferguson in the Sunday Telegraph. He ponders what would have happened if the plot to hijack transatlantic airliners from Heathrow Airport was real and had succeeded. He says the country would have been ripped apart. The unity shown in the US behind George Bush following 9/11 would not have been matched here. Tony Blair's position would have become totally untenable.

Ferguson adds that on the streets however there would be "civil war" with "violent confrontation from Bradford to Brick Lane". It's a frightening prospect that doesn't seem altogether unlikely given the recent polls and the mobs of passengers objecting to flying with Muslims. The terror threat needs to be neutralised, but if the worst was to happen, we must as a country be ready to respond in the right way. The hate must stop.

Comments

[DrM]

'that the RSS and Shiv Sena are powerful because they provide local humanitarian support'

Huh...a fecal fascist. I knew it.

[Sunny]

Huh...a fecal fascist. I knew it.

It's a statement of fact, as it applies to Hamas and Hizballah. If you don't know anything about the RSS, look it up. And I don't have to justify my contempt for the RSS. My record speaks for itself.

Now, I'm waiting for Osama's response. The rest have been dealt with.

[joe90]

Response to what, mr angry?

In between your fanatical emotional ravings, I fail to see anything that looks remotely like a reasonable question looking for a reasonable response -

- there is a lot of ideological testosterone fuelled verbage there, so maybe I've not looked hard enough -

- care to state the question(s) again sunny jim?

[DrM]

'My record speaks for itself."

It sure does, you're a fecal fascist pretending to be an expert on Muslims, the Middle East and its politics. Reading your silly inane rants is less interesting than watching paint dry.

[Refresh]

Sunny,

I cannot believe you can even begin to call Lenin a racist.

Lenin's coverage of the Israeli attack on Lebanon was excellent. Always up to date with links to relevant material not found in the mainstream media. The best I found.

Also I too was disappointed you removed Lenin's Tomb from your comrade list. As I was when you removed Islamaphobia Watch.

[James O]

Faced with opposing arguments to your own, Sunny, you've quite rapidly lost control of yourself and degenerated even further into insults and smears

'No I didn't. I'm perfectly aware of their differences.'

Let's look at your own posts:

'But assuming they win, like they did in Afghanistan' - this was in reference to Al-Quada, yet the Taliban were the victors in Afghanistan

'if not being terrorised by American bombs, will be terrorised by local "moral squads" enforced by them.' - this paragraph began with a reference to the 'Al-Quada lot' yet the Taliban enforced their rule through 'moral squads'

'I'm conflating them deliberately' - self-explanatory

You have consistantly - and deliberately - confused the two because this serves youre argument, and ignored any arguments made by myself and others to point out their numerous differences.

'This perfectly explains why you're so ignorant. Try reading what the RSS/VHP crew put out before insulting my intelligence with such drivel.'

I'm not interested in reading the RSS's own anaylsis as the last word on their politics, any more than i'm interested in using the BNP's own opinions as a defence of their politics. The RSS role in attacks on religous minorities in India is well-known, including the infamous demolition of the Babri mosque:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/07/12/india11319.htm

I'll return to my original point which you failed to address - groups like the RSS (check out the HRW archives if you have any doubt) attack defenceless religious minorities in India. Hamas and Hizbollah fight against the brutality of foreign occupation and aggression. Comparing them to the RSS is both apologia for the Hindu far right and repeating the worst Zoinist / neo-con propaganda.

'I said the political movements draw support from religious fanatics'

this doesn't explain their political direction; as i pointed out in the past, and still today, 'religious fanaticism' can be pro- or anti-western imperialism.

'Most political movements against imperialism are not religious in nature'

History is replete with examples to the contrary - the early Algerian resistance to the French, the religious element amongst the Indian Mutiny, the Christian 'Taiping' rebellion in China, the numerous Native American nations inspired by their own religious tradition, the Christian liberation theology movement in Latin America - and of course many movements in the contemporary Mideast, or in line with your historical ignorance are you going to claim now that Hamas, Hizbollah, and groups like Al-Sadr's in Iraq are not resisting imperialism.

'If you're going to try and come back to me, please learn more history than simply fitting events into your narrow anti-imperialist analysis'

Oh, spare me this macho bluster; stop trying to win through name-calling what you can't win by arguement.

[James O]

'Saudi Arabia is not an 'Islamist' state'

Point taken. I was using 'islamist' as a short-hand for any political currents which involved an element of religion, as opposed to groups with secular ideologies such as the Communist parties in the region.

'As much as many Muslims might not like to admit it, Nasr, al-Saud, Saddam, al-Assad et al. are products of their own culture'

I'd argue that whether groups such as these come to power in the Muslim world depends on material conditions (which include the consistant involvement of foreign powers in the region)rather than their cultural background. However, I was referring specifically to groups like Al-Quada, who possess a religious ideology but in political terms oppose western imperialism - not, of course, that this legitimises or justified their actions.

