U.N. Security Council Resolution on Syria vetoed by Russia and China

[NoMasters]

Thoughts people?

Words cannot express my disappointment over Russia and China's veto.

[RevSpetsnaz]

Russia and China veto every UN resolution.

[Ocean Seal]

Care to explain which resolution?

[NoMasters]

Russia and China veto everything the UN proposes.

It's disgusting. Putin is just too influence by the clientele networks of the Soviet era. The country is returning to their "glory" days....

I mean Russia has become so undemocratic in the last 10 years I can see why they veto any type of democratic uprising taking place in the world.

SHAME ON RUSSIA

[getfiscal]

NoMasters, do you support American imperialism?

[Ocean Seal]

Dude the UN doesn't do anything anyway. And Russia much like America and GB don't really care much for democracy, enough with the liberalism.

[piet11111]

Care to explain which resolution?

The one on Syria but this should have been mentioned in the OP and thread title.

This is a good thing as it wrecks the imperialist plans for another "intervention" like Libya for quite a while.
It might also delay their plans for a war against Iran.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Putin is a corrupt dictatorial oligarch trying to save a client regime. The Chinese "Communist" party has shed the blood of its own workers and students, so supporting a blood-stained dictatorship is par for the course. Does anyone on RevLeft really believe that Putin and/or Hu Jintao are real socialists as to the "barracks" variety long ago denounced by Marx and Engels?

[NoMasters]

Putin is a corrupt dictatorial oligarch trying to save a client regime. The Chinese "Communist" party has shed the blood of its own workers and students, so supporting a blood-stained dictatorship is par for the course. Does anyone on RevLeft really believe that Putin and/or Hu Jintao are real socialists as to the "barracks" variety long ago denounced by Marx and Engels?

+1 man!

[NoMasters]

NoMasters, do you support American imperialism?

Of course not. I just think Assad's regime must be destroyed. And I don't care who or what ideology stops it at this point.

[RevSpetsnaz]

It's disgusting. Putin is just too influence by the clientele networks of the Soviet era. The country is returning to their "glory" days....

I mean Russia has become so undemocratic in the last 10 years I can see why they veto any type of democratic uprising taking place in the world.

SHAME ON RUSSIA

I think Russia and China only got involved to veto everything. Their mission is simple, oppose all action by any nation other than them.

[getfiscal]

Of course not. I just think Assad's regime must be destroyed. And I don't care who or what ideology stops it at this point.What is so bad about the Assad government that it deserves to be destroyed by American imperialism?

[NoMasters]

What is so bad about the Assad government that it deserves to be destroyed by American imperialism?

I obviously won't post the personal videos of the Syria people and the mass murder of children and civilians. 7,000+ dead. Absolutely unacceptable.

When government kills their own people they must be destroyed, if we can't unite to stop Syrian murder, how can we unite if one day it comes to Russia, China, or even the US?

[getfiscal]

When government kills their own people they must be destroyed, if we can't unite to stop Syrian murder, how can we unite if one day it comes to Russia, China, or even the US?You don't think Russia, China or the US kill people? You're even asking them to kill people!

[NoMasters]

You don't think Russia, China or the US kill people? You're even asking them to kill people!

Well being an ethnic Albanian I remember quite well when the NATO liberated us from Serbian oppression. I want the Syrians to have that same feeling..

And yes, I hope they destroy every single person involved in the killing of civilians in Syria. I cannot bear to see another picture of 20 children wrapped in orange bags, shot in the head, or blown up by mortars and tanks..

[getfiscal]

I cannot bear to see another picture of 20 children wrapped in orange bags, shot in the head, or blown up by mortars and tanks..Unless, of course, America does it.

Did you support the war against Libya?

[NoMasters]

Unless, of course, America does it.

Did you support the war against Libya?

I did initially before the NATO bombed senselessly and killed around 10,000 civilians.

I believe they should fund the FSA with arms and food to feed the people.

[getfiscal]

I did initially before the NATO bombed senselessly and killed around 10,000 civilians.

I believe they should fund the FSA with arms and food to feed the people.
You don't think the CIA is currently helping the insurgents?

[NoMasters]

You don't think the CIA is currently helping the insurgents?

Most likely it is arms dealers that have the OK from the CIA and US government.

During the Kosovo conflict, a few people I know that I obviously won't mentioned collected around $20 million dollars from the Albanian community and bought arms for the KLA (UCK).

And the Arab League gave a family member of mine an additional $40 million dollars to help the cause.

[getfiscal]

Most likely it is arms dealers that have the OK from the CIA and US government.Why does it matter if the resolution was vetoed then? Can't they just keep secretly supplying the insurgency? A strong resolution only seems to matter if you want the US to bomb them.

[NoMasters]

Why does it matter if the resolution was vetoed then? Can't they just keep secretly supplying the insurgency? A strong resolution only seems to matter if you want the US to bomb them.

Because I cannot know if that is happening. The UN security council would most likely help the arms dealers get their weapons to the FSA. The resolution didn't call for intervention

[artanis17]

is this all serious

[ed miliband]

Brah, you're like the "radical" British journalist Laurie Penny, who used twitter to cheer on the bombing of Libya:

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9946/pennylibyanoflyzone.jpg

all the while claiming to be some sort of revolutionary anarcho-Marxist.

FAANKS UN! VIVA LA REVOLUSHUN!

[NoMasters]

Brah, you're like the "radical" British journalist Laurie Penny, who used twitter to cheer on the bombing of Libya:

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9946/pennylibyanoflyzone.jpg

all the while claiming to be some sort of revolutionary anarcho-Marxist.

FAANKS UN! VIVA LA REVOLUSHUN!

I just stated my disappointment about Libya.

How am I anything like her? It is easy to sit back and speculate about leftist theory when people are being massacred. Several members of my extended family lost their lives in Kosovo and Bosnia in the 1990's.

Of course, you probably don't believe me, and most people don't believe that the "imperialist" nations actually have good intentions sometimes, although to be sure it is quite rare.

[getfiscal]

It is easy to sit back and speculate about leftist theory when people are being massacred.
When people are being massacred is exactly when we need leftist theory the most.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I just stated my disappointment about Libya.

How am I anything like her? It is easy to sit back and speculate about leftist theory when people are being massacred. Several members of my extended family lost their lives in Kosovo and Bosnia in the 1990's.

Of course, you probably don't believe me, and most people don't believe that the "imperialist" nations actually have good intentions sometimes, although to be sure it is quite rare.

And what was your disappointment with Libya again? Well we killed too many civilians. Of course in hindsight you realize maybe it wasn't so great but then you want to make the same mistake again within such a short time-span? Really? Do you not see the parallels between Libya and Syria?

[Rafiq]

Russia was so much more democratic when then Mafia didn't even try to hide their control, when Russian kids lived on the street and got addicted to hard drugs, where thousands of women were being trafficked into sex slavery. Nomasters, you have nerve you scumbag.

[Red Commissar]

Well being an ethnic Albanian I remember quite well when the NATO liberated us from Serbian oppression. I want the Syrians to have that same feeling..


I did initially before the NATO bombed senselessly and killed around 10,000 civilians.

I believe they should fund the FSA with arms and food to feed the people.

If only it was that simple or clear cut. I don't think it's a good way to analyze what's going on in Syria as far as foreign intrigue goes. What Assad and the Ba'ath is doing is shameful- but you can't count on the US or other nations to act as a white knight for freedom and justice. Any more than you could 'blame' Russia or China for their actions since Syria is a partner of theirs. As the US would do with resolutions targeted against Israel.

I mean just see how the US acted with regards to Kurds in the Middle-East. They have usually sided with Turkey in regards to the Kurdish issue there, through the peak of the violence and war in the 90s (while getting themselves involved in the Balkans under similar pretexts to protect vulnerable ethnic groups)- but have close ties with those in Iraq due to their involvement in the past war in 2003. In one context the Kurds are beneficial, in the other they aren't. Kurds in Iraq hold the same opinion that I guess you have related with the Kosovar position due to their long repression by the Ba'ath, especially after the experience of the Anfal genocide- had nothing glowing words about what the Americans did. As an aside, I remember the US was spamming out gas masks to its soldiers, press correspondents, and allies. In Israel, citizens got enough gas masks for themselves and even special ones for dogs- no such provision happened with Kurds in Iraq. A dog in Israel could get a gas mask when a Kurdish villager couldn't- the only people who had experienced chemical warfare from Iraq before! Even though it was 'discovered' Iraq had not restarted its WMD program, the whole thing was rather ridiculous to me.

Since you are bringing in people from the Balkan Wars, I do also know folks from the Kurdish community who were happy with the 2003 Iraq War since it got rid of Saddam and that regime. But how does what happened in Iraq significant in a larger context? War is not a humanitarian endeavor. In the end the US war was an extension of regional foreign policy- and the Kurds a pawn to be used cynically as they have unfortunately been for much of the Cold War era. The Iraq Communist Party had for example welcomed the overthrow of Saddam and US intervention using the same logic you've shown here- and at this current time they have continued their decline that started in Ba'ath time and now find legal obstacles for worker organization under Saddam kept and enhanced! That is the price of trying to work within the US structures created in Iraq, even if it was presumablby more 'free' than those before it. As are the other sectarian divides the US is manipulating, as is what the Assad government is doing right now between different religious groups, such as his own Alawites and the Christians. As did Mubarak with his attempts to cast himself as a defender of the Copt community against the threat of Islamists. As many powers do when they say they are on the side of "*insert group here*.

Qaddafi had made an interesting quote, to me at least, after NATO imposed the no-fly zone to 'protect civilians' (and we saw how that ended up being used) and said that if NATO was really interested in protecting civilians, they should impose it on themselves in Eastern Turkey where the Turkish military for years has been killing and oppressing Kurds under the pretext of combating terrorism from the PKK.

The US doesn't 'liberate' any people- if this happens it's purely a secondary result of what ever their primary motivation was in regards to their point sheet in regional power. The people of Syria like Libya may have reacted to a real problem in Syria- be it the pervasive and corrupt clientele system or unfair life- but will those things that spurred all this on be necessarily solved by the preferred partners forming in the Syrian National Council? What ever the case a resolution doesn't change that the current situation in Syria is going to result is strife between competing groups of bourgeoisie and their backers. The people who are getting pulled along with this and spilling blood over it and their grievances don't matter in the long run. The US doesn't need the blessing of the UN if it wants something done. It has done that before anyways.

This is not about 'speculating about leftist theory', it's about being pragmatic on how the world works. I do find the apologetics of certain anti-Imperialists for strongmen like Assad annoying if not sickening, but at the same time foreign involvement if not intervention brings in its own set of problems to the table. Of course this is the ugly fact of a lot of popular discontent morphing into war with the regime- where does one get the necessary supplies? In this regard, despite the rants about Salafists and Saudi Arabia, Turkey has been taking an supportive role of the Free Syrian Army. The same Turkey that of course has in recent years appeared to have become ever more 'pro-Palestinian' and more outspoken against Israel, the same state that Syria too is opposed to. Syria, for all its Ba'athist solidarity, only reopened relations with Iraq after the fall of Saddam at the hands of the countries it has always been stringently opposed to (and even aided in the First Gulf War) that are now involving itself in its instability. The United States's relation with Iraq in the 80s compared to the following years. This is just an example of the tangled web of relations in the Middle-East and the world.

If you are hoping for the Syrians to be 'liberated' by the benevolent hands of the United States you are barking up the wrong tree and frankly need to rethink whether what you are espousing matches correctly with your anarchist positions. So yeah, they get rid of Assad and the killing will presumably stop if no vacuum emerges as it did in Libya. Even then, are the sources for discontent removed? I highly doubt that the economic problems that spurred on dissent in Syria will be solved, even if an 'oppressive' regime is removed, or the relations between different ethic groups- which will no doubt continue to be exploited by any government that follows Assad's if it falls. Decades later we might see the same scenario play out again, but this time a pro-US regime attempting to go against popular sentiment with Russia and China blasting them for supporting such a government. Infact this is what is happening in Yemen, more or less. The cycle doesn't end.

