Trump and Clinton call for more imperialist violence in the wake of Orlando...but sadly so does Sanders

In among the reactions to the horrific mass murder in Orlando -- which it seems was committed by a man with a long-standing history of violence but with no actual ties to any terrorist organization other than mentioning one in a phone call to 911 -- were some by Bernie Sanders worthy of note including:

This tweet is terrific and is totally correct in its assertion of the importance of ending the legal sale of such weapons as the AR-15 assault rifle in the United States.

Sanders also tweeted:

And that is an important thing to say when Donald Trump is openly using dog-whistle racist politics and Hillary Clinton panders with talk of "radical Islam". Sanders quite rightly said “Our job is not to allow politicians, Mr. Trump or anyone else, to divide us up by where our family came from, the color of our skin, our religion or our sexual orientation,”

But Sanders also tweeted this:

He said it again later at a press conference. 

And that tweet and sentiment  is not just wrong-headed it is totally symptomatic of how deeply ingrained American imperialism is even among those American politicians like Sanders who have taken a more critical and isolationist view of the empire overall.

The thing is that, as despicable as ISIS is -- and it is despicable -- it actually almost certainly had exactly nothing to do with the Orlando killings other than possibly providing an excuse for its deranged perpetrator.

One might note that the United States and its adventurist interventions in the Middle East are directly responsible for the rise of ISIS. ISIS is a direct outgrowth of American attempts to "destroy" what its perceives as hindering its objectives in the region, such as the governments of Iraq, Syria and Libya.

Had the US not done this -- completely destabilizing these countries that were actually a secularist, though dictatorial, bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism -- there would be no ISIS.

More broadly though, it is ludicrous to think that a horrific homophobic hate crime directed at the LGBT community and committed by an American born extremist would have been stopped by more attempts to "destroy" ISIS. Especially given the breadth of Christian and other homophobic bigotry across the United States that has no need of ISIS to inflame hatred.

One can only assume that by saying he wants to "destroy" ISIS Sanders means he wants to escalate or maintain the bombings and intervention as both the despicable Trump and Clinton have suggested.

But as Zaid Jilani noted of those two overt imperialists in The Intercept:

Both candidates neglected to consider that no operational links between ISIS and the alleged Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen, have been discovered. While Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS shortly before the attacks, he had reportedly previously claimed connections to two groups that oppose ISIS: the Lebanese militia group Hezbollah and al Qaeda.
And neither explained how escalating bombardments in Iraq and Syria would do anything to stop self-radicalized and/or unhinged attackers in the United States.
If ISIS is not doing anything to help coordinate or assist these sorts of mass killings, then destroying it — even if that were possible — wouldn’t make any difference.
And even if you blame ISIS for “inspiring” such attacks, the fact remains that there are any number of extremist ideologies that a deranged would-be killer could derive inspiration from — and you cannot bomb them all.

Sanders and his supporters need to remember this as well. Joining the imperialist fray in anyway on this front is a diversion from everything the Sanders campaign claims to support.

Even were it somehow possible to "destroy" ISIS and not see it replaced by another extremist organization spawned of American created imperialist chaos and mass violence, that would not tackle the real issues that produced this terrible hate crime.

And that would be because those issues were all entirely born in and bred by the USA.

See also: ISIS is not Nazi Germany and the "appeasement" argument is ludicrous

See also: Non-violence -- There is a way to stop the cycle

North America's wave of Islamophobia -- This is what the start of fascism looks like

Peterborough Mosque target of racist violence

This has been a week where the pretense of civility, acceptance and  multi-cultural tolerance has been challenged in North America not just by the usual suspects that are the forces of right wing reaction, but as well by those who call themselves progressive and who should know better.

Driven by narratives of fear-and-loathing we are seeing a rise in xenophobic, racist and even violent actions and rhetoric both in our political discourse and, far more dangerously, in the "real world".

Most alarmingly is what is happening within "mainstream" discourse in the United States where Republican front-runner Donald Trump, among others, is now openly parroting the worst aspects of 1930's fascism by calling for mass deportations, forcing Muslims to wear identity badges and calling for supporters to physically attack protesters in their midst.

In Canada we have a wave of cowardly violent racist and often misogynist assaults committed primarily by men against primarily female targets. These are growing increasingly disturbing by their very frequency and by the fact that it turns out that 60% of Canadians, presumably due to the attacks in Paris, now oppose the new Liberal government's humane plan to expedite and expand the number of Syrian refugees finding safety in our country by the end of the year. A plan that, sadly, now appears to be being undermined with the Liberals seemingly on the verge of capitulating in part to xenophobic "concerns".