[James O]

'The Pakistan mullahs are less friendly towards the US now but at the time they were quite happy'

This underlines the point I have been making throughout, that religion by itself cannot explain the political direction of Islamist groups.
Sunny, you've spent quite a lot of time complaining about the postings you've received from myself and others. Don't in future cast around unsubstantiated slurs like accusing the entire left of racism.

[Sunny]

this was in reference to Al-Quada, yet the Taliban were the victors in Afghanistan
It was in reference to religious fanatics in general - which the Al-Qaeda are and as are the Taliban. My original point was always about religious fanatics taking control of power in a state, which Osama said would not happen. Please, please, read carefully.

this paragraph began with a reference to the 'Al-Quada lot' yet the Taliban enforced

Do you not get the point of Al-Qaeda? It is not a concrete organisation. It is more a loose idea that centres around various ideologies. When Blair/Bush use it to refer to a specific group they are being idiotic, as are you.

Comparing them to the RSS is both apologia for the Hindu far right and repeating the worst Zoinist / neo-con propaganda.

Don't try and teach me about the RSS son. I've got more reports on what the RSS has done in India then you're had hot dinners. The Neo-cons love the RSS because it fits into their own clash of civilisations narrative. While here I am trying to point out that the RSS say the same things that Hamas/Hizbullah do - "We are your protectors against foreign invaders, we care for the people etc".

But being a twattish leftie who will ask other people to read Hamas/Hizballah literature, but does not want to read RSS literature to understand their ideology is typical.

You're not interested in combatting racism or bigotry. You're interested in fitting specific world events around your own narratives so you can pretend to be standing up against imperialism. Typical socialists.

the religious element amongst the Indian Mutiny,

Again - what do you know of the religious element within the Indian mutiny or the Chinese uprising? That the former was only a result of beef/pork tipped bullets? That it had nothing to do with simply wanting to be free of the white man telling the brown man he knew what was better for him according to his world-view.

The same as what you're trying now.

are you going to claim now that Hamas, Hizbollah, and groups like Al-Sadr's in Iraq are not resisting imperialism

You really are illiterate aren't you? Of course they are resisting imperialism. I've already said that above. I was talking about the previously existing religious fanaticism that some of these anti-imperialist movements have tapped into. This is what Thabet also refers to.

But you can't handle that because it doesn't fit in with your narrative. You think religious fanaticism cannot exist without a white enemy or something? Jesus, I've finally had a discussion with a completely self-loating white man.

[James O]

Control yourself man, youre falling over your keyboard in your desperation to spill bilge and insults

'My original point was always about religious fanatics taking control of power in a state'

Nowhere in your original point do you make that distinction, and it's contradicted by other comments you made. Your shorthand for 'religious fanatics' at every post was 'Al-Quada'.

'Do you not get the point of Al-Qaeda? It is not a concrete organisation'

I'm aware that 'Al-Quada' is shorthand for a series of groups with a sympathetic ideology organised into small cells which attack western targets and countries. This is different from the Taliban whom, as i have pointed out continually, and you have failed to give any answer to, are a mass movement based on ethnic tribal and religious loyalties, and whose interests are purely Afghan. That is a very simple difference and you are refusing to grasp it because it suits your argument to pretend otherwise.

'Don't try and teach me about the RSS son. I've got more reports on what the RSS has done in India then you're had hot dinners'

This is great stuff in a kids playground. it's far less impressive on a blog where you need to substantiate youre arguements with evidence. You clearly know very little about the RSS or you would not compare them to Hamas / Hizbollah. Are Indian Muslims occupying India? are they bombing Delhi? are they holding thousands of Indians prisoner? are they stealing Indian homes, land, water? You clearly know absolutely nothing about Imperialism or you would not take the RSS's proclamations seriously.

'who will ask other people to read Hamas/Hizballah literature'

I'll ask others to read Hamas and Hizbollah literature and i'll test it against the reality of events in the region, and these organisations are consistantly and bravely fighting against the aggression and occupation of their countries. In all the bile and crudity youve spat onto the screen you havent challenged this basic truth.

'You're not interested in combatting racism or bigotry'

This from someone who calls me a 'self-loathing white man' and then insists everyone else is a racist. pathetic.

'what do you know of the religious element within the Indian mutiny or the Chinese uprising?'

Clearly more than you. Some Moslem fighters in the Mutiny regarded themselves as mujahadeen and tried to resurrect the Mughal empire. The leader of the Taiping revolt believed himself a Christian messiah in establishing a heaven on earth of universal equality. Of course these are religious coverings for a movement based on combating Imperialism - that is the point i've been making since the beginning of this post. You asked me for religious anti-imperial movement. i gave you several, and as usual, you were unable to come up with a response beyond insults.

'I was talking about the previously existing religious fanaticism that some of these anti-imperialist movements have tapped into'

No, you've changed your argument once again when it's been challenged. Groups like Hizbollah and Hamas were non-existant 30 years ago. They came to popularity because the secular resistance groups were destroyed, marginalised or co-opted like Fatah. Like any socialist I regard ideology as originating in the material environment and not some vague, orientalist notion of religious fanaticism.

'You think religious fanaticism cannot exist without a white enemy or something?'

No, never at any point did i make that claim. From the beginning i've discussed only small cell-like groups like Al-Quada; you have persistantly tried to change the subject.

'The same as what you're trying now.'

Yes, that would include of course the majority of the Lebanese population - 87%-who supported Hizbollah and the majority of the Palestinians who voted for Hamas.

'I've finally had a discussion with a completely self-loating white man.'

It's revealing that you regard a consistant opponent of Western (and British) imperialism in the middle east as self-loathing. this is the Zionist interpretation of self-loathing whereby you can't question the crimes of their favoured state. It's revealing as well that you're reverting to such crude , offensive rhetoric when your arguements are challenged.
Give it a rest, Sunny, youre a fucking joke

[Sunny]

Same old trip James. I really think reading is a big issue with you.

You say: Nowhere in your original point do you make that distinction, and it's contradicted by other comments you made. Your shorthand for 'religious fanatics' at every post was 'Al-Quada'.

No it wasn't you dimwit.

I said:
It's not the case currently because these fighters [the Al-Qaeda lot] need to recruit from those [where there is religious fanaticism] countries. But assuming they [religious fanatics] win, like they did in Afghanistan, who suffers the most then? Local Muslims do.

I'm talking about the danger of letting religious fanatics take power, and you're going off on some next idiotic tangent. Give it a fucking rest will you.

S or you would not compare them to Hamas / Hizbollah. Are Indian Muslims occupying India? are they bombing Delhi?

Again - your knowledge of understanding English looks cursory. I didn't say I agreed with the RSS, I said they use the same language as Hamas or Hizbullah. Jesus. You are so annoying it's unbelievable. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REALITY AND RHETORIC YOU DIMWIT. I SAID THE RSS/VHP/BJP CREW INVOKE THE SAME LANGUAGE IN THE SAME VICTIM MENTALITY WAY OTHER 'RESISTANCE' MOVEMENTS DO.

If you can't understand that then you really are not even worth acknowledging.

everyone else is a racist.
No, just you and your cronies who try and fit everything into your narrow anti-imperialist narrative.

No, you've changed your argument once again when it's been challenged.

No I haven't. I've been talking about the danger of pre-existing religious fanaticism, from my first post. Just because you can't fucking read that isn't my problem.

this is the Zionist interpretation of self-loathing

Idiot.

[Osama]

Sunny, if I could offer a bit of advice, the dismissal of people as "imbeciles" and "dimwits" doesn't help. If you want to beat down on people like that, there are smarter ways of doing it!

I actually find your engagement above quite intriguing. I can't say I've read your views extensively elsewhere, but have seen some of your other stuff on PP. You're a bit different in that your views seem to go one way and the other, and can't be boxed off with a label. Or can you?

Refresh raises some interesting points about your change of comrades. I myself have wondered why I'm dismissed by you as an "idiot" but Indigo Jo is one of your "comrades". Myself and Yusuf have very similar views, and indeed in the year or so I've had a blog, I can hardly think of any instances where we've been in disagreement.

I also lost a lot of respect for you when you capitulated to John Ware, complaining about "tone" and "timing" when the battle should have been taken to him on the substantive premise of his documentary.

Anyway, I digress. We were talking about the nature of the terror threat we face. I put forward that people of all creeds were dying as a result of Al-Qaeda, but that Al-Q's targets are US and other pro-war nations, even if others die as "collateral". Reason I raise this is to counter the propaganda saying it's not about foreign policy because "Muslims are dying too".

If I get this right (because some of your posts were written late at night and aren't the clearest), you are saying this doesn't matter anyway because Al-Q would love to take over Muslim states. I'm not sure if you're saying they would bomb Egypt, Saudi and so on even if US policy in there was genuinely benevolent and noninterventionalist. If so, I'd like to know what you base that on.

My response in any case is that it doesn't matter, because if you want to fuse that type of puritanical Islam with the Al-Q campaign against the US together, that strand has always existed within Islam and it has never taken over.

Coming to your questions, there is something in between the dictators and the extremists. There is the people. Surely we can agree that it is up to them how they want to run their affairs? That's all they've been asking for a very long time.

Many are worried that the people will want the MB or associated Islamists. The biggest mistake that can be made is to see them as the same as Al-Qaeda. It would be kind of seeing the far right as the same as centre-right parties. They are different. To go into this needs a thread of its own and I have been pondering writing something about it especially in the light of recent events.

Now I think given what you said above, that you see Al-Q and MB as one and the same. Maybe you can be boxed off after all. Given your dismissal of lenin and Islamophobia Watch, you seem to be with your friends at Harry's Place.

