> So, my question is: Does it, always and everywhere
> mean what you say
> it means? Or is there a range that's being drowned
> out in the
> hysteria?
Yes, of course. As I understand the situation in Uzbekistan, at least, the extremist Islamists are winning out in part because moderate voices, Islamist or otherwise, have been silenced (e.g. intimidated, imprisoned or killed).
>
> No. The instinctive leftie reaction is that there's
> something that's
> brought this about, not that the response to
> oppression is always and
> everywhere "good".
>
Yes, I was exaggerating. First of all, by "leftie" I meant "anglo-American leftie," of the sort that kept denying that Islamism was a big factor in Chechnya until it was impossible to deny it. "It's all Russian propaganda" and so forth. (Not just lefties were doing this, of course, it was the whole gamut of AA political opinion -- but being a leftie myself I'm particularly angry at those guys.) Secondly, I was thinking of certain groups in the AA left who argue that "we should never dispute the ideology or tactics of the 'resistance.'" God knows Karimov is a fucker. Is there a realistic alternative that would be better? I don't know enough about Uzbekistan to say.
>
> And who might the "you" or "we" be? Or, maybe the
> question might be:
> Do you prefer to stick with the oppressive
> governments? In another
> guise and another time, should the left have
> supported the Shah of
> Iran?
A lot of the left did... I think these things should be taken on a case by case basis (a lame answer, I know).
But
> in instances where, because of the powers of the
> oppression, all
> other voices are stilled or assimilated to that
> which we all love to
> hate, then sanity suggests that "we" might just sit
> it out.
I can't (and I suspect you can't) just "sit it out." Islamism affects us both, right? You probably more than me -- you live in an overwhelmingly Muslim country, whereas over here only 15% of the population is Muslim. I would be really interested in hearing your thoughts on Islamism -- how strong is it there? What does it mean to the general population?
>
> Incidentally, having lived in one of the hotspots of
> the former Cold
> War, may I suggest that the language being used is
> all too
> reminiscent of that of anti-communism?
That is true. Interestingly, there war an article in the last issue of "Russki Newsweek" with the headline "The Revolt in Uzbekistan is a Conflict Between Soviet and Islamic Civilizations."
Then, too,
> there were powerful
> voices telling us that they knew what Communism
> meant, loud and
> clear, and that it too did not have good-heartedness
> at its base, as
> could be evidenced by the assassinations and the
> killings and the
> booby-traps and bombings and strikes, etc.; that
> Communism, too, was
> only a "liberation" movement...
> centres were filled with "communists" and "communist
> terrorists" or
> CTs; today they are filled with "islamists" and
> "islamist
> terrorists". Should we pursue them as ruthlessly as
> we once did the
> communists?
>
I don't know how your country dealt with the designated "Communists," except in the well-known general way (Suharto, CIA, etc.). My view is that people like Karimov have painted as "Islamist terrorists" everybody who is a religious opponent to the regime, and then some. That doesn't mean that the radicals aren't a real threat. I don't know how things are where you are. But over here (Russia), "Islamist" or "Wahhabi" automatically mean "medieval bastard," and that includes the Muslim population. Note how the majority of terrorist attacks in Russia target the Muslim population, as in the Kaspisk bombing a couple of years ago, when they blew 30-40 Muslim schoolchildren to litle bits/
Nu, zayats, pogodi!
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail