Osama Bin Laden: socialism\’s to blame for him

An interesting point made in The Guardian\’s obituary:

The late 1970s saw universities across the Arab world torn by fierce ideological struggle. In Egypt, while leftists battled, both physically and intellectually, the increasing number of supporters of Islamist doctrines, which, though circulating in the region since the 1930s, had been re-energised by the failures of Arab armies against Israel in 1967 and 1973 and by the increasingly apparent inability of secular pan-Arab, nationalist or socialist ideas to bring any social or economic improvement to the lives of hundreds of millions.

Socialism doesn\’t work and reliant upon that fact, that it doesn\’t work, we can blame the whole jihadi movement.

That does seem to be what The Guardian is telling us, certainly.

11 comments on “Osama Bin Laden: socialism\’s to blame for him

  1. Hmm. Worth bearing in mind that the ideological engineer of Khomeini’s regime was a Sorbonne-educated communist called, something or other, too lazy to look him up. Probably has an “Al” in it.

    Most of the monsters of the Third World have been products of the Sorbonne and LSE. Modern “Islamism”, like fundamentalisms in general, is not something old, it’s a new synergy, and contains large dollops of western leftist thought, e.g. the “imperialist west” narrative.

  2. Ali Shariati.

    Back in the day when I was, shall we say, a lot more sympathetic to Islamists, I read a bit of Shariati. He is not a particularly original thinker, but he is appealling nonetheless. Not quite sure why. But he is the one who linked the Shia view of their suffering with the Marxist concept of the proletariat via Franz Fanon.

  3. G Orwell – “I think the problem is Islam.”

    Careful. Such a Thought Crime is probably illegal. Certainly it would get you banned at the Guardian.

    2 Rob – “There will be much weeping and wailing in the corridors of the BBC and Guardian today.”

    I notice, apropo nothing, that Liberal Conspiracy seems to be down. No doubt they were all celebrating too much.

  4. Anyway, why the unseemly haste in disposal of the corpse? At sea? Bit fishy, isn’t it?

    Tim adds: Fishy? Soon will be, yes.

  5. @Ian B: It is straightforward enough, and reasonably well thought out. Quick: show respect to Islamic rules about rapid burial, and avoid one ground for supporters to stir up quasi-religious indignation. Maritime: ensure that there is no grave, no relics.

  6. I’m sorry, but I don’t get the second sentence of the quote. Where is the verb? Does the dependent clause end with the second comma (“battled” as intransitive), or is there no principal clause at all?

  7. ……Modern “Islamism”, like fundamentalisms in general, is not something old, it’s a new synergy, and contains large dollops of western leftist thought, e.g. the “imperialist west” narrative……

    The political narrative of the Islamist government in Turkey is very Marxist, despite it being nominally a right wing government.

  8. ……why the unseemly haste in disposal of the corpse? At sea?…..

    Assuming that we are being told the truth, my favourite theory is this:

    The US government actually wants people to doubt that he has been killed. This will massively blunt any retaliation and backlash.

    Across the Muslim world, the most common reaction seems to be “we don’t believe you”. That stops supporters burning down embassies or lynching Westerners. By the time they accept that it has happened, the anger will be gone.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.