[joe90]

The world's 3 fundamentalist regimes are -
1 America
2 Saudi Arabia
3 Israel

- but don't worry, they are either western or western puppet regimes that carry out crimes worse than terrorism, called 'war crimes' -

- the fact that there is opposition and resistence to war criminal fundamentalist oppressive states shouldn't come as any surprise - that is the history of humanity, to be in opposition to centralised, institutionalised tyranny -

Why that is something out the ordinary just because resistence and opposition happen to be religious based, I've no idea - people could base their struggle to be free around green cheese for all I care, that is their prerogative - indeed part of what being a human as part of a community is all about -

I really don't see what the problem is - is there a pre-ordained method of resistence to tyranny I've not heard about?

[joe90]

'Victim mentality' 'rhetoric'...

I fail to follow this - if anyone is portraying themselves as victims it's the Israeli, US and UK govts - and we all know how full of rhetoric they are -
- Iraqi WMD anyone?
- or how about Iranian WMD?

All western governments do is scare the living daylights out of their populations with imaginary threats, in order to carry out the worst crimes imaginable abroad - if that isn't an ACTUAL vctim mentality, then I don't know what is!

Accussing our victims of having a 'victim mentality' is just pure western propaganda - the Lebanese, Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghani populations are ACTUAL victims of western violence -
- the rest of the people of the region are ACTUAL victims of western puppet regimes!

As usual, blame the victims!

[Sunny]

Maybe you can be boxed off after all.

Osama, your attempts to box me off will continue forever, and that's fine too. We discuss issues within narrow confines, which makes it difficult to have a properly engaging discussion. But by all means you can box me if you want to, but I can guarantee you it'll continue to be difficult.

With regards to Lenin, Harry's Place, IW and Indigo Jo - I don't always agree with my "comrades" all the time, and sometimes I express that through commenting on their websites or with posts on mine. But one thing I don't like with my comrades is bigotry. And this isn't straightforward bigotry all the time expressed in the form of Islamophobia or outright racism, but it's also liberal-left racism - where we (and I refer here to non-whites in general) are either treated patronisingly ("oh those poor brown people, I know they treat their women like shit but maybe that's what they're like. Let's not talk about it") or only referred to and talked about when it fits into their narrow agendas. As I said, I'll explain more on this later on.
As we say in our "ideals" section - we stand against bigotry in all forms. But that also means I don't mean I stand alongside some white boy who thinks I should be treated like a little lamb and needs looking after. Muslim, Sikh and Hindu values are robust enough to reject bigotry in all forms and I don't appreciate someone making excuses for brown bigotry on the basis that we are being "oppressed". It's patronising. This needs more explanation later on.

you are saying this doesn't matter anyway because Al-Q would love to take over Muslim states. I'm not sure if you're saying they would bomb Egypt, Saudi and so on even if US policy in there was genuinely benevolent and noninterventionalist.

When an organisation has developed in a culture of violence, it can never really abandon those roots if and when it comes to power. It then becomes in the nature of that movement to carry on using violence in the name of their ideals. The Al-Qaeda movement may have some ideals hidden in there somewhere that some Muslims clearly identify with, but if their approach is violence to achieve those objectives, it can never really shed that violence once those aims have been achieved.

The Taliban being an obvious example.

So I am always contemptuous of any religious movement, whether it hides behind an anti-imperialist banner or not, that uses violence against innocent civilians (even of its own flock) to achieve its aims. My point is we cannot keep excusing religious fanatics who use violence as if they belong to the sidelines.

They need to be challenged and defeated, otherwise in certain circumstances they can grow and become powerful (like the VHP/Bajrang Dal did in Gujarat, like Sikh militants in 1984, like Al-Qaeda now all over the world) and threaten to engulf us all.
Plus, you cannot deny that the threat of violence by religious fanatics always there in our communities. Not on the periphery, but even if you do something they don't like. People don't want to admit it - but it's there.

Surely we can agree that it is up to them how they want to run their affairs?

Yup - and as I said I support democracy. But I'd like people to have that choice, to be run by theocrats or be run by secular politicians. Right?

Now I think given what you said above, that you see Al-Q and MB as one and the same.

No I don't. But only if the MB crew do not use the threat of violence for their aims. In Pakistan's example, do you think Jamaat i Islaami has been completely without violence?

[James O]

'I'm talking about the danger of letting religious fanatics take power, and you're going off on some next idiotic tangent. Give it a fucking rest will you'

No, from the beginning you used 'al-quada' as a shorthand for all forms of islamic religious fanatcisim. As I have pointed out repeatedly this is innacurate.

'THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REALITY AND RHETORIC YOU DIMWIT. I SAID THE RSS/VHP/BJP CREW INVOKE THE SAME LANGUAGE IN THE SAME VICTIM MENTALITY WAY OTHER 'RESISTANCE' MOVEMENTS DO.