[ckaihatsu]

[I just] think Assad's regime must be destroyed. And I don't care who or what ideology stops it at this point.


This is probably a very common sentiment right now, and it's the kind of knee-jerk liberalist "humanitarianism" that is carefully regularly inculcated into the U.S. body politic.





[M]ost people don't believe that the "imperialist" nations actually have good intentions sometimes, although to be sure it is quite rare.




I just stated my disappointment about Libya.


You're making my argument for me here, if you're acknowledging that the Western imperialist powers (NATO) actually *fuck things up*, whatever their "intentions" happen to be.





Putin is a corrupt dictatorial oligarch trying to save a client regime. The Chinese "Communist" party has shed the blood of its own workers and students, so supporting a blood-stained dictatorship is par for the course. Does anyone on RevLeft really believe that Putin and/or Hu Jintao are real socialists as to the "barracks" variety long ago denounced by Marx and Engels?


I doubt anyone here is a statist, but no one can afford to *ignore* statist geopolitics, either, as it plays out.

In the most short-term / pragmatic / realpolitik context we *should* want a veto against blatant, naked NATO aggression -- many were surprised when Russia and China *didn't* do this the last time around, for Libya. And look what happened.





Do you not see the parallels between Libya and Syria?


My position on this is at this post:


Gaddafist rebels seize Bani Walid

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2342809&postcount=33


Of course we *want* a world workers revolution to overthrow imperialism, but in the meantime, in relativistic terms, we should favor the most expedient force that will neutralize -- or at least deter -- imminent brutal imperialist aggression. This would mean favoring autarky / national liberation for any country that either doesn't have it or is about to be deprived of it.


Political Spectrum, Simplified

http://postimage.org/image/35tmoycro/


Leftism -- Want, Get

http://postimage.org/image/pgx9pah0/

[Sam_b]

How am I anything like her?

Because you "I don't care who or what ideology" would be used to Stop Assad, which is pretty clear in that you would cheer on NATO and US bombers to flatten the country.

[manic expression]

Of course not. I just think Assad's regime must be destroyed. And I don't care who or what ideology stops it at this point.
How is that any different from the liberals who cheered Bush's bombs on Iraq because they didn't like Saddam?

[Arlekino]

On what I am gather from Russian media and Krasnoe TV media. Russian government had a reason to veto UN resolution and what is going on now in Russia protest against Putin which Russian government accused western powers to sabot ache the country and asking for war. If Russia would not veto resolution that mean invasion of Syria that mean next door Iran and follow Russia, so Russia has to veto resolution and I don't blame them.
Dam I don't like Putin but for the moment I even don't hate him as communist party is not that good in leadership so is better Putin to keep country strong from imperial powers.

[Renegade Saint]

Of course not. I just think Assad's regime must be destroyed. And I don't care who or what ideology stops it at this point.
Don't you think that who destroys it will have an impact on what happens post-Assad? Do you think the eventual outcome will be any different if an organic revolution overthrows Assad than if NATO does?

[Franz Fanonipants]

why is it anarchists are always reactionary as fuck

[Omsk]

I dont think this user is an anarchist at all.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I dont think user is an anarchist at all.

thats a fair cop.

why is it that reactionaries self-identify with anarchism so much

[NoMasters]

Great points above.

I guess my emotions are getting the better of me. I have family in Damascus and I've seen far too many children being wrapped in body bags and the world just sitting by.

I am trying to plan a trip to Syria through Turkey and getting in touch with the FSA and the opposition in the spring.

I hope I can make it happen

[ckaihatsu]

Great points above.

I guess my emotions are getting the better of me. I have family in Damascus and I've seen far too many children being wrapped in body bags and the world just sitting by.

I am trying to plan a trip to Syria through Turkey and getting in touch with the FSA and the opposition in the spring.

I hope I can make it happen


I'm sorry that you're having to come around to politics -- if you haven't been already -- through tragedy, but it's good that you're recognizing that your response to your experiences is an *emotional* one.

Allowing that emotion to lead one's politics is *not* a good way of being active, though. Please consider the parallels here:








The Iraqi National Accord (INA) known inside Iraq as Wifaq is an Iraqi political party founded by Iyad Allawi and Salah Omar Al-Ali in 1991. Al-Ali subsequently left the party after he realised the extent of Allawi's links to foreign intelligence agencies, mainly the C.I.A. and MI6.




It was founded at the time of the Persian Gulf War as an opposition group to Saddam Hussein.




The INA was thus set up to be an alternative, largely funded by money from Saudi Arabia; with extra support coming from the UK and the United States.




INA membership consisted largely of military and security personnel who had defected from the Iraqi army under Saddam Hussein's rule. Because of the perceived connections between INA members and security forces protecting Saddam Hussein, the INA drew American interest as an alternative ally to the Iraqi National Congress[citation needed].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_National_Accord








The National Transitional Council of Libya (Arabic: المجلس الوطني الإنتقالي‎ al-majlis al-waṭanī al-intiqālī ), sometimes known as the Libyan Transitional National Council,[1] the Interim National Council,[2] or the Libyan National Council, is the de facto government of Libya, established by anti-Gaddafi forces during the Libyan civil war, which pitted these forces against the government of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. The NTC issued a Constitutional Declaration in August 2011 in which it set up a road-map for the transition of the country to a constitutional democracy with an elected government.




The efforts to form an alternative government have been supported by the Libyan ambassador in the United States, Ali Suleiman Aujali.[19][20] The Libyan deputy ambassador to the United Nations, Ibrahim Omar Al Dabashi, has stated that he supported a new alternative government "in principle".[21]

Establishment of a national council

A National Transitional Council was formed on 27 February to act as "the political face of the revolution".[22] Its spokesman, Hafiz Ghoga, made clear at the launch press conference that the national council was not a provisional government and added that the newly formed council was not in contact with foreign governments and did not want them to intervene.[23] He later clarified that an airstrike mandated by the United Nations would not be considered a foreign intervention.[24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Transitional_Council








The Free Syrian Army (Arabic: الجيش السوري الحر‎, al-jayš as-suri al-ħurr) is the main opposition army group in Syria.[9] It is composed of defected Syrian Armed Forces personnel, who have been active during the Syrian Uprising.[9]




Riad al-Asaad has stated that the Free Syrian Army has no political goals except the liberation of Syria from Bashar Assad's government.[13][14]




International support

The Libyan National Transitional Council announced in November 2011 that it had been in talks with the Syrian National Council and was considering supplying weapons and volunteer fighters of the National Liberation Army to the Free Syrian Army, and that international intervention may only be weeks away. According to people with links to the National Council, the Libyans were offering money, weapons and training forces loyal to the Syrian National Council.[210][211]

On 29 November, it was reported that at least 600 fighters of the National Liberation Army from Libya had been dispatched to support the Free Syrian Army and had entered Syria through Turkey.[212]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army

[NoMasters]

Best post I've seen so far in these forums.

However, I would have to say that the Libyan revolution is a bit different than the Syrian revolution. Syria is far more organized and in a much more strategic location for the entire world.

But thanks for the post, I never noticed some of the parallels. And yes, thanks for noticing the emotion. I will obviously refrain from using emotion in future posts. Its just not easy to see that happening because it is so similar to my Albanian and Bosnian family in the 90's. A few of my family members were part of the Srebenica massacre. And my father's village just north of Skopje has been terrorized by the Slavs and Turks for 150 years. And I know see that Syrians are going through the same things. And although I was young and ignorant, we praised the NATO intervention at the beginning for liberating our people. And I know people in Syria would probably do the same initially, it sucks that the world always works for self-interest....

[Thirsty Crow]

Of course not. I just think Assad's regime must be destroyed. And I don't care who or what ideology stops it at this point.
So you would be willing to support an imperialist military venture (because that's what is being prepared anyway)? You'd disregard the obvious, that it is not humanitarian concern driving the opposition towards the Assad regime (from without), but naked interest, geopolitical and economic? You would support such an act?

And in any way, I can't imagine why would you be disappointed by Putin, the caretaker of Russian capital, as well as China. It's just beyond me how obvious inter-imperialist conflict, focused through the lens of proxy conflict (for China and US, see the military arrangements in Philippines and Beijing's response), preparing the ground for even worse conflicts.

And just to be clear, I do not support a bourgeois regime, nor imperialist intervention. Clarity is much needed on issues like escalating imperialist conflict, and I can't see how support for what is perceived as the lesser of imperialist blocs aids that.


Russia was so much more democratic when then Mafia didn't even try to hide their control, when Russian kids lived on the street and got addicted to hard drugs, where thousands of women were being trafficked into sex slavery. Nomasters, you have nerve you scumbag.
Like organized crime and teenage addiction indicate anything with regard to the political structure of a society. Not that outstanding democratic societies exhibit similar social phenomena, right? Such appeal to emotions is dishonest as hell, and I'm sure you could do better in political analysis than this idealist rubbish.

[NoMasters]

So you would be willing to support an imperialist military venture (because that's what is being prepared anyway)? You'd disregard the obvious, that it is not humanitarian concern driving the opposition towards the Assad regime (from without), but naked interest, geopolitical and economic? You would support such an act?

And in any way, I can't imagine why would you be disappointed by Putin, the caretaker of Russian capital, as well as China. It's just beyond me how obvious inter-imperialist conflict, focused through the lens of proxy conflict (for China and US, see the military arrangements in Philippines and Beijing's response), preparing the ground for even worse conflicts.

And just to be clear, I do not support a bourgeois regime, nor imperialist intervention. Clarity is much needed on issues like escalating imperialist conflict, and I can't see how support for what is perceived as the lesser of imperialist blocs aids that.

Well I mentioned earlier that I let my emotions get the best of me and I noticed it.

So no, I wouldn't recommend an all out invasion and intervention by the world, but I would strongly agree and support the funding of the FSA and opposition council. And not even through governments, but through people who want to help. And trust me, I know that the Syrians in America could raise millions of dollars and buy thousands of assault rifles and military equipment. My family was a part of the funding of the KLA in Kosovo and I promise you it helped.

And I would much rather support the US over Russia and China. Although its comparing Lucifer and Satan I guess.

Russia and China are far more dangerous and tyrannical than the US, and I don't care what anyone says. And I am not saying this being I am a "fascist" or a supported of "western imperialism" like a Moderator said in my reputation earlier, I am just giving my own analysis on the reality of the situation.

Theory is different than practice....

[Thirsty Crow]

And I would much rather support the US over Russia and China. Although its comparing Lucifer and Satan I guess.

Russia and China are far more dangerous and tyrannical than the US, and I don't care what anyone says. And I am not saying this being I am a "fascist" or a supported of "western imperialism" like a Moderator said in my reputation earlier, I am just giving my own analysis on the reality of the situation.

But there is no analysis here in fact, only this assertion which echoes the ancient argument of the lesser evil. And all of this is pretty ironic considering the role of the US military in, well let's say, the last decade, as compared against the military campaigns of Russia and China.
So, how come one imperialist bloc is preferrable over another?



Theory is different than practice....
Well, if it is, we're fucked.

[NoMasters]

But there is no analysis here in fact, only this assertion which echoes the ancient argument of the lesser evil. And all of this is pretty ironic considering the role of the US military in, well let's say, the last decade, as compared against the military campaigns of Russia and China.
So, how come one imperialist bloc is preferrable over another?


Well, if it is, we're fucked.

Well I guess it isn't really analysis, I am just too lazy to make the argument and like you said it is irrelevant. So I agree with you

And unfortunately, I don't see how the world doesn't intervene. I would even go as far as to say it might spread into a multi-country conflict...

[Sam_b]

And I would much rather support the US over Russia and China. Although its comparing Lucifer and Satan I guess.

Russia and China are far more dangerous and tyrannical than the US, and I don't care what anyone says. And I am not saying this being I am a "fascist" or a supported of "western imperialism" like a Moderator said in my reputation earlier, I am just giving my own analysis on the reality of the situation.

