The new "free Tibet" campaign?

[redguard2009]

I must say I'm quite confused about the sudden explosive interest in Iran's internal politics. Seems quite a few people are suddenly flocking around like headless chickens screaming "revolt!" and "rebellion!" and "revolution!" all over the damned place. Websites dedicated to the "revoltg" are springing up all over the place, and I'm fairly certain if it hasn't happened already that some famous liberal actors/musicians are going to be letting out their views on the airwaves at some point.

What confuses me is how some issues are completely ignored while others are embraced with an enormous passion. Iran has a disputed election and tens of thousands of riorers muck up the entire country and within a week it's the biggest thing sine the Bolshevik Revolution; while comrades in Nepal have taken to the streets in the tens and even hundreds of thousands, shutting down entire urban population centers and plunging the entire country into deadlock and do this on a regular basis, while tens of thousands of mobilized, organized and armed revolutionary fights battle government forces in the countryside, and it's like "meh". Hugo Chavez passes a law nationalizing a couple of corporations and its headline news to the Left. Filipino fighters liberate an entire village from US-backed military forces and not a word about it. Israel attacks Lebanon for a few days and kills a couple hundred people and everyone's screaming "WW3" while millions of Palestinians endure constant repeated assaults from Israeli forces on a monthly basis and half this board is too busy defending Israel's right to self-defense.

I'm sorry, and my heart goes out to Iranian activists when I say this, but spending so much time and effort highlighting some directionless rioters in an effort to 'radicalize' them while already-radicalized, mobilized and armed revolutionaries are battling it out in other parts of the world seems a bit fucked up. Where are the forums for Nepal and India and the Philippines? For Palestine and Iraq and Afghanistan? Turkey, Peru, Columbia?

Seems to me the Left is simply trying to get onto the whole "Free Iran!" boat ahead of the Liberal wave that they expect will soon follow for no other reason than they'll have time to hand out leaflets and pamphlets first.

Excuse me if I'm being critical. I am just a little irate at the self-serving way in which some leftist activists pick and choose which causes they vehemently support, which seems more or less directly connected to the amount of liberalist support said cause has.

[Pogue]

half this board is too busy defending Israel's right to self-defense.



Excuse me if I'm being critical. I am just a little irate at the self-serving way in which some leftist activists pick and choose which causes they vehemently support, which seems more or less directly connected to the amount of liberalist support said cause has.



proof?

[BobKKKindle$]

Why are you so hesitant to call this a "revolt"? People are out on the streets and they are protesting against a government in their millions. This would be impressive and something to celebrate in any part of the world but this is especially the case in Iran, not only due to that country's strategic position in the Middle East, because also because the Iranian people have been living under a political system that does not allow for free and fair elections (as is evident from the fact that all candidates need to gain the support of the Council of Guardians simply to stand in the presidential elections, let alone have their votes counted on an equal basis with the incumbent) and is perfectly willing to use violence against its citizens when they seek to impose their demands on the state and draw attention to the persistent failure of government to address their problems. In my view, it's perfectly appropriate for people to call this a revolt. This doesn't mean that it's the only issue of importance right now but one thing that makes it different from some of the other events you mentioned - such as Chavez extending nationalization, or Maoists fighting against the government in Nepal - is that this is not a case of a political actor seeking to implement change from above, or different armed groups battling it out amongst themselves. This is an example of a struggle from below, which, given that socialism is first and foremost about the self-emancipation of the proletariat, is why we socialists find it so inspiring.

[Led Zeppelin]

Excuse me if I'm being critical.

No.


I am just a little irate at the self-serving way in which some leftist activists pick and choose which causes they vehemently support, which seems more or less directly connected to the amount of liberalist support said cause has.

I'm sorry we're not giving as much attention as you would like to your precious Nepal movement, but we do not determine what we support or oppose based on what the media tells us to support or oppose.

You however base your views entirely on that, probably because you haven't bothered turning off your TV since this whole event began.