Ah, youve found the caps lock button. very impressive. Of course there's a difference between rhetoric and reality, and the difference is the RSS comments are rhetoric, whereas Hamas and Hizbollah are in reality, defending their home countries from attack by Israeli Imperialism. Are you suggesting that Lebanon was not just attacked by Israel? that Palestine is not occupied by Israel? if not then cut this victim mentality crap when Hamas and Hezbollah defend victims, and shut the fuck up.

'No, just you and your cronies who try and fit everything into your narrow anti-imperialist narrative.'

You started your first rant by saying that the British left were racist. Thats a serious charge. Either take this back and shut up or substantiate it.

Idiot.

So, no answer. at all. Those who oppose the crimes carried out by their country are self-loathing. well done Sunny.

[James O]

'one thing I don't like with my comrades is bigotry. And this isn't straightforward bigotry all the time expressed in the form of Islamophobia or outright racism, but it's also liberal-left racism - where we (and I refer here to non-whites in general) are either treated patronisingly'

No evidence given to substantiate this view, as is normal with Sunny's postings. The Left's argument is that the opinions and political choices made by oppressed groups should factor in the context of their oppression, for the reason that the Left is based on the belief that ideology originates in material circumstances. Or are you suggesting that minorities in Britain are not oppressed - that Afro-Caribbeans and Muslims suffer official and unofficial discrimination and are targeted more by the Police. Is a Palestinian who says makes anti-semitic comments because for all their life they have been oppressed by a state that declares itself the 'Jewish state' the same as a Neo-Nazi whom has never suffered any kind of discrimination? Give me an answer to this question rather than hiding behind your self-indulgent beautiful soul leftism.
More to the point, the Left would not make this argument, were they not originating in, and being supported by, members of minorities themselves. Muslim groups and individuals of all stripes have consistantly argued that Blair's policies are increasing the appeal of radical Islamism? are they 'self-loathing white men' too? Wearing your identity on your sleeve may cut some ice with skittish liberals but it'd be far less likely to convinve the many members of minorities whom are working with the Left in the anti-war and other movements. And, as I have already pointed out, both Hizbollah and Hamas are backed by the majority of the Lebanese and Palestinian populations. I know whom the Left should be listening to on this question and it isn't you.

("oh those poor brown people, I know they treat their women like shit but maybe that's what they're like. Let's not talk about it")

So 'brown people' - all brown people, without discrimination treat 'their women like shit' For someone so keen to throw around the epithet of 'racist', this could have come straight from a BNP leaflet. More realistically, isn't the best strategy to defend women's rights across the board without pretending that they are solely an issue within minority communities and allowing women's rights to be subordinated to a racist, islamaphobic agenda. Many Moslem - and other minority - feminists have no problem fighting for their rights without become starry-eyed apologists for Euro-American imperialism.

'So I am always contemptuous of any religious movement'

Then youre an idiot. Some of the most important popular struggles in history, beginning with the Peasant's revolt, have been led and motivated by religious ideology. The point for any socialist is whom these struggles mobilise and whom they oppose. I'd rather stand any day with a Christian opposed to the occupation of Iraq than an athiest who supports the same.

'whether it hides behind an anti-imperialist banner or not'

Anti-Imperialist groups are defined by their opposition to Imperialism, whether religious or political, and groups like Hamas and Hizbollah, are anti-imperialist as you have already conceded. They are not 'hiding' behind any banner but have shown enormous courage fighting a much more powerful opponent.

'that uses violence against innocent civilians (even of its own flock) to achieve its aims'

Every resistance movement in history has targeted civilians. The (entirely secular) French resistance killed 10'000 collaborators with the German occupation, and history is replete with similar examples from the Jewish fighters in the Ghetto risings to the secular Palestinian groups in the 1st intifada. Whether the groups who represent the oppressed are religious or not is totally irrelevant to this equation. Does the Left approve of attacks on civilians? No. Do they therefore throw up their hands and refuse to support an oppressed people fighting back? Again, No.

'I'd like people to have that choice, to be run by theocrats or be run by secular politicians'

This is a false opposition. The choice is between dictators - who can either be secular like the Ba'ath and Mubrark or religious like the House of Saud, or democratic groups, who can again be religious, like Hizbollah, or secular, like the communists; the fact that these two groups are collaborating in Lebanon should give you a clue to where the Left should stand on this issue.

[Sunny]

It's easy dealing with you James:

1) you used 'al-quada' as a shorthand for all forms of islamic religious fanatcisim

No, I used them as an example.

2) and the difference is the RSS comments are rhetoric, whereas Hamas and Hizbollah are in reality

The Mughal invasion of India, the bombs that constantly go off in Indian cities, the rhetoric of activists from organisations such as SIMI (now banned), the throwing of acid in the face of women by militants in Kashmir, the killing of Hindu villagers by Muslim militants also in Kashmir is not rhetoric. Given you know very little of the situation in India - stop digging.

