Is the SWP's calling the war for oil as a war against islam their worst lie?

[articul8]

Would you be AWL by any chance?

certainly not. Why do assume you it's impossible to criticise reactionary actions and ideas put forward by some muslim groups, without in any way defending the role of the Israeli state.

I just can't see how this is a "war against Islam" - it's a war against those muslims who happen to constitute an obstacle to US capitalism at this time. After all, they had no problem backing the Mujahaddin in Afghanistan or the Taliban in its early years.

 

[Groucho]

certainly not. Why do assume you it's impossible to criticise reactionary actions and ideas put forward by some muslim groups, without in any way defending the role of the Israeli state.

I just can't see how this is a "war against Islam" - it's a war against those muslims who happen to constitute an obstacle to US capitalism at this time. After all, they had no problem backing the Mujahaddin in Afghanistan or the Taliban in its early years.

I just wanted to be sure that we could continue a worthwhile dialogue!

But I haven't argued that this is a 'war against Islam' and nor has the SWP. See my above posts.

Have to attend a meeting now...

 

[articul8]

maybe not - but I've heard Yvonne Ridley say it to a largely muslim audience at a Respect meeting without being corrected by prominent SWPers.

 

[osterberg]

maybe not - but I've heard Yvonne Ridley say it to a largely muslim audience at a Respect meeting without being corrected by prominent SWPers.

What! I'm shocked!If this carries on the SWP will lose its reputation as control freaks and people will not believe that RESPECT is an SWP front!!

 

[articul8]

i'm not sure which is worse - a transparently obvious front, or a non-principled coalition with genuinely independent wacko's. Luckily, they've solved the problem by managing to do both at once

 

[Groucho]

Personally, I am not a big fan of Yvonne Ridley

 

[JoePolitix]

Personally, I am not a big fan of Yvonne Ridley

Nor me. But I feel sorry for her, she's clearly suffering from Stockholm Syndrome:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

 

[Groucho]

Nor me. But I feel sorry for her, she's clearly suffering from Stockholm Syndrome:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Ah, that old chestnut.

 

[articul8]

I just don't see why the SWP would want to establish a platform for a figure like that (I doubt she has any more credibility with muslims than she does with anyone else). All that "don't panic, I'm Islamic" malarkey smacks of middle class wannabe 'radical' . British asians have enough shite to put up with without that.

 

[mk12]

The AWL continue to act as apologists for Israel, and for the Iraqi 'Communists' who are pro-Govt and pro-occupation. That is hardly 'anti-Imperialist'.

You may have the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq (whose members have criticised your party for its position on Iraq) mixed up with the ICP.

 

[belboid]

not necesarilly - the AWL are pro-occupation (just as they were in the six counties) & the WCPI only really take up a theoretical anti-occupation position, most of their energies being spent opposing the islamists

 

[belboid]

So the only way that an ideology can ever be demonised publically is via ministerial speaches?

What about the restrictions on protest that were passed using AR nuts as justification? Or all the reports in the press about them a while back?

such speeches are an indication, just one. Not sure how much use tactical nukes would be against AR's either.

That was more of a historical example than a current one.

from when fascism was a worldwide threat then? ie before (most) anti-communism. Not sure how that helps today.

True enough, but statements like "Islamism is the new communism" are simplistic and conceal more than they illuminate.

granted it doesnt cover everything behind the current war on 'terror', I'm not sure what it is concealing tho. The ideological offensive is still vital to justify the physical one.

 

[mk12]

not necesarilly - the AWL are pro-occupation (just as they were in the six counties) & the WCPI only really take up a theoretical anti-occupation position, most of their energies being spent opposing the islamists

an awler told me recently they were against the occupation, they just weren't for the "resistance".

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/3611

is a good summing up of their position.

most of their energies being spent opposing the islamists

well it seems like they do what socialists should do - lead and get involved in strikes (through federation of workers councils), help defend workers from attacks (from islamists and the US) etc.

 

[Groucho]

an awler told me recently they were against the occupation, they just weren't for the "resistance".

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/3611

is a good summing up of their position.



well it seems like they do what socialists should do - lead and get involved in strikes (through federation of workers councils), help defend workers from attacks (from islamists and the US) etc.

