how much more ridiculous can anarchists get?
e: anarchism snipe
tears posted:*chanting* his name was SONOFCONESLAMMER
did you fucking fightclub in myt hread.
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/383291-syria-kurdish-balkanization-us-forces/
chickeon posted:decent piece from al ebanese lady that makes clear that the concerns some of us have about the present situation are not restricted to a bunch of kooky twitter folk
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/383291-syria-kurdish-balkanization-us-forces/
I'm not sure what value yet another article which discusses the ypg's "loud and clear" collaboration with the US as a relevant factor while completely ignoring comparative russian support. this manichaeism where russia are the unambiguous main ally of the syrian arab army while kurdish autonomy is irreparably associated with US designs is absurd, as i have repeatedly pointed out.
nobody doubts that the us aspires to wield kurdish autonomy in the fashion discussed. the problem is discussing this on the level of intentions alone without investigation of whether they are actually reflective of practical conditions on the ground. the only substantiation attempted for this is pointing toward tactical military support from the us but it is completely arbitrary why this is relevant while russian military support somehow isn't
this is further exasperated by the allegation that the kurdish forces are seemingly "fully under the control of the us" based on nothing
i don't see any reason to take this discussion seriously unless a distinction between us designs for balkanization and a constitutionally mandated federalism supported by russia can be made. and actual evidence is provided to substantiate the practical association with each of these models. beyond just arbitrarily including or excluding foreign military support when it suits the argument
i know i have been continuously repeating the same objections but none of these arguments have addressed them
blinkandwheeze posted:i don't see any reason to take this discussion seriously unless a distinction between us designs for balkanization and a constitutionally mandated federalism supported by russia can be made.
the distinction can easily be made but you need to take into consideration those intentions you so casually dismiss as meaningless despite all circumstantial evidence to the contrary. if you are satisfied with the making the purely abstract semantic point that federalism and balkanisation could be similar in effect then that's fine, but you're talking like things like NATO don't exist and it's frankly a bit weird
Petrol posted:the distinction can easily be made but you need to take into consideration those intentions you so casually dismiss as meaningless despite all circumstantial evidence to the contrary.
i'm not saying they're meaningless, it should be obvious that i'm questioning why american intentions are meaningful when russian intentions somehow aren't. if "intentions and military support" are sufficient to establish the character of the rojava project and kurdish autonomy then it's a completely arbitrary decision to factor in the u.s. as the one relevant power.
every single argument i have seen used to establish the determinant role of u.s. intentions and designs can equally be applied to russia. so i think these arguments are worthless and only work through an unjustified exclusion of what doesn't fit the narrative
Petrol posted:if you are satisfied with the making the purely abstract semantic point that federalism and balkanisation could be similar in effect then that's fine, but you're talking like things like NATO don't exist and it's frankly a bit weird
i don't know what this means. i'm saying that constitutionally mandated federalism is not the same thing as balkanisation, that's my whole point
Edited by blinkandwheeze ()
blinkandwheeze posted:i'm saying that constitutionally mandated federalism is not the same thing as balkanisation, that's my whole point
perhaps it is all the hyperbolic snarky language you use that makes your point unclear, then. really though, could you please explain what your position is because at this point i don't think it's clear who you're criticsing and why
Petrol posted:perhaps it is all the hyperbolic snarky language you use that makes your point unclear, then. really though, could you please explain what your position is because at this point i don't think it's clear who you're criticsing and why
Russia has repeatedly intervened in support of the ypg with the intention of forwarding a peaceful, constitutionally mandated democratic provision for kurdish autonomy in northern syria. the ypg have repeatedly shown a willingness to coordinate with russia and the syrian arab army. they also share with the syrian republic an existential opposition to the turkish forces and imperialist backed militia violating syrian sovereignty.
the syrian republic has made statements affirming syrian arab army support of the ypg but is reticent toward kurdish autonomy in northern syria in the fear that federalism would supersede their constitution and democratic process. russian intentions toward a peaceful federal arrangement pursued through constitutional means allay these concerns and present a model for northern syria which provides autonomy but is not balkanization
despite all this, the project for federal autonomy in northern syria is assumed to be identical to a u.s. ideal of balkanization and is necessarily a fracturing and partition of syria. the justification for why this is the case are a confluence of u.s. intentions and their limited tactical military support for the ypg. but it is not clear at all why u.s. intentions and military support are sufficient to characterise this as such, while russian intentions and russian military support (alongside coordination with and support by the syrian arab army) apparently warrant no consideration
this leads to things like the bizarre manichaeism in the article above where the ypg are identified as seemingly under the control of the u.s., while russia is the syrian republics key ally, as if russia were not active and overt supporters of the ypg
at the impasse of conflicting intentions and conflicting powers offering military support, you can't just talk about intentions or support of one side alone while ignoring the other to make a point.
Edited by blinkandwheeze ()
in any case i refer to my previous statement dismissing the question entirely because i really think it's unworthy of this much of our attention. suffice to say that at least the ypg mean well.
1) They're gaining fighting experience and accumulating weapons. I think this is more than offset by their fighting the enemies of Syria at the moment, but it's something one may want to keep in mind.
2) They're retaking land that wasn't Kurdish before, effectively expanding their territory. I dismiss this one now that they've been handing territory back to SAA control.
3) The US is building military bases across Kurdish territory?? I don't know how permanent these bases are, but the US establishing a presence in Kurdish territory could allow them to dictate balkanizing terms in a future arrangement, although this US behavior seems unlikely given Turkey's contrasting interests.
Petrol posted:i think the thing that puts people off more than anything though is the propaganda around, and discursive function of, rojava as the worthy leftist cause in opposition to critical support of the syrian government. and frankly for the western left it is little more than that - a rhetorical device.
I agree of course i just think people often put too much stake in the rhetorical and discursive functions of things in western conversations, to a degree that it influences their understanding of what's actually going on.
it seems that many left people are determined to reduce the efforts of the kurds, and make them out to be us patsies. that's only half true. the kurds in iraq, the barzani clique, are definitely in the u.s.' pocket. the pkk, and the ypg which shares many of the same members and ideology, have been fighting against a nato power for 40 years.
as an individual, your criticism, or support, have very little value. unless you're willing to go over there and fight. so why is there such a strong desire to be right, and deny their efforts because you think down the road they'll betray you?
no one cares if you're right or wrong. if the betrayal comes, you being right won't matter one bit. until it does, i think you should support the ypg and ypj, in solidarity with other leftists fighting for the cause.
Mao had american advisers during the second world war, by your metrics, we should deny his revolutionary credentials as he's an american patsy. listen, a holier than thou attitude might serve you well during your fucking study circles, but for people actively making the revolution, you take help where you can get it, without compromising your ideals.
everyone always complains about leftish infighting as being the reason we never get anything done, but half of you seem very eager to criticize. how about waiting till you're in active armed opposition to a NATO power before you criticize? you being critical of ypg is of no material gain to movement building in your western country, and i'm sure the kurds don't really give a fuck about your criticism, since you're not there and you seem distrustful of their motives anyway. but they would probably appreciate your moral support. so ask yourself, do you want to criticize a leftist armed group and have no material effect whatsoever, or support them and have a small morale boost to them?
i know what side i'd be on.
blinkandwheeze posted:That isn't to say i think russian support or intentions are sufficient in themselves either, just as a rebuke to arguments focusing on u.s. interests and support alone.
when i read stuff that does that, it comes across to me as the genuine article of what i've gotten accused of on here and elsewhere, denying the power of other actors in the world in order to prop up an idea of the united states as all-powerful and all-knowing. where to me assuming the competence of powerful foreign-policy-impacting parties in the united states in most cases only reinforces the underlying weakness of the global bourgeois position, because maintaining any level of control over situations nowadays involves creating islands of support among certain foreign nationalists and hopping from one to the other frantically, which i don't think is any spook's or resource extractor's ideal for maintaining a system of control given still-fresh nostalgia for the measure of bourgeois-instigated polarity that was achieved during the cold war.
i think when people start subsuming any other position in whatever the united states is currently using to balance its position, that's when the arguments become absurd fun-house mirrors of western propaganda.
