Mixing it with the Catholic Chaplain for British Military Land Forces

by Jim Thu Nov 20, 2008 13:08

Only an idiot would claim that the American government is fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for purely humanitarian reasons - they are basically an opportunity to kick the world back into line after the earthquake of 9/11 shook American complacency about their unchallenged global hyperpower status that existed since the collapse of the Soviet and the Berlin Wall and its a business opportunity for various carpet baggers and arms dealers.

However...

Nobody can deny that there does exist a loose alliance of radically fundamentalist Islamists throughout the world who espouse a religiously bigotted, misogynist, homophobic, anti-modern, anti-democratic, apocalyptic worldview that is widely popular among a generation of young alienated Muslim males throughout the Muslim world.

We can talk about the injustices of colonial, American imperialism, globalisation etc etc which has fueled the rise of this reactionary belief system till the cows come home.

The unavoidable fact is that it is a lethal urgent problem and somethings has to be done about it.

The Islamist movement does not differentiate between the guilty and the innocent.

Bush and the elite he represents might deserve to blown to kingdom come by Al-Qaeda but Al-Qaeda is more interested in attacking innocent men women and children who have no say in the decisions of the multi-national corporations and their political minions who are largely responsible for the mess in the Middle East.

The Islamists are bent on jihad against entirely innocent people in the Middle East and in the West in their goal to establish a global caliphate espousing Sharia law - basically returning the world to the Dark Ages.

I am an atheist, a socialist, I believe in the right to live according to your sexual orientation, espouse whatever belief system you want, read, speak and argue anyway you want and live in harmony with my fellow human beings, the right to work for an honest living and get ahead if you want to and spreading the wealth around to the less fortunate and I am an internationalist, I believe in universality of human rights and freedom and that all people of whatever language, creed or race basically want the same thing and future for themselves and their children.

My belief system is uncompromising and when it is threatened by the like of the Islamist movement that honestly cannot be reasoned with, there is no other option but to fight to defend civilisation (what little of it exists in this world) against these medieval fanatics no matter how much I sympathise with the plight of the people of the Middle East.

I'm not going to wait until there are more attacks in New York, London, Madrid, Bali or wherever else these bastards have struck and to be honest I am shit scared that these maniacs will get their hands on biological, nuclear and chemical weapons.

I say kill them before they kill us.

I don't know what solution there is, but singing peace and love songs means we will get crucified like Jesus.

What happened to the the good thief when they took the pascal lamb away?
He got his legs broken of course!

by Ciaron Thu Nov 20, 2008 14:06

A lot there to repond to...
The "thieves" were political bandido in the style of the zealot...that's who the crowd had decided to run with "Free Barabus!". The Zealaots had a successful rising after the detah of Christ, partly due to internal division in Rome elites and drove the imperialists out for 3 years (this is when Mark's gospel is writeen)...the Romans regrouped and leveled th palce..that's why Jesus (had) wept on his last run into Jerusalem.

You suffer from the illusion that because you embrace violence you won't be slaughtered tortured etc
You suffer from the illusion that your back in WW2 mode where the left (under Stalin's orders) lines up behind A,erican power...which of course went on to prop up and palce every facist dictator going in South America, South east Asia amd Middle East after the glorious struggle against Facism, as if.

You seem to overlook the alliance between moderniest capitalism and premodernist islamic facism that defeated the modernist socialist project (there had been an alliance between modernist capitalists and modernist stalinists to defeat facism....after of course the alliance between German Nazism and Stalinsm went a little haywire and wasn't worth the paper it was written on or the KGB betraying nonalligned socialists to the Nazis in the early '30's et etc etc.........see the Power of Nightmare series for a good account how both the American empire and the jihadists claim to defeat the USSR
...see Bin boyo turn against the USA patrons once they militarrily occupy the holy lands/Saudi Arabia, see the U.S. military relocate to watar once New Yok gets hit.......the C.I.A. acknowledges all htis and labels it blowback.

