Saturday, July 09, 2005
SURRENDER IS THE BEST OPTION
Time for some fun. Tariq Ali in, of course, the Guardian:
You got it. He is comparing the IRA to jihadists. He actually thinks then that there is something to compare between the former, which had a distinctive political desire -- a united Ireland, on their terms -- vs the latter, which has no serious political philosophy (save cutting off the heads of infidels) that anyone can readily discern.
Fine. That's his privilege. And we thank him . . .
. . . so let's be "clear" here. The following "discourse" from him will be rooted in the recent emergence of a sublime, overarching, yet forcefully engaged, clashing yet hyper-interactive essentialism, which holds determinedly to elements of the truist self, and is based on both a transnational and intranational psycho-socio-sensibility, that is movingly neo-culturalist in its embrace of what might be termed an anti-modernistic model of pro-reactive anti-deferentialism. (Translation: Jihadists don't like us, and respond by crashing planes suicidally into buildings, or placing bombs on underground railway systems.)
None of that paragraph matters a wit except for the last sentence, in which we are told of "Afghanistan and Iraq". Hold that thought. . .
Okay, where's Afghanistan? Ali mentioned it a paragraph above, and then it vanishes from view. Suddenly, it is all about Iraq.
Slink. Slinker.
Ditto. Again, where's Afghanistan?
Afghanistan returns suddenly, enmeshed within another anti-democratic Iraq paragraph, along with a predictable, empty diatribe about a "political solution".
Of course, Ali's hypothesis ignores "side issues" such as bin Laden's having declared war on the U.S. in 1998 (and bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania), while at the same time the Clinton administration was desperately trying to broker peace between Israel and "Palestine", talks that culminated in (for better or worse) the near agreement in mid-2000. Simultaneously, remember there were NO U.S. troops in Afghanistan or in Iraq.
Eh, but how quickly we forget, when we wish to.
A year later, after jihadists attempted to destroy a U.S. ship in a harbor where it had the nerve to dock briefly, the "few Islamo-anarchists" in pre-September 11, 2001 Afghanistan ("Islamo-anarchists" being "so few" there that they actually controlled the country) organized -- as the likes of Ali might express it -- an "anti-colonialist demonstration" directed at a U.S. that curiously enough had no "colonialist" soldiers anywhere near Afghan soil.
So, what was the "real justification" for the USS Cole bombing and for September 11, 2001? Oh, take your pick. U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia? And why were they there? They had ejected "secular" Saddam Hussein from Muslim Kuwait in 1991. Eh, so what? There were those UN sanctions on "secular" Saddam's Iraq, too, remember. The list goes on and on.
Oh, and don't forget that Rushdie guy wrote something that annoyed some people years earlier. Somebody must have remembered him, too. (One Rushdie is worth a thousand Alis.) Turkey became "secular" after WWI, ending the "caliphate". Oh, and of course, Ferdinand and Isabella defeated the last Muslim kingdom in Spain -- Granada -- in 1492.
Oh, yes, "the solution then, as now, is political".
Let's break up this next paragraph, sentence by sentence:
Watch out for any "the real solution". Again, we get Iraq, Afghanistan and now "Palestine" into the same sentence. Yep, they are all one and the same thing -- nothing to choose between them.
Actually, for jihadists, the "real solution" doesn't seem to go far enough. When it comes to taking "Palestine", I get the distinct impression a "final solution" is more to their liking.
Question: Am I permitted to be bitter, too, at Muslims who crash planes suicidally into buildings? And over what exactly? Ferdinand and Isabella? U.S. and NATO troops NOT then in Afghanistan?
No, the attack on NY and Washington was not an act of "defense". Let's get that straight. It was offensive; it was a jihadist attempt to take a quarrel they had, in their own minds, with the people of the United States, to NYC and Washington.
Again, slink, slink. Which wars? Afghanistan? That was in response to an attack. Iraq? If the overthrow of Saddam upsets them that much, that's their problem. In contrast, the Iraqi people seem thrilled he's gone.
By the way, Ali posits that "angry young Muslims" who are not Iraqis somehow have a right to decide how Iraqis ought to live. Talk about presumption: They have NO right to be angry on behalf of Iraqis. If Iraqis are angry, that's another matter -- such is their right.