I don't even know what the fuck most of the "liberal media" is saying about this event. You know why? Because I don't care. It's irrelevant.

I also don't care what they are saying about other revolutionary movements for the same reason.

Now, I know you feel bad because not enough of us have given support to a cause that you personally like (Nepal), but that is not an excuse to not give any support for this.

And the reason I am doing so more than I did with Nepal is because I am Iranian myself and know more about that movement and country than I do about Nepal.

Sorry, it didn't have anything to do with "catching the liberal wave" or whatever crap you wrote in that piece which I just skimmed over because the first sentences of it were bad enough.

[khad]

And the reason I am doing so more than I did with Nepal is because I am Iranian myself and know more about that movement and country than I do about Nepal.
Good for you. There are OBVIOUSLY so many Iranians on revleft that you guys now have your own subforum. Congratulations.

Sheesh, speak for yourself.

[Led Zeppelin]

There are OBVIOUSLY so many Iranians on revleft that you guys now have your own subforum.

You don't have to be Iranian to support this movement, you just have to be a revolutionary.

Being Iranian does not mean that you hold a certain view about events in Iran. That is a racist type of thinking.

Also, there was also a forum for Oaxaca. I didn't hear you whine about that (probably because the media didn't and you don't consider Mexico to be "anti-imperialist").

Get over yourself.

[Pogue]

I think the Iranian forum is a great idea. Obviously its relevant, and seeing as this issue will be discussed alot, as long as the revolt goes on, the forum should.

[redguard2009]

People are out on the streets and they are protesting against a government in their millions.

To what end? Socialism? Communism? Leftist radicalization? No. They're expressing their anger against a repression regime by flocking into the arms of slightly-less repressive pro-bourgeois capitalists who want to allow US capital into their country.


This would be impressive and something to celebrate in any part of the world but this is especially the case in Iran, not only due to that country's strategic position in the Middle East, because also because the Iranian people have been living under a political system that does not allow for free and fair elections

That is pretty much the crux of every revolutionary struggle that has occured over the past 40 years.


is that this is not a case of a political actor seeking to implement change from above

So the tens of thousands of Mousavi-supporting liberal college students and businessmen are actually self-motivated.


but we do not determine what we support or oppose based on what the media tells us to support or oppose.

It just seems a nice coincidence that the majority of "spontaneous movements" that spring up on this board and talked about most frequently happen to come on the day after a major story hits headline news and strokes the empathetic hearts of liberals the world over.

It just wreaks of a sort of carefully constructed public relations move designed to reach people and gain support on issues people apparently care the most about (according to that issues' showtime). Not to say that communists on here do not support these various movements, but that their efforts and determination and willingness to forward and openly support it depends on popular opinion rather than the revolutionary character (or lack there of) in any one movement or the next.


You however base your views entirely on that, probably because you haven't bothered turning off your TV since this whole event began.

I haven't had a television in about two months. Thanks, though.


And the reason I am doing so more than I did with Nepal is because I am Iranian myself


Being Iranian does not mean that you hold a certain view about events in Iran. That is a racist type of thinking.

Don't bring up the fact you care more about Iran than you do about Nepal because you're Iranian and not Nepali, and then cry racism when someone criticizes that stance.

Fact is this seems like it's the left's new pet project, nothing more. I hold no reservations about what will occur in Iran -- similar incidents have occured there over the past 30 years with large-scale protests by mainly students, which lasts for a few days or weeks, receives a lot of "airtime" and then disappears into distant memory within a couple of months as we look for a new project to pour all our hopes into.

Btw, all information I've received about the Iranian "uprising" has come almost exclusively from this very board. Please think before you speak.

[black magick hustla]

I'll say this again. The only people who support that shit in the name of national self-determination or in the name of whatever other ideological remnant of stalinist/maoist/gangster realpolitik are first world tankies who probably have never met a third world person in their lives. Iranian communists certainly do not have those luxuries of looking at the world from crystal glasses because they remember well what the mullah murderous gangsters did to them. If you can find any prominent "communist" party in Iran , even of the stalinist variety that uses those ridiculous white-guilt arguments in favor of the mullahs i'll eat my socks.