by Jim Thu Nov 20, 2008 15:38

At the moment socialism is on its arse.
Capitalist democracy is no where near the type of society I want but it is a damn sight better than the Islamist vision.
At least in capitalist democracies especially in Europe and America there civil and political freedoms, some measure of free discourse, a public sphere however corrupted or imperfect that may be and unless you are someone advocating Holocaust denial you can pretty much hold any political, religious viewpoint you bloody well want.
Islamists are bronze age lunatics who want to either converrt us by force or kill us all. That's still true even though it is filtered through the corporate media and I have an independent mind enough to be able to tell truth from propaganda and fighting these bastards is the right thing to do. I quite like me current existence and the limited freedom I already got thank you very much and if these bastards want to force their Islam on me they got another rthing coming.
There is a chance of a grassroots transformation of Western society while capitalist democracy exists which gives a bit of breeding room for change.
There is bugger all chance if neo-feudalists like Al-Qaeda take over without leftists calling a spade a spade.

I have respect for the Jews and how they said that sitting around waiting for a Messiah is not going to rescue us, we have to do it ourselves and they did so probably knowing they were all going to be slaughtered. I would rather fight and die than remain a slave.

Jesus and his religion became the religion of slaves - accept your lot, turn the other cheek, delight in your persecution because great will be your reward in heaven. With all due respect that is a load of shite!

The Islamists are prepared to spread their word by the sword.

Are people who believe in human rights, free speech, women's rights, religious tolerance, live and let live etc etc going to stand up to the mortal enemy of Islamism or are they going to leave it to the capitalists to do it for them?

by Jimbob Thu Nov 20, 2008 16:53

The unavoidable fact is that it is a lethal urgent problem and somethings has to be done about it.

Yes, something has to be done about it. End the wars, end the occupation, make peace with Iraqis and Afghanis, and that by itself will massivley recruitment into extremeist islamic movements.

Them or us eh? That's been used for so many wars, and it's bullshit. And look at who recently spoon fed it to you. "You're either with us or with the terrorists". You follow that type of thinking? It's only natural to rally together when we feel threatened or are actually attacked. That's why so many joined the US military after 9/11 and so many ordinary Iraqis took up arms against the occupation. They only see each other as the enemy because of the situation that
To think that they ALL represent the ideology of bin Laden or Bush's imperialists neocons is naive and allows you to sleepwalk into blind fear and easy manipulation.

Let's have a closer look at your Lethal Urgent Problem
Is it the most lethal force ?
Is it the most urgent. ?
Is is even the biggest problem?

Lethal
people in Iraq are killing people, and we may assume most of the Iraqis doing the shooting were raised as muslims. That doesn't mean that they're motivated by their religion to kill (with the exception of a small deluded minority)
Have they killed even 10% of the amount of people killed by the US military?
Even in the US, more people died in car accidents and 'normal shootings' between Sept 11, 2001 and the end of that same year. So, what your most afraid of, is less dangerous than the average US street or freeway?
I don't condone the violence in Iraq, but at least I can see it in context.
If you're talking lethality, you should be more afraid of the people who right now, have the power to send nuclear missiles, stealth bombers, and B-52s to any point on the earth at any time, and then repeating it the next day if they feel like it. What odds on Al Qaeda ever coming close to 1% of the killing capability that the US president controls NOW?
Why do you fear the unlikely threats and ignore the actual ones?

urgent
Urgent for whom? Not for our own immediate safety that's for sure.
The war in Iraq should be urgent for us, urgent to end it in a just way, not to 'kill them all'.
It is not the epic showdown between good and evil that one finds in Lord of the Rings, or the final Matrix film.
The US mission in Iraq is to control Iraqi oil, territory and maintain the US ability to project military power in the Middle East.
It is not the only thing keeping the 'muslim hordes' from over-running us. As if the Iraqi borders were even secure!

problem
There are two main strands of violence.
(1)Resistance to occupation, and (2)opportunistic bloodshed, rivalry and banditry
The resistance to occupation is bloody, and wouldn't be Ciaron's cup of tea, (nor any other pacifist) but it's not the problem all by itself. The shock and awe and brutal hi tech occupation of Iraq has been facing resistance from the Iraqis for 5 years now, and will continue to face it as long as the feel the burden of crushing occupation. (so either the 'Coalition' forces leave or scale back to bases and do a big rebuilding job and PR campaign while letting civilian life return to normal for Iraqis)
(2) opportunistic violence / turmoil
When you invade and occupy, disband the police and army, replace them with Marines who don't speak the language and have over two million displaced people, in a (semi-)lawless situation there will be blood spilled regardless of what country you do this in. It's nothing to do with Islam, or religious extremists. It's been seen in every major war where MILITARY extremists displaced or killed enough people to rip up the normal social fabric.
The so called 'Al Qaeda' or Iranian threat is smoke and mirrors, and even US military reports show that less than 2% of 'insurgents' could even be categorised as Al Qaeda, as most of the fighting is directed at the occupation. Iranian support is also a US led fiction.

The Islamist movement does not differentiate between the guilty and the innocent.

Neither do B-52 bombers, or M1 Abrams tanks, or DU rounds. Neither do CIA torturers. Neither do stressed out heavily armed Marines in Fallujah.

The Islamists are bent on jihad against entirely innocent people in the Middle East and in the West in their goal to establish a global caliphate espousing Sharia law - basically returning the world to the Dark Ages.

Well, isn't it a good thing that there's such a small number of them that this will never happen? It can happen in local regions of course, where unrestrained military power used against civilians will cause such outrage that the extremists will find more support than they could have hoped for in peace time
Certainly we in the west are not so far from the Dark Ages, even if we fool ourselves that we are enlightened. The idea that it's okay to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in retaliation for 9/11 (which even Bush finally admitted was nothing to do with Iraqi ) is a backwards step from the old Testament idea of 'an eye for an eye'. It's more like take 10- 20 of their eyes for each one of ours. We'll all go blind pretty fast with that thinking.
.
I believe in universality of human rights and freedom and that all people of whatever language, creed or race basically want the same thing and future for themselves and their children. ....
My belief system is uncompromising and when it is threatened by the like of the Islamist movement that honestly cannot be reasoned with, there is no other option but to fight to defend civilisation (what little of it exists in this world) against these medieval fanatics
Support any of that in cold hard facts. The few crazies out there can kill hundreds, maybe thousands in the space of years, but only by continuously recruiting people who are screwed up by previous violent acts. You take the military boot off the necks of ordinary people, and they start to live normal lives. Free people are not known for suicide bombings.

I'm not going to wait until there are more attacks
What do you mean? You're off to personally kill some muslims? You say "kill them before they kill us" are you delegating the job of mass murder to someone else?

.... be honest I am shit scared that these maniacs will get their hands on biological, nuclear and chemical weapons.

I got that impression, and while I sympathise, I'd like to give you a virtual slap in the face and say "Grab hold of yourself amigo"
That's all horse shit which you wouldn't believe for a second if they hadn't already scared the shit out of you.
You have more chance of being run over by a bus or being hit by lightning than of being shot or blown up.
The ordinary Iraqi, of course is MORE likely to be shot or blown up than they are to be run over by a careless driver (not counting the actions of Blackwater)
'These maniacs apparently have never had anything more technologically advanced than an AK47 and rocket launchers, or in the case of a few of them, a few knives to allow them take over civilian technology (Boeing airliners). The idea of them dropping nukes on you is pure propaganda, designed to prevent you from rational thinking and rational action towards achieving this more balanced harmonious world you claim to want.

by Jim Fri Nov 21, 2008 13:38

What 9/11 demonstrated was that for a few thousand dollars a handful of terrorists could slip into the US incognito, get flight lessons no questions asked and book internal flights armed with a carpet knives to hijack them and succeeded in committing the greatest coup de main since Pearl Harbour.
Other attacks in Madrid London and Baghdad are just as low tech but just as effective.
Against conventional armies the assymmetric war of Al-Qaeda is very effective and has shaken Western civilisation to its core.
There is a very real danger and the stability of our Western civilisation is undermined and exposed as weak.
That's not propaganda. That is reality.
The Islamists are not interested in just targeting the powerful and imperial.
Their enemy is also progressive liberal socialist values also.
When they were attacking New York on 9/11 they were not just attacking American imperialism, they were attacking the very idea of individual freedom and modernity itself. The goal of the Islamistis is a global war impose Islamic Sharia law upon the entire world.
In Britain and the Netherlands and other European counties with large Islamic communities, Islamic radicals who are emboldened by the fear that exists among the non-Muslim liberal politically correct, exert more and more power over the cowed members of their own community but increasingly threaten the democratic freedoms of the non-Muslim society and cry Islamophobia when anybody challenges them and imply that if the demands of Muslims are not listened to, that there will be violence.
The media and libewral elites are too fearful of Islamist violence to talk about the backward primitive culture the radicals espouse.
It's like the 1930's when fascists shouted down all dissent.
In many countries Islamic faith communities are being held hostage by the extremists in their midsts.

It is whigh time the socialist progressive liberal movement stood up to these barbarian savages.

by leo bloomers Fri Nov 21, 2008 22:55

The Islamists aren't the only ones who kill innocent civilians. Their atrocities are a response to the West's policies, and the legalised terrorism of militant 'Christians' and Zionists. Who put Saddam Hussein in power, and who sold him the gas that killed the people of Halabja? Hussein was Western-backed and armed, our strong man in Iraq against the mad mullahs of Iran until he got too wild and bombed Israel, which was an atrocity, but also a sign to the Arab world that they did not have to cower in fear of Israel.
So the 'democratic' West, the good guys, bombed and killed in Iraq to kick the stuffing out of a nation already damaged by sanctions that had been killing their children for years, to show them how tough and smart Bush and Blair are. The invasions - Oh, sorry, liberations - of Afghanistan and Iraq have done nothing to address the threat of Islamic terrorism, save to increase it. Afghanistan and Iraq are now more unsafe than before the invasions, and infant mortality has increased. Christians are now murdered regularly in Iraq, and although Hussein was a murderous dictator, Christians were safe and tolerated, and aid agencies could operate where they were needed.

by mf Sat Nov 22, 2008 03:04

You mention the threat to Holland posed by Islamists. I lived in the Netherlands when the far - right politician Pim Fortuyn rose to prominence on the back of his exploitation of 9/11-era white liberal fears identical to yours.. I'd like to relay my own personal experiences of this period in the light of your claims; coincidentally i was discussing these just yesterday with a Nigerian Taxi driver who left the country at the same time as i did and for similiar reasons, namely that when the veneer of white liberal tolerance was removed from Dutch society following Fortuyn's assasination by a leftist animal-rights militant, things got very unpleasant very quickly. The assault and cowing of a community was not carried out by Islamist militants but by the white working and middle classes whilst the targets were predominantly the muslim community.

I lived in Den Haag (the Hague) and for several years worked in the rural flower bulb areas. Den haag is a remarkably diverse city and has a huge population of non ethnically Dutch with Turkish, Kurdish and north African Muslims making up the majority of the immigrant population . Pim Fortuyn singled Den Haag out -particularly the way Den Haag's diversity had influenced the way the city's people spoke Dutch- as a symbol of what Holland should not become. He recommended that vast numbers of dutch muslims should be sent to their ancestors' homes, regardless of the fact that they may never have visited these coutries before. Fortuyn's homosexuality combined with his articulate, seemingly reasonable demeanour encouraged a vast number of people to freely express what they had heretofore felt was socially unacceptable, namely the ridiculous fear that foreigners, particularly Muslims, were taking over their country.

