Phil Quin on the left’s irrational rationale for not fighting ISIS

Phil Quin has a thoughtful and robust piece on ISIS, Islam and the left’s?irrational rationale for not fighting these scumbags.

Firstly are they Islamic?

For goodness sake, ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh may or may not conform to an acceptable interpretation of Islamic texts, but it?s clear they think they do???and who am I to argue? Or you, for that matter?

The question about ISIS and its religious roots is not really as serious or important as it first appears. Squabbling over which religious texts to take literally, which to relegate to metaphor, and which to ignore outright, is a feature of all intra-faith discourse. Of course ISIS is deeply marinated in their own version of Islam in ways no more or less ridiculous or arbitrary than any other iteration of religious belief. Muslims who disagree with them say that ISIS are not true Islam in the same way Martin Luther rejected Catholicism?s claims for itself. It?s like people arguing over who should rule Westeros, only a lot less interesting.

The near universal loathing of the military funeral picketing Westboro Baptist Church doesn?t stop its adherents from being both Christian and motivated by their understanding of what being a Christian means. Or???here?s a better example???how about the entire Catholic Bloody Church? I haven?t read the bible, but I?m pretty sure it provides provides greater scriptural justification for Westboro?s ?God Hates Fags? (Leviticus, apparently) than, say, transubstantiation or papal infallibility (nowhere).

ISIS are Islamic…it is in their name for god’s sake…Islamic State.

The more interesting development is how large swaths of the political far-left have become eager and subservient poodles to radical Islamism. At first glance, it is a baffling development???but quite straightforward on reflection. A cursory review of modern history will confirm that the dogmatic left will happily support genocidal maniacs as long as their shared enemy is the United States (oh, and Israel). (And it?s not hard for them to ignore or downplay the religious component of Islamic jihad since Leftists, almost always non believers themselves, just won?t take terrorists at their word;they refuse to accept that terrorists actually believe this shit).

Aside from an inability to take religious belief at face value, Leftists far prefer to shoehorn radical Islam into their conception of human events as a binary conflict between ?the oppressed? (good guys) and ?the oppressor? (bad guys).

(There is another reason???that elements of the Left are bored with Western civilisation and find the destructive nihilism of ISIS exhilarating???but I cannot summon the energy to mount that case).

The silence of the left on the excesses of ISIS, where they hurl gay men off tall buildings, burn people alive and hack the heads off aid workers.

There is only one determinant to ascertain where one sits on the Left?s perpetrator-victim continuum: relative proximity to the U.S. (oh, and Israel). This does not always work out in Islam?s favour: Saudis, Jordanians and Turks are roundly maligned for their refusal to sufficiently hate America, which explains why a flogging in Jeddah or the suspension of Twitter in Ankara attracts many times the outrage on the Left than the atrocities of ISIS. Leftists also tended to side against majority Muslim Indonesia, and with the Catholic Timorese, over Suharto?s criminal annexation of East Timor largely because Jakarta was perceived as being on the wrong side of the Cold War. (The case of Timor Leste creates considerable cognitive dissonance on the Left since Osama bin Laden, heralded as a product of U.S. imperialism, cited Timorese decolonisation as a central Al Qaeda grievance???highlighting the terminal fallacy in the the Left?s coddling of Islamism: jihadis don?t reject imperialism at all; they just want their own empire.)

This victim-perp algorithm applies even in extreme cases.

Hutu Power leaders who carried out the genocide in Rwanda have been embraced as cause c?l?bre by Radical Leftists because the mostly Tutsi army that stopped the killings (and now form the post-genocide government) have close ties to Washington. By association, the Rwandan Government (which I consulted for three years) is branded an ?oppressor? whenever it so much as glances in the direction of the hapless Democratic Republic of Congo, and is pilloried relentlessly for alleged human rights abuses that pale in comparison to those carried out in countries run by governments less tainted by ties to the West.

In the case of the Balkans, the ?good guys? were not Muslims, but the Serbian nationalists who were killing them. Why? Because Slobodan Milosevic was an avowed Marxist who opposed NATO and thumbed his nose at America. In fact, before acting as lead counsel for Rwandan genocidaires, a Marxist cretin by the name Christopher Black was Vice Chair of the International Committee for the Defence of Slobodan Milosevic. No coincidence.

The West is not immune Phil Quin points out with the policy of supporting Pol Pot, but then again…so did the left, Keith Locke one of the more famous Kiwi sympathisers of Pol Pot and his murderous Khmer Rouge regime.

It is bullshit to claims that Islamist acts of terror have nothing to do with Islam, or that ISIS are freedom-fighting anti-imperialists in sheik?s clothing. However tenuous their grasp on scripture, these are swivel-eyed religious fanatics on a killing spree of shocking proportions. Common antipathy towards U.S. (oh, and Israel) is a very bad reason not to stop them.

With outrageous statements like that I think his excommunication with Labour will continue.

– Phil Quin, Medium