Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Well, it isn't the point (or "a" point) if you don't think that Glenn Beck holds substantial sway over a large percentage of the population (fact check: he does). An enormous part of the domestic backlash against "boots on the ground" was the flagrant anti-Islamic sentiments that ran rampant across the internet. I counted at least three posts of the video by people in my network, and I didn't bother counting the "likes" or reading the commentary.

You may not hold these same views, but I'm disgusted by the way in which "Islamophobia" played a part in determining what our response would be.

So Islamophobia played a part in the responses a decade ago (Shock & Awe, etc.), and now it's leading to the opposite? Maybe these other people have forgotten, or maybe everyone has forgotten that nearly every native in the Middle East is Islamic. They are on all sides of the various conflicts in the region. Acting or not acting in any particular way as it relates to foreign policy based on opinions of Islam are a complete nonstarter.

I don't view Al Qaeda as "Radical Islam", unless we want to view the American Military as "Radical Americans". Given their practical mercenary status, they are little more than a Muslim Blackwater/Xe/etc.

I never said Glenn Beck had no sway (I know he has way too much in fact), but I don't think he single handedly "swung" public opinion, given that was already against intervention to begin with. If anything, it just shows that it takes some ridiculously extreme shit to get the attention of people, because apparently all the official admittals of Al Qaeda elements being all through the "Rebels" wasn't enough. Short fucking attention spans.

 

[Matt]

No one should pay attention to that deranged piece of shit anyway.

 

[Einherjar86]

So Islamophobia played a part in the responses a decade ago (Shock & Awe, etc.), and now it's leading to the opposite? Maybe these other people have forgotten, or maybe everyone has forgotten that nearly every native in the Middle East is Islamic. They are on all sides of the various conflicts in the region. Acting or not acting in any particular way as it relates to foreign policy based on opinions of Islam are a complete nonstarter.

Are you actually insinuating that people who buy into Islamophobia are critical thinkers who would recognize that appealing to something in contradictory ways is problematic?

I don't view Al Qaeda as "Radical Islam", unless we want to view the American Military as "Radical Americans". Given their practical mercenary status, they are little more than a Muslim Blackwater/Xe/etc.

I never said Glenn Beck had no sway (I know he has way too much in fact), but I don't think he single handedly "swung" public opinion, given that was already against intervention to begin with. If anything, it just shows that it takes some ridiculously extreme shit to get the attention of people, because apparently all the official admittals of Al Qaeda elements being all through the "Rebels" wasn't enough. Short fucking attention spans.

I don't think he single-handedly did it either; but he has had an influence, and a measurable one.

Al-Qaeda is certainly radical. Far more so than the American military...

 

[Dak]

Are you actually insinuating that people who buy into Islamophobia are critical thinkers who would recognize that appealing to something in contradictory ways is problematic?

No, but we must hope something can eventually pierce the fog.

Al-Qaeda is certainly radical. Far more so than the American military...

I'll bite: What metric are you using? I don't really see any substantial differences in institutional comportment.

 

[Einherjar86]

Al-Qaeda is a reaction to, and revolution against, global capitalism's reliance on the Third World. The American military is a reinforcement of global capitalism's reliance on the Third World.

When I say "global capitalism," I mean Western nations in general.

 

[SentinelSlain]

Al-Qaeda is a reaction to, and revolution against, global capitalism's reliance on the Third World.

When I say "global capitalism," I mean Western nations in general.

No doubt this point will be ignored so you don't have to get off your horse, but all the research points firmly against the main motivation and cause behind weak actors in asymmetric conflicts being grievance and poverty.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not on a horse.

"All the research"? Really? Find "all the research" and show it to me, and I'll believe that.

Certainly there are arguments against what I've said, but show me that research and we can discuss it; don't just claim that there is. The way I see it, Al-Qaeda is a direct response and consequence (we can say "effect" here pretty confidently, I think) to the encroachment by Western nations in the Middle-East and elsewhere. Islam has been a powerful force in many ways, but since the Renaissance and the Age of Exploration it's suffered at the hands of Western imperialism and technological development. I'm not saying that industry and technology are bad, but I am saying that the West has handled its use of them very poorly, and that Islam has suffered for it.

 

[SentinelSlain]

I don't know if you have access to a university library system with subscriptions to journals. Anyway, some relevant articles are, in order of importance: (these references aren't formatted because finishing my thesis deprived me of all motivation to do that without good reason)

1)Ivan Arreguín-Toft

International Security, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Summer 2001), pp. 93–128 How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict

2)
SARA McLAUGHLIN MITCHELL
BRANDON C. PRINS

JOURNAL OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION, Vol. 48 No. 6, December 2004 937-961
Rivalry and Diversionary Uses of Force

3) Barbara F Walter
International Organization 60, Winter 2006, pp+ 105–135
Information, Uncertainty, and the Decision to Secede

Yes, that's just three journal articles, but it all references a lot of the other research and data. A well regarded book I own, which makes some way towards arguing what you're saying, although not in as succinct a fashion is Losing Control by Paul Rogers.


Anyway, now I will move on to make some comments that aren't entirely related to the above articles. If Al Qaeda were the enforcer of the rights of the people's of the third world, against the atrocities committed by the West, the world and international relations would be much more simple than it really is. The entire Yugoslav conflict and particularly the manner in which it ended was one massive repudiation of the whole "the West bombs Muslims and is evil" idea that apparently exists in the minds of millions of people and must be ardently defended as the whole truth, by liberal minded academics. Want another example? Lets go a little further back in history, to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. So, as a proxy war against the commie Russians, the US supported the Muhajideen in various ways. Now, who keeping the poor people down? Well that's a little complicated, was it traditional Afghan land owning elites manipulating religious conservatism amongst the masses to avoid having their land nationalised, was it the Russian, imperialist and with the spectre of white and Russian supremacy still looming over any actions they take in the neighbouring countries? Was it the Americans? Keeping the Muslim world unstable by weakening the pro Soviet authorities? I don't see any basis to have a single minded, ideologically driven conclusion on that question.

The other side to any argument in the West's favour in these matters would have to, to be honest and worthwhile, cover the decolonisation process, including the creation of national borders in places like Iraq and other countries. Other matters to consider are the plotted and actually regime changes that removed leaders who worked against the West's, specifically, Britain, France and the United State's economic interests. I would accept these as all legitimate evidence of the West acting decisively against the economic and social interests of Muslims. However, they did not in any tangible way benefit none Muslims in Muslim societies and little Western foreign policy, after Gladstone (bar Operation Nemesis) seems to have been conducted in such a manner. Basically, the West kept the capital in its hands, as one would expect.

Under scrutiny, I find that socialism in the Soviet Union, as an economic system, failed, not because of Western actions, but despite them. Despite the fact that Canada allowed the S.U. to continually buy huge amounts of grain that it's own deeply flawed agricultural system was unable to produce, the Soviet economy still basically failed even if you turned a blind eye to that particular fact. Is this relevant? Yes, the failures of the Soviet Union are directly related to the failure of the Arab states in their wars against Israel and those failures had dramatic long term consequences in those countries. The failure of Soviet technology in those wars was very important.

The ability of the United states to invade a country in the Muslim world increased dramatically with the fall of the Soviet Union, with Iraq (First Gulf War)being the most obvious example. That's a hard point to evidence, because the contemporary record of it is pretty old now, but I mean, elements in the reactionary right of Russia tried to provide political support to Saddam, but all ended up being a big joke as Russia was so weakened that to project its power in a way that challenged America in that location had become unthinkable.

What else messed things up for the Muslims? Mainly themselves. Arab Nationalism, although it involved many Christians from the onset, was basically some Muslims looking at Hitler and thinking, "hey, he knew how to manipulate people, lets do the same thing here and if we don't have any minorities left do scapegoat, we can have a big rally around the flag over attacking Israel, only, drive the tanks slowing (Iraq literally did that) because we don't actually want to end up losing a conflict so badly that it results in regime change on our side, Israel isn't worth that." So, with fascist leaders who were a bit like massively corrupted Hitlers, the region stagnated. Is the West to blame for that? Only if you have a strange combination of Western supremacy and guilt in your mindset that pushes you towards thinking that the West should be able to do what is best for everyone, everywhere, whilst allowing for cultural relativism and also being expected to predict very long term trends in other societies.