These fears had little traction in multicultural Den Haag but in the almost exclusively white rural areas where i travelled to work each day i experienced a steady trickle of people, many of them resettled irish and english, informing me of the dangers of this spreading islamist menace. I recall a cockney slob who lived in the exclusively white, upper class hamlet of Sassenheim , telling me how he feared for his children because "the most common new name in Den Haag is Mohammed".

Pim Fortuyn was assasinated and many whites rioted in the cities and towns of the netherlands. In Den haag, muslim businesses in the centre of town were trashed, crowds of drunken slobs gathered outside the palace chanting racist bullshit, our local mosques had to install cameras and fire proof doors immediately. Meanwhile the neo-nazi 'volks front' announced their intention to burn leftist squats to the ground and proceeded to attack them throughout the country. When it was announced on the news that the squats in Den Haag were to be attacked, we made some preparations to defend ourselves but there was no need as our local muslim community had decided that these bigots would not pass into our area. Corners were populated throughout the night with groups of locals, patrols in cars circled the area and the Volks Front's televised threats melted into nothing.

Fortuyn's party made huge gains in the elections after his death but soon dissolved in infighting,however it wasn't just an electoral surge for the far right, there was an unmistakeable change in the atttitudes of the Dutch towards foreigners , even white non-muslims. Even the liberal left paid tribute to Fortuyn, a thoroughly nasty character, I recall arguing with a dutch Squatter friend of mine who insisted on taking flowers to a city centre tribute to Fortuyn. Troubles with the Dutch language became not, as it had so often been, a source of humour amongst a population who overwhelmingly spoke impeccable English, but an excuse to withdraw services, hang up the phone and erect numerous other barriers to integration, all this as governmetn funding for immigrant language classes was withdrawn. At work bewildered Afghan refugees who had just started minimum wage agency jobs loading trucks and who had no english were forced to stand to attention for the minutes silence following 9/11by an ex-navy scottish thug , even as it was announced their country was to pay for the crimes of the mostly Saudi hijackers.

The idea that immigrant communites form an irresistable tide which intimidates and marginilises the majority community is a common one however such an idea inverts the true experiece of immigrants. I realise you're expression of your concerns is centred on radical islamic ideology rather than the muslim community in general but the race and ideology-based violence and intimidation which occurs around islamic immigrant communities is overwhelmingly driven by people from the majority white western community of whatever political shade. Their motivation/excuse is their fear, irrational fears such as yours. Irrational because it is western troops invading and occupying islamic countries, western planes killing muslim children on an almost daily basis, western governments holding thousands of muslims prisoners picked up in their crusades, western governments propping up muslim dictators and theocracies. Imagine a reversal of muslim and western roles, i.e. occupier, bomber, financier of tyrants, and there is no rational excuse for belileveing that it is the West that needs defending.

by Jim Sat Nov 22, 2008 14:07

The socialist left which supposedly stands up for equality, social justice, freedom democracy and human rights would rather ignore the plight of the progressive left in the Middle East who are oppressed by Islamic extremists because it is too afraid to be seen a politically incorrect if they make criticism of Islamism.
They are too scared to be seen in league with the hard right and American militarism even though Islamists hate everything socialism stands for.
The likes of George Galloway and Ken Livingstone shared platforms with these bigots because of shared opposition to Bush.
The left opposed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the greatest enemy of freedom and democracy in the Middle East rather than to be in seen in league with Bush.
Some on the left even are cheerleaders for the extreme Islamist insurgency knowing full well about their reactionary ideology because they are blinded by anti-Americanism.