[redguard2009]

That was a rather useless post that doesn't seem to have any relevence to what's being discussed here. Did someone say they support the Ayatollah and I didnt notice?

[Led Zeppelin]

To what end? Socialism? Communism? Leftist radicalization? No. They're expressing their anger against a repression regime by flocking into the arms of slightly-less repressive pro-bourgeois capitalists who want to allow US capital into their country.

February 1917.

You don't know anything about history.


So the tens of thousands of Mousavi-supporting liberal college students and businessmen are actually self-motivated.

Are the tens of thousands Maoist supporting liberal college students and businessmen in Nepal also self-motivated?

See, I can take crap from the mainstream media and parrot it too, it's very easy to be ignorant after all.


It just seems a nice coincidence that the majority of "spontaneous movements" that spring up on this board and talked about most frequently happen to come on the day after a major story hits headline news and strokes the empathetic hearts of liberals the world over.

You're totally right. When the news reports something, we must oppose it for it is obviously a CIA imperialist plot.

You're a buffoon.


I haven't had a television in about two months. Thanks, though.

Then stop visiting their sites and eating up their shit by reading instead of listening.


Don't bring up the fact you care more about Iran than you do about Nepal because you're Iranian and not Nepali, and then cry racism when someone criticizes that stance.

I didn't say I didn't care enough about it now did I? I said I don't know as much about it as I do about Iran since I am Iranian, have been to Iran, etc. etc.

I mean, the only reason you care about Nepal so much and are bleeding from your white liberal heart for it is because they claim to be Maoists (your ideology) and you want to come over as the only person who cares about the poor brown people over there who happen to agree with your particular set of beliefs.

That's chauvinism and racist of the worst type, especially when you pick and choose which brown people to support based on whether they agree with your ideology or not.

You probably make a check-list like this:

"Brown people in Nepal, say they are Maoists: Support."

"Brown people in Iran, say they are not Maoists: Oppose."

"Oh, yeah, and the media is giving waaaaay too much attention to those brown people, so that must mean something!"

Yeah it does, it means that you're an idiot.


Fact is this seems like it's the left's new pet project, nothing more.

I know you wish Nepal was "the left's new pet project" instead because of the checklist I described above.

I'm sorry that the left cares about internationalism and supports all these struggles instead of just the ones they happen to agree with ideologically.

I know that must break your chauvinist heart.


Btw, all information I've received about the Iranian "uprising" has come almost exclusively from this very board.

Which is probably why are you so ignorant of it.

[Led Zeppelin]

That was a rather useless post that doesn't seem to have any relevence to what's being discussed here.

No, those are your posts.

So please stop posting them.

[redguard2009]

I'd love to engage in discussion with you LZ, but you've got to stop turning into a childish troll whenever things don't go your way. What you did just there had about as much intellectual legitimacy as "so's your mom" or "I know you are but what am I".

Until you can grow up, please don't troll my thread.

[gorillafuck]

half this board is too busy defending Israel's right to self-defense.
I've never seen anyone on this board "defend Israel's right to self-defense"

[Led Zeppelin]

I'd love to engage in discussion with you LZ, but you've got to stop turning into a childish troll whenever things don't go your way. What you did just there had about as much intellectual legitimacy as "so's your mom" or "I know you are but what am I".

Until you can grow up, please don't troll my thread.

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

You of all people talking about trolling. You, the sexist and homophobe, who is apparently also a racist, talking about trolling. Funny!

It would be funny, RNK, if it wasn't true.

[Leo]

To what end? Socialism? Communism? Leftist radicalization? No. They're expressing their anger against a repression regime by flocking into the arms of slightly-less repressive pro-bourgeois capitalists who want to allow US capital into their country.Who exactly are you referring to? Mousavi himself is not a pro-Western or pro-US person anyway, quite the contrary he is a part of the Islamic regime as well. Still though, the demonstrators are not really merely "Mousavi-supporters" anyway, and have chanted many slogans against Mousavi, including "death to the collaborator".


