Adonis Diaries

Archive for September 21st, 2014

France is ditching the ‘Islamic State’ name — and replacing it with a label the group hates

From the start, exactly what to call the extremist Islamist group that has taken over much of Syria and Iraq has been problematic.

At first, many called it the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or (the acronym Daesh in Arabic).

However, due to differences over how the name should be translated from the Arabic, some (including the U.S. government) referred to them as ISIL (the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant).

(The US preferred ISIL in order to satisfy the wishes of their obscurantist Wahhabi Saudi Arabia monarchy that is scared to giving the ISIS any further expansion schemes into Saudi Arabia, the hotbed of Wahhabism and their homeland. Wahhabism is the extreme Protestant counterpart in Islamic sects)

To make matters more complicated, the group later announced that it should simply be called the “Islamic State” – a reference to the idea that the group was breaking down state borders to form a new caliphate.

(Or the caliphate title is thought after by the Saudi monarchy)

A number of media groups, including The Post, the Associated Press  and, eventually, the New York Times, adopted this name, while others stuck with ISIS and ISIL.

Now the French have added another complication.

On Monday, the French government released a statement that included a reference to the group under a different name: “Daesh.

September 17 , 2014

France had hinted that it would begin using this term – how the group is referred to in much of the Arab world – before, but this week appears to be the first time that the country has used it in official communications.

This is a terrorist group and not a state,” Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told reporters last week, according to France 24.

I do not recommend using the term Islamic State because it blurs the lines between Islam, Muslims and Islamists. The Arabs call it ‘Daesh’ and I will be calling them the ‘Daesh cutthroats.’ ”

That logic is certainly understandable, and the French aren’t alone in bristling at the idea that an extremist group gets to take the moniker “Islamic State.”

Last month, Egypt’s leading Islamic authority, Dar al-Ifta, called on the world’s media to stop using the term, instead suggesting a new term: “al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria” or QSIS.

“The initiative by Dar al-Ifta came to express the institution’s rejection of many stereotypes that attach the name of Islam to bloody and violent acts committed by such groups,” Ibrahim Negm, an adviser to Egyptian grand mufti Shawqi Allam, told al-Arabiya News.

And a group of British imams recently called on British Prime Minister David Cameron to stop calling the group “Islamic State,” making a request for a new moniker, “Un-Islamic State,” instead.

“We do not believe the terror group responsible should be given the credence and standing they seek by styling themselves Islamic State,” a letter sent from the imams to Cameron read, according to the Guardian. “It is neither Islamic, nor is it a state.

Despite the admirable French logic, Daesh comes with its own complications.

As historian and blogger Pieter van Ostaeyen noted back in February, that word is a transliteration of an Arabic word (داعش), an acronym for al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham (which is itself a transliteration of the group’s Arabic name: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام).

There are a variety of different schools of transliteration, and there are a number of different styles for writing the Arabic acronym in Latin characters: The Washington Post uses DAIISH, but DAASH, DAIISH and DAISH are also used.

However it’s spelled, there’s another big factor: The group is reported to hate the moniker.

The Associated Press recently reported that the group were threatening to cut out the tongues of anyone who used the phrase publicly, and AFP have noted that the term “Daeshi” has been used a derogatory term in some parts of the Middle East.

Some analysts have suggested that the dislike of the term comes from its similarity to another Arabic word, دعس, or Das. That word means to trample down or crush.

Adam Taylor writes about foreign affairs for The Washington Post. Originally from London, he studied at the University of Manchester and Columbia University.

 

“There’s No School In Gaza, There Are No More Kids Left” chants Israelis in Tel Aviv

Gaza is a cemetery

One of the most extreme forms of racism I have seen.

Israelis in Tel Aviv chanting “There’s no school in Gaza, there are no more kids left, Gaza is a cemetery“.

Marching Israelis In Tel Aviv Chant ‘There’s No School In Gaza, There Are No More Kids Left’

A horde of Israeli activists in Tel Aviv has been caught on video cheering the genocide of Gaza children, chanting, “There are no more kids left”.

Translated by HuffPost, the rabble sings: “There’s no school in Gaza, there are no more kids left”.

The video concludes with the crowd chanting “Gaza is a cemetery”.

The YouTube video, which was highlighted by the International Solidarity Movement, purportedly shows a march on Saturday in which Israelis, waving flags, showed their support for the ongoing campaign in Gaza, whilst admonishing two Arab members of the Knesset, Ahmad Tibi and Haneen Zoabi.

The latest offensive in Gaza has resulted in more than 2,100 Palestinian deaths, including many civilians, since fighting began three weeks ago, and over 11,000 injured

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story translated the chant as, “There’s no school tomorrow, there are no children left”. The activists actually say, “There’s no school in Gaza, there are no more kids left”.

Note: Israel prevented Palestine minister of education to visit Gaza on the first day of school opening.

 

Lenin. Lousy Marxist theoretician, Master political tactician genius? For instituting what?

In his writing of “What to do” and “Two Tactics“, Lenine denounced the thesis that spontaneous mass revolution existed or could be relied upon for a meaningful revolution intended to destroy the previous institutional system of power.

Lenin insisted that only a “Revolutionary Party” can guide and execute a successful revolution, to lead and educate the proletariat.