3) Thats a serious charge. Either take this back and shut up or substantiate it

Have partially done above, will expand on it later. There's no reason why I have to go by your timings.

4) hose who oppose the crimes carried out by their country are self-loathing

This is my country too, and I also oppose its crimes. But I oppose the killing of innocent civilians by all - state and non-state groups. You don't. You oppose only those you dislike.

5) and political choices made by oppressed groups should factor in the context of their oppression

Except it doesn't take into account bigotry and racism that already existed in those societies.

6) that Afro-Caribbeans and Muslims suffer official and unofficial discrimination and are targeted more by the Police.

Why just refer to Afro-Carribeans and Muslims? What happened to the other brown people? Not oppressed enough for you?

7) And, as I have already pointed out, both Hizbollah and Hamas are backed by the majority of the Lebanese and Palestinian populations.

You conveniently miss out that the Palestinians barely elected Hamas, and that too primarily because of Fatah's corruption and not because they want Hamas to blow more people up for them. You forget the majority of Palestinians want to recognise Israel, but Hamas doesn;t.

You also sweep under the carpet the fact that many Lebanese didn't support Hizballah before the war started. And you gloss over the fact that Hizballah is Lebanon's only real force because the Syrians didn't let it develop a proper army.

But oh no... let's not talk about those circumstances because they don't fit into your narrative.

So 'brown people' - all brown people, without discrimination treat 'their women like shit' For someone so keen to throw around the epithet of 'racist', this could have come straight from a BNP leaflet

Shut up will you. Now you're telling me about the patriarchy and abuse that Asian women have to go through? I don't give a shit if its come out of a BNP leaflet. I want to talk about those issues because I care about them, not because its part of some racist agenda. Fuckwit.

are anti-imperialist as you have already conceded.

So where in this anti-imperialism strategy do plans to wipe out Jews fit into? Or is anti-semitism part of anti-imperialism now?

Every resistance movement in history has targeted civilians.

I'd like for you to justify that when you're part of the civilian group caught in the crossfire. I'd like to see how far you go along with that line of thinking if (and I hope it doesn't happen to you despite being a twat) you get blown up on the tube.

Religious resistance movements have codes of conduct to follow. I know this. Osama knows this. Maybe you don't know it, because you're using religion only as a proxy for your own so-called anti-imperialist stance.

[Sunny]

And James, my deluded self-loathing friend, you might be interested in reading the following post by Thabet i full on the limitations of blaming foreign policy.

http://underprogress.blogs.com/weblog/2006/09/policy_profilin.html

To quote a specific part:

"The simplest refutation of the foreign policy argument is that, despite anger Blair's foreign objectives, there are Muslims who do not engage in such acts of violence. Is their anger or concern any less than those who take to bombing tubes and buses? Further, such an explanation is actually an insult to Muslims who don't feel the need to engage in such acts or find such actions against their religio-moral principles. This explanation says Muslims are unable to rationally deal with the situation and that their only response is bound to be a violent one. This is, plainly speaking, rubbish."

And this is why I call you and your ilk racist.

You actually believe that killing innocent people or being racist or demanding mass murder of people of particular communities is perfectly reasonable when some Muslims call for it because of the circumstances they are put in.

No. Learn a bit more about Islam. It is not unreasonable or un-Islamic to demand that if you want to resist imperialism then you do it with dignity and you do it with concience. That is what I expect Muslims to do. You expect them to commit mass murder and then you justify it for them. This is why you're a patronising racist.

But don't worry, more examples will come later.

[joe90]

sunny is displaying his victim mentality again -
- it's all the fault of our victims for daring to defend themselves against western racist agression -

Poot little Israel! Woe is them - up against such military super-powers as Hamas and Hezbollah! -

How do Israelis manage to survive up ahainst such military might?

And all Israelis have to defend themselves with, is the world's fourth largest military machine on the planet -

You have to wonder who is occupying who, and who is forcing people to live in Warsaw Ghettos like Gaza, when you read fairytales like sunny's!

Israel doesn't want peace and security - it wants expansion into the rest of what is left of Palestine - Israel has always rejected peace and it was because the PLO were giving into Israeli demands to sign the Palestinians suicide note that Palestinian voted Hamas -

- I suppose Hamas is at fault for being religious, just like the PLO are at fault for being corrupt!

So what is Isreal guilty of - violent racist expansion an genocide perhaps - war crimes even ?

And when has the Israeli government ever recognised Palestinians rights?

How about the crimes of the UK and US governments, such as 'unprovoked aggression' against Iraq?

If you don't like terrorism don't support its causes, racist war criminals like Olmert, Bush and Blair!

[joe90]

Palestinians barely elected Hamas!!

