chickeon posted:what would make it less scummy is explicitly acknowledging that they were wrong and apologizing for their previous abuse
Ok heres an actual weird thing, Rania had replied to this tweet from Taryn
twitter.com/fivek/status/783318856877998080
and said she has no problem admitting she was taken in before and admitting she was wrong, but I guess she deleted it because now im not seeing it lol
HenryKrinkle posted:like yeah. maybe max blumenthal isn't presenting as full a case against the white helmets as we would like. maybe he still has some residual liberalism from being the son of a clintonite or whatever. maybe he thinks he has to be more cautious in promoting a critical view in the mainstream-left media.
HenryKrinkle posted:being piled on by a crew of doxxers may have had something to do with it.
^^^^^
as much as i enjoy conspiracy talk, it's really not hard to explain all this in terms of liberal ideology, class interest, and personal interest
@HouseOfRay @GamboaCon @TheRealKalvano pee, and poo
— curry & lager dad (@sandwich_dad) September 23, 2016
May 12, 2002
This is intended for humor purposes, but does display what righties see when lefties argue against the war. If this has been posted before, then enjoy it again. If you feel like you need to complain about it being posted before, then refer to the thousands of other posts available on this wonderful site you could be viewing instead of bitching about this post!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush Should Have Stopped It -- But Not That Way!:
Instead of focusing on what we should do now, claim that Bush could have stopped 9/11 before it happened by aggressively going after the terrorists pre-911. Then reflexively oppose every suggestion the Bush administration comes up with to prevent another attack because it will create a "police state." This one drives right-wingers crazy!!
How Can We Invade Saddam When He Used To Be Our Friend?:
We must force these right-wing zealots to realize that relationships between nations are NEVER are allowed to change. Since we were friends with Saddam in the eighties, it was hypocritical of us to kick him out of Kuwait and keep him from annexing Saudi Arabia. Even if he hates us now, is acquiring nukes, and has ties to terrorists we still can't attack him -- for some reason or another. I think there is a UN rule against attacking former friends for any reason or something.
If We Preemptively Attack Iraq -- Everyone Will Do It!:
The United States could be setting a dangerous precedent here since no other nation has ever attacked another nation "preemptively." Wait a second, if that was true, shouldn't we always be at peace since no nation has ever attacked another nation except in self-defense? So that's Bush's evil plan, to spoil world peace!
Insist That We Give Inspections A Chance:
No one believes Saddam is going to actually allow unfettered inspections but we know from a decade of experience that he can literally run the inspectors around in circles for years. The more time Saddam wastes, the closer he gets to a nuclear bomb he can use to stop Bush's filthy war!
It's About The Ordinary People:
The most important reason you are against the war is because you care about the innocent people in Iraq. That's why you're so strongly against replacing the dictator who has starved, gassed, tortured, and oppressed so many of his own people -- you may not want to phrase it exactly like that, but you get the idea.
Keep Moving That Goalpost:
If the pro-war crowd starts beating you up too much because you won't support war under any circumstances, say that you are willing to use force.. A) As soon as Al-Queda is destroyed, B) the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is over C) Afghanistan is a strong and stable Democracy D) Against Iran E) Against Pakistan F) Against Iran G) If inspections fail (again) H) Once the whole world agrees with us...etc. It really doesn't matter what you come up with here because the purpose is to delay things endlessly. Even if your condition were met, you would simply change the conditions you'd need to meet your goal.
Never Admit That You Are Helping Terrorists And Dictators:
Act offended if anyone claims you are helping dictators and terrorists by opposing killing, capturing, or hindering them in any significant way. Sure that may be the actual RESULT of doing what you're suggesting, but INTENTIONS, not results, are what have to be considered.
Pretend To Be Offended When You're Accused Of Anti-Semitism:
Just because you call Palestinian terrorists "freedom fighters", condemn every Israeli attempt to defend itself from terrorist attacks, believe Jews control the US media and government, and think a land dispute is an adequate reason for blowing up women and children at a bus stop (as long as they're Jews), does not make you anti-semitic. No matter how obvious your anti-semitism is, it doesn't count unless you ADMIT that you're anti-semitic.