Incidentally, were the London bombers Muslim Shia or Kurdish Iraqis upset at the overthrow of Saddam? That really seems unlikely.
Last paragraph -- thank goodness:
That those interventions (especially including a freeing of them from the horrors of "secular" Saddam) might be seen as being on behalf of Muslims in the manner of Bosnia, Kuwait and Somalia escapes Ali, clearly. (On the last one, U.S. troops were sent in to secure a country so people -- Muslims all -- would be fed.) None of that adds up to anything positive for jihadists. Why?: Because the U.S. overthrew the de facto government of Afghanistan after it had organized an attack on the U.S., and Britain had supported the U.S.'s having the unmitigated gall to do so.
Think about it, too. No wonder jihadists are hopping mad. Their favorite son was chased into a cave, or wherever, and the people of Afghanistan no longer live in a modern day jihadist fantasy come true. The dream was punctured. Naturally, the dreamers are FURIOUS.
Oh, the jihadists there didn't want to get overthrown? Tough break that. They shouldn't have organized an attack on NY and Washington. (If Hitler hadn't invaded the Soviet Union, he might have lived out his life in comfort, ruling Germany and much of Europe.)
So, the sum total of Ali's worldview appears to be rooted in the following:
1) The U.S., backed by NATO, attacked Afghanistan because it had nothing better to do -- not because the de facto Afghan "government" had tried to flatten lower Manhattan.
2) Immediately after the de facto Afghan "government" attacked NY and Washington, Britain should not have joined with its NATO partners in invoking the Washington Treaty clause which states that: "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all". Indeed, NATO now stands with Britain -- but Ali probably thinks Britain had better be wary about that, just in case "angry diaspora Muslims" disapprove.
3) The Coalition that overthrew Saddam Hussein did so because it had nothing better to do. Its members just woke up in March 2003 and said, "Hey, let's go get 'em". There was no rational reason for their having decided to do so -- they just wanted to kill Muslims.
4) The residents of "disputed" Palestine (the lands are better termed "disputed" than "occupied" really, because the last time there was an internationally recognized sovereign power over the areas was when Britain controlled them, until its withdrawal in May 1948) need live up to nothing, be bound to nothing, be required to do nothing. On the other hand, the internationally recognized (even by some Arab and Muslim states) democratic state of Israel is supposed to do the bidding of the jihadists among those residents.
So, having been treated to Ali's analysis of all our problems, their solutions are evidently these:
1) Jihadism is a reaction to the overthrow of the jihadist playground of Afghanistan, and the rise of internationally recognized democracies in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
2) Jihadists are irked over "Palestine" being "occupied".
3) The remedy to those includes simply A) giving the jihadists back Afghanistan and letting them create another jihadist state in Iraq and B) allowing an independent "Palestine" to become another jihadist state as well.
Having done such, the global jihadists of the "diaspora" will then be "angry" no more.
Yep, just like Hitler was satisfied with Austria and Czechoslovakia. For the next jihadist demand will be what exactly? And what will Ali write then?:
Time for some fun. Tariq Ali in, of course, the Guardian:
During the last phase of the Troubles, the IRA targeted mainland Britain: it came close to blowing up Margaret Thatcher and her cabinet in Brighton. Some years later a missile was fired at No 10. London's financial quarter was also targeted. There was no secret as to the identity of the organisation that carried out the hits or its demands. And all this happened despite the various Prevention of Terrorism Acts passed by the Commons.
You got it. He is comparing the IRA to jihadists. He actually thinks then that there is something to compare between the former, which had a distinctive political desire -- a united Ireland, on their terms -- vs the latter, which has no serious political philosophy (save cutting off the heads of infidels) that anyone can readily discern.
Fine. That's his privilege. And we thank him . . .
. . . so let's be "clear" here. The following "discourse" from him will be rooted in the recent emergence of a sublime, overarching, yet forcefully engaged, clashing yet hyper-interactive essentialism, which holds determinedly to elements of the truist self, and is based on both a transnational and intranational psycho-socio-sensibility, that is movingly neo-culturalist in its embrace of what might be termed an anti-modernistic model of pro-reactive anti-deferentialism. (Translation: Jihadists don't like us, and respond by crashing planes suicidally into buildings, or placing bombs on underground railway systems.)