The attacks in Paris have served as a catalyst to liberate bigots and racists from their last restraints and to facilitate a vile and vicious "clash of civilizations" lie driven by North American religious zealots, populists and the always necessary weak-willed fellow travelling "liberals" that are relied upon by the far right to capitulate to their narratives when anything "bad" happens and when the bigots run the flag up the flag pole.

Thus we see the disgraceful sight of many Democrats lining up to support Republican insanity trying to stop Syrian refugees. A cowardice and racist indifference that will go down in history akin to that displayed in the face of those (primarily Jews) who sought refuge prior to World War II and who were turned away with equal ugliness and indifference as to the actuality of their probable fate.

A legacy of which Canada is just as guilty and upon which we should contemplate before we repeat the predictably awful mistakes of the past.

John Clarke  of the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty wrote of that faction of the "left" and of "atheists" going along with this as well as on Islamophic attacks generally:

To me, it seems obvious that the Western imperialist countries are looking to demonize Islam in order to justify war and occupation in countries with largely Muslim populations. It is also the chief means by which they hope to win support for guarded borders and domestic repression. This agenda is intensifying horribly.
I am really quite shocked and appalled that anyone who considers themselves an anti capitalist would refuse to challenge Islamophobia and stand in solidarity with Muslim people at this time. The mainstream hatemongers and the fringe elements in Canada who are engaging in threats and attacks are racists who feel at liberty to single out Muslims because they are many people of colour. However, they are also persecuting a religious minority. I have nothing but contempt for the brand of 'enlightened' atheism that opposes all religion but reserves a special hatred for Islam. If body count is the issue, a lot more people have died in the name of Christianity than Islam. If religious practices are to be condemned, I fail to see while its more 'barbaric' to wear the hijab than to drink the Blood of Christ.
A despicable and dangerous attack is underway. That maniac Trump, leading in the race of the Republican nomination, wants to force Muslims to carry special ID. Women are being beaten and having their hijabs ripped off of them in this City. To me, solidarity with those facing this attack and full support for their right to religious freedom is a duty for all of us.

Those on  the "left" who parrot bigotry under the false flags of supposed enlightened secularism are simply fellow travelers of the new emerging fascism and are nothing other -- like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins -- than the more "eloquent" apologists for the actuality that is the racist political imperialism and narratives of the George Bushes and Donald Trumps.

I have written in the past of how both simplistic "left" narratives about the niqab or hijab feed into Islamophobic racism and of how the actions and rhetoric of Canadian and Quebecois politicians inflamed popular sentiment around these issues in dangerously racist, populist tones.

Now matters seem to be coming to a head with almost daily reports of attacks on mosques, on women wearing hijabs on Toronto's subway, on women simply wearing headscarves in public and more.

People need to understand that ignorantly sanctimonious and simpleminded notions about the niqab or hijab  are not an abstraction and are not some pathetic reddit thread populated by white philosophy dropouts typing away furiously in their basement about how Islamophobia cannot be racism because entitled twits with no understanding of how real world racism and bigotry work say so.

Hundreds of thousands of human beings from all walks of life are fleeing the joint evils of ISIS, Syrian government and rebel, and Western (and now Russian) imperialist interventionist mass bombings and mass murders in Syria as well as Iraq. They are fleeing the horrific violence that has killed countless innocents and children. They are fleeing an inconceivably awful reality where there is almost no refuge from the daily degradation of air strikes, mass executions, and staggering levels of destruction and civilian suffering.

One can wax poetic with nonsensically historically blind narratives about how it is not "Canadian" or "American" to turn away those fleeing oppression. Sadly, this is not true. Canada and the United States, while they have both occasionally risen to the occasion,  have a long and despicable history of turning away those in need and fleeing oppression.

The question now is are we to do this again? Are we to allow bigots like Donald Trump or those parroting bigoted rhetoric like Brad Wall to define our policies? Are we going to let  Western racism disguised as pretend concern for women and a supposed rejection of obscurantist religious practices (a concern and rejection that, oddly, seems to be almost exclusively focused on those of the Islamic faith) help to foster a climate of racism and mass ignorance?

Or will we stand up and be counted to stop what is now is developing as one of the defining moments in recent history. A moment where we will affirm that the rhetoric of inclusion that so many of us love to pretend is woven into the fabric of what is ":Canadian" or "American" has some truth to it or where we will show it to be yet another collective lie of our history books already replete with racist lies.

Make no mistake. The sharpened and heightened rhetoric and violence of the last few weeks is what the real beginning of fascism looks like.