In my neg-rep I never called you a fascist, to put that on record.

Secondly, you identify as an 'anarchist' yet are supporting sections of the ruling class over other sections of the ruling class. It does not take a genius to work out this is a Liberal and reactionary position to be taking. To me this communicates that you have no concept of Praxis in ths slightest. Like it or not you are now calling for imperialist intervention and would even 'side' with the US over Russia in some bleeding-heart concept of tyranny. I'm sorry, if this is what you think you really ought to be restricted.

[Thirsty Crow]

Well I guess it isn't really analysis, I am just too lazy to make the argument and like you said it is irrelevant. So I agree with you

And unfortunately, I don't see how the world doesn't intervene. I would even go as far as to say it might spread into a multi-country conflict...
Where did I said that something is irrelevant? On the contrary, I think it is very relevant to be as clear as possible on issues such as this one, while upholding the class position, which entails absolutely no support, verbal or of any kind, for any imperialist bloc.

As for the development of the conflict, it's very hard for me to see where things are going right now, especially considering the fact that this is not another Lybia where the inter-imperialist conflict (on these lines, especially, Russia-US) was not as sharp, in my opinion.

[NoMasters]

In my neg-rep I never called you a fascist, to put that on record.

Secondly, you identify as an 'anarchist' yet are supporting sections of the ruling class over other sections of the ruling class. It does not take a genius to work out this is a Liberal and reactionary position to be taking. To me this communicates that you have no concept of Praxis in ths slightest. Like it or not you are now calling for imperialist intervention and would even 'side' with the US over Russia in some bleeding-heart concept of tyranny. I'm sorry, if this is what you think you really ought to be restricted.

Correct you didn't call me a fascist.

I am not supporting it. I am merely discussing the options and the reality of what is going on. In terms of theory, my tendencies make a Marxist look like a conservative. So don't judge that I am supporting Russia, USA, or NATO. I was giving you my personal reflections on a somewhat similar situation that happened to my OWN people and my OWN family members. It isn't very hard to speculate in theory without any experience or personal attachments to situations like that in Syria. You should be a bit more realistic, people that only theorize and provide the same A+B=C answers are just pointless to the progression of our common struggle.

Actually give some insight on the situation, rather than being a robotic leftist. To just ignore it and say that it is obvious to pick a side and that its all imperialistic is not helping anyone. Are you proposing that the Syrians should continued to be massacred while people like you are calling the only real hope to survive as an imperialistic intervention is just shallow and demeaning.

In fact, watch just a few videos that I have seen, and it will open your ignorant glued eyes to the reality of life and death in Syria...

Once again, emotion is taking a part in this post, but no one can fully hold their emotions when they have experienced personally the death of your people and your family.


Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man. -Friedrich Nietzsche

[NoMasters]

Where did I said that something is irrelevant? On the contrary, I think it is very relevant to be as clear as possible on issues such as this one, while upholding the class position, which entails absolutely no support, verbal or of any kind, for any imperialist bloc.

As for the development of the conflict, it's very hard for me to see where things are going right now, especially considering the fact that this is not another Lybia where the inter-imperialist conflict (on these lines, especially, Russia-US) was not as sharp, in my opinion.

Well what you are saying is that what is the difference between Russia and the US because either way they are imperialistic in nature. Thus making any type of intervention as a positive move for the Syria people is irrelevant because either way they are imperialistic..

And you are most definitely right.

However, I am quite confident on where the Syria situation is going. Tension is high between Syria and Turkey. Turkey is personally helping the FSA and opposition on their borders. If the conflict escalates, which it most definitely will, Syria might start bombing the FSA and opposition strong holds which are on the border of Turkey. Thus started a conflict immediately with Turkey. And lets remember that Syria is not in northern Africa. It is right in the center of all the world powers.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I would imagine that Turkey would be happy to see an Muslim Brotherhood-based regime in Syria. If that type of Islamic fundamentalist regime establishes itself in Syria there exists the very real possibility that Syrian women will lose important liberties. The American invasion of Iraq has brought to power Shia fundamentalists and Iraqi women today suffer repressions that are even worse than under Saddam Hussein. Revolutionary leftists must always uphold women's rights and never align ourselves with those who would relegate women to an inferior status as has occurred under Islamic fundamentalist regimes.

[NoMasters]

I would imagine that Turkey would be happy to see an Muslim Brotherhood-based regime in Syria. If that type of Islamic fundamentalist regime establishes itself in Syria there exists the very real possibility that Syrian women will lose important liberties. The American invasion of Iraq has brought to power Shia fundamentalists and Iraqi women today suffer repressions that are even worse than under Saddam Hussein. Revolutionary leftists must always uphold women's rights and never align ourselves with those who would relegate women to an inferior status as has occurred under Islamic fundamentalist regimes.

That is absolutely absurd to think that the Turks would influence the Syrian government and fundamentally change the laws. Turkey is probably the most free country in that region next to the terror state of Israel.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Turkey's secular freedoms are the legacy of Kemal Ataturk, and by all accounts are being eroded by the current Turkish regime. I would concede that the impetus toward fundamentalism in Syria is more likely to be internally based and in terms of outside influences the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is likely to be the malefactor. Nonetheless, revolutionary leftists ought to be aware women's rights are also in danger of erosion in Turkey. For that matter, religious fundamentalism also poses a threat to women's rights in Israel.

[Sam_b]

Turkey is probably the most free country in that region next to the terror state of Israel.

When it's not banning leftist organisations and shooting Kurds, right?

[NoMasters]

Turkey's secular freedoms are the legacy of Kemal Ataturk, and by all accounts are being eroded by the current Turkish regime. I would concede that the impetus toward fundamentalism in Syria is more likely to be internally based and in terms of outside influences the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is likely to be the malefactor. Nonetheless, revolutionary leftists ought to be aware women's rights are also in danger of erosion in Turkey. For that matter, religious fundamentalism also poses a threat to women's rights in Israel.

You are right about Ataturk. The Armenian genocide, liberalization of markets, and tyrannical implementation of things like a Westernized Turkish language and many other things.

Lets try to stay on topic

[NoMasters]

When it's not banning leftist organisations and shooting Kurds, right?

I am not saying they are great, but they aren't Iraq or Saudi Arabia.

And the killing of Kurds is a norm for that region unfortunately, just like the Israeli state murdering innocent Palestinians.

Lets talk about the UN and Syria and not diverge

[GoddessCleoLover]

What would be a principled position for revolutionary leftists who abhor the violence of the Assad regime, yet fear that its successor might impose Wahhabi-type repressions upon women?

[NoMasters]

What would be a principled position for revolutionary leftists who abhor the violence of the Assad regime, yet fear that its successor might impose Wahhabi-type repressions upon women?

Well a principled revolutionary leftist would deny both obviously.

And to even for a second think that a Wahhabi-type regime would come into power is nonsense. The people are fighting for rights, why the hell would they allow Wahhabis to come in.

[ckaihatsu]

Best post I've seen so far in these forums.

However, I would have to say that the Libyan revolution is a bit different than the Syrian revolution. Syria is far more organized and in a much more strategic location for the entire world.




But thanks for the post, I never noticed some of the parallels. And yes, thanks for noticing the emotion. I will obviously refrain from using emotion in future posts. Its just not easy to see that happening because it is so similar to my Albanian and Bosnian family in the 90's. A few of my family members were part of the Srebenica massacre. And my father's village just north of Skopje has been terrorized by the Slavs and Turks for 150 years. And I know see that Syrians are going through the same things. And although I was young and ignorant, we praised the NATO intervention at the beginning for liberating our people. And I know people in Syria would probably do the same initially, it sucks that the world always works for self-interest....




Well I guess it isn't really analysis, I am just too lazy to make the argument and like you said it is irrelevant. So I agree with you




And unfortunately, I don't see how the world doesn't intervene. I would even go as far as to say it might spread into a multi-country conflict...


What I'm noticing in this entire discussion is that it's easy to get "sucked upward" into *identifying* with the major nationalist and imperialist powers. This thread's topic is stated as being *only* about the veto (as a geopolitical counterbalance to NATO aggression).

But -- I'm sorry to have to say -- your *personal* experiences, *and* the realpolitik of the powers-that-be, have *nothing* to do with what *our* politics *should be*. In other words the Western intervention into the former Yugoslavia was *not* for humanitarian purposes primarily, even if some assistance was rendered in the process. The major powers are *only* out for self-interest, as you stated yourself.





What would be a principled position for revolutionary leftists who abhor the violence of the Assad regime, yet fear that its successor might impose Wahhabi-type repressions upon women?


We call for a revolutionary program from those inside Syria -- and/or Libya, etc. -- who *can* speak for the workers' best interests there, as *has* happened from inside Egypt.

[GoddessCleoLover]

But what is the prognosis for the Egyptian revolutionary movement now that a largely Islamic-based parliament has been elected and the military continues to repress demonstrators?

[PhoenixAsh]

The vetoeing of the UN resolution on Syria by Russia and China is IMO another expression of imperialist countries defending their sphere of influence and economic & stratgic influence from another group of imperialist countries who wish to expand theirs.

Nobody....absolutely nobody....gives a flying fuck about the people who are being shot upon by their "own" governments. All the fuss politicians are making about the whole situation in Syria...as they did in Lybia, is simply another propaganda effort to trump up popular support and preparing for intervention to expand economic and strategic influence by forcing a regime change.

[GoddessCleoLover]

What ought to be done to alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people?

[NoMasters]

What I'm noticing in this entire discussion is that it's easy to get "sucked upward" into *identifying* with the major nationalist and imperialist powers. This thread's topic is stated as being *only* about the veto (as a geopolitical counterbalance to NATO aggression).

But -- I'm sorry to have to say -- your *personal* experiences, *and* the realpolitik of the powers-that-be, have *nothing* to do with what *our* politics *should be*. In other words the Western intervention into the former Yugoslavia was *not* for humanitarian purposes primarily, even if some assistance was rendered in the process. The major powers are *only* out for self-interest, as you stated yourself.





We call for a revolutionary program from those inside Syria -- and/or Libya, etc. -- who *can* speak for the workers' best interests there, as *has* happened from inside Egypt.


I am not supporting any of those ideas, but as a political sub-section on this forum, isn't that the point? I feel as if we are supposed to talk about these current issues rather than just stating A+B=C answers rather than actually discussing things like intervention or funding of their revolution.

And now I can tell you the NATO invasion of the Balkans was based somewhat on humanitarian purposes. In fact, I remember going to meetings with my father and congressman and others talking about the crisis on the ground.

I also remember my father telling me that at a conference in Serbia about the conflict that was going on, that Joe Biden stood up and pointed at the US ambassador to Serbia and cursed at him and told him that you are a traitor. He also pointed at one of the heads of the Serbian regime and told him that I will personally make sure that we destroy you because of your crimes against the people in the region.

So I will have to object to your statement about it being primarily for reasons other than humanitarian. It was closer to 50-50.

[Ostrinski]

And to even for a second think that a Wahhabi-type regime would come into power is nonsense. The people are fighting for rights, why the hell would they allow Wahhabis to come in.I'm sure that's what you thought about the Libyans insurgents as well.

[Ostrinski]

So I will have to object to your statement about it being primarily for reasons other than humanitarian. It was closer to 50-50.And I will object to your idealist jargon. To even assume for a second that NATO acts outside of their interests ever is lunacy.

[Prometeo liberado]

Putin is a corrupt dictatorial oligarch trying to save a client regime. The Chinese "Communist" party has shed the blood of its own workers and students, so supporting a blood-stained dictatorship is par for the course. Does anyone on RevLeft really believe that Putin and/or Hu Jintao are real socialists as to the "barracks" variety long ago denounced by Marx and Engels?

Maybe you don't understand that this isn't about who runs china or russia. It's about stopping imperialist aggression directed at Syria.

[GoddessCleoLover]

It is also about why Russia and China vetoed the resolution, to wit that their governments are pursuing corrupt interests rather than seeking to abate the bloodshed in Syria. I find the position of Syria's neighbors telling in that they apparently have concluded that the Assad regime is incapable of ruling Syria without shedding sufficient blood as to potentially lead to civil war. I would agree that American and European interests are likely based as much on economic and geopolitical interests as purported humanitarian concerns.

[ckaihatsu]

---





But what is the prognosis for the Egyptian revolutionary movement now that a largely Islamic-based parliament has been elected and the military continues to repress demonstrators?





http://www.marxist.com/statement-committee-defence-of-revolution-egypt.htm


Egypt: Statement of the Maadi, Besatin and Dar el-Salam Committee for the Defence of the Revolution


Written by The Committee for the Defence of the Revolution – Maadi, Besatin and Dar el-Salam

Friday, 18 February 2011


We republish here a statement from the Committee for the Defence of the Revolution of the south Cairo neighbourhoods of Maadi, Besatin and Dar el-Salam. Such CDRs were established during the revolutionary uprising which led to the overthrow of Mubarak and they exist in several Cairo neighbourhoods, but also in other cities, including the industrial centre of Helwan.

While we do not necessarily agree with all their demands, they generally go in the correct direction of furthering the revolution and introducing genuine democracy. The most important thing is that workers and youth are organising such Committees as organisations of struggle and that will inevitably bring them into conflict with the ruling class which wants to introduce only cosmetic reforms but maintaining their system of domination intact.


The revolution continues

The blood from the martyrs has not yet dried. It asks us to continue our uprising that has the goal to achieve our demands and not be ruled by criminals. The revolution has achieved something great by the fall of the tyrant and many of his supporters. But it has to be underlined that many of the aims of the revolution have not yet been achieved, because the current rulers in our country prevent it. This requires that we continue the revolution in many forms by among other things strikes, sit-ins and uprisings. Besides that a Committees for the Defence of the Revolution should be established in the neighbourhoods, cities and villages, so we can preserve the gains that the revolution has achieved, with the following demands:

1. The struggle for civilian rule is achieved by broader public and private liberty rights; such as the freedom to organise political parties, trade unions, trade union federations and freedom of the press, expression, opinions and believes.

2. The establishing of a national civilian government excluding the National Party, its officials and former presidential candidates. The council should consist of 5 judges from the Court of Cassation so that the army return to the barracks within one month.

3. The President's people, his current and former officials, ministers and presidents within the last thirty years to face trial for the crimes and corruption they committed. Furthermore their fortunes must be confiscated both at home and abroad so that they can be used to build factories and economic projects, with the purpose of helping solve the problem of unemployment.

4. The election of a constituent assembly to draft a democratic constitution for the new republic

5. Renationalisation of all state-owned land sold to thieves as businessmen and the corrupt regime over 30 years that should be directed to establish a fund to build homes for the youth.

6. Introduction of a progressive tax duty for all millionaires with the purpose of financing a minimum wage (1500 Egyptian pounds) for all workers and that the maximum wage does not exceed ten times the minimum.

7. Prosecution of the leaders of the Ministry of the Interior and those who participated in the killing of the protesters, innocents and the many thousands who were wounded, and the implementation of a system of appropriate compensation. This should give compensation to the families of both the dead and the wounded and those who need treatment should receive it at the expense of the state.

8. All political related prisoners to be released, both those arrested before and after January 25.

9. The dissolution of the state's Central Investigation and Central Security Units, a ban against the use of weapons in the repression of protest movements and a limitation of the role of the police in maintaining security under the peoples supervision.

Let us together support the establishment of Committee to Defend the Revolution in all neighbourhoods, cities and villages.

Long live the Peoples January 25 revolution

Eternal glory to our loyal martyrs

The Committee for the Defence of the Revolution – Maadi, Besatin and Dar el-Salam

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Secondly, you identify as an 'anarchist' yet are supporting sections of the ruling class over other sections of the ruling class. It does not take a genius to work out this is a Liberal and reactionary position to be taking. To me this communicates that you have no concept of Praxis in ths slightest. Like it or not you are now calling for imperialist intervention and would even 'side' with the US over Russia in some bleeding-heart concept of tyranny. I'm sorry, if this is what you think you really ought to be restricted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_the_Sixteen

It wouldn't be the first time. I think many communists and anarchists in history took dodgy opinions on various events. I think it is better to ban someone who is fundamentally philosophically opposed to the Leftist project as opposed to anybody who takes unorthodox views on particular aspects of international affairs.


When it's not banning leftist organisations and shooting Kurds, right?

To be fair, he did specify in the middle east. It's not hard for Turkey to have a better human rights record than Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel or Syria ... but yeah Turkey has an atrocious human rights record.

It hasn't gotten worse under the AKP but it hasn't gotten any better either. Turkey has been a dictatorship ever since its revolution from Ottoman Imperialism, as evidenced by the numerous coups whenever the elected governments do things which the hidden dictatorship doesn't want.



And to even for a second think that a Wahhabi-type regime would come into power is nonsense. The people are fighting for rights, why the hell would they allow Wahhabis to come in.

What happens when the Wahabis have all the guns, as in Libya and the Sunni area of Iraq? Most anti-Gaddafi protesters just wanted their autocrat gone, and rightly protested his rule, but the people who replaced him are not necessarily any better. This isn't because most protesters supported Salafism, but instead because those most willing to pick up a gun and die were the Salafis.


What ought to be done to alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people?

The problem with the "anti-Imperialist" position is that it provides no answer to this question at all. It basically leaves the Syrians to die simply because their government opposes that of the USA and NATO in general. That said, any regime put in place by the USA or NATO would in the long run turn out to be just as bad, but the point still stands-the anti-Imperialists don't really offer an alternative themselves. The best thing is to oppose their shitty governments and our shitty governments simultaneously, and advocate that the Russian, Chinese and Syrian people do the same. Obviously, the bourgeois regimes of Damascus, Moscow, Beijing, London and Washington must all go into the dustbin of history

[manic expression]

Best post I've seen so far in these forums.

However, I would have to say that the Libyan revolution is a bit different than the Syrian revolution. Syria is far more organized and in a much more strategic location for the entire world.

But thanks for the post, I never noticed some of the parallels. And yes, thanks for noticing the emotion. I will obviously refrain from using emotion in future posts. Its just not easy to see that happening because it is so similar to my Albanian and Bosnian family in the 90's. A few of my family members were part of the Srebenica massacre. And my father's village just north of Skopje has been terrorized by the Slavs and Turks for 150 years.
Look, what happened in the Balkans isn't the same as what's happening now in Syria. They're completely different situations. One was about ethnic cleansing, this has no such element.

But the one thing you need to remember is that NATO didn't do SH*T about Srebenica. Bosnia is full of "FUCK NATO" graffiti, and for good reason, the imperialists caused the whole thing in the first place and then all they did was bomb some Serbian schools when the worst of it was over.

Being emotional about politics is natural...but your emotions are going the wrong way. Imperialism is the true monster that is threatening the Syrian people. The Syrian government has been heavy-handed, yes, but US imperialism will be 5000000000000x worse if it gets into Syria. The imperialists would happily level Damascus to dust and laugh about it. Be emotional about that...oppose the true enemies of the people of Syria.

[Franz Fanonipants]

What would be a principled position for revolutionary leftists who abhor the violence of the Assad regime, yet fear that its successor might impose Wahhabi-type repressions upon women?

start reading karl marx and stop reading chris hitchens or whatever

[NoMasters]

Look, what happened in the Balkans isn't the same as what's happening now in Syria. They're completely different situations. One was about ethnic cleansing, this has no such element.

But the one thing you need to remember is that NATO didn't do SH*T about Srebenica. Bosnia is full of "FUCK NATO" graffiti, and for good reason, the imperialists caused the whole thing in the first place and then all they did was bomb some Serbian schools when the worst of it was over.

Being emotional about politics is natural...but your emotions are going the wrong way. Imperialism is the true monster that is threatening the Syrian people. The Syrian government has been heavy-handed, yes, but US imperialism will be 5000000000000x worse if it gets into Syria. The imperialists would happily level Damascus to dust and laugh about it. Be emotional about that...oppose the true enemies of the people of Syria.

So now you seem to know about a situation that I personally and politically experienced?

I mean honestly, how can you possibly think you know that they hate NATO?

In fact, Bosnians were mad they weren't helped soon enough. The genocide took place and no one seemed to anything about it and I bet most of the radical neoleft thought the same things they think about Syria.

Please just lay off on this talk, it is irrelevant. And you have no idea what you are talking about. You are rationalizing that they hated the NATO on premises that a 4 year old would place in order to validate their argument.

The NATO in most of the people's minds in this forum seem to say that screw imperialist aid in the name of principle. Yeah.....we will see what you say if your family and people are genocided.

[NoMasters]

And I will object to your idealist jargon. To even assume for a second that NATO acts outside of their interests ever is lunacy.

You might be right. But it is not purely for self-interests. You most likely have no experience in any type of politics at all. And it shows.

And for the Syrians, must we just sit here and allow people to be massacred? Because of unrealistic principles you stand behind? Like I said earlier, black and white thinking gives no solutions.

And since this is a political discussion, give me an alternative to the UN's security council's proposal over Syria. Which only called for Assad to delegate his power.

[Sam_b]

So now you seem to know about a situation that I personally and politically experienced?

I mean honestly, how can you possibly think you know that they hate NATO?

This is a heap of rubbish. I'm sorry, but you get no respect or kudos for framing a discussion around the idea that somehow because people were not directly involved they have no right to an opinion. There is a fine line between the emotive and the rational, and I fear you are crossing it. We understand your situation, yes; but this does not mean we have to somehow refrain from criticising your conclusions because your family went through some horrible times.

I can criticise NATO and the UN for a heap of things - selling out the Roma and putting them in camps with high levels of polution and radioation, to the extent that most children born there will die, and refusing to give out medication or move them on. I can criticise NATO for a series of bombings of 'enemy targets' in the Balkans that turned out to be hospitals. I can criticise NATO for an aggressive 'peacemaking' that flattened civilian neighbourhoods in Libya. I can criticise the UN for widespread corruption and indescriminate assualts and rape in Liberia. It does not particularly matter that I have not grown up in this territory. First-hand accounts are valuable but it does not become a barrier for not allowing anyone to speak on a parallel level.

You have said the situation is not 'black and white', yet you are advocating solutions which are 'lesser of two evil options'. You have said you will happily cheer a foreign invasion of Syria by the US, despite all of us knowing how such 'liberations' have fared in the past. Hell, you even admit you would take sides in the US favour over conflict with China and Russia. Yet you have offered no real explaination as to why supporting one superpower is somehow better than another. Here's the reality - all act in the interests of capital, certainly not for humanitarian purposes, and all exploit the working class, our class, for generations.

Get off your high horse, please.

[Decolonize The Left]

start reading karl marx and stop reading chris hitchens or whatever

Dude you need to chill on the trolling/spam one-liners. Seriously. If you're not going to contribute to the thread then don't, it's totally acceptable to read a thread and not toss in your bullshit.

NoMasters is obviously struggling with a contradiction in theory and folks here are addressing it, no need for attacking someone with an opinion we think is misguided.

- August

[Franz Fanonipants]

Dude you need to chill on the trolling/spam one-liners. Seriously. If you're not going to contribute to the thread then don't, it's totally acceptable to read a thread and not toss in your bullshit.

NoMasters is obviously struggling with a contradiction in theory and folks here are addressing it, no need for attacking someone with an opinion we think is misguided.

- August

I was talking to someone being alarmist and racist about being afraid of how powerful a "wahhabist" regime coming to power in Syria could be.

I'm not fucking around, when I make a point I mean it.

[NoMasters]

This is a heap of rubbish. I'm sorry, but you get no respect or kudos for framing a discussion around the idea that somehow because people were not directly involved they have no right to an opinion. There is a fine line between the emotive and the rational, and I fear you are crossing it. We understand your situation, yes; but this does not mean we have to somehow refrain from criticising your conclusions because your family went through some horrible times.

