ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Why's that? Analytical and critical thinking not your forte, or are you going to use the same excuse as other muppets and make some saddo remark about "lefties" and/or "Islamophiles"?
What Do People Think of Hamas, and Why?
- Thread starter quimcunx
- Start date
Why's that? Analytical and critical thinking not your forte, or are you going to use the same excuse as other muppets and make some saddo remark about "lefties" and/or "Islamophiles"?
Corax
Luke 5:16
On this evidence, that's probably a blessing all round.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Kind of reminds me of arguments on certain other boards like FR, where some posters fixate on a single sentence, because it's the only part of what someone has written that they can actually attack. Rach used to do it all the time, that selective quotation and re-interpretation schtick. It got old very quickly.
winjer
holocene death beat
^They do.
No, it's an ethno-religious movement, much like Zionism, which includes military and political organisations, much like Zionism, and is not under the control a homogenous organisation able to speak for all, much like Zionism.
winjer
holocene death beat
Not according to the UK government.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
You mean like posters who disagree with things said by the "majority" in this thread get dismissed as "Israelophiles" or "rightists"?
No, that depends on the content of your postings.
People who make the category error of believing they're being disagreed with because they're in a minority, rather than because they're wrong, we dismiss as "deluded fools".
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
I would absolutely LOVE this forum if that were true, however, it isn't
hipipol
Peckham Wry
I think Hamas should be applauded for giving creative metal working types an outlet when there are few other jobs around
El Gordo Brown could learn from them in this context
Other than that, though elected, I suspect that they have many thuggish types in their ranks. This is the sort of thing that happens in highly stressed sitautions.
One only has to glance over the border at Israel to see exactly the same process at work - the populace freely elect those with blood on their hands, these leaders then vie with each other to see who can kill most, thus ensuring re-election
I find it hard to tell em apart really, cepting of course one lots got bigger guns and can afford to take holidays in India where they can continue to treat people of darker skin shade like shit
El Gordo Brown could learn from them in this context
Other than that, though elected, I suspect that they have many thuggish types in their ranks. This is the sort of thing that happens in highly stressed sitautions.
One only has to glance over the border at Israel to see exactly the same process at work - the populace freely elect those with blood on their hands, these leaders then vie with each other to see who can kill most, thus ensuring re-election
I find it hard to tell em apart really, cepting of course one lots got bigger guns and can afford to take holidays in India where they can continue to treat people of darker skin shade like shit
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
That's something I tried to allure to when I first posted in this thread. I admit I am probably one of the most cynical people you'll ever meet, especially with regards to politics, but high levels of violence in these situations have the effect of pushing the electorate to the right (ie to the hawkish parties, as opposed to those pushing for negotiated settlements). Without that violence, parties like Hamas and Likud do badly in elections, and parties that want to take a softer line on the "enemy" do better. Don't forget that Hamas isn't just a resistance group, it is a political party with a plan for society just like every other political party in the world - and just like every other political party in the democratic world, it will never be in a position to implement that plan for society if it doesn't win the support of the electorate.
Whether or not people want to acknowledge that, Hamas does gain politically from conflicts with Israel, just as the Israeli government apparently believes it will also gain politically from this current conflict with Hamas (and that does not point the finger of blame at anyone, just an observation of the outcome)
I guess it's something worth bearing in mind at least...
this is simply wrong .. the idea that hamas is as amorpous as an ideology as zionism or anarchism is ridiculous
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Bleedin' hell! What "dominant ideology"?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
How about you? Do you have an ideology? Do you consider yourself to be on the left, or are you now claiming that you don't belong to either the right or the left?
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
That would be Political Islam
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Political Islam is a political ideology, like conservatism or socialism are ideologies (and contain many sub-ideologies under their ideological umbrella). But I don't follow your question. Are you unaware of the ideology?
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Eh?! That's like saying "I'm aware of various political groups with socialist origins, but not a unifying ideology between them except socialism"!!!
I seriously refuse to believe that anyone who professes knowledge of Hamas is unaware of Political Islam. You do know the history of Hamas right?