Don't bring up the fact you care more about Iran than you do about Nepal because you're Iranian and not Nepali, and then cry racism when someone criticizes that stance.The heart of every true internationalist beats where the struggle is. All struggles of the class is ultimately important.

This doesn't mean that sometimes it is more personal and emotional in some cases. LZ is the son of a political exile from Iran, I don't see anything wrong at all with him being excited. I too for example would be personally and emotionally very excited if the masses here went on to demolish the prisons my mother stayed in. This doesn't mean that I don't care about the proletarian struggles everywhere just as much, and being personally touched about the events in Iran does not mean that LZ cares more about Iran than Nepal or any other place. It just means that sometimes it is more personal than others.

There also is the fact that there is a difference between an openly pro-capitalist Maoist party winning an election and masses of protestors clashing with the armed forces of a regime, of course.

The accusation of "racism" simply fails on every level basically.

[redguard2009]

Wow, that's a pot full of accusations if I ever saw one. Sure you didn't miss any?


I've never seen anyone on this board "defend Israel's right to self-defense"Whaaa? Really? Well, admitedly I haven't been looking for them recently but I've seen a few.


The heart of every true internationalist beats where the struggle is. All struggles of the class is ultimately important.

That was exactly my point. I was merely criticizing how some, including much more advanced, struggles seem to be completely ignored while other less focused ones seem to get the spotlight, and drawing a comparison to the way in which these events are protrayed in western liberal media.


There also is the fact that there is a difference between an openly pro-capitalist Maoist party winning an election and masses of protestors clashing with the armed forces of a regime, of course.

What about the 12 years of open war that "pro-capitalist" Maoist party led which resulted in thousands of dead comrades and thousands more imprisoned and tortured, the monthly mass protests which see equal numbers of proletarians, students and peasants taking to the streets shouting revolutionary communist slogans as we currently see in Tehran shouting vague directionless pro-democracy slogans?

As for LZ's Iranian roots, he was the one accusing another of racism when he "opened" that box himself by insinuating he cares more about Iran than Nepal based on his own nationality.

[Led Zeppelin]

As for LZ's Iranian roots, he was the one accusing another of racism when he "opened" that box himself by insinuating he cares more about Iran than Nepal based on his own nationality.

You must be illiterate besides being a sexist, homophobe, racist and sock-puppet as well.

I never said that, I said:


And the reason I am doing so more than I did with Nepal is because I am Iranian myself and know more about that movement and country than I do about Nepal.

That means that I am writing more on this and doing more on this because I know more about the movement and the country because I am Iranian myself, it doesn't mean that I care more about it than I do about Nepal because I'm Iranian and not Nepalese.

You fucking moron.

Now explain why you have have written and done more in the Canadian movement than you have in the movement in, say,Turkey. Is it because you are Canadian and you care more about Canada?

Or is it because they aren't Maoists and you only care about them and they fit your checklist?

[Leo]

That was exactly my point. I was merely criticizing how some, including much more advanced, struggles seem to be completely ignored while other less focused ones seem to get the spotlight, and drawing a comparison to the way in which these events are protrayed in western liberal media.

I don't think this has got to do with the media coverage or anything but the content of the events. There had been many "color revolutions", all got a lot of media coverage but there were few who were excited over them really. I think saying LZ "focuses" on these events because he is Iranian is simply a very cheap shot, nothing else.


What about the 12 years of open war that "pro-capitalist" Maoist party led which resulted in thousands of dead comrades and thousands more imprisoned and tortured, the monthly mass protests which see equal numbers of proletarians, students and peasants taking to the streets shouting revolutionary communist slogans

I don't want to go into a huge debate on the movement on Nepal, but I'm simply going to say that it was a movement directed by the CPN(M) from top to bottom, thus not an independent class movement. As for the ideology of the Nepali Maoist party, well let them explain it:


the Maoists will promote capitalism, encourage private sector and welcome foreign investment
http://www.indopia.in/India-usa-uk-news/latest-news/116120/International/2/20/2

Q: The business community's concerns are exactly what you stated. One, they say, the government's attitude to labour issues leaves a lot to be desired and that labour problems are getting worse. Second, there cannot be high growth until there is an adequate supply of power. Bhattarai: I wouldn't say the situation is getting worse. Things were much worse in the past. But the people wanted very fast recovery; that hasn't happened. Things are improving but not to the desired level. Both the management and workers have a common interest now, for the development of the economy. They both fought against the feudalism, autocracy and monarchy. Now, to create a vibrant industrial economy, is in the interest of both the management and the workers. But this reality is not sinking in their minds. This government is playing its role in creating a healthy relationship between the two. There were some disputes, especially regarding the minimum wage issue. This has been solved. So what I appeal to the management is that they should provide the minimum wage. The workers shouldn't resort to bandas and strikes. If this understanding is honoured we'll have a healthy environment in the days to come.
Q: So the party wants to ensure that whenever there is a labour dispute, legal recourse should be taken?
Bhattarai: Yes. At least for some time, there should be no bandas and strikes in the industrial, health, education sectors, on the major highways, in the public utility sectors. The government is trying to build political consensus on this issue.
http://www.kantipuronline.com/interview.php?&nid=175026 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.kantipuronline.com/interview.php?&nid=175026)

[redguard2009]

It just struck me you sound an awful lot like Rosa Lichtenstein.

Also, I didn't see that post above the trollish one you made.


February 1917.

You don't know anything about history.

I don't know anything about history? I'm sorry, last I checked Iran didn't have a well-established revolutionary movement with several million representative members in thousands of workplaces and unions throughout the country, as the Bolsheviks did in 1917. I also wasn't aware that there existed a large number of social-democrats and others even remotely deserving of the term "progressive".


Are the tens of thousands Maoist supporting liberal college students and businessmen in Nepal also self-motivated?

No, they are not. They actually do have some kind of clear vision of the revolutionary path they want to take. And that's kind of my point, which you just kindly proved. Thank you.


You're totally right. When the news reports something, we must oppose it for it is obviously a CIA imperialist plot.

At this point I realize you're not actually having a discussion but instead just trollishly expressing your frustration that I'm not lapping up every ounce of the Great Proletarian Iranian Revolution like you'd like us all to.


I mean, the only reason you care about Nepal so much and are bleeding from your white liberal heart for it

That's hilarious, you're using the exact same "bleeding-heart liberal" pejorative I used to describe you and your ilk, and using it against me! Oh the stinging, brutal irony.


That's chauvinism and racist of the worst type, especially when you pick and choose which brown people to support based on whether they agree with your ideology or not.

You seem to be quite caught up on this "brown people" vs "white people" thing. You've made particular mention of me being white in several threads around here. Hell, I'm not even the only person you've accused of being racist in the past 30 minutes -- I really think you need to calm down a little bit.

Even if it were a case of me "picking and choosing" (again, using an accusation I made of you) which "poor brown people" (your words) to support, that still wouldn't make me racist. If I was, I'd support all poor brown people or none; at best you've proven my reasoning for supporting one group or another is based on ideological conformity and not race (or gender or sexual preference).

But again, I think you're doing nothing more than trying to push my buttons as I seem to have obviously pushed yours.

And I'll lay it out one and only one time: I don't know where you got it into your head that I do not support the right of Iranians to protest their government. I am a fucking Maoist afterall, and us white-guilt ridden Maoists in the west live and breathe on rioting and smashing shit up. Again, the entire point of this thread was to draw criticism towards the way in which some struggles are (in my opinion) over-talked about while others seem to be completely ignored, and how there appears to be atleast a superficial connection between that and the way in which said struggles are perceived in the media and public opinion.