The AWL, like the Iraqi Govt and George Bush, say they want the occupation to end but not until the resistance have been defeated.

The unions in Iraq that are suffering the most brutal repression and that are actually leading strikes - like the oil workers - are genuinly oposed to the occupation and cal for withdrawl of occupying forces.

 

[belboid]

an awler told me recently they were against the occupation, they just weren't for the "resistance".

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/3611

is a good summing up of their position.

god you're gullible matt!

as grouchy points out, they may become against the occupatin once the islamists (ie iraqis) have all been killed. Right NOW they oppose calling for the troops out, ie they support them being there, because these thick stupid arabs need westerners to make them civilised.

Yup, doing what socialists should be doing.

 

[durruti02]

Yes, quote a source - an SWP source - saying this was a war against Islam?

it is respect, who are run by the swp, policy that

'islamophobia is central to the ideology of war in this era' .. this is bullshit .. it is a war for resources

the sw are USING muslims to try to gain some level of support as their support as at it historic lowest .. this is sad cynical and dangerous

 

[belboid]

so are you claiming that islamophobia (a poor word, but whatever) doesnt exist? or that it is playing no role within justifying the 'war on terror'? had you even noticed that the current imperialist onslaught is called 'the war on terror'?

or do you just not understand what 'central' or 'ideology' actually mean?

 

[Groucho]

'islamophobia is central to the ideology of war in this era' .. this is bullshit .. it is a war for resources

It is a war for resources. The ideological justification for which is the idea of a 'war on terror'. That there are those Muslims of evil intent (Blair's 'arc of evil') who need to be stopped by occupying Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Iran!

Yet some so called Anarchists buy into this establishment fostered ideology to the extent that they abstain on the war ('a plague on both your houses') and give credence to the domestic agenda of undermining our civil liberties (to deal with the 'Muslim threat.')

 

[mk12]

they abstain on the war

Supporting independent w/c politics is NOT abstaining.

 

[treelover]

The SWP policy of just focussing on the war has been a disaster, the demo on Saturday should have been about the whole range of issues facing the uk: housing, the NHS, welfare, inequality etc, Becaise of this other campaigns have been forced to choose other less popular days. I was at the STWC Time To Go Rally/Tony Benn roadshow in Sheffield: over 800 people there and it was very obvious many wanted to talk about all the above. Indeed, Mme German was rather overwhelmed by the anger and concern about other issues and was forced to address it. Interestingly, there weren't many muslims there considering there was an Islamic speaker, the marriage breaking down?

 

[belboid]

Supporting independent w/c politics is NOT abstaining.

but they dont, thats the bloody point. can't you see past a bit of glib verbiage? their idea of 'independent' w/c politics is simply anti-islamist, they define 'independent w/c politics' as what they agree with.

they DON'T want to Uk/US troops oput now, they support the bloody occupation.

Don't you support the right of nations to self determination?

 

[belboid]

The SWP policy of just focussing on the war has been a disaster, the demo on Saturday should have been about the whole range of issues facing the uk: housing, the NHS, welfare, inequality etc, Becaise of this other campaigns have been forced to choose other less popular days. I was at the STWC Time To Go Rally/Tony Benn roadshow in Sheffield: over 800 people there and it was very obvious many wanted to talk about all the above. Indeed, Mme German was rather overwhelmed by the anger and concern about other issues and was forced to address it. Interestingly, there weren't many muslims there considering there was an Islamic speaker, the marriage breaking down?

biggest meeting I've been to in Sheffield. Pretty good one too. LG was definitely squirming and being defensive about Direct Action stuff & A-B marches.

Can't agree with your previous point tho. What else is the Stop the War Coalition going to call a demo on? Nothing to stop the other campaigns calling their demo's on the same day. the bigger the better.

 

[durruti02]

so are you claiming that islamophobia (a poor word, but whatever) doesnt exist? or that it is playing no role within justifying the 'war on terror'? had you even noticed that the current imperialist onslaught is called 'the war on terror'?

or do you just not understand what 'central' or 'ideology' actually mean?

so how when the texans are/were in bed with the the saudis and most of bin ladens relatives, are they scared or hate islam? when they funded for years the mujihadien, the to-be Taliban, who almost had a deal with the texans over the kazakstan pipeline ( which is what the Afghan 'war' is about.. no?)

no islamophobia as a key or motor of the new imperialism is bullshit .. the neo cons do not see colour or creed .. they are vampires who will befriend or use anyone and all .. sure there are mad xtians in texas who see the end days coming and that there will be a war in the middle east and yes i belive they do have an influnece on us policy .. ( one of the major source of money for zionists in israel is now US fundies who think zionism will speed up armagedon!) ....
but fundamentally the wars in the middle east are about oil .. and in modern tines have always been

it is dangerous that the sw does not absolutley spell this out and instead tries to use the muslim or pakistani/bengali muslim (.. the turks don't seem that taken with being categorised purely as muslims .. wonder why not ) community as a political base

 

[durruti02]

Don't you support the right of nations to self determination?

meaningless phrase alert

 

[TeeJay]

You could add various actions in the balkans where the US supported "muslims" against "christians" (ie serbs) - if you wanted to label them along religious lines like that. Hardly fits in with the "war on islam" theory does it?

 

[belboid]

so how when the texans are/were in bed with the the saudis and most of bin ladens relatives, are they scared or hate islam? when they funded for years the mujihadien, the to-be Taliban, who almost had a deal with the texans over the kazakstan pipeline ( which is what the Afghan 'war' is about.. no?)

no islamophobia as a key or motor of the new imperialism is bullshit .. the neo cons do not see colour or creed .. they are vampires who will befriend or use anyone and all .. sure there are mad xtians in texas who see the end days coming and that there will be a war in the middle east and yes i belive they do have an influnece on us policy .. ( one of the major source of money for zionists in israel is now US fundies who think zionism will speed up armagedon!) ....
but fundamentally the wars in the middle east are about oil .. and in modern tines have always been

it is dangerous that the sw does not absolutley spell this out and instead tries to use the muslim or pakistani/bengali muslim (.. the turks don't seem that taken with being categorised purely as muslims .. wonder why not ) community as a political base

sorry, that really doesnt make much sense. it ignores that ideological nature of the use of islamophobia. yes, of course that is contradictory, but it still exists.

i honestly don't understand what your answer is to any of the questions I asked. inicidentally, round here (where turks overwhwelmingly = kurds) that highlighting of islam does cut it. I grant you round wher eyou are (hackney/tottenham??) it is a somewhat different matter.

Islamophobia is not the motor but it is the justification - holding a war for resources would hardly be ideologically justifiable would it?

 

[belboid]

meaningless phrase alert

which bit is actually meaningless? 'nation'? 'self determination'? would you only support such a right if the nations peolpe came up with a similar ideology to you?

(sorry, friday night, bit pissed, hope I'm still making sense)

 

[In Bloom]

Yet some so called Anarchists buy into this establishment fostered ideology to the extent that they abstain on the war ('a plague on both your houses')

This is just mind bogglingly idiotic. Not mindlessly cheerleading "the resistance" as some homogeneous entity does not equal "abstaining" on the war.

and give credence to the domestic agenda of undermining our civil liberties (to deal with the 'Muslim threat.')

Whereas this is just bizarrely innaccurate. I don't even know where you're getting this from.

 

[durruti02]

It is a war for resources. The ideological justification for which is the idea of a 'war on terror'. That there are those Muslims of evil intent (Blair's 'arc of evil') who need to be stopped by occupying Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Iran!

Yet some so called Anarchists buy into this establishment fostered ideology to the extent that they abstain on the war ('a plague on both your houses') and give credence to the domestic agenda of undermining our civil liberties (to deal with the 'Muslim threat.')

good post .. but therefore the SW/Respect need to state this loud and clear .. that there is NO war on islam .. but yes islamophobia is being used as a windup .. this dishonesty is symtomatic of the left generally ..

ultra honesty is the only way .. now!

 

[durruti02]

sorry, that really doesnt make much sense. it ignores that ideological nature of the use of islamophobia. yes, of course that is contradictory, but it still exists.

Islamophobia is not the motor but it is the justification - holding a war for resources would hardly be ideologically justifiable would it?

same as above and my point entirely ..

there is a war for resources and islamophobia is being USED as a wind up ..

SW/REspect are therefore being dishonest/disengenuous by making out there is a REAL war against muslims ..