The Myth of Moderate Choppers Persists: Yes, All Islamists!
Normally Counterpunch are great, and yet…
What on earth were they thinking?
This tiresome ‘post’-secularist screed is hilariously replete with cringing petit-bourgeois decency and modesty and timidity of spirit for a ‘muckraking since 1993’ article.
How the mighty have fallen! I suppose this regressive leftist educated simpleton is going to tell us criticism of the Myanmar Junta is Buddhismophobic, and criticizing far right Hindutva/Bharata theocrats is Hinduismophobic?
Or then again, I suppose not. Who is to say, really?!
At one point, she even risks veering dangerously close to the final abyss, and stops just short of outright terrorist apologism:
Where she says that the Muslim Brotherhood are not the same as they were in the past (which I can only interpret, in context, as an attempt to avoid any analogy being drawn between the Brotherhood and their fellow ‘moderate political Islamists’ the Islamic State)…
To paint all Muslims or Islam as the enemy is a most despicable act of cowardice and dangerous political opportunism. It is immoral on its face. And today’s Muslim Brotherhood is nothing like its 20th century version.
How is it possible to read this other than as a deliberate attempt to distance the Muslim Brotherhood from those who practice the most explicitly abusive and oppressive forms of Islam, such as the Islamic State, or Jabhat-al-Nusra, or any other such organisation?
Will Laroux now start singing from the neocon hymnsheet, and ask for negotiations with the moderate Taliban, or even moderate ISIS?
The only moderate political Islamist is a dead political Islamist.
Or as the old joke runs:
IS value death more than they value life…
So let’s hope the Syrians and the Iraqis can play matchmaker!
Interestingly enough, however, she does not condemn the Islamic State, for reasons which remain obscure to me.
After all, the NUS condemned criticism of IS as ‘Islamophobic,’ so it is interesting that the AIU (Anti-Islamophobia Industry) party line finds no support from Laroux.
It seems, then, that Laroux is genuinely outraged by the Islamic State, but feels less strongly about the Brotherhood.
Steven Sotloff had a similar view. That didn’t end well. If crimes against religion are victimless crimes, crimes against the individual are beyond all forgiveness.
How many more individuals must suffer from theocrats of all faiths, and their useful idiots in the regressive left?