The bombers who targeted London yesterday are anonymous. It is assumed that those who carried out these attacks are linked to al-Qaida. We simply do not know. Al-Qaida is not the only terrorist group in existence. It has rivals within the Muslim diaspora. But it is safe to assume that the cause of these bombs is the unstinting support given by New Labour and its prime minister to the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
None of that paragraph matters a wit except for the last sentence, in which we are told of "Afghanistan and Iraq". Hold that thought. . .
One of the arguments deployed by Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, when he appealed to Tony Blair not to support the war in Iraq was prescient: "An assault on Iraq will inflame world opinion and jeopardise security and peace everywhere. London, as one of the major world cities, has a great deal to lose from war and a lot to gain from peace, international cooperation and global stability."
Okay, where's Afghanistan? Ali mentioned it a paragraph above, and then it vanishes from view. Suddenly, it is all about Iraq.
Slink. Slinker.
Most Londoners (as the rest of the country) were opposed to the Iraq war. Tragically, they have suffered the blow and paid the price for the re-election of Blair and a continuation of the war.
Ditto. Again, where's Afghanistan?
Ever since 9/11, I have been arguing that the "war against terror" is immoral and counterproductive. It sanctions the use of state terror - bombing raids, torture, countless civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq - against Islamo-anarchists whose numbers are small, but whose reach is deadly. The solution then, as now, is political, not military. The British ruling elite understood this perfectly well in the case of Ireland. Security measures, anti-terror laws rushed through parliament, identity cards, a curtailment of civil liberties, will not solve the problem. If anything, they will push young Muslims in the direction of mindless violence.
Afghanistan returns suddenly, enmeshed within another anti-democratic Iraq paragraph, along with a predictable, empty diatribe about a "political solution".
Of course, Ali's hypothesis ignores "side issues" such as bin Laden's having declared war on the U.S. in 1998 (and bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania), while at the same time the Clinton administration was desperately trying to broker peace between Israel and "Palestine", talks that culminated in (for better or worse) the near agreement in mid-2000. Simultaneously, remember there were NO U.S. troops in Afghanistan or in Iraq.
Eh, but how quickly we forget, when we wish to.
A year later, after jihadists attempted to destroy a U.S. ship in a harbor where it had the nerve to dock briefly, the "few Islamo-anarchists" in pre-September 11, 2001 Afghanistan ("Islamo-anarchists" being "so few" there that they actually controlled the country) organized -- as the likes of Ali might express it -- an "anti-colonialist demonstration" directed at a U.S. that curiously enough had no "colonialist" soldiers anywhere near Afghan soil.
So, what was the "real justification" for the USS Cole bombing and for September 11, 2001? Oh, take your pick. U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia? And why were they there? They had ejected "secular" Saddam Hussein from Muslim Kuwait in 1991. Eh, so what? There were those UN sanctions on "secular" Saddam's Iraq, too, remember. The list goes on and on.
Oh, and don't forget that Rushdie guy wrote something that annoyed some people years earlier. Somebody must have remembered him, too. (One Rushdie is worth a thousand Alis.) Turkey became "secular" after WWI, ending the "caliphate". Oh, and of course, Ferdinand and Isabella defeated the last Muslim kingdom in Spain -- Granada -- in 1492.
Oh, yes, "the solution then, as now, is political".
Let's break up this next paragraph, sentence by sentence:
The real solution lies in immediately ending the occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine.
Watch out for any "the real solution". Again, we get Iraq, Afghanistan and now "Palestine" into the same sentence. Yep, they are all one and the same thing -- nothing to choose between them.
Actually, for jihadists, the "real solution" doesn't seem to go far enough. When it comes to taking "Palestine", I get the distinct impression a "final solution" is more to their liking.
Just because these three wars are reported sporadically and mean little to the everyday lives of most Europeans does not mean the anger and bitterness they arouse in the Muslim world and its diaspora is insignificant.
Question: Am I permitted to be bitter, too, at Muslims who crash planes suicidally into buildings? And over what exactly? Ferdinand and Isabella? U.S. and NATO troops NOT then in Afghanistan?
No, the attack on NY and Washington was not an act of "defense". Let's get that straight. It was offensive; it was a jihadist attempt to take a quarrel they had, in their own minds, with the people of the United States, to NYC and Washington.