However, somebody who is unaware of something would tend to Google it as soon as they were informed about it. You're still continuing to pussy foot around it, which suggests you're trying to go somewhere with it. So can you just get to the point please and tell me what you actually think?
Depends what you mean as by "same". Obviously, no other Political Islam group is the "same" as Hamas otherwise they'd be Hamas. That's like saying the British, Israeli, Canadian or Australian Labour parties were the "same".
What you meant to say was, are the following groups Islamist (another term for Political Islam), in which case the answers would be yes (probably from the very very limited I have found out about them), yes, no and no
winjer
holocene death beat
No, it is not. If the unifying ideology is simply Islam then your concept of 'Political Islam' is a nullity. If the dominant ideology within Hamas is simply Islam then Hamas is indistinguishable as a political group from any other Muslim political group, which is simply absurd. Or to put it another way:
A notable case in point is the dichotomy, often taken for granted by Western leaders, between on the one hand, Islam qua religion and its adherents -- "ordinary decent Muslims" for whom "Islam" is a matter of personal piety, not political commitment -- and, on the other hand, "Islamism" or "political Islam" -- by implication an affair of a minority of agitators exploiting the faith of their fellow-Muslims for political ends, stirring up resentment, constituting a problem for Western interests and "friendly" Muslim states alike. This dichotomy is misleading for several reasons.
[...]
the conception of "political Islam" inherent in this dichotomy is unhistorical as well as self-serving. The term "political Islam" is an American coinage which came into circulation in the wake of the Iranian revolution. It implied or presupposed that an "apolitical Islam" had been the norm until Khomeini turned things upside down. In fact, Islam had been a highly politicised religion for generations before 1979. It only appeared to have become apolitical in the historically specific and short-lived era of the heyday of secular Arab nationalism between 1945 and 1970. But even during that period it is difficult to speak of apolitical Islam. Not only did Arab nationalist governments control the religious field and promote modernist and nationalist trends within Islam, but a key element of Western (and especially U.S.) policy in response to Arab nationalism from the early 1950s onwards was to support and encourage an alliance of conservative Muslim states, headed by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, in the promotion of a pro-Western pan-Islamism to counteract the Arab nationalism of Nasser's Egypt and those states broadly aligned with it (Algeria, Iraq, Libya, Syria, South Yemen).
The concept of "political Islam" and its definition as a problem only occurred when Islamic politics began to articulate anti-Western or, more specifically, anti-American attitudes. There has, therefore, been confusion between the implied notion that "political Islam" represents a deviation from an apolitical norm (a notion which is historically inaccurate) and the tacitly understood (but concealed) notion that it is a deviation from a pro-Western political norm. In effect, "Islam" was only seen to be political when it was seen to be a threat.
Finally, the dichotomy assumes that "political Islam", "Islamism" or "Islamic fundamentalism" is internally undifferentiated for most practical purposes. It thus ignores the diversity of outlook, purpose and method which is actually to be found in Islamic activism. Instead, it postulates a simple dichotomy within an otherwise monolithic category between "radicals" and "moderates". This does not differentiate between alternative visions and policies so much as between the strength with which views are held. In practice, this usually boils down to distinguishing between those with whom Western governments feel they can "do business" (the moderates) and those with whom they cannot or will not. This tends to get translated into the distinction between those who are susceptible to co-optation and those who take their beliefs in earnest, cannot be bought off and who -- on the generally unexamined assumption that they cannot be tolerated -- must accordingly be confronted.
The principal weakness of this analytical distinction is that it fails to notice that the most important factor differentiating varieties of Islamic activism is not so much the relative militancy or moderation with which they express their convictions, but rather the nature of the convictions they hold. These include different diagnoses of the problems faced by Muslim societies, different views of Islamic law, and different conceptions both of the appropriate spheres (political, religious, military) in which to act and of the kinds of action that are legitimate and appropriate, and accordingly entail divergent and often competing purposes. This differentiation is distinct in kind from that traditionally observed between Sunni and Shiite varieties of Islam. It is between forms of contemporary Islamic activism rather than between historic religious traditions; and its existence, in particular within Sunni activism, is a relatively recent development that is not complete but rather a continuing process.
http://merln.ndu.edu/archive/icg/Islamism2Mar05.pdf
Considerably better than you, it seems. I've already stated my view that Hamas is an ethno-religious movement, you're the one pussyfooting around.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Oh dear! It appears your objective was to lull me into a trap all along! How sneaky of you!