He said the Kurds wanted to remain part of Syria. "I am confident we will reach an understanding with them after accomplishing the struggle against terrorism", he said.
The head of the main Syrian Kurdish militia, the YPG, last month indicated it was ready to reach an accommodation with the Syrian government once Kurdish rights are secured. The dominant Syrian Kurdish parties say they want to maintain a form of local autonomy in an eventual settlement to the Syrian war.
afghan moaists:
"Sehar Saba, a particularly foam-flecked RAWA spokesman, ranted that the Soviet Union “tried to force change on us. They told men they should shave their beards, and that women shouldn’t wear scarves, when for centuries they have followed those customs. They forced women and men not to pray” (She Said It, August 2000 ). In a like vein, Tahmeena Faryal raved that the Soviet forces “were trying to give some rights to Afghan women that are obviously okay in Western societies, but are not acceptable in our societies.... For example, they wanted to give so-called liberties of having a boyfriend or dancing in a nightclub, which are not acceptable in our society” (Z Magazine, January 2002)."
more than half doctors, teachers, civil servants in the Afghan Peoples Republic were women + 15,000 women in self-defense battalions in the army defending themselves from the taliban!
western trots & maoists supporting them:
(by protesting outside the soviet embassy alongside Christian Crusade Against Communism and swastica-tatted neo-nazi skinheads)
"International Socialists Unmasked
On January 18 the left-talking International Socialists (IS) joined the brazenly reactionary Maoists in Melbourne to demonstrate against "Russian imperialism" and "Russian aggression in Afghanistan" --together with notorious Nazi Ross ("the Skull") May, the Christian Mission to the Communist World, and the Baltic Council of Australia: Nothing could demonstrate more obscenely that the real political foundation of the IS is not "militant" shop-floor reformism, petty-bourgeois "worker talk", "fight the fascists" rhetoric or even occasional adventurism.
All that is subordinated to the IS pro-imperialist program of "CIA socialism", from Korea to Vietnam and now Afghanistan -- the true defining feature of this political current since its birth as a revisionist split from Trotskyism."
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/icl-spartacists/periodicals/australasian/1980_February_Austral_Suppl.pdf
Edited by xipe ()
“We hope that the United States will not confine itself to punishing the Syrian regime alone, because there are a lot of chemical weapons in Syria and others parties have also used it, in Sheikh Maqsoud, in Rojava , and Raqqa,” Muslim said as he was speaking to US-funded Voice of America from Brussels, naming alleged chemical attacks by ISIS and Syrian opposition forces.
Muslim said that he cannot assess whether or not the US strikes against a Syrian airbase overnight will have a positive or negative results on the ground. “We will look at the results,” he said.
He however said that this may force parties on the ground to realize that there is not a military solution to the six-year civil in Syria that has claimed half a million lives, by some estimates. From this perspective, the strikes may turn out to be good, he noted.
“We believe that this attack must yield positive results since the parties who did not believe in a political solution may reconsider and see that there is no military solution,” Muslim argued, explaining that the US was “forced” to take actions in an atmosphere where they were left with no other options.
Muslim is the co-leader of the Democratic Union Party (PYD), the political party in northern Syria aligned with the armed YPG who are receiving military backing from the US-led coalition as part of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). He has helped to carve out a mainly Kurdish enclave in northern Syria.
Muslim hoped that the US strikes will not be a “one-off” option and called on the US to also target other Syrian armed groups, whom he said have their hands on the banned weapons.
Asked about US involvement, the PYD leader said that regional and international powers have now entered the Syrian civil war with their own forces following a period of waging a “proxy war.” The US is already involved to such an extent that it cannot “turn its back” on Syria, he argued, especially in its war against ISIS where it is helping the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in their campaign to defeat the extremist group in Raqqa, the ISIS de-facto capital in Syria.
http://www.rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/070420174
— LENIN_LOVER69 (@PissPigGranddad) April 12, 2017pisspig got home safe, i hope he isnt arrested later on