Who should the West have supported in the Lebanon Civil War? The Gemayel family? Islamists? There is no simple answer to these matters even if "doing what is best for Muslims" were the only objective.

The fact that Ahmadiyya, Bahá'í and Sufi progressions from conservative Islam have failed to attract the majority of Muslims in the world seems to me to be something quite unrelated to the West. You can say that the French invasion of Algeria lead to Wahhabism and that the only reason things are bad in Saudi Arabia is because the West buys their oil, but frankly, you would be uttering whiteness studies, overly apologist nothingness. If anything, the kind of idiots that do that probably motivate the Breiviks of this world, who read quoted versions of rants by old liberals, on right wing blogs about Islam in Europe. The French invasion of Algeria, such a wound in the foot of hard line left wingers and self loathing westerners, was actually accelerated into being by something that threatens the core of their being, politically, that is, the large scale enslavement of white people from Western Europe and the Americas, by Arabs.


I hope some of the data in the articles I've referred you to and my points after that part edge you towards the right direction.

 

[Dak]

I'm sorry Pat, but "lol". Please show me evidence that Al Qaeda is fighting against "Global Capitalism", not for it. Al Qaeda has been a successful regional arm of Anglo-Euro Imperialism since Day 1.

 

[Einherjar86]

Think harder.

Al-Qaeda is an arm of US and Western imperialism. It has certainly found its purpose in support of Western interests, but as time wears on the internal contradictions are breaching the surface and exploding. Al-Qaeda is incompatible with Western machinery both ideologically and materially, and this is so because it signifies a radical component of imperialist consequences that the West cannot reconcile: i.e. the notion of spreading freedom combined with capitalist accumulation.

Al-Qaeda may very well be an "arm" of Western imperialism, but you're delusional if you think this means they're unequivocally in support of it and not in opposition to it. Imperialism breeds its own discontents, and this is an example of Western imperialism and global capitalism being forced to come to terms with its own irreconcilable internal structure. Al-Qaeda thus emerges as an antithetical force to global capital and imperialism.

I'll direct those interested to Rajen Harshe's "Unveiling the Ties Between US Imperialism and Al-Qaida." I won't dent that historically Al-Qaeda has been an instrument of Western imperialism, but this doesn't preclude their ontological existence as an antithetical and uncontrollable consequence of the internal paradoxes of globalism. We need to think more critically about this rather than reduce them to nothing more than a Western tool.

 

[Dak]

I won't disagree with the submission that the rank and file of Al Qaeda are motivated by concepts antithetical to Western Imperialism, but so are the rank and file of Western Militaries (motivated by concepts alien to Western Imperialism). It's a poor argument. I am interested with actual aims and results, not misguidance of individuals, in reference to institutions (when speaking of the aims and results of institutions).

Of course, conversely, I am interested in actual aims and results of individuals in reference to the aims and results of individuals. You cannot lump them as the same thing (individuals and institutions, and their respective aims and results).

Edit: However, I will submit that the motivations of the rank and file of Al Qaeda, however Islamically ideological, still meet the qualifications for falling in line with praxeological, Austrian value system explanations. Just because their ordinal subjective value systems don't necessarily align with our Western ideological/materialist value systems doesn't disprove the General Theory,

 

[Einherjar86]

I won't disagree with the submission that the rank and file of Al Qaeda are motivated by concepts antithetical to Western Imperialism, but so are the rank and file of Western Militaries (motivated by concepts alien to Western Imperialism).

How so?

EDIT(s):

Let me be frank. Rank and file means very little, and I honestly don't see why you find it so important. It is very clear, to me, that Western military personnel actively buy into Western imperialist ideology to a significant degree, whereas Al-Qaeda and groups such as this are the negative aspects of imperialism breaching the surface.

It's obvious, in my opinion, that the two are opposed, and this is substantiated by the West's condemnation of Al-Qaeda as the "Other," as the enemy. The West cannot reconcile Al-Qaeda as something of its own creation and control, which is now spiraling out of control and exposing the untenable aspects of imperialism. Western military is on the opposite side of the fence compared to Al-Qaeda.

And SS:

I appreciate you trying to point me in the "right direction," but here's the problem: empirical evidence that traces a history of Islamic radicalism cannot teach us anything about how Al-Qaeda considers itself. It all helps to paint Islam in a light that is clearly negative, and portrays it as less "progressive" (whatever that means) than the West. All of this is prejudicial treatment of Islam, and (in my opinion) simply looks for an enemy elsewhere because it doesn't want to face the irresponsibility of the West.

And I thank you for pointing me in the "right direction," but there are dozens of articles that emphasize Al-Qaeda's existence as a response to US imperialism. Even if it began as an instrument, it is clear that in today's global society, Al-Qaeda is a territory-less group that threatens the ideology and values of Western imperialism, even if it occasionally is used to perpetuate its interests.

 

[SentinelSlain]

empirical evidence that traces a history of Islamic radicalism cannot teach us anything about how Al-Qaeda considers itself. It all helps to paint Islam in a light that is clearly negative, and portrays it as less "progressive" (whatever that means) than the West. All of this is prejudicial treatment of Islam, and (in my opinion) simply looks for an enemy elsewhere because it doesn't want to face the irresponsibility of the West.

And I thank you for pointing me in the "right direction," but there are dozens of articles that emphasize Al-Qaeda's existence as a response to US imperialism. Even if it began as an instrument, it is clear that in today's global society, Al-Qaeda is a territory-less group that threatens the ideology and values of Western imperialism, even if it occasionally is used to perpetuate its interests.

As I imagined, you could only respond to that post by ignoring much of it, whilst maintaining your stance. Read what I said about overly high expectations in regards to the "responsibility of the West" and the relationship between them and notions of white supremacy etc.

If you read the journal articles I referenced, they actually avoid mentioning Islam. The view I have, which motivates me to disagree with your analysis of Al Qaida is based on academic research on weaker actors in asymmetric conflicts, over periods of time.

 

[Dak]

How so?

EDIT(s):

Let me be frank. Rank and file means very little, and I honestly don't see why you find it so important. It is very clear, to me, that Western military personnel actively buy into Western imperialist ideology to a significant degree, whereas Al-Qaeda and groups such as this are the negative aspects of imperialism breaching the surface.

Aren't all the aspects of imperialism negative when considered in their totality? One problem is equating Al-Qaeda with "groups such as this". Al Qaeda was created, funded, and steered entirely by Western interests, for Western interests. Call it Al Blackwater.

I distinguish between leadership and rank&file because that is how the military works. It's the same reason we have to distinguish between Washington DC and the average voter.

I can't speak for the uniformed services of other countries, but I can tell you the US services are "rank" :Spin: with cognitive dissonance. "Fighting for freedom!", individualism, etc etc.......while the structure and function of the military is as collectivistic/socialistic and tyrannical as it gets. "Stopping the shedding of innocent blood!" as they bomb women and children. And so on.

It's obvious, in my opinion, that the two are opposed, and this is substantiated by the West's condemnation of Al-Qaeda as the "Other," as the enemy. The West cannot reconcile Al-Qaeda as something of its own creation and control, which is now spiraling out of control and exposing the untenable aspects of imperialism. Western military is on the opposite side of the fence compared to Al-Qaeda.

No, the West cannot acknowledge Al Qaeda anymore than it acknowledges any other black-ops, false flags, etc. This is not some sort of cultural cognitive dissonance, it's practical politicking.

Both the Western uniformed services and Al Qaeda work to accomplish the same goal: Global "Capitalism". We merely need look at where Al Qaeda has been unleashed, and what it has been allowed or helped to do. In every single instance, the presence of Al Qaeda has assisted "Global Capitalism".