Where do you get this rubbish from sunny - from Feb 2006

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4654306.stm>Palestinian election: Results in detail

- notice Hamas came from nowhere to win - and all so notice, that there reports of harassment of parties and members that Israel didn't like - as well as the ongoing policy of the Israel Gestapo carrying ppolitical executions against any Palestinian they take a dislike to, as well as imprisoning 1,000s of others

You're living in wee world pal

Blair only manage 20% on his last visit to the British polls - a record low for someone who still managed to win

[DrM]

James and Joe, your posts are not only informative but entertaining as well. Sunny, you ought to quit. Your rants are about as sensible as a hemophiliac loose on a cactus farm. Grow up fecal fascist.

[James O]

Sunny, you are incredibly tiresome, and repeating your slurs, insults and misrepresentations in the absence of an argument is not going to rescue you from the hole you've dug for yourself.

'No, I used them as an example.'

As I have repeatedly demonstrated - and your own previous postings have made clear, you have conflated them - as you yourself admit intentionally conflated them - with all kinds of religious fanaticism. You should have at least have the maturity to admit this, despite the fact that maturity of any kind has been lacking in all your posts.

'The Mughal invasion of India'

Was hundreds of years ago; on the same basis Al-Quada are right to continually bring up the crusades. The occupation of Palestine and Lebanon is occurring now. Are you truly incapable of telling the difference?

'the bombs that constantly go off in Indian cities, the rhetoric of activists from organisations such as SIMI (now banned), the throwing of acid in the face of women by militants in Kashmir, the killing of Hindu villagers by Muslim militants also in Kashmir is not rhetoric'

There is communal violence in India - as much directed at the Muslim community by the BJP / RSS as directed at Hindus by Muslim groups. This is not equivalent by occupation by a self-declared 'Muslim state', with all the attendant discrimination and oppression. Either you believe this communal violence is the equivalent of an occupation, in which case you are in agreement with the RSS, or you believe aggression and imperialism of the Israeli state is equivalent to communal violence. Either way, you demonstrate you know nothing either about India or the Mideast.

'But I oppose the killing of innocent civilians by all - state and non-state groups. You don't.'

For someone who shouts and screams about others 'learning to read' you've missed the point in my previous post where I ask if the Left supports killing of civilians and the answer is No. This is an entirely different from pointing out that there is a qualitative difference between a group whom kills civilians in the mistaken belief that it will end their oppression, and the state that kills civilians to perpetuate this oppression. You have failed to respond to the point I made where I point out that all resistance groups have, at some point killed civilians. If you can't understand the distinction then you've no business calling yourself a socialist.

'Except it doesn't take into account bigotry and racism that already existed in those societies'

Again youve made yourself a straw man; nowhere have I or anyone else argued this, but at the same time the persistance of pre-existing prejudices in minority communities can only be understood in the context of their relationship with the 'host' society. Logically, for example, anti-semitism in the Muslim community pre-dates their arrival in the UK, but I don't think it can be seriously suggested that the reasons for it's persistance are not related to the Israeli-Palestine conflict, in a variety of ways. Now - since youre kind of person who enjoys misrepresenting his opponents - this is not a justification or legitimation of Muslim anti-semitism. Having spoken with many Muslim at meetings and rallies, i'll take anyone up if they express anti-semitic views, but anti-semitism in the Muslim community does clearly not derive from the same origins as it does in the Fascist parties.

'Why just refer to Afro-Carribeans and Muslims? What happened to the other brown people? Not oppressed enough for you?'

Is that your answer? absolutley pathetic. Come back to this question when youve grown up or sobered up.

'You conveniently miss out that the Palestinians barely elected Hamas, and that too primarily because of Fatah's corruption and not because they want Hamas to blow more people up for them. You forget the majority of Palestinians want to recognise Israel, but Hamas doesn;t.'

Joe90 has already kindly supplied information on Hamas share of their vote, so i'll address your other points. Fatah's corrupt nature was intimately connected to their decision to surrender to Israel and act as their native policeman in the post-Oslo bantustans. the two cannot be separated. Now polls consistantly show Palestinian support suicide bombing - because they are racist or fanatical as you would believe? no because they want some way at striking back at Israel, however barbarous. Reducing Hamas purely to suicide-bombing is a Zionist propaganda meme though; on every occasion the IDF has attacked Palestinian cities they - alongside with other groups - have been in the forefront of their defence.
Most Palestinians are willing to recognise Israel, but only if the right to return is implemented, as polls have consistantly shown. This is also Hamas' policy, and they have been edging towards a 2-state settlement in recent months. pretending otherwise, is again, a piece of Zionist mythology.

'You also sweep under the carpet the fact that many Lebanese didn't support Hizballah before the war started. And you gloss over the fact that Hizballah is Lebanon's only real force because the Syrians didn't let it develop a proper army.'

Not at all, that's crucial to the point i've continually been making, and you've been ignoring - the Lebanese have supported Hizbollah because they fought back, successfully and with great courage.

'Shut up will you. Now you're telling me about the patriarchy and abuse that Asian women have to go through? I don't give a shit if its come out of a BNP leaflet. I want to talk about those issues because I care about them, not because its part of some racist agenda. Fuckwit.'

