Monday, 21 April 2014

Conversations With Leftists (7)



Do Western States “Occupy” Muslim Countries?



 “Maybe muslims would stop bombing you if you stopped invading and occupying their countries. Ever thought about that?” - ronron

Which Muslim countries are the West occupying, exactly? British troops mainly pulled out of Iraq in 2009 (all left in 2011) and the Americans did the same in 2011. The only country Westerners “occupy” is Afghanistan – and they don't really occupy that country either.

What's happened here is that Leftists have tried to fit every Western intervention into the classical Marxist (or Leninist) theory of imperialism. But how the hell does that work with Afghanistan? It's a shit-hole. Even that pipeline Leftists kept on going on about a few years ago never came to pass.

What has Afghanistan got to offer the “imperialists”, exactly? As usually, Leftists are trying their hardest to make reality (or the facts) fit sacred Marxist theory rather than the other way around; just as they did with Marx's many failed prophesies.


Classical imperialist invasions, such as those by the many Islamic empires, the British in the 19th century, the Soviet Communist Empire, etc. exploited both the invaded peoples and their resources. That’s simply not happening in Afghanistan or in any other Muslim land. Westerners aren't building palaces or holiday homes in Afghanistan. They aren't exploiting Afghans in sweatshops. In fact all they are doing is dying there and giving the Taliban a rationale to kill yet more of their fellow Muslims. (The Taliban have killed over 95% more Muslims in Afghanistan than Western soldiers.)


Of course Muslims have picked up all all these Marxist cliches about imperialism and colonialism and are happy to use them for their own ends. However, they must recall that the many Islamic Imperialists empires, from the 7th century until the Islamist invasions of southern Sudan in the 1990s, perfectly fit the classical Marxist account of imperialism. However, because these imperialists usually had brown skin, and they weren't strictly speaking capitalists, the racist Left has zero interest in all these examples of brown and communist imperialism.

Finally, isn't it strange that all this Leftist and Muslim talk about “occupations” is suddenly reversed in the case of Syria? Now many Muslims and Leftists want the West to intervene in - or even occupy - Syria. More correctly, Western Sunni Muslims want Western governments to help the Sunni jihadists topple the Shia/Alawite government of Assad.

However, not all Leftists are for intervention in Syria: the Trotskyist Stop the War Coalition, George Galloway, Yvonne Ridley, John Rees, etc. don't want the West to intervene because such groups and individuals are strong supporters of both Shia Iran (such people have worked for Iran's Press TV) and the Shia/Alawite regime in Syria (as they are of the Shia terrorists of Hezbollah).

Christian Jihad?




"...what a wonderful point, but why not contextualise this with the daily murders of every other religion and dogmas." - Eddierocket2010


[This was his response to a post which listed the people killed by jihadists in a two month period.]


What do you mean, exactly, by "contextualise"? How do you contextualise random murders? It's a big word and I'm very impressed. It's just a pity that you mean nothing by it.

Okay. Meet the challenge. Provide an equivalent list or murders committed in the name of Christianity in two months. And don't simply list murders of people who just happen to be Christian or Western soldiers who you assume will be practicing Christians. I'm talking about murders committed with the Christian equivalent of Allahu Akbar on Christians' lips. (“Allah is greater” than your god: not “Allah is great”.) I'm talking about Christians who blow up mosques or choose random Muslims to kill. And don't mention Afghanistan either, where 98% of the killings have always been carried out by the Taliban of their fellow Muslims.

And what has this got to do with "racism", you moron? "Contextualize", "racism" - you've been reading too much Guardian.

You're a Leftist automaton without an original thought to your name. Try thinking for yourself. And, no, being a Leftist doesn't automatically mean that you think independently. It means you are a member of the massive “Leftist tribe of independent minds".

You aren't sophisticated and nuanced simply because you use the words 'contextualise' and 'racism'. In fact it makes you a Left-wing moron. A place-filler who quotes verbatim from the latest bit of trendy nonsense you've just read (probably Chomsky or the Guardian).








No comments:

Post a Comment