Also, I didn't see your explanation of what you were talking about in being Iranian, Nepal etc. I apologize.


As for the ideology of the Nepali Maoist party, well let them explain it:

You don't have to explain anything; I'm well aware given your statement of your inability to comprehend the manipulation of capitalist policies in a semi-fuedal pre-industrialized nation under rule of a revolutionary socialist organization, or understanding of Marx himself (and Lenin and Mao for that matter) stipulating the need for transition between fuedalism, liberal (capitalist) democracy and socialization.

But you're going to paint the UCPN(M) in whatever light you'd like and select choice quotes to prove that fact, so go ahead. My interest in what you think about the UCPN(M) is nill.


I think saying LZ "focuses" on these events because he is Iranian is simply a very cheap shot, nothing else.

He did say it himself, though he did say it was because he KNOWS more about Iran's situation and not simply because he's Iranian and cares more about Iran simply because of that.

So you don't see a connection between the last few "pet projects" that have come and gone through here? The Orange Revolution, The Turkish student protests, Pakistani "lawyer's revolution", the invasion of Lebanon, and now the Iranian uprising?

[Led Zeppelin]

I don't know anything about history? I'm sorry, last I checked Iran didn't have a well-established revolutionary movement with several million representative members in thousands of workplaces and unions throughout the country, as the Bolsheviks did in 1917.

Ok then, 1905.


No, they are not. They actually do have some kind of clear vision of the revolutionary path they want to take. And that's kind of my point, which you just kindly proved. Thank you.

So if I say: "No, they are not. They actually do have some kind of clear vision of the revolutionary path they want to take. And that's kind of my point, which you just kindly proved. Thank you."

Does it make me right? I mean, if I call the Nepalese Maoists state-capitalist gangsters and their movement a military coup, is that not just as true as the "businessmen and affluent students are the only one out on the streets" statement?

It is.


At this point I realize you're not actually having a discussion but instead just trollishly expressing your frustration that I'm not lapping up every ounce of the Great Proletarian Iranian Revolution like you'd like us all to.

You mean like how you are trollishlingy trying to denounce us all for caring too much about Iran while caring too little about Nepal, when in fact it has got nothing to do with this event and is only a sad attempt to make yourself feel better?


That's hilarious, you're using the exact same "bleeding-heart liberal" pejorative I used to describe you and your ilk, and using it against me! Oh the stinging, brutal irony.

I know it's ironic. That is the whole point of it.


You seem to be quite caught up on this "brown people" vs "white people" thing. You've made particular mention of me being white in several threads around here. Hell, I'm not even the only person you've accused of being racist in the past 30 minutes -- I really think you need to calm down a little bit.

Racist and chauvinist sentiments will be called out by me. If you do not like it then tough luck.


Even if it were a case of me "picking and choosing" (again, using an accusation I made of you) which "poor brown people" (your words) to support, that still wouldn't make me racist. If I was, I'd support all poor brown people or none; at best you've proven my reasoning for supporting one group or another is based on ideological conformity and not race (or gender or sexual preference).

This would be well and all if it didn't contradict the whole point of this pathetic thread you have made, which was that "leftists give too much attention to this thing but not enough to the other thing that I really care about!"

In other words, you are guilty of the same thing, but you just like denouncing other people over it.


And I'll lay it out one and only one time: I don't know where you got it into your head that I do not support the right of Iranians to protest their government. I am a fucking Maoist afterall, and us white-guilt ridden Maoists in the west live and breathe on rioting and smashing shit up.

Look at the thread Rawthentic made, it shows that not all white-guilt ridden Maoists in the west live and breathe on rioting and smashing shit up.


Again, the entire point of this thread was to draw criticism towards the way in which some struggles are (in my opinion) over-talked about while others seem to be completely ignored, and how there appears to be atleast a superficial connection between that and the way in which said struggles are perceived in the media and public opinion.