Remember Who The Real Enemies Are:
Obviously, George Bush and America are to blame for the 'war on terrorism.' You should certainly never blame nations like Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or the 'Disputed Territories', etc, for actually sponsoring terrorist groups that have no real purpose other than to murder innocent people.
Show Me Osama's Corpse:
Even though we haven't heard from Osama Bin Laden since the United States bombed the area he was in into blood, sand, and rubble, you must insist that the 'war on terrorism' is a failure since we don't have him in hand. Sure we haven't heard a thing from him in nine and half months but he's probably just laying low! The best thing about this one is that since Osama was probably blown into a fine red mist at Tora Bora, the Bush administration will never be able to 'prove' that he's dead. This means you can't ever be proven 'wrong' when you claim that he's still alive.
Solutions? Uh....:
When pressed for solutions it's a good idea to mumble incoherently, or just say, "I don't know what we should do, but I know war isn't the answer!!!" If you're really pressed you can suggest that America should give more aid to the poor, that one never gets old.
Tell Those 'Chickenhawks' What For:
Demand that anyone who is pro-war sign up for the military because only people who are willing to risk their lives in combat have a right to advocate going to war. If they counter with "well if you believe that, then you should go to Iraq and throw yourself on one of Saddam's bunkers so you can be a 'human shield'" either quickly change the subject or say that you detest Saddam (despite the fact that you are firmly against any attempt at removing him from power).
There's No Reason To Bomb Saddam!:
Just because Hussein is a psychopathic dictator who gassed the Iranians and his own people, fought against the United States, tried to assassinate a US President, has massive stockpiles of WMD, is seeking nukes, and has ties to terrorists doesn't mean he's dangerous. In fact, we have no evidence that the global terrorist network is still a threat at all...except for 9/11 and all the other attacks across the world since then.
War For Oil!:
This war isn't really about terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, it's about oil like every big war America fought in during the last century! Well...except for WW1, WW2, Vietnam, and Korea... but the Gulf War was all about oil! Of course, Iraq only supplies 2.1% of America's oil and Afghanistan doesn't supply any...but "everyone" says it's about oil so it must be somehow or another!
We'll Destabilize the Middle-East:
It's common knowledge that the 'Arab Street' will immediately overthrow their leaders if Muslims are harmed anywhere across the world, no matter what the reason may be. Of course, we've gotten off lucky so far since the 'Arab Street' didn't erupt when Israel bombed an Iraqi nuke site, when Israel invaded Lebanon, when Israel 'invaded' the "disputed territories" about 500 times, when Reagan bombed Libya, when the US invaded Iraq, when the Serbs were slaughtering Bosnian Muslims, when the US invaded Afghanistan, when the US bombed through Ramadan, etc, etc. But this time the 'Arab Street' is REALLY SERIOUS!!!
Congratulations! You've now learned everything you'll need to know to smash those favoring AmeriKKKan imperialism and hegemony!
Demand that anyone who is pro-war sign up for the military because only people who are willing to risk their lives in combat have a right to advocate going to war
aerdil posted:Vilerat
Insist That We Give Inspections A Chance:
No one believes Saddam is going to actually allow unfettered inspections but we know from a decade of experience that he can literally run the inspectors around in circles for years. The more time Saddam wastes, the closer he gets to a nuclear bomb he can use to stop Bush's filthy war!
Well, that would've been fun
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/13/snowden-nsa-syria-internet-outage-civil-war
i definitely heard this bit though:
At the time, the outage was widely reported, including by the Guardian, to have been at the instigation of the Syrian government, in order to destabilise opposition groups.
To: H Subject: FVV: Syria
FYI — this is a pretty cool idea.
From: Jared Cohen [mailto Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 1:21 PM
To: Burns, William J; Sullivan, Jacob J; alec.ross
Subject: Syria
Deputy Secretary Burns, Jake, Alec, Please keep close hold, but my team is planning to launch a tool on Sunday that will publicly track and map the defections in Syria and which parts of the government they are coming from. Our logic behind this is that while many people are tracking the atrocities, nobody is visually representing and mapping the defections, which we believe are important in encouraging more to defect and giving confidence to the opposition. Given how hard it is to get information into Syria right now, we are partnering with Al-Jazeera who will take primary ownership over the tool we have built, track the data, verify it, and broadcast it back into Syria. I've attached a few visuals that show what the tool will look like. Please keep this very close hold and let me know if there is anything eke you think we need to account for or think about before we launch. We believe this can have an important impact.
Thanks, Jared
Jared Cohen I Director of r't ": •Tel
xipe posted:but there Saudis have killed hundreds of people by bombing a funeral centre in Sanaa Yemen
in an airstrike planned and directed by the british army im sure
I agree, britain is one of the strongest arms exporting regimes
babyfinland posted:i never said any of that. not everyone who thinks you're ridiculous is pro-war
http://sanhati.com/excerpted/4249/ this explains the neoliberal character of the assad regime
i find it hilarious that you accuse me of moralizing but then conclude that assad is good bc of secularism or something
Saif Gaddafi is rumoured to be set free a few months back.
Word on the grapevine is that even the militias and people supporting uprising in 2011 want Libya green again.
Will be interesting to see what saif, phd in bullshit ology from LSE and formerly the main proponent of neoliberal reform says and does.... The man who did everything right in western eyes only for his father to be raped and murdered and his country figuratively.
That link above doesn't contradict my point but rather reinforces it - the Assad government seems radical in comparison to the complete subservience of other regimes.
I'd like to see how the Syrian health, education, employment, city council etc systems work.
And not cite aljazeera and cnn as in that link above
The General Federation of Workers Syndicates had prepared its own report in response to the crisis which had called for more government control over the economy and blamed the crisis on Syria’s dependent position in the global economy and the rise of non-productive sectors (Sukkar 1994). The fact that the Syndicates’ proposals were marginalised to those of the emerging business elites shows the steady decline in the influence of one of the social bases of the regime—a trend set to continue in the coming decade.
obviously they were CIA stooges who wanted to discredit socialism by re-introducing state controls over the economy before the national bourgeoisie had completed the transition to capitalism
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/jun/19.htm
The author says the Syrian government looks radical compared to Jordan or Egypt, my original point was that Syria seems radical now by holding on to some trappings of a welfare state - which if even everything in this article is true is mild compared to the neoliberal regime I live in, which is itself mild compared to the neoliberal regimes others live in.
What I was getting at is that the Syrian government was and is in reality quite inoffensive, and not the hitlerscape we've been forced to call it since 2011 before any debate can begin.
There is a lot of crazy things being done to Syria, and I suppose my point is that it has little to do with Syria itself but that much of it can be transposed anywhere with minimal groundwork
Their desperation shows how close Syria is to ending this cruel war but I don't know what capacity they have to disrupt things
https://return2source.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/marxism-bourgeois-nationalism/
pogfan1996 posted:if anyone is looking for a good rebuttal of that "______ is neoliberal and shouldnt be defended" ultra-left nonsense here ya go
https://return2source.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/marxism-bourgeois-nationalism/
that doesn't seem very convincing if there really were communists and trades unionists inside syria asking for more nationalisations
Panopticon posted:pogfan1996 posted:if anyone is looking for a good rebuttal of that "______ is neoliberal and shouldnt be defended" ultra-left nonsense here ya go
https://return2source.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/marxism-bourgeois-nationalism/that doesn't seem very convincing if there really were communists and trades unionists inside syria asking for more nationalisations
Can you expand on why you think so? The role of the Syrian government is progressive in the international system, yet it is not socialist.
this except lecturing the ypg/j on why they arent attacking hezbollah
Panopticon posted:assad's government is objectively pro-imperialist, because it opposes kurdish national liberation.
