PufPuf93 » 05 Jan 2020 01:01 wrote: FourthBase
I'll ask you, since the cat got Harvey's tongue:
Are Hezbollah and Hamas jihadists?
Jihadists is a Western term to describe Islamic military movements opposing the West. As such, Jihadists is a squirrelly term.
However, Jihadists can be described as Sunni movements that are global in nature. Militant / violent Shite groups (such as Hamas and Hezbollah) are referred to most often as militias and are local / regional movements against specific perceived enemies.
There is no clear answer and in any case Jihadist is a western projection.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JihadismThe squirrel is you. "Military movements"? You mean terrorists, right? "Opposing the West"? Hezbollah and Hamas oppose
Israel, first and foremost, not
just a generalized West, although that, too, yes. And they oppose Israel first and foremost because Israel is
Jewish. Because their scripture tells them to hate, hunt, and kill Jews. And who are they to argue with Allah? If Israel were a Muslim nation that fought over territory with other Muslim nations and won, it would've been settled history a long, long time again. And none of these Islamists and jihadists would give the faintest fuck about an oppressed minority of Muslims inside that Muslim version of Israel, just like they don't care about the oppression of Muslims in Muslim countries now.
I could literally not care less what Muslims prefer to call jihadism. Oh, they don't like dragging the holy concept of jihad into it? Too bad, it's in their book. It's not merely figurative, however much the wishful thinkers and the liars would like everyone to think. They'd prefer to call them "deviants"? Tough. Jihadists aren't actually deviating from Islam as Muhammad practiced it, and according to their own doctrine they're not allowed to omit or change a thing, unfortunately. Jihadists are possibly the
least deviant Muslims. If only
more Muslims were deviants! I suspect those same Muslims who want to use "deviants" would somehow excuse Hezbollah and Hamas as non-deviants, anyway.
In the wiki article there's one person who distinguishes jihadism as having global intentions. Everyone else is content to define jihadism in a way that definitely includes Hezbollah and Hamas. Even if they weren't global jihadists (which is absurd, because every faithful Muslim wants to turn the world Islamic, especially the fanatics) they are definitely local jihadists. Militias? Sure.
Jihadist militias. Mass murder + Islamic theological justifications = Jihadism. Made zero sense to restrict jihadism to Sunnis. Of
course Shiites can be jihadists. Soleimani
was one!
Anyway, if jihadists are global not local, would that mean that the ISIS and Al Qaeda members helping the rebels fight Assad are temporarily just "militias" not jihadists? No, but according to your logic, perhaps.
The answer is clear to anyone not invested in Hezbollah and Hamas as the Good Guys in an orthodox leftist anti-Israel narrative. It's not merely a Western projection, it's common sense. The projecting is happening the other way, leftists projecting anti-imperialist wish fulfillment fantasies on a couple of loathsome terrorist organizations. Wouldn't be the first time. How many leftists think
Assad is an anti-imperialist hero? How about the Weathermen in the US? "Military movement"? Galleanists?
So, to sum up: Sure, Soleimani
was fighting jihadists in Syria. He was also
leading jihadists in Iraq and elsewhere, which makes him a jihadist
himself. Not a hero. Not worth defending. But since Trump killed him, he needs to have been righteous, to fuel the indignation. By next week the left will want to nominate him as a martyred saint.