As long as western politicians wage their wars and their colleagues in the Muslim world watch in silence, young people will be attracted to the groups who carry out random acts of revenge.
Again, slink, slink. Which wars? Afghanistan? That was in response to an attack. Iraq? If the overthrow of Saddam upsets them that much, that's their problem. In contrast, the Iraqi people seem thrilled he's gone.
By the way, Ali posits that "angry young Muslims" who are not Iraqis somehow have a right to decide how Iraqis ought to live. Talk about presumption: They have NO right to be angry on behalf of Iraqis. If Iraqis are angry, that's another matter -- such is their right.
Incidentally, were the London bombers Muslim Shia or Kurdish Iraqis upset at the overthrow of Saddam? That really seems unlikely.
Last paragraph -- thank goodness:
At the beginning of the G8, Blair suggested that "poverty was the cause of terrorism". It is not so. The principal cause of this violence is the violence being inflicted on the people of the Muslim world. And unless this is recognised, the horrors will continue.
That those interventions (especially including a freeing of them from the horrors of "secular" Saddam) might be seen as being on behalf of Muslims in the manner of Bosnia, Kuwait and Somalia escapes Ali, clearly. (On the last one, U.S. troops were sent in to secure a country so people -- Muslims all -- would be fed.) None of that adds up to anything positive for jihadists. Why?: Because the U.S. overthrew the de facto government of Afghanistan after it had organized an attack on the U.S., and Britain had supported the U.S.'s having the unmitigated gall to do so.
Think about it, too. No wonder jihadists are hopping mad. Their favorite son was chased into a cave, or wherever, and the people of Afghanistan no longer live in a modern day jihadist fantasy come true. The dream was punctured. Naturally, the dreamers are FURIOUS.
Oh, the jihadists there didn't want to get overthrown? Tough break that. They shouldn't have organized an attack on NY and Washington. (If Hitler hadn't invaded the Soviet Union, he might have lived out his life in comfort, ruling Germany and much of Europe.)
So, the sum total of Ali's worldview appears to be rooted in the following:
1) The U.S., backed by NATO, attacked Afghanistan because it had nothing better to do -- not because the de facto Afghan "government" had tried to flatten lower Manhattan.
2) Immediately after the de facto Afghan "government" attacked NY and Washington, Britain should not have joined with its NATO partners in invoking the Washington Treaty clause which states that: "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all". Indeed, NATO now stands with Britain -- but Ali probably thinks Britain had better be wary about that, just in case "angry diaspora Muslims" disapprove.
3) The Coalition that overthrew Saddam Hussein did so because it had nothing better to do. Its members just woke up in March 2003 and said, "Hey, let's go get 'em". There was no rational reason for their having decided to do so -- they just wanted to kill Muslims.
4) The residents of "disputed" Palestine (the lands are better termed "disputed" than "occupied" really, because the last time there was an internationally recognized sovereign power over the areas was when Britain controlled them, until its withdrawal in May 1948) need live up to nothing, be bound to nothing, be required to do nothing. On the other hand, the internationally recognized (even by some Arab and Muslim states) democratic state of Israel is supposed to do the bidding of the jihadists among those residents.
So, having been treated to Ali's analysis of all our problems, their solutions are evidently these:
1) Jihadism is a reaction to the overthrow of the jihadist playground of Afghanistan, and the rise of internationally recognized democracies in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
2) Jihadists are irked over "Palestine" being "occupied".
3) The remedy to those includes simply A) giving the jihadists back Afghanistan and letting them create another jihadist state in Iraq and B) allowing an independent "Palestine" to become another jihadist state as well.
Having done such, the global jihadists of the "diaspora" will then be "angry" no more.
Yep, just like Hitler was satisfied with Austria and Czechoslovakia. For the next jihadist demand will be what exactly? And what will Ali write then?:
Given that the basis for their "knowledge" is a warped view of their religion, one might reasonably expect jihadists to base their hatreds on whatever they see fit, whether rooted in any fact or not. On the other hand, what's Ali's excuse? He is supposed to be an educated person . . . or so we are told. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, July 09, 2005. . . Ever since 9/11, I have been arguing that the 'war against terror' is immoral and counterproductive. The British government in exile in Canada should stop backing the U.S. in its wrongheaded, obviously colonialist determination to defend Denver. The solution then, as now, is political, not military. . .