I can criticise NATO and the UN for a heap of things - selling out the Roma and putting them in camps with high levels of polution and radioation, to the extent that most children born there will die, and refusing to give out medication or move them on. I can criticise NATO for a series of bombings of 'enemy targets' in the Balkans that turned out to be hospitals. I can criticise NATO for an aggressive 'peacemaking' that flattened civilian neighbourhoods in Libya. I can criticise the UN for widespread corruption and indescriminate assualts and rape in Liberia. It does not particularly matter that I have not grown up in this territory. First-hand accounts are valuable but it does not become a barrier for not allowing anyone to speak on a parallel level.

You have said the situation is not 'black and white', yet you are advocating solutions which are 'lesser of two evil options'. You have said you will happily cheer a foreign invasion of Syria by the US, despite all of us knowing how such 'liberations' have fared in the past. Hell, you even admit you would take sides in the US favour over conflict with China and Russia. Yet you have offered no real explaination as to why supporting one superpower is somehow better than another. Here's the reality - all act in the interests of capital, certainly not for humanitarian purposes, and all exploit the working class, our class, for generations.

Get off your high horse, please.

I am not advocating a lesser of two evils. But once again, you are mentioning the negatives of the NATO and ignoring the good. Although I am not saying I was western intervention, I think that if there is no other solution and NATO is the only chance for helping the Syrian people, would you still then deny their intervention if needed?

I am saying that I am supporting a realistic chance to save thousands of innocent people and several hundred women and children.

This is a political discussion about Syria and the discussion about what has to be done with what the options are on the table. This has become the robotic A+B=C theorist explanation.

And when I say that with these options on the table the NATO would be the best route, you label me as agreeing with Western Imperialism. And denying the real situation about thousands being murdered in Syria.

I would make the argument that people like you are just as responsible for the death of the innocent Syrian people as those who support the regime. If the Syrian people can't be saved, change will not come and any chance of global revolution would be even more bleak. Like I said earlier, it is easy to sit in your house with A/C and electricity and theorize about things that people like you have seemed to dehumanize. Death to innocents has become a very distorted aspect of neo-marxism like that of the early 1900's in Europe that were eventually transformed into Fascists because of the communists failure to unite under realistic change rather than living on the principle of death as a martyr of communism is necessary. Just like religion, fascism, or any other totalitarian ideology. I.e. USSR and China during their collectivization principles as explained in the Manifesto by Marx. Over 50 million people died under these principles that people like you put over reality.

I find it pathetic and childish, but it is easy to say what you are saying in your comfortable life separate from atrocities like that of Syria.

And once again, I know that you would change your mind if those were your people and family. What did isolationism do in WWII? People living on principles of isolationism and ideals that eventually lead to 70 million deaths. Would you then keep your theory you have and not support a NATO to stop such a horrible event? Or would you continue to respond with robotic nonsense?

All I am trying to say is that lets be realistic here and actually weigh out the options. In my opinion, the replies I am seeing from some of the posters in this thread is why I think the radical left has become ineffective in the last 20 years in politics. David Harvey and others like him actually give realistic options and they are the ones responsible for bringing back Marxism into discussion. But I'm sure most of the people here would say that he isn't following the religion of Marxist revolution and therefore he is not a real leftist because he wants to change things slowly through government and democracy rather than a violent revolution that history proves lead to terrible outcomes. Bolshevik Revolution, French Revolution, and the Mao Revolution to name a few.

But of course, you are gonna label me as a supporter of Western Imperialism.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Franz aimed that jibe at me apparently, but I found the notion that I get my ideas from Hitchens absurd so I let it pass. I doubt that Karl Marx addressed the issue at hand, and find it a disservice to Marx to invoke him as the fount of all wisdom on all matters. The Syrian situation IMO genuinely presents a difficult set of countervailing considerations. The loss of life within Syria is to my mind the most important of those considerations, and I don't ned the ghost of Hitchens or anyone else to think on my behalf.

[Decolonize The Left]

I was talking to someone being alarmist and racist about being afraid of how powerful a "wahhabist" regime coming to power in Syria could be.

I'm not fucking around, when I make a point I mean it.

No, actually, you were trolling and spamming. Here - you're posts in this thread:


why is it anarchists are always reactionary as fuck
Trolling anarchists.


thats a fair cop.

why is it that reactionaries self-identify with anarchism so much
More trolling of anarchists.


start reading karl marx and stop reading chris hitchens or whatever
Random spam trolling.

Seriously dude, you haven't made any point. You aren't being serious. You haven't mentioned anything about racism or even Syria. Now I'm not a mod/admin anymore, I'm politely asking you to stop de-railing this thread.

- August

[Franz Fanonipants]

do i seriously NEED to say "hey man being concerned about some nightmare wahabs or w/e is RACIST?" like do i need to moralize in order to get my point across?

[Decolonize The Left]

do i seriously NEED to say "hey man being concerned about some nightmare wahabs or w/e is RACIST?" like do i need to moralize in order to get my point across?

No. You need to stop spamming/trolling the shit out of the forum and make substantive posts which articulate your position so that other members can understand you and respond.

This isn't fucking preschool. This is basic posting 101.

- August

[gorillafuck]

Of course not. I just think Assad's regime must be destroyed. And I don't care who or what ideology stops it at this point.if you support America taking down Assad, then yes that is supporting American imperialism.

and American intervention would not cause less death. it would cause more death, as it did in Libya.

[Sam_b]

I am not advocating a lesser of two evils

I'm sorry, but yes you are. Advocating supporting one section of imperialism against another, when none are in the least bit progressive, is exactly that. Your are taking sides that offer no option for working people.


But once again, you are mentioning the negatives of the NATO and ignoring the good

I'm not going to be balanced when we're talking about a capitalist institution. NATO was set up to protect the interests of the ruling classes in the countries it represents. Your keep going on about 'massacres' but ignore the very real atrocities committed by imperialism.


Although I am not saying I was western intervention, I think that if there is no other solution and NATO is the only chance for helping the Syrian people, would you still then deny their intervention if needed?

Really this is a very poor line to take if you are a leftist. Western intervention is not interested in Syrian workers in the same way that it is not interested in Lybian, Afghan or Iraqi workers. Why was it that the first thing NATO and the West did in Libya was to assure and honour oil contracts with the West? Why did this also happen in Iraq? The future of Syria lies in the revolution spreading, not this patrionising line you have that these people somehow need to call in the West for help. Organised workers and general strikes toppled the regimes in Egypt and Syria. Why are you so keen on the West coming in and entrenching some sort of sham democracy?


I am saying that I am supporting a realistic chance to save thousands of innocent people and several hundred women and children.


You're not. This is exactly the same line that apologists for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq said. Guess what? It didn't turn out like that at all. Your 'realistic chance', as seen before, means carpet bombing cities. It means spending money for jobs and healthcare on rocketing where the 'supporters' are based, i.e in civilian areas. Your solution is to turn Syria into a bloodbath. Libya cost up to 30,000 lives with 50,000 injured. This is a solution to you?


This is a political discussion about Syria and the discussion about what has to be done with what the options are on the table. This has become the robotic A+B=C theorist explanation.

Get off your high horse. Apparently because there are some capitalist countries with missiles and bombs we throw all theory out of the window. I'm afraid to be a leftist you need to employ praxis - a mixture of theory and practice that moves the class forward. The view you advocate is one that is against the working class and anti-left - you take a patrionising view that the Syrian people cannot liberate themselves. If we took this view throughout history there would be no Russian revolution, no Arab Spring uprising.


And when I say that with these options on the table the NATO would be the best route, you label me as agreeing with Western Imperialism.

Yes, because you support the West invading and occupying and bringing more murder for the Syrian people. Supporting NATO and cheering on an invasion is supporting Western Imperialism. I don't think you can deny this.



I would make the argument that people like you are just as responsible for the death of the innocent Syrian people as those who support the regime. If the Syrian people can't be saved, change will not come and any chance of global revolution would be even more bleak. Like I said earlier, it is easy to sit in your house with A/C and electricity and theorize about things that people like you have seemed to dehumanize. Death to innocents has become a very distorted aspect of neo-marxism like that of the early 1900's in Europe that were eventually transformed into Fascists because of the communists failure to unite under realistic change rather than living on the principle of death as a martyr of communism is necessary. Just like religion, fascism, or any other totalitarian ideology. I.e. USSR and China during their collectivization principles as explained in the Manifesto by Marx. Over 50 million people died under these principles that people like you put over reality.


Ironically you are sitting in your house in the United States calling for a country to be invaded by the West. If you think Marxism was somehow advocating genocide in Ukraine or collective farming model as witnessed in USSR or Hungary in the Manifesto you're sorely mistaken; and I would argue that you should read some of this theory before dismissing it out of hand.


And once again, I know that you would change your mind if those were your people and family. What did isolationism do in WWII? People living on principles of isolationism and ideals that eventually lead to 70 million deaths. Would you then keep your theory you have and not support a NATO to stop such a horrible event? Or would you continue to respond with robotic nonsense?


I'm sorry, but you are now getting insulting. Are you actually a leftist?
For the record I believe WW2 was a tragedy with ruval forms of imperialism set against each other, and should have ideally turned into a civil war between workers and the ruling class.



All I am trying to say is that lets be realistic here and actually weigh out the options. In my opinion, the replies I am seeing from some of the posters in this thread is why I think the radical left has become ineffective in the last 20 years in politics. David Harvey and others like him actually give realistic options and they are the ones responsible for bringing back Marxism into discussion. But I'm sure most of the people here would say that he isn't following the religion of Marxist revolution and therefore he is not a real leftist because he wants to change things slowly through government and democracy rather than a violent revolution that history proves lead to terrible outcomes. Bolshevik Revolution, French Revolution, and the Mao Revolution to name a few.

The Russian revolution and the French revolution were 'terrible outcomes' now?

--


I think, I think it's time you were restricted.

[Rafiq]

Like organized crime and teenage addiction indicate anything with regard to the political structure of a society. Not that outstanding democratic societies exhibit similar social phenomena, right?

Yes, because under the wonderful democratic system of Yeltsin, citizens enjoyed the ability to engage in the political system, as no corruption, no Mafia control over fucking everything, and no external factors existed, right?

Fine, I was foolish for posting that. But the over all point still stands: Why do we tolerate "leftists" who judge countries on how Bourgeois-democratic-liberal they are?

What kind of scum bag criticizes the Putin regime for "destroying the democratic gains made by Yeltsin"? A bourgeois-liberal.

It's like Chomsky opposing Chavez because "he ruined Venezueala's wonderful democracy".

Fuck Putin, but him "not being democratic enough" are the least of my criticisms.

When he talks of Bourgeois-Democracy, I say Russia is too democratic and all remnants of "democracy" should be crushed and destroyed in the midst of a proletarian revolution. Fucking Liberals, why can't they fuck off?


Such appeal to emotions is dishonest as hell, and I'm sure you could do better in political analysis than this idealist rubbish.


It was rubbish, but the point was, he shouldn't be criticizing the Putin regime because all of a sudden Russia is "Less democratic" than the Yelstin era. We are communists, we oppose Liberalist bullshit democracy, and as real communists we have no ambition to set our goal as "democracy". our goal is conquest of state dictatorship and the destruction of our class enemies.

[Rafiq]

I am not saying they are great, but they aren't Iraq or Saudi Arabia.

And the killing of Kurds is a norm for that region unfortunately, just like the Israeli state murdering innocent Palestinians.


Turkey murdering kurds more than any other state = "Well, they're okay I guess"

Israel murdering Palestinians more than any other state = Israel is a terror state, not like Turkey or anything, Turkey is good.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Israel murdering Palestinians more than any other state = Israel is a terror state, not like Turkey or anything, Turkey is good.

hey man they're "secularists" that counts for something doesn't it

/laffo

[gorillafuck]

Turkish treatment of Kurds and Israeli treatment of Palestinians are pretty similar scenarios. it's just that in America leftists focus on Israel because of the whole your own government stuff etc. (which makes sense)

[Rafiq]

thats a fair cop.

why is it that reactionaries self-identify with anarchism so much

Well, mainly because Anarchism, unlike Marxism, varies a lot. For an Liberal "Moderate" Islamist fucker like Nomasters, he can hold any position he wants and call himself an Anarchist. He doesn't have to be a materialist, or anything. Also, "Right wing Libertarianism" "Individualism" "Baa governmentz r bad, go liberty!" (contrary to leftist anarchism, which sees the state as oppressive, not government) have something to do with it perhaps.

[Rafiq]

Turkish treatment of Kurds and Israeli treatment of Palestinians are pretty similar scenarios. it's just that in America leftists focus on Israel because of the whole your own government stuff etc. (which makes sense)

I don't know what this means, but the United States and Turkey are pretty big allies.

[NoMasters]

I'm sorry, but yes you are. Advocating supporting one section of imperialism against another, when none are in the least bit progressive, is exactly that. Your are taking sides that offer no option for working people.



I'm not going to be balanced when we're talking about a capitalist institution. NATO was set up to protect the interests of the ruling classes in the countries it represents. Your keep going on about 'massacres' but ignore the very real atrocities committed by imperialism.



Really this is a very poor line to take if you are a leftist. Western intervention is not interested in Syrian workers in the same way that it is not interested in Lybian, Afghan or Iraqi workers. Why was it that the first thing NATO and the West did in Libya was to assure and honour oil contracts with the West? Why did this also happen in Iraq? The future of Syria lies in the revolution spreading, not this patrionising line you have that these people somehow need to call in the West for help. Organised workers and general strikes toppled the regimes in Egypt and Syria. Why are you so keen on the West coming in and entrenching some sort of sham democracy?



You're not. This is exactly the same line that apologists for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq said. Guess what? It didn't turn out like that at all. Your 'realistic chance', as seen before, means carpet bombing cities. It means spending money for jobs and healthcare on rocketing where the 'supporters' are based, i.e in civilian areas. Your solution is to turn Syria into a bloodbath. Libya cost up to 30,000 lives with 50,000 injured. This is a solution to you?



Get off your high horse. Apparently because there are some capitalist countries with missiles and bombs we throw all theory out of the window. I'm afraid to be a leftist you need to employ praxis - a mixture of theory and practice that moves the class forward. The view you advocate is one that is against the working class and anti-left - you take a patrionising view that the Syrian people cannot liberate themselves. If we took this view throughout history there would be no Russian revolution, no Arab Spring uprising.



Yes, because you support the West invading and occupying and bringing more murder for the Syrian people. Supporting NATO and cheering on an invasion is supporting Western Imperialism. I don't think you can deny this.



Ironically you are sitting in your house in the United States calling for a country to be invaded by the West. If you think Marxism was somehow advocating genocide in Ukraine or collective farming model as witnessed in USSR or Hungary in the Manifesto you're sorely mistaken; and I would argue that you should read some of this theory before dismissing it out of hand.



I'm sorry, but you are now getting insulting. Are you actually a leftist?
For the record I believe WW2 was a tragedy with ruval forms of imperialism set against each other, and should have ideally turned into a civil war between workers and the ruling class.



The Russian revolution and the French revolution were 'terrible outcomes' now?

--


I think, I think it's time you were restricted.


So now its purely the workers who should be the focus of their struggle?

Absolutely pathetic....I guess the children and women, the 600 of them who were tortured, raped, and murdered are of less importance than the workers.

You sound like a dictator dude.

And yes, they had awful outcomes, the Napoleanic Wars that killed several million people and the USSR who killed over 20 million of their own people.

But of course you support both because they were necessary for the "cause" of change. Although they eventually lead to millions of pointless deaths which you seem to once again dehumanize.

Have you ever seen a dead body? Have you ever shot a gun? Have you ever been in a near death experience? Have you ever lost family members at the hand of a state? Have your people been genocided?

No. And that is my conclusion to your offensive dehumanization of people like the children and women of Syria who aren't the "workers".

And now I should be banned because I am advocating a political engagement of some sort in a real situation with real consequences? This is a political discussion, and it seems to me that you are either a robot, or have no education regarding politics in any way at all.

And I can't put myself on a political spectrum in the way you see it. I am a radical individual anarchist with the belief of socialism. Call me whatever you want. I oppose death to the level just short of pacifism, hence "the aspiring pacifist".

So I bet that you think that pacifists are worthless in the revolution because we think death is wrong and unnecessary in almost all situations.

I find murder and death to be the definition of the failed ideologies of the left and right. Fascism and State-Authoritarian Collective Socialism(USSR).

But because I am objecting strongly to the failure of the "left" as you think they are, now I am worthy of restriction? I seem to think you are somewhat trolling on my posts in a lot of regards, you have offered no real insight but criticism to my posts involving politics. This isn't a theory section and therefore why are we discussing it?

And for the French Revolution and Bolshevik Revolution, they were beautiful movements at their start. However, authority came in and a reaction took place, just like Bakunin predicted would happen and with the reaction would come great consequences. China and Russia during their revolution and post-revolution solidification, over 70 million people died. But of course because I said this you think I think revolution is bad and that communism is bad. Although no part of either revolution were communist in any way, at least in the way I see communism, which is really anarchism with a lack of trust in people.

And because I oppose strongly to those revolutions in many ways, I am not a leftist. I adore the Spanish commune in the early 1900's, and I am not bashing their movement at all. I hope you do realize that they were destroyed because of the West, Germany, and the "Communists" in Russia and in Spain who thought they knew better than the people. It disgusts me to see people support that regime that ruined the greatest society in history in my opinion.

Yeah I am in my house, and yes I am thinking about the current political situation in Syria and what options are on the table. I am not just ignoring them for the sake of principle as you are. And I am supporting Syrians, I send money to a charity here in Colorado that is helping their people and I can do so because my extremely wealthy "bourgeoisie" family has the resources to help. But of course, I am not a leftist because I am actively engaging in the political system trying to change things. And instead I should be theorizing some grandiose idea of a revolution that seems to plague the minds of people on the left.

You do realize that my father was a major figure to the liberation of Albanians and Kosovars? I mentioned this earlier but you seem to ignore the realities once again. And because of so, you are getting offended I think for no good reason.

And can you try to give some real discussion about Syria and the world politics on that issue? Or are you going to give me a definition of traditional Marxism? I see that most people that do that are drones and do not do anything for the cause of revolution. Do you really think it takes a genius today to think that workers are a major source of revolution? The past 2 decades their have been movement all over the world that fought against both neoliberal economics and USSR economics, both of which destroyed workers and their wages. Argentina for example took direct action and took over the factories to feed their children. That is traditionally aligned with Marxism in some ways. But that is not the case for Syria.

How the hell are the workers in Syria gonna do anything? Please explain.

And in your explanation, provide proofs and detailed logical arguments.

And I will provide you my idea of how to help the people.

1. Fund the Free Syrian Army with private arms dealers.
2. Send people to help those who are getting wounded.
3. Engage actively with the world, or internally in the governments as my father did, and get governments to provide some help some how, even if in self-interested gains, as long as they aren't imperialistic. As long as it benefits the Syrian people somehow.
4. Spread the word around to people you know or in your community as I have on campus here at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
5. Let the people then get ready to establish their government as they want it.

A lot of these ideas you are going to label as "neoliberal" somehow. And maybe in definition that may seem so. But some truly are the only way to help the people. Without some of the "neoliberal" solutions, tens of thousands of Syrians will die and people like you and Russia and China should be ashamed if that were to happen. It really upsets me to see that so many leftists on here think the same way you do. I see why the push for leftist change has failed miserably in a lot of ways. It is the strict adherence to Marxist principles that have done so in my opinion. I find it once again no different than radical Wahhabis or Salafis in Islam, or radical nationalists, and I think history proves that to be true.

So stop :crying: and actually engage in real political discussion instead of bashing one who believes in a lot of the same things you do.

[NoMasters]

Turkey murdering kurds more than any other state = "Well, they're okay I guess"

Israel murdering Palestinians more than any other state = Israel is a terror state, not like Turkey or anything, Turkey is good.

You really aren't using relativism in your thought on the middle eastern countries.

Saudi Arabia doesn't allow women to drive and still executes them for having sex with another man. Or in Iraq and Iran where they stone women to death when their husband becomes irrationally insecure and accuses them and they die because of it.

I never said it was okay that Turkey murdered Kurds. But what I am saying is that Turkey is far more free and democratic than the surrounding countries.

Not to mention that Saudi Arabia indirectly allows the murder of their peoples because of oil profits. Or in Pakistan, which is not technically Middle Eastern, they don't allow the Balochs vote and they even openly genocide them under the radar. Or how they openly rig elections and allow people to vote 1,000 times for the same candidate. And they blame every decent politician for crimes like Benazir, who eventually was assassinated by what I believe to Pakistani ISI people or people funded by the ISI.

So yes, Turkey is the most free, and don't sit there and say that because they aren't 100% free, they aren't free at all. Once again, that kind of thought is absolutely pointless.

[Sam_b]

So now its purely the workers who should be the focus of their struggle?

Absolutely pathetic....I guess the children and women, the 600 of them who were tortured, raped, and murdered are of less importance than the workers.


You do know what the working class is, right?


You sound like a dictator dude.

This is why this conversation is so absurd - you keep hurtling head-first into arguments and assertions that make no sense, or are nothing more than emotive hot-headed actions. Just because I, and the left, don't buy this Liberal defence of murder at the hands of NATO we are 'dictators'. Think before you type, please.


And yes, they had awful outcomes, the Napoleanic Wars that killed several million people and the USSR who killed over 20 million of their own people.

The rise of the Napoleonic wars and the USSR are seperate questions from that of the revolutions themselves. But even if they weren't, you said yourself two posts ago that I was 'only looking at the negatives in NATO'. Aren't you 'only lookingn at the negatives' of the USSR?


But of course you support both because they were necessary for the "cause" of change. Although they eventually lead to millions of pointless deaths which you seem to once again dehumanize.

This is ironic from someone calling for NATO to come and butcher the Syrians.


Have you ever seen a dead body? Have you ever shot a gun? Have you ever been in a near death experience? Have you ever lost family members at the hand of a state? Have your people been genocided?

In my former line of work I saw many dead people. Thanks for bringing it up though, because for a second I was wondering when the emotive irrelevance would come in and sidetrack from the hard argument.


No. And that is my conclusion to your offensive dehumanization of people like the children and women of Syria who aren't the "workers".


No, I guess you really don't know what the working class is. As a side-note, you're now turning into one of those pro-life people that hands out pictures of aborted featuses and goes MURDER! MURDER! without actually a) having a clue what you're talking about, and b) having any real argument at all.


And now I should be banned because I am advocating a political engagement of some sort in a real situation with real consequences? This is a political discussion, and it seems to me that you are either a robot, or have no education regarding politics in any way at all.

I've never called for you to be banned. I also seem to have no education regarding politics. BUT WAIT! Why have you now removed 'anarchist' from your tendency? Was that because you couldn't be an anarchist and call for NATO intervention?


And I can't put myself on a political spectrum in the way you see it. I am a radical individual anarchist with the belief of socialism. Call me whatever you want. I oppose death to the level just short of pacifism, hence "the aspiring pacifist".


You're just making this stuff up as you go along, aren't you? Oh wait, you're obviously doing it in a way I just don't 'get', man.


So I bet that you think that pacifists are worthless in the revolution because we think death is wrong and unnecessary in almost all situations.


Yeah, pretty much.



I find murder and death to be the definition of the failed ideologies of the left and right. Fascism and State-Authoritarian Collective Socialism(USSR).


Man, don't you love it when you can neatly compile over 100 years of collective history into a one-sentence analysis?


But because I am objecting strongly to the failure of the "left" as you think they are, now I am worthy of restriction?