I notice you've become very indignant when you're the one being accused of racism; seems you can dish it out but not take it. Typical schoolboy behaviour. My point stands - are you suggesting that all asian women are treated 'like shit' Having met many Asian women they'd disagree with this even if they'd agree that women's rights are an issue in their communities. And more to the point, my arguing that the suppression of women's rights is intrinsic to minorites, and not to patriarchal structures as a whole which obviously includes the 'native' British society, you are repeating exactly the kind of bullshit pumped out by the BNP.

'So where in this anti-imperialism strategy do plans to wipe out Jews fit into? Or is anti-semitism part of anti-imperialism now?'

Whoah there, Neither Hamas or Hizbollah want to 'wipe out Jews'; their charters call for - at the most - the expulsion of Zionist Jews from Israel / Palestine. As an advocate of the 1-state solution I obviously disagree with this. However, in both case, these organisations have evolved on pragmatic grounds into acceptance of a 2-state solution. The question faced by socialists is this: support an anti-imperialist group fighting to liberate the oppressed which has racist elements in their ideology, or support an Israeli state founded on racism, and more so, putting this racism into practice on every piece of territory they occupy. Whom to give critical support to in this context should be clear

‘I'd like for you to justify that when you're part of the civilian group caught in the crossfire.’

For the second time, read my above posting. Resistance groups should target the politico-military structure of their oppressors. However the point I made – which you have ignored – stands; most resistance groups throughout history, religious or secular, have targeted civilians. Islamist groups are no different in this regard. It is part of the brutal logic of fighting against a vastly more powerful opponent. Would you have supported the Jewish ghetto fighters whom as their first act of rebellion killed the Jewish police and other collaborators? Would you have supported the Kenyan Mau Mau who killed settlers – including children – to rid themselves of British colonialism?

‘Religious resistance movements have codes of conduct to follow. I know this. Osama knows this. Maybe you don't know it, because you're using religion only as a proxy for your own so-called anti-imperialist stance.’

Yeah, you keep returning to this unimpressive bluster in the hope that it’ll work this time. Different groups interpret the religious strictures on just war and targeting civilians in terms of their own priorities and ideology – this is the reason virtually no Imans in the Mideast support Al-Quada’s argument that they can attack civilians regardless of the consequences, and are split over the issue of suicide bombing in general. It’s also the reason Hizbollah condemned both the Algerian FIS and Al-Quada for their indiscriminate murder of civilians.
And finally you close with a spectacular display of your arguing style:
‘You actually believe that killing innocent people or being racist or demanding mass murder of people of particular communities is perfectly reasonable when some Muslims call for it because of the circumstances they are put in.’

Not an argument I or anyone else on the Left have made, as of course, you know. The argument, once more, is that anger at Blair’s foreign policy combined with unofficial and official racism in Britain will make some members of the Muslim community more responsive to the appeals of radical Islam.
‘No. Learn a bit more about Islam. It is not unreasonable or un-Islamic to demand that if you want to resist imperialism then you do it with dignity and you do it with concience.’
No-one has ever argued the opposite; learn to respond to the argument your opponents have actually made, although you’ll find it harder than your current torrent of spleen and invective.
‘That is what I expect Muslims to do. You expect them to commit mass murder and then you justify it for them.’
No, I expect Muslims to behave like any other oppressed minority groups in history, such as the white and non-islamic Northern Irish Catholics. Since you regard the RSS as a legitimate response to violence by Indian Muslims, youre hardly in a position to lecture the Muslim community on how they respond. More to the point, the best antidote to the appeal of the Muslim far right is by consistent solidarity from the Left and working with Muslim groups in the anti-war and other movements. This gives the Left a platform for which to argue for progressive policies such as women’s and gay rights within the Muslim community.
‘This is why you're a patronising racist.’
Now, coming from someone who has both made an issue of my own background and continually used the argument that he is ‘brown’ as a token of legitimacy, I find your willingness to use ‘racist’ as a term of abuse particularly unimpressive, in the same sense that Rik from the Young Ones called everyone else a fascist. More to the point, I’ve demonstrated your argument is based on a straw man on your own making.
‘But don't worry, more examples will come later.’
Well, I’m afraid I shall have to miss these devastating put-down which has been entirely absent from your arguments so far. You can have the last word, then go back to your Neo-con / Harry’s Place chums and how you routed the Trotskyist racists. Meanwhile, for anyone on the genuine Left you’ve just made yourself look like a fool.

Joe90 and DrM – thanks for the positive comments.

[Aidan]

You said: "Richard Reid the shoebomber was a white convert."

Huh?

Richard Reid was white?

Wow.

So much misinformation.

It's people like you that make the war on terror make sense. We're bombing them abroad so we don't have to bomb them here. Yet.

[DrM]

Yes, Richard Reid was white, Aiden. You dont get out much do you mate?