The point

John Quiggin at Crooked Timber: “The appeal of radical Islamism is similar to that held by revolutionary Marxism, in that it purports to wrap lots of separate struggles into a single encompassing global struggle in which victory is pre-ordained.

He’s talking about the appeal to people who become radical Islamists – but he’s also right about the appeal to people who become radical anti-Islamists. If you’re a would-be authoritarian, it’s much easier to paint everyone involved in all the struggles as an Islamist/Communist, rather than accepting that what we’re really seeing is a set of local conflicts with a thin transnational layer on top.

In this context, the claims initially made by Russian officials, rejected by survivors, and now apparently abandoned, about 10 of the Ossetia school attackers being Arabs are understandable: it makes the conspiracy story that much more convincing. And like the Saddam/AQ links, even once they’ve been comprehensibly falsified, most people will still remember them.

Which is why I fear Dr Quiggin’s excellent two-step War on Terror guide will be ignored by the people in charge:

What’s needed is to isolate, as far as possible, the extreme Islamists committed to an endless crusade against the West. There is no response to them except to kill them before they kill us and try to avoid doing anything that will help their recruiting.

Meanwhile, we should deal with the various national grievances as best we can, trying to avoid making them part of a battlefront between Islam and the West.

For those with comprehension problems, that’s “avoid making them part of a battlefront”, rather than “bomb the crap out of them until they become terrorists out of revenge”.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by John B. Bookmark the permalink.

2 thoughts on “The point

  1. "…victory is pre-ordained": so much for Luxemburg’s "socialism or barbarism", then, and no more selling Socialist Worker for me because, hey, we’re all going to win anyway – which would rather make it an anti-revolutionary Marxism. (I do wonder if the major similarity isn’t the tendency to make sweeping judgements like this one in both cases.)

    I rather agree with your post: for all these appeals to "security", there’s very little desire to explain what that word means politically, or ought to mean – ie, if anything at all, intelligent police-work and a visibly democratic justice, rather than quick-bomb-the-crap-out-of-somewhere.

  2. I sure do like visible justice, but only support democracy insofar as such a democracy supports human rights. Mugabe got power in Zimbabwe, from visibly democratic elections. But what he’s doing is not justice.

    Justice requires a standard. The current Islamic standard includes Sharia, and not allowing Muslims to convert to another religion. This Islamic standard must change — and those clerics not willing to change it should be held responsible for terrorism. The strands of Islam that do NOT respect human rights and toleration of differences in belief — believers of such strands need to be silenced; probably killed.

Comments are closed.