No, I'm calling for you to be restricted because you're clearly supporting a foreign imperialist invasion of a country which will leave tens of thousands of ordinary people in ditches by the side of the road.


I seem to think you are somewhat trolling on my posts in a lot of regards, you have offered no real insight but criticism to my posts involving politics. This isn't a theory section and therefore why are we discussing it?


Firstly, politics is inherently entrenched in theory. Secondly, there has been nothing in your posts I have agreed with thus far. I like when an actual debate comes around you dismiss it as either 'trolling' or deflect because nobody else is going to join you in supporting one side of imperialism or another.


However, authority came in and a reaction took place, just like Bakunin predicted would happen and with the reaction would come great consequences. China and Russia during their revolution and post-revolution solidification, over 70 million people died. But of course because I said this you think I think revolution is bad and that communism is bad. Although no part of either revolution were communist in any way, at least in the way I see communism, which is really anarchism with a lack of trust in people.

I think you should start posting this stuff in Learning, as it isn't really to do with this thread and there's a lot to disagree with here. Why first of, are you assuming I somehow support Stalinism and Maoism?


And because I oppose strongly to those revolutions in many ways, I am not a leftist. I adore the Spanish commune in the early 1900's, and I am not bashing their movement at all. I hope you do realize that they were destroyed because of the West, Germany, and the "Communists" in Russia and in Spain who thought they knew better than the people. It disgusts me to see people support that regime that ruined the greatest society in history in my opinion

Why do you keep assuming that 'Communists' are somehow not also regular working class people? There is a lot more to, say, the Spanish civil war and the likes for just this.



Yeah I am in my house, and yes I am thinking about the current political situation in Syria and what options are on the table. I am not just ignoring them for the sake of principle as you are.

Are you saying the left should not have principles?

Why do you believe I am 'ignoring' people because I don't want bombs to fall on civilian communities? This is a pure strawman.


And instead I should be theorizing some grandiose idea of a revolution that seems to plague the minds of people on the left.


I'll be honest, if you want to talk down to people, you can do a lot better than this.


You do realize that my father was a major figure to the liberation of Albanians and Kosovars?

No, and it doesn't make one iota of difference to any argument.


And can you try to give some real discussion about Syria and the world politics on that issue?

I have been in this thread, as have other posters. However, your arrogance has got in the way. You seem to be confused. 'Real' discussion about Syria is putting forward the argument, as have other comrades here, that Western Intervention and NATO will not help the Syrian people, will not change anything which benefits the Syrian working class (again our class), and yet you keep deflecting by saying this isn't a 'real discussion' because people are shooting down your cheerleading. I'm sorry, but you keep talking about 'the Syrians' as if they're somehow disconnected from us and you. This is our class, in another country, and we make decisions and base our politics around how our class benefits and can overcome.


Or are you going to give me a definition of traditional Marxism?

What is 'traditional Marxism', praytell?


How the hell are the workers in Syria gonna do anything? Please explain.

What a patrionising and condescending view of people in struggle! I guess the events of the Arab Spring were lost on you.


A lot of these ideas you are going to label as "neoliberal" somehow

Why are you advocating that Western capitalism entrenches itself in arms dealing in the Middle East?

I'll be honest, I don't think you have any real clue about the situation. You keep going back to the same old rhetoric of don't you know my dad was this/don't you know where I am from/don't you know that people are dying/have you ever seen a dead person.... this really is condescending bullshit which you're using to mask the fact you have no argument.Get off that pedestal.

[Omsk]

So i guess you,as an "anarchist" support Albanian ultra-nationalism and terrorism?

[Omsk]

No need to be rude.

So are you fine with the war-crimes of the KLA?Crimes against the "disgusting Slavic Serbs"?

[Omsk]

I think it is clear that the user who started the thread has some serious nationalists positions.

[Sam_b]

For OP, this is what my organisation is saying about the events:

http://internationalsocialist.org.uk/index.php/2012/02/leaders-of-the-world-unite-the-un-isnt-the-only-way/

Recent events on the world stage have the liberal press lining up to demonise Russia and China for wielding their veto and blocking the UN’s proposed actions against Bashar al-Assad. One example is The Independent, which has gone from the carefully worded headline, “Syria free to bomb dissenters and Russia and China veto” to claiming that the nations have proscribed a “peace process”. Of course, The Independent is merely one example of this, but as liberal journalism goes, those headlines are pretty tabloid-esque in their manipulation, and the paper really should know better.</p>Anger at news headlines aside, the ongoing debate over ‘Where next for Syria?’ isn’t quite all that it seems. Whilst William Hague postures as the top dog of them all, there is a discomforting reality: if a UN resolution should pass that makes it official policy of the world’s leaders to support the resistance against Assad, then what is next? The UN surely must seek to act on its resolutions.</p>One option on the table would be to call for a full scale intervention a la Libya (and look how well that’s turned out). Politically and economically it’s not clear whether the UN states could afford it. But don’t be fooled into thinking that if they could they wouldn’t; through this resolution, the West has seen an opportunity to grasp another rein on the Arab revolutions, and perhaps this is the primary reason Russia and China are wielding the veto with such gusto: Assad is Russia’s man in the Middle East.</p>Ultimately this is where the reason for the resolution lies – to open up the possibility of intervention and a chance for a slice of Syria’s future. There has already been talk for a while now that Libyan officials are looking more favourably on those who got involved in theintervention. However much the William Hagues and Hillary Clintons line up to denounce Russia and China as committing an unspeakable act at the UN, it is merely a fight over the invoice for the reconstruction of Syria; if there can be an intervention as well then
that money pot could be made substantially bigger by military jets and tanks destroying even more Syrian infrastructure.</p>It is symptomatic of the intense hypocrisy that the US and the UK excel at that they can feign such outrage at China and Russia’s use of their power of veto. The daily torture and massacre of Palestinians continues, with more illegal Israeli settlements displacing yet more generations of Palestinian families, and yet the US and UK happily brandish their veto in favour of the Israelis every time. William Hague must also seek comfort in the UN resolution being blocked. It allows him to look like the almighty crusader trying to fix the world’s problems but always being blocked by the evil eastern powers. This permits him to take all the credit without actually having to do anything, acting as his front whilst he looks for better ways to get British contracts and capital interests into Syria.</p>Unlike other revolutions in the Middle East there is also a political prize up for grabs. Syria has long been an ally of Russia and Iran. Turning the country’s politicians West could play out in the long run especially given the ramping up of the rhetoric over Iran. Turning Syria is a convenient way of hushing up the Arab world and taking one of the largest hostile armed forces in the region off the battle map. Uneasy as it may sound, it has the potential to create a compromise with the Arab states whereby Iran can be attacked as long as Palestine isn’t involved. Look out for some concessions that would give the Sheikhs assurances that war with Iran won’t plunge the region into chaos, even though plunging it into chaos is what the US wants and could gain most from.</p>The bottom line as regards Syria is that everything that is being done in the UN and in the media is a battle for control of the region; it is a battle of imperialist powers struggling to maintain their grasp on an area that is beginning to break it. If the West were genuinely on the side of the rebels against the dictator, it would arm them without preconditions, disown the Assad regime, and take its lead from the people on the ground. To pick a side is not to take control of it but to back it in any way possible on its own terms and back off when that side wins.</p>The West likes to appear to be on the side of humanity and portray the East in a pseudo-Cold War image because this supports its own interests and ensures that money can be extracted no matter what is going on, as long as that money goes into western business’ pockets. The self interest of the Syrian people must be supported to further
their own future; the self interest of all the UN’s interventions must be condemned.</p>

[Ele'ill]

Terrorism? You are an idiot....


NoMasters, please don't make these kinds of posts. It's unnecessary. Consider this a verbal warning.

[RedAnarchist]

Terrorism? You are an idiot....

Let me guess, the KLA is a terrorist organization?

I supported the KLA for obvious reasons, I was done with the disgusting Slavic Serbs murdering our children and raping our women.

Infraction for prejudiced language. You can't accuse a whole people of the crimes committed by a small minority.

(I was going to give you a verbal warning, but you've already got one in this thread alone).

[Ostrinski]

Have you ever seen a dead body? Have you ever shot a gun? Have you ever been in a near death experience? Have you ever lost family members at the hand of a state? Have your people been genocided?
You pretty much lost all legitimacy here.

[NoMasters]

Apologies on that post community. Impulsive reaction. I am part slavic myself if that means anything. I meant to say that it was a specific group of Serbian army gangs. And instead wrote something that I know is racist and offensive.

Apologies :(

[NoMasters]

And honestly, for any slavs out there in this forum.

I felt as if the post about being an ultra-nationalist and terrorist organization was a side jab to me.

I think personally he tried to get a rise out of me by calling the KLA a terrorist organization and ultra-nationalist because of their resistance towards Serbian aggression. Although to be sure, they were a group that didn't have a state backing and were as I think a revolutionary group.

Of course that doesn't warrant my response, however I am quite confident that the poster tried to get a rise out of me by pushing most possibly my most sensitive button for obvious reasons. I have seen that kind of talk by ultra nationalist Serbians before, and I got offended.

If you could please explain what you meant by that post, I would appreciate it. Although I firmly believe it was a cheap shot towards me.

And what I said of course is still completely out of line, I understand that completely.

[PhoenixAsh]

Yes, IMO without question the UCK/KLA was a terrorist ultra nationalist organisation aimed at ethnically cleansing Kosovo and directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians of different ethnic make-up and directly responsible for illiciting imperialist action and serving an imperialist agenda from their very start. Paid by Germanies secret service.

There is nothing remotely supportable to the UCK/KLA not was anything in their campaign connected with any revolutionary leftwing agenda. Their goal was an ethnic Albanian Kosovo and potential assimilation into a greater Albania.

[gorillafuck]

I don't know what this means, but the United States and Turkey are pretty big allies.yeah, you are right. but Turkey is not as much of an ally as Israel is though.

and the KLA were far right.

[Ostrinski]

Wish that Serbian nationalist didn't get banned, would have loved to see those two have a friendly conversation.

[NoMasters]

Yes, IMO without question the UCK/KLA was a terrorist ultra nationalist organisation aimed at ethnically cleansing Kosovo and directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians of different ethnic make-up and directly responsible for illiciting imperialist action and serving an imperialist agenda from their very start. Paid by Germanies secret service.

There is nothing remotely supportable to the UCK/KLA not was anything in their campaign connected with any revolutionary leftwing agenda. Their goal was an ethnic Albanian Kosovo and potential assimilation into a greater Albania.

Do you realize not only that you are wrong, but that you are pretty much saying that the group who saved us are a terrorist organization, and therefore they are bad? They saved my family from rape and murder...

You are trying to tell me something that I was a part of, how can you be so arrogant to think you know?

[Ostrinski]

Do you realize not only that you are wrong, but that you are pretty much saying that the group who saved us are a terrorist organization, and therefore they are bad? They saved my family from rape and murder...And what if they were saved by the SS? American military? Al-Qaeda? Your personal testimonials are doing nothing for your arguments, you're using a failed tactic.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I agree that condemning the KLA without recognizing the basic fact that Serbian forces initiated a campaign of terror, including mass murder and mass rape, against the Kosovars, fundamentally distorts the events that occurred in Kosovo during the late 90s.

I sense that this thread could easily become derailed into a flame war on the Kosovo situation so I call upon everyone to try to remain factual in their posts.

[ВАЛТЕР]

The KLA were organ harvesting, drug dealing, monsters, who murdered and ethnically cleansed thousands of not only Serbs, but also gypsies as well as other "pro-Serb" Albanians. There is nothing "heroic" about thier struggle. They are swine, murderers, and all around pieces of shit.

That being said, I do not support the Serb actions against Albanian populations either. There were crimes committed no doubt.

However to praise NATO for helping establish a criminal narco-state, whose primary export is heroin from Afghanistan, with human trafficking being a favorite pastime, and is home to one of the largest US bases in Europe serving as nothing but a jump off point for future imperialist aggression by NATO and the US is ludicrous.

Supporting NATO in anything they do is counterrevolutionary, and imperialistic. There are no if and's or buts about it.

[NoMasters]

Titoism? Please stop. You are seriously flaming out of hatred towards Albanians because of the NATO strikes on Serbia. So obvious

[gorillafuck]

Do you realize not only that you are wrong, but that you are pretty much saying that the group who saved us are a terrorist organization, and therefore they are bad? They saved my family from rape and murder...

You are trying to tell me something that I was a part of, how can you be so arrogant to think you know?what is being said is that they were a far right organization. which is true. we could have you and one of our other members from the former Yugoslavia give anecdotes from different perspectives. it wouldn't make the KLA any more or less of a far-right group.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Titoism? Please stop. You are seriously flaming out of hatred towards Albanians because of the NATO strikes on Serbia. So obvious

Yes, I hate Albanians, You've got me. The "Disgusting Slav Serb" hates Albanians. I said nothing against Albanians, YOU however have made you beliefs clear.

I don't hate Albanians, I don't hate anyone over their ethnicity or race. I do however hate people spouting nonsense such as you. Take your racist, bourgeois, terrorist supporting ass elsewhere.

[NoMasters]

I had 4 cousins in the KLA. My father funded millions of dollars of arms to them from Bulgarian, Macedonian, and even Serbian arms dealers and transported them through sea.

When I am saying what the KLA is, I think you should maybe reconsider what you think about them.

Of course they are nationalistic, they were fighting for their homeland. That is just pure logic that they would be nationalistic.

They were an insurgency that tried to fight off Serbia and give Albanians and Kosovars freedom from the oppressive Serbian regime.

[NoMasters]

Yes, I hate Albanians, You've got me. The "Disgusting Slav Serb" hates Albanians. I said nothing against Albanians, YOU however have made you beliefs clear.

I don't hate Albanians, I don't hate anyone over their ethnicity or race. I do however hate people spouting nonsense such as you. Take your racist, bourgeois, terrorist supporting ass elsewhere.

Dude you are obviously butt hurt about something and it shows. You are openly spewing ignorance about the KLA and you are disregarding ones' experience with the actual situation.

Stop flaming me weirdo

[ВАЛТЕР]

Yes give Kosovo freedom, by murdering thousands of Serbs, ethnically cleanisng thousands more, harvesting their organs, selling heroin, raping, destroying historic structures. Sound like real freedom fighters to me.

ANY group that gets supported by NATO isn't worth shit int he name of "freedom".

You are a millionaire? Your father and cousins were KLA? Are you by any chance a drug dealer? Arms dealer? Organ harvester or human trafficker?

[GoddessCleoLover]

The flaming will only stop when one party allows the other to have the last word. This thread is about Syria and both sides have set forth their views on the former Yugoslavia, so whoever resists the temptation to have the last word will be doing a good deed.

[Sam_b]

You're now being offensive for the hell of it, NoMasters.

As has been put to you clearly a hundred times now, 'ones experience of the actual situation' accounts for nought here. I can claim a lot of things online, unfortunately the truth can be embellished. If you perhaps cite sources and quotes, rather than going on and on about your family and what your dad did, and to be honest practically exploting murdered people in several conflicts to serve your own argument - well, people may take you more seriously.

You will not get far in Revleft with such an attitude, trust me.

[ВАЛТЕР]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/15/us-kosovo-thaci-organs-idUSTRE6BE42Y20101215

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jatras9.html

KLA freedom fighters? More like KLA mafia, criminals, murderers, rapists, and dogs.

[Grenzer]

Of course they are nationalistic, they were fighting for their homeland. That is just pure logic that they would be nationalistic.
.

Then all the more reason to condemn them. All proper communists and class war anarchists are internationalists. Fuck nationalism. Nationalism leads only to chauvinism, racism, and imperialism to name a few things.

[NoMasters]

I am done arguing about it. I said something I shouldn't have said, and now the butt hurt people like BA(PI)TEP are openly flaming me with ignorance and offensive terminology.,

Leave me alone about it, seriously. I apologized and took it back.

Now please stop offending me and flaming me.

90+ died in Syria today

[NoMasters]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/15/us-kosovo-thaci-organs-idUSTRE6BE42Y20101215

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jatras9.html

KLA freedom fighters? More like KLA mafia, criminals, murderers, rapists, and dogs.

YOU ARE QUOTING REUTERS....

Just stop .com intellectual

[GoddessCleoLover]

I agree with the slogan Fuck Nationalism as it applies to the Kosovo situation but to be accurate wasn't the Milosevic regime so nationalistic that it disowned Tito for being anti-Serb?

[Rafiq]

I had 4 cousins in the KLA. My father funded millions of dollars of arms to them from Bulgarian, Macedonian, and even Serbian arms dealers and transported them through sea.

When I am saying what the KLA is, I think you should maybe reconsider what you think about them.

Of course they are nationalistic, they were fighting for their homeland. That is just pure logic that they would be nationalistic.

They were an insurgency that tried to fight off Serbia and give Albanians and Kosovars freedom from the oppressive Serbian regime.

Fuck your cousins, than. And fuck your father too.

Gtfo.

[NoMasters]

Fuck your cousins, than. And fuck your father too.

Gtfo.

Thanks. I let my 3 dead cousins know that.

Much appreciated.

[ВАЛТЕР]

YOU ARE QUOTING REUTERS....

Just stop .com intellectual

Yes I posted a link to reuters, because that is how obvious KLA war crimes are. The whole world knows about them. Human trafficking, heroin smuggling, and organ harvesting being the most common. You want me to quote some other source? Because there are plenty on the web. I know some in person as well. I know a gypsy family here that was chased out by the KLA. I know an communist Albanian from Kosovo who was chased out by the KLA. Not to mention the Serb families who lost everything. If the KLA were so grand why did they ethnically cleanse people even of their own ethnicity?

You are a bourgeois and you father and cousins are DIRECTLY responsible for the murder of thousands. Yet here you are constantly promoting a group which is KNOWN to have committed war crimes, and is KNOWN to traffic humans etc.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I agree with the slogan Fuck Nationalism as it applies to the Kosovo situation but to be accurate wasn't the Milosevic regime so nationalistic that it disowned Tito for being anti-Serb?

Milosevic was an opportunist. He would have become a Maoist-Nazi-Wahabbi if it would have got him some backing from nationalist fools.

[Rafiq]

Thanks. I let my 3 dead cousins know that.

Much appreciated.

No one cares about your dead fascist cousins. You'll get as much sob stories talking about some dead SS soldier.

[NoMasters]

troll/flame fest 3000

[GoddessCleoLover]

The history of the dissolution of Yugoslavia is a great tragedy with many villains and few heroes among the Yugoslav political leadership. As an US citizen I want to be careful and avoid making ignorant statements. It seems clear to me that Serbs and Kosovars have both suffered at the hands of armed gangs of criminals. On the narrow issue of the events of 1998-99, though, it seems to me that Milosevic implemented a policy of terror against the Kosovars which greatly exacerbated pre-existing tensions between the Serb and Kosovar communities.

[NoMasters]

Very true. My family have slowly integrated Serbian people into our community. SLOWLY.

Obviously there are high tensions but we are making steps towards progress.

[ВАЛТЕР]

The history of the dissolution of Yugoslavia is a great tragedy with many villains and few heroes among the Yugoslav political leadership. As an US citizen I want to be careful and avoid making ignorant statements. It seems clear to me that Serbs and Kosovars have both suffered at the hands of armed gangs of criminals. On the narrow issue of the events of 1998-99, though, it seems to me that Milosevic implemented a policy of terror against the Kosovars which greatly exacerbated pre-existing tensions between the Serb and Kosovar communities.

Milosevic wasn't as much of a leader as people like to think. People like Arkan, Legija, and other mafioso paramilitary commanders were the real controllers of the state. Milosevic just kind of stayed out of the way, armed them , and let them command entire armies. He couldn't stand up to them even if he had wanted to they would have offed him day one.

The paramilitary forces did most of the terrorizing down in Kosovo, while Milosevic sat on his hands doing nothing. What was he gonna do? Muscle them out? They were the muscle, people looked at them as heroes. Hell even today you'll hear nationalist people praising Arkan as if he did anything other than pillage and steal with swarm,s of militarized football hooligans. Even if looked at from a nationalist perspective these people weren't good nationalists. They were just criminals. Like Al Capone, or Pablo Escobar. Criminals that commanded an army.

Point is Milosevic didn't do shit to help anyone but himself. Of course he made sure the people were free to trade on the black market to avoid sanctions, this and that. But for the most part he didn't do anything but repeat rhetoric that got criminals rich, and nationalists fired up.

[NoMasters]

Milosevic wasn't as much of a leader as people like to think. People like Arkan, Legija, and other mafioso paramilitary commanders were the real controllers of the state. Milosevic just kind of stayed out of the way, armed them , and let them command entire armies. He couldn't stand up to them eve if he had wanted to they would have offed him day one.

The paramilitary forces did most of the terrorizing down in Kosovo, while Milosevic sat on his hands doing nothing. What wa she gonna do? Muscle them out? They were the muscle, people looked at them as heroes. Hell even today you'll hear nationalist people praising Arkan as if he did anything other than pillage and steal with swarm,s of militarized football hooligans. Even if looked at from a nationalist perspective these people weren't good nationalists. They were just criminals. Like Al Capone, or Pablo Escobar. Criminals that commanded an army.

Point is Milosevic didn't do shit to help anyone but himself. Of course he made sure the people were free to trade on the black market to avoid sanctions, this and that. But for the most part he didn't do anything but repeat rhetoric that got criminals rich, and nationalists fired up.

Little man syndrome much?

[marl]

Hahahahahaha uMAD bro?
Alright dude, fuck off and go to bed.

[NoMasters]

done with this thread

[GoddessCleoLover]

There were so many tragic component parts to the history of the dissolution of Yugoslavia. One wonders whether given the actions of the Serbian paramilitaries in Bosnia (Srebenica, for example) and Kosovo whether their reign of terror could have been ended by any means other than those means that finally eroded the power of those paramilitary forces?

[ВАЛТЕР]

Hahahahahaha uMAD bro?

Mad about what? I don't sweat bourgeois pricks like you.

It's just a shame that you are so caught up with nationalist bullshit that you actually support a murderous criminal organization such as the KLA. Oh well, I guess that is what the bourgeoisie do. Support anything that will fill their pockets.

[Ostrinski]

Shame. I would have liked to have known the answer to my question about the SS.

Weird though. Two flaming nationalists in one week.

[NoMasters]

Unfortunately it seems that way.

I am not a nationalist. And I can understand why people would be offended by my comment earlier and justly so, but I find it out of touch that the mods didn't notice the same exact racism and discrimination coming towards me indirectly.

[PhoenixAsh]

Unfortunately it seems that way.

I am not a nationalist. And I can understand why people would be offended by my comment earlier and justly so, but I find it out of touch that the mods didn't notice the same exact racism and discrimination coming towards me indirectly.

You come in here supporting imperialist intervention, ultra nationalism, are condescending towards the working class and give uncritical support to organisations aimed at ethnic cleansing. In doing so you use direct racial and ethnic slurs and derogatory language.

In other words: go cry me a river.

Spend some time in OI and rethink your politics. Because right now they suck and are wrought with reactionary sentiments.

That is....if you are not a troll.

[ckaihatsu]

think Assad's regime must be destroyed. And I don't care who or what ideology stops it at this point.




[NATO] would be the best route, [and] you label me as agreeing with Western Imperialism.




I am not a nationalist.


NM, you should know by now that in life there are always *circumstances* around an action, and that there are consequences *afterwards*. Sure everyone *wishes* that all actions could be neat and clean and would just go away once they're done, but that's *not reality*, for *anyone*.

Your words above prove that your politics are hasty and not well-thought-out.

The *definition* of a 'nationalist' is one who supports the actions of *nations*, especially on any international basis. NATO is an association of Western imperialist nation-states, so if you support an intervention by NATO against Assad's regime then that means that you support those