Merely being Islamic, altho necessary of course, does not define a group as being adherent to Political Islam. Political Islam is not a religion, it is a political ideology because it proposes a blueprint for society to fix its ills, just like socialism or conservatism does.
As I said above, it would be idiotic to claim the various Labour parties around the world are "indistinguishable" because of their shared ideology and vision for society, just as it is idiotic to claim that Hamas are indistinguishable from other Political Islamist groups just because of their shared ideology and vision for society. That, however, does not in anyway shape or form negate the fact that Hamas is a Political Islamist organisation...
The "pussyfooting around" comment was directed at you attempting to appear oblivious to the concept of Political Islam. Your post above proves you were pussyfooting around as you quite clearly were aware of the concept. You just held out until you'd coaxed me into making the right statement at which point you were poised to strike to make the claim you should have made a number of posts ago.
And unfortunately somebody who thinks that Hamas is not a Political Islamist party shows considerable ignorance of the organisation and its history.
Anyway, tell me why you are so desperate to ensure Hamas is not characterised as being "Political Islam"? What difference does it make?
Are you afraid that the label might lead to comparison with other unsavoury Islamist organisations? And that the comparison would damage Hamas' reputation? Is that what all this is about?
winjer
holocene death beat
Very little, since it's an almost meaningless term, and says nothing about the 'dominant ideology' within Hamas.
My only concern is that you and durrutti02 will remain ignorant, since you seem to think it is revelatory to say that Hamas is made up of Muslims, and that there is something dangerous about that.
What is it about Muslims you're afraid of?
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Meaningless? What planet are you on?! Tell me, is "socialism" meaningless also?
It does because it is the dominant ideology of Hamas
What durrutti02 thinks is their business. I merely answered a question asked by someone who asked what the dominant ideology of Hamas was - and the answer is Political Islam. To deny that fact, suggests it is you who are determined to remain ignorant of Hamas, presumably because it is you who believes there is a stigma attached to an organisation that contains Muslims, and it is you who, in your defence of Hamas, is desperate to ensure that Hamas is distanced from "Islam" because you view Islam as an insult or a criticism (much like people try and distance groups they support from terms like "terrorism")
Ah classic U75 debating tactics: If you can't win an argument by conventional means, accuse them of being pro-Israel; if that fails, accuse them of being racist
Fucks sake, the only "dominant ideology" around at the moment is fundamentalist "free"-marketeerism.
And that's in deep doo-doo, dominance-wise.
One of its slogans, though, is that there are other "dominant ideologies" against which we must all pit ourselves. The slogan is constructed thus:
Just because an ideologue who's trying to pretend to be a law of physics deploys a slogan, doesn't make it so
And that's in deep doo-doo, dominance-wise.
One of its slogans, though, is that there are other "dominant ideologies" against which we must all pit ourselves. The slogan is constructed thus:
- Anything "dominant" is BAD - only the "free" marked must dominate;
- All "ideology" is BAD - "free"-marketeerism isn't an ideology, honest, it's just the Nature of Things and mustn't be challenged.
Just because an ideologue who's trying to pretend to be a law of physics deploys a slogan, doesn't make it so
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
I can't speak for anyone else, but I appear to have used "dominant" in a different context to what you mention above (what you say above, in your context, is perfectly true, imo btw)
When I say the "dominant" ideology of Hamas is Political Islam, I mean that is the ideology they adhere to, not that that ideology necessarily strives for global dominance. It is true, however, that all ideologies will have manifestations that do strive to be the dominant global ideology, but I think it is safe to say that in Hamas' case, their ideological objective is confined to the borders of Palestine (which may or may not include Israel, but that's another argument)
Similar threads
- Poll