Is Kurdish nationalism the principle contradiction facing progressive forces?
pogfan1996 posted:Panopticon posted:
assad's government is objectively pro-imperialist, because it opposes kurdish national liberation.
Is Kurdish nationalism the principle contradiction facing progressive forces?
the principle contradiction facing progressives is not alienating the masses by siding with repressive governments in the global periphery.
Panopticon posted:Panopticon posted
the principle contradiction facing progressives is not alienating the masses by siding with repressive governments in the global periphery.
You summed up how liberalism infiltrates ultraleftist thinking more perfectly than I ever could have and now we get back to the core points of the thesis of the post:
Qaddafi’s government wasn’t socialist; it was nationalist. The relations of production in Libya were capitalist in nature, but to deny that Qaddafi’s government was more progressive and objectively anti-imperialist ignores the brutal material reality that millions of Libyans are facing because of the NTC government.
As the West begins to re-calibrate its war machine and set its crosshairs on President Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria, Marxist-Leninists need to understand their relationship with nationalist bourgeois states, like Qaddafi’s Libya. History has objectively proven those “leftists” who were cheerleaders for the fall of Qaddafi’s government in Libya or Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq wrong.
At the same time, every bourgeois state operates fundamentally in the interest of some sector of the capitalist ruling class, whether national or international, and in time the proletariat will replace that old machinery with socialism through revolution.
I posit these theses:
Because of their relation to imperialism after the fall of the socialist bloc, the objective historical position of nationalist states in the Third World is progressive.
Marxist-Leninists must uphold the right of nations to self-determination, which in the present is principally characterized by freedom from imperialist subjugation.
Where it arises, Marxist-Leninists must support genuine revolutionary proletarian struggles for socialism against bourgeois nationalist governments.
...
Because the nationalist bourgeoisie finds itself opposed to imperialism in the Third World, they can function as a tactical ally for the proletariat and peasantry in these same oppressed nations. Marxist-Leninists should never accept this alliance as permanent, however, and must carefully evaluate the place of the national bourgeoisie in relation to imperialism and the vast laboring masses.
pogfan1996 posted:Panopticon posted:
Panopticon posted
the principle contradiction facing progressives is not alienating the masses by siding with repressive governments in the global periphery.
You summed up how liberalism infiltrates ultraleftist thinking more perfectly than I ever could have and now we get back to the core points of the thesis of the post.:
Qaddafi’s government wasn’t socialist; it was nationalist. The relations of production in Libya were capitalist in nature, but to deny that Qaddafi’s government was more progressive and objectively anti-imperialist ignores the brutal material reality that millions of Libyans are facing because of the NTC government.
As the West begins to re-calibrate its war machine and set its crosshairs on President Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria, Marxist-Leninists need to understand their relationship with nationalist bourgeois states, like Qaddafi’s Libya. History has objectively proven those “leftists” who were cheerleaders for the fall of Qaddafi’s government in Libya or Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq wrong.
At the same time, every bourgeois state operates fundamentally in the interest of some sector of the capitalist ruling class, whether national or international, and in time the proletariat will replace that old machinery with socialism through revolution.
I posit these theses:
Because of their relation to imperialism after the fall of the socialist bloc, the objective historical position of nationalist states in the Third World is progressive.
Marxist-Leninists must uphold the right of nations to self-determination, which in the present is principally characterized by freedom from imperialist subjugation.
Where it arises, Marxist-Leninists must support genuine revolutionary proletarian struggles for socialism against bourgeois nationalist governments.
...
Because the nationalist bourgeoisie finds itself opposed to imperialism in the Third World, they can function as a tactical ally for the proletariat and peasantry in these same oppressed nations. Marxist-Leninists should never accept this alliance as permanent, however, and must carefully evaluate the place of the national bourgeoisie in relation to imperialism and the vast laboring masses.
except for the kurds, i guess