I know what the point was, it's just hypocritical that you are making an argument for something that you are guilty of as well, and in fact more so.

It is actually not true at all that the movement in Nepal has been off the media map ever since it started. If you recall (you still had your TV two months ago, right?) CNN, BBC, Fox, etc. all gave a lot of attention to the Maoist movement when it first came out in the open.

Now, why is it that I never saw you post anything denouncing that when there were threads made on Revleft with hundreds of posts discussing it (which I participated in myself as well)?

Is it perhaps because you happen to agree ideologically with that movement, while you don't really give a shit about this one?

I guess it is, because that's the only explanation besides plain stupidity.


Also, I didn't see your explanation of what you were talking about in being Iranian, Nepal etc. I apologize.

When you apologize do it properly. Don't do it at the end of a post filled with insult and petty snipes.

[gorillafuck]

It just struck me you sound an awful lot like Rosa Lichtenstein.
Now what the fuck kind of a thing to say is that? Honestly, while we debate about Iran, you're just making personal attacks on members (and a member who isn't even involved in this thread.)

As for the thread, you didn't mention anything besides the Filipino thing that I haven't read multiple articles about already.

And I still want proof of people "defending Israel's right to self defense" because I don't believe anyone said that until I see it.

[redguard2009]

Ok then, 1905.

Yes, that's more feasible, but it's not like it matters, anyway. As I've said and will continue to say, however much you want to conveniently ignore it, I have not and will never denounce the actions of Iranian protesters fighting against their government. I will just denounce leftists whose hipocrisy and oppurtunist mannerisms guide them to supporting some issues and not others based on shallow principles of popularity, nationalism or other unrevolutionary ideals. However, your statement is still illogical. Why would you support the 1905 revolution with such vigor and zeal while paying barely any attention to the 1917 revolution?

Unfortunately you and a few others don't seem to understand the difference between "critiquing the behaviour of leftist activists involved" and "denouncing the entire Iranian uprising".


You mean like how you are trollishlingy trying to denounce us all for caring too much about Iran while caring too little about Nepal

Do most of your arguements consist of shallow one-liners and "I know you are but what am I" rebuttles?


It is actually not true at all that the movement in Nepal has been off the media map ever since it started. If you recall (you still had your TV two months ago, right?) CNN, BBC, Fox, etc. all gave a lot of attention to the Maoist movement when it first came out in the open.

No, I recall no such thing. Gasp! Maybe that means I actually don't watch CNN, BBC, Fox or NBC news? No, that couldn't be so. And why two months ago? The conflict in Nepal has been raging since 1995. Nothing of any real importance (relatively) occured two months ago.


Racist and chauvinist sentiments will be called out by me. If you do not like it then tough luck.

Ironically, you seem to be the only person here who has a problem with the race of another member. How many times have you accused me of "white guilt" now? So... who's racist?


This would be well and all if it didn't contradict the whole point of this pathetic thread you have made, which was that "leftists give too much attention to this thing but not enough to the other thing that I really care about!"

I've repeated to you the point of the thread, you're obviously unable or unwilling to understand it, so I'm not going to bother trying to convince you. It's obvious at this point you're a possessed man on a crusade.


Now what the fuck kind of a thing to say is that? Honestly, while we debate about Iran, you're just making personal attacks on members (and a member who isn't even involved in this thread.)

Oh yes I apologize deeply. My insults were completely unprovoked and out of place of all the people who've posted in this thread I obviously am the most detached from the actual topic.


And I still want proof of people "defending Israel's right to self defense" because I don't believe anyone said that until I see it.

The search function is just as available to you as it is to me.

[Q]

I don't know anything about history? I'm sorry, last I checked Iran didn't have a well-established revolutionary movement with several million representative members in thousands of workplaces and unions throughout the country, as the Bolsheviks did in 1917.
In February 1917 the Bolsheviks were still a minuscule force. Apparently you really don't know history. But the 1905 revolution has more parallels I guess.