And SS:

And I thank you for pointing me in the "right direction," but there are dozens of articles that emphasize Al-Qaeda's existence as a response to US imperialism. Even if it began as an instrument, it is clear that in today's global society, Al-Qaeda is a territory-less group that threatens the ideology and values of Western imperialism, even if it occasionally is used to perpetuate its interests.

In what ways does it threaten the ideology and values of Western Imperialism? Last I checked, Al Qaeda was striking resource deals with western corporations before the blood was dry in Libya, and the oil flow was nearly at pre-coup levels earlier this year before recent worker strikes. Gaddafi wasn't cooperating with the West sufficiently, in comes Al Qaeda. Same in Syria. Yemen is being brought to it's knees more quietly. Violence in Iraq was transferred from directed at the US to sectarian in nature. France was "reluctantly" called into Mali (iirc) to deal with "Al Qaeda".

I don't care if the poor kid with the bomb strapped to his chest has been promised >9000 virgins for helping destroy The Great Satan or whatever. His targets are either enemies of The Great Satan, or bystanders which will necessitate the intervention and salvation by the Great Satan.

 

[Einherjar86]

As I imagined, you could only respond to that post by ignoring much of it, whilst maintaining your stance. Read what I said about overly high expectations in regards to the "responsibility of the West" and the relationship between them and notions of white supremacy etc.

If you read the journal articles I referenced, they actually avoid mentioning Islam. The view I have, which motivates me to disagree with your analysis of Al Qaida is based on academic research on weaker actors in asymmetric conflicts, over periods of time.

Avoiding mentioning something doesn't mean the argument isn't influenced by it. In fact, the omission of Islam from the discussion raises more red flags than it would if Islam was mentioned.

You're right, too: I ignored most of your argument, and I didn't read the articles. But that's because I don't have much spare time. I have, however, read texts by Slavoj Zizek, Alain Badiou, and other radical philosophers who present glaring evidence that a phenomenon like Al-Qaeda cannot be explained through empirical evidence simply linking it to Western activity and tracing its own ontology as a "weaker actor" in an "asymmetrical conflict."

Now, from what I can see of one article, since you insist:

First: I disagree with Arreguin-Toft's position that the "war on terror" is comparable to international conflict (i.e. conflicts between two or more nations). He's claiming that the data he's using can be extended to terrorism. This is tenuous.

Second: the evidence traces data of conflict outcomes, but discusses nothing of the ideological implications at stake between, say, Western military institutions and members, or sympathizers, of Al-Qaeda. What does this data prove to us? Maybe that weaker actors win occasionally; but it tells us nothing about their motives beyond winning.

I can't speak for the uniformed services of other countries, but I can tell you the US services are "rank" :Spin: with cognitive dissonance. "Fighting for freedom!", individualism, etc etc.......while the structure and function of the military is as collectivistic/socialistic and tyrannical as it gets. "Stopping the shedding of innocent blood!" as they bomb women and children. And so on.

And how does something like this continue, if it's so internally contradictory and combustible? I'll tell you: we create enemies in the form of Al-Qaeda, whom we created and who are now reacting back against us.

Al-Qaeda doesn't mince words about its intentions. It intends to kill, pure and simple.

No, the West cannot acknowledge Al Qaeda anymore than it acknowledges any other black-ops, false flags, etc. This is not some sort of cultural cognitive dissonance, it's practical politicking.

You're right. I was only considering Western military in its most "legal" form.

But the West can acknowledge Al-Qaeda, so I should clarify; it cannot reconcile it as something it created and used, especially when it begins "terrorizing." So it establishes it as its antithesis, and Al-Qaeda fulfills this role. We're seeing more and more public backlash against black-ops evidence, so in a way, this becomes something "us-but-not-us" as well.

 

[Dak]

And how does something like this continue, if it's so internally contradictory and combustible? I'll tell you: we create enemies in the form of Al-Qaeda, whom we created and who are now reacting back against us.

Al-Qaeda doesn't mince words about its intentions. It intends to kill, pure and simple.

Who said it was combustible? As far as rationalizing contradictions, you know as well as I do people are quite good at it. "Well that's different".

Al Qaeda does intend to kill, just as the military does. And when the dust settles, it is for the Good of the Empire.

You're right. I was only considering Western military in its most "legal" form.

But the West can acknowledge Al-Qaeda, so I should clarify; it cannot reconcile it as something it created and used, especially when it begins "terrorizing." So it establishes it as its antithesis, and Al-Qaeda fulfills this role. We're seeing more and more public backlash against black-ops evidence, so in a way, this becomes something "us-but-not-us" as well.

It's one of the benefits of contracting. You can accomplish what you want and have the option to disavow what comes under negative light at any time. "Plausible deniability".

 

[Einherjar86]

Who said it was combustible? As far as rationalizing contradictions, you know as well as I do people are quite good at it. "Well that's different".

Al Qaeda does intend to kill, just as the military does. And when the dust settles, it is for the Good of the Empire.

Okay, I'll be more explicit.

Internal contradictions are ultimately combustible. Yes, of course, people are good at rationalizing, and the capitalist system is even better at it through the process of incorporation, or absorption. Al-Qaeda is absorbed into the Western imaginary as an image of terror, evil, and antithesis because it cannot logically reconcile its existence; and its existence as something that needs to be fought against feeds the engines of imperialism. The very existence of Al-Qaeda testifies to an inability of Western ideology to account for its internal contradictions, and through our expulsion of it from our world-view, it turns against us. Eventually, I believe, the system either implodes or it changes. We're still changing, but we haven't seen the end of global capital and the tyranny of modernity.

I'm not condoning Al-Qaeda's actions or calling them revolutionary heroes; I'm simply saying they fulfill an oppositional role that threatens Western values.

Al-Qaeda doesn't kill "for the good of the empire." That's absurd. You should think harder about why you say that and reconsider whether you can encapsulate the intentions and motivations of terrorists under the heading: "In support of Western imperialism." Al-Qaeda enjoys no sanction, no legitimation. It is war waged and terror enacted not by imperialist doctrine, but in anger of imperialist activity. In some cases, its very use by Western institutions has been a consequence of the manipulation of its hatred of imperialism. That they've been used as a tool doesn't make them our allies.

 

[Dak]

Of course they aren't "our" allies. Your relational construct is typical but incorrect. Al Qaeda is allied to the Empire. We are not the Empire.

Earlier you bemoaned that Americans could accurately infer or deduce the intents, etc of foreigners. Well, I don't have a problem with that in general. However you are doing so here. Now, we can agree that they are nominally Muslim, and obviously militant. However, beyond that, we must look at concrete politics and results. Al Qaeda functions as an arm of the Empire without fail. I repeat that the motivations of the rank and file are irrelevant here. It's a propaganda, as much as US jingoism like "A Global Force for Good". How many US military rank an file believed they were fighting in Iraq to enrich the Dick Cheney's of the world (the "blood for oil" exchange) and of course the Empire in general? How much does it matter towards results? It doesn't.

The personal wishes and aims of the individual within a collectivist institution or ideology are discountable, particularly the lower down the decision making ladder you go. The ideology and motivations of Donald Rumsfeild is infinitely more important than the ideology of Private Speedbump. "Why" should be self evident. This applies to uniformed services as much as to guerrilla groups.

 

[Einherjar86]

If you think we're not the empire, then you're delusional. Once again you try and dissociate yourself from some shadow agency at the top of the echelon. That's the other on which you project your inability to deal with the fact that you're part of an evil empire. Sorry to break it to you. Your guilty bro.

Your claim that all we can defer to is material facts and politics is also sorely misguided. I have an argument to quote, but I'm away from my texts at the moment.

 

[Dak]

Well an argument can easily be made for my personal complicity, given my veteran status etc. That aside, how is your assertion that "we all" are the empire any different than lumping all Muslims in together with the organ-eaters and suicide bombers?