Socialists should be at the forefront in the struggle against Islamic extremism instead of the right.

by lulu Sat Nov 22, 2008 19:39

An odd change, how the Afghan resistance to the Russian invaders were portrayed as brave and devout patriots - by the time the American forces invaded, they had become fanatical, violent woman-killers. Both these views are likely simultaneously true, but watch out for the angles on media reports.

by Special Forces/Afghanistan Combat Veteran Response Sat Nov 22, 2008 20:04 Australia

LINK-Response from Special Forces Officers/Combat Veteran in Afghanistan

http://simonreeves.blogspot.com/2008/11/christianity-an....html

by Jim Mon Nov 24, 2008 11:48

That was at the height of the Cold War when the Americans were also giving guns to the Contras and any other thugs who were anti-Communist and therefore could advance American interests.
The best recent example is the post-colonial collapse following World War 2 when French and British troops fought against indigenous forces who switched from righting the Japanese to fighting the colonial forces who were attempting to re-assert their position as imperial masters.
The Americans used the Mujihadeen to fight the Soviets just as the Vietnamese Communists were used by both the Soviets and the Chinese to fight the US on the cheap.
When the conflict ended the American advisors packed up and left.

The fact that the Americans and the Pakistanis once organised the Islamic jihad and funded the mujihadeen who later became the Taliban does not change the fact or invalidate the threat that the mujihadeen and the ideological bedfellows in Islamist movement across the world face to socialist progressive values.

Just because the Americans and the British and the global capitalist system is being rocked by the Islamist insurgency against the global hegemony of the West does not mean the socialist progressive movement have anything to cheer about.

The Islamists are implacably and murderously opposed to human rights, democracy, freedom and enlightenment values.

The triumph of an Islamic theocracy in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else even if it meant the end of American influence or the end of some orgres that the West has been propping up like Mubarack or the Israelis or the Saudi royals family would be nothing to cheer about if it mean that the oil resources of the Middle East switched from capitalist hands straight into the hands of an even worse enemy of socialist progressive values.

by Fragmeister. Mon Nov 24, 2008 22:48

Quote:
Just because the Americans and the British and the global capitalist system is being rocked by the Islamist insurgency against the global hegemony of the West does not mean the socialist progressive movement have anything to cheer about.

The global capitalist system is not being rocked by an Islamist insurgency.
The corrupt banking practices are what's rocking the system today, and as for western military hegemony, it is even written in published US military reports that the vast majority of insurgents in Iraq have no connection to Al Qaeda. In otherwords, it's a rebellion against occupation, not a blood thirsty jihad.

Call me anti-american all you like, but we both know that the Iraqis, like most people, would rebel against occupation regardless if it was the US, French or Russian military trying to run their country.
Trying to paint it as rampany Islam is baseless, once you look at facts rather than hype.

You can repeat your other baseless and snide remark ad infinitum if you like, that standing up for the occupied people equates to cheering on Al Qaeda, but it will never make it true. So, why not back it up, or pack it up?

by Jim Tue Nov 25, 2008 10:15

The Iraqi insurgency is a grab at power by elements of Iraqi society that remained dormant during the Saddam dictatorship.
To deny the primary religious motivations of the insurgents is to completely miss the point.
The blood letting between the Sunni and Shia is obviously based on religious bigotry.
The cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr and his Madhi Army fought an insurgency in the south of Iraq to establish a Shia theocracy.
The suicide bomber jihadists who flooded into Iraq to immolate themselves in attacks against American troops were obviously motivated by pure religious zeal.
The constant references to the Americans as "crusaders" by the insurgency leadership mirrors the same rhetoric of Al-Qaeda and is an obvious implication that they view the fighting in Iraq as a continuation of the medieval wars between Muslims and "infidel" enemies.

Any socialist progressive who believes in human rights, freedom and democracy cannot but be horrified by the medievalist Islamist mindset of the Iraqi insurgency and the Al-Qaeda movement that fought on their side as a sort of international brigade.

While American annexation of Iraq is totally abominable, if American defeat leads to the rise of a Muslim theocracy and barbarism that can hardly be applauded.

I'm sure that long suffering Iraqis who have endured decades of Saddam and the five years of slaughter since 2003 don't want more misery under a theocratic nightmare.