We need to stop it now.

See also: ISIS is not Nazi Germany and the "appeasement" argument is ludicrous

ISIS is not Nazi Germany and the "appeasement" argument is ludicrous

Every time "pundits" with little to no historical knowledge or understanding of any kind want to malign moves by a given leader to chose a path that is not explicitly militarist when confronting whatever new enemy the Western apologists for imperialism have decided needs attacking, the old canard of "didn't they learn anything from attempts to appease Hitler" is hauled out.

This ludicrously ahistorical analogy -- which one might note was used to justify the staggeringly ill-advised attack on Saddam Hussein in 2003 that helped to create ISIS --  is being used to condemn Justin Trudeau's decision to pull Canadian fighter jets out of bombing missions in the present conflict.

An example of the line of "reasoning" at play here can be found in this article from Christina Blizzard in the Toronto Sun:

In the wake of the Friday the 13th terror attacks in Paris, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau became the selfie-taking appeaser as the rest of the world declared war on ISIS.
It’s a role reminiscent of former British prime minister Neville Chamberlain, who in 1938, returned from a meeting with Adolf Hitler in Munich declaring “peace in our time.”
That worked out well.
Chamberlain famously waved an umbrella. Trudeau waved a smartphone.
History has shown that those who appease murderers and terrorists simply enable more murder and terror.

Sounds suitably erudite and frightening right?  I mean those efforts to appease Hitler obviously backfired didn't they?

Except that there is absolutely no meaningful way, other than to the stunningly simplistically minded, that the two historical situations can be remotely compared.

The first obvious difference is that Nazi Germany was one of the most powerful and advanced industrial and military nations in the world. It was capable of not only mass producing guns, artillery pieces, aircraft, tanks, submarines and so forth on an immense scale but was also able to deploy them via a disciplined military in a nation united in purpose (however evil that purpose turned out to be).

The Germans not only proved capable of taking on the French and invading and defeating them, they took on the British, United States and Soviet Union and very nearly won. They conquered and occupied France.

To note that this is so far beyond the capability of ISIS that it simply beggars belief that anyone attempts to compare the two would be a vast understatement.

To be clear, and it is crucial to understand this, even if left to its own devices entirely ISIS would never even conceivably pose the type of existential threat to countries and nations like France or Britain that Nazi Germany did. They could never invade and conquer France in a matter of weeks. They could never occupy most of Europe and drive militarily deep into Russian territory to the very gates of Moscow and beyond.

To suggest they could is beyond asinine and alone makes the comparison not simply specious but intellectually stunted and nothing more than the propaganda of the historically illiterate.

While the murders of over a hundred innocent civilians at restaurants and concerts in  Paris was horrific, the notion that it is anyway similar to the threat posed by Nazi Germany is offensive morally and intellectually.

This essential fact aside, the other difference -- and it is a massive one -- is that Nazi Germany set a course for war and genocide in the political context of the 1930's and actually began to invade and absorb entire countries in Europe, starting with Austria and Czechoslovakia, and then, with the invasion of Poland, brought matters to a head so that the Western powers at the time finally took a stand.

Nazi Germany was the aggressor on all fronts.

ISIS, however, is a product of aggression. Unlike Nazi Germany it is not attempting imperialist aggression but is actually a creation of imperialist aggression. It only exists due to the decision of the United States to invade Iraq under false pretenses (something eerily similar to the actions of the Nazis in justifying the launching of their wars) and due to the now obviously misguided decision of the West to intervene in undermining the Syrian regime.

While France nonsensically talks about the attack by ISIS as a "declaration of war" the West, including France, have been involved in military interventions and attacks in this conflict long before these attacks in Paris and these actions by the West have killed far, far, far  more innocent people than have terrorist attacks.

Not only has no effort been made to "appease" anyone, Western military action and mass violence in the region resulted in the very threat that reactionaries now rant about.

ISIS is a byproduct of military intervention and action. It is very, very hard to see how it, or something else similar that will replace it, will be ended by such actions.

History is often distorted to serve narratives, though seldom this moronically. To be clear, while ISIS is a profoundly vile, destructive and violently reactionary force, neither its origins nor capabilities bare any comparison to Nazi Germany, it is wrong and deeply offensive to the victims of Nazi Germany to suggest otherwise, and it displays a staggering lack of knowledge of historical context that would almost be darkly humorous -- like theories about "ancient aliens"-- were it not, in this instance, being used to justify more incredibly wrongheaded attacks and killings and a Western militarist agenda that is a straight up lie.

See also: Non-violence -- There is a way to stop the cycle