As the Russian troops returned from the front in February 1917, being totally crushed and annihilated by the German forces, famine and precarious supplies… the Russians overthrew the Tzarist monarchy.

Most expatriate Russians returned to their homeland, each political party wanting to do their brand of revolution.

Lenin had spent 20 years abroad, and when he returned in 1917, he realized that the Russian masses were already in ebullition, and demanding bread, peace from wars and peace to all, lands for the peasants, control of the enterprises by the workers, emancipation and auto-determination for the various “nationalists’ and minorities.

Consequently, Lenin had to deal with a spontaneous revolution that was not engaged for liberalism or socialism, but for pragmatic interests.

He thus wrote “The state and the revolution” in order to launch his reversal position on spontaneous communities and to proclaim “All the power to the Soviets

And Lenin started to expound on the spontaneity of the masses in his speeches as deep and invincible force that will eventually and surely allow socialism to prevail in Russia and all of Europe.

These positions were mostly tactical in nature since Lenin never believed on the spontaneity of the masses to grab power.

Lenin plays politics and view all his work from a political perspective, pragmatic, tactical and relying on a well-organized political party.

Lenin failed in his first attempt to grab power in February 1917 and was forced to flee to Finland

Kerenski and his Menchevik party were the master of Russia and composed the vast majority in the Soviets and parliament.

From February to October, Lenin studied Kerenski’s character and realized that he was indecisive and didn’t press on his decision.

Kerenski main worry was any counter-attack from the monarchist forces and totally neglected the activities of the minority bolchevik movement.

In October 16, 1917, Lenin sent messsages from Finland to prepare an insurgency before October 25, the date of the Second Soviets Congress.

As the leaders of his party failed to respond seriously to his messages, Lenin decided to move closer and returned to Petrograd in catimini.

He immediately met with the central committee and did his best to vote for the insurrection. The majority were against this decision. Even Trotsky was against the date and wanted the insurrection after the congress meeting.

Dzerjinsky, (the future chief of the secret services or Tcheka), backed Lenin and together managed to round a positive vote.

Kamenev and Zinoviev  decided to submit their resignation from the central committee and refused to participate in the preparation of the insurgency operations.

Lenin relied on “professionals’ in preparing and staging insurrections. For example, the main leaders were Trotsky, Dzerjinsky, Antonov-Ovseenko, Lachevitch, Podvoiski and Nevski.

Part of the success of the insurrection was that the people ceased to believe that the government is serious of delivering on its two main promises:

1. Reaching a peace agreement with Germany and

2. Starting the agrarian reform for distribution of lands to the peasants

The other factor was how the bolcheviks managed to recruit the Revolutionary Military Committee as its main military force.

The Revolutionary Military Committee was established by Kerensky to defend Petrograd in the eventual progress of the German troops to enter the provisiory capital.

The Revolutionary Military Committee ordered the army garrison to obey its orders instead of the government or other institutions.

The insurrectionists entered the Winter Palace and detained the minsters of the government the night of October 24. Kerenski was up North trying to gather a few regiments.

On October 25, the Congress was held and the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries stomped out and left the bolcheviks to form the central committee and form the government.

Marxism for Lenin is identified as a revolution to grab power.

And every other political move is plainly tactical to reach the objective of snatching the power.

Once lenine grabs the power, all his decisions are focused on centralizing his power.

Only the bolchevik dailies are allowed and the unity of his party prime over all other concerns.

Reconstituting a centralized state is the name of the game with its State structures emulated along the ‘western culture” that lenine consider as the most developed and most efficient of all institutions, particularly the German institutions.

For Lenin, compared to Germany in military and state structures, Russia is an “Asiatic Barbarian country”

The other specific trait of Lenin was to view Marxism as an international movement in order to liberate the colonized people. And the Russian revolution was meant to ignite revolutions all over the world, and that position was steady until 1920 as Lenin recognized that his revolution is facing radical difficulty to be a viable disseminator of revolution around the world.

After 1920, Lenin revert to the concept that of saving the revolution in Russia first and foremost.  Stalin will stick to that stand until after WWII.

Within 4 years (1917-1920), Lenin who never had any State function in his life, consolidated his power on the State and his party.

What the Russian Communist party decided as “Orthodox Marxism” in its successive international congress was adopted and all other communist versions condemned as “heretics”, depending on the interest of the Russian party and the Secretary genera; of the period.

Lenin is remembered not a Marxist theoretician, but mostly as a political genius who implanted a Marxist State, regardless of the violence and dictatorial practices that were used and adopted to firmly establish the revolutionary and centralized state.

It is Stalin who will bear all the blame, though it was Lenin who codified and organized the brutal practices.

Many authors would like to define as a master political tactician with no strategy.

I beg to differ. The way he conducted the revolution, single-minded and stubbornly proves that his strategy was clear, well-defined and was the guiding rod to all his manipulations before and after the revolution.

He never deviated from his strategy and confronted the leaders of his party at every turn until he turned them round to his views,

If Lenin had no definite strategy, all his political tactics would have led to nowhere and his revolution would have withered in no time.

Note: Read the french book “Lenine”  Helene Carriere d’ Encausse.


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

September 2014
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  

Blog Stats

  • 1,428,657 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 776 other followers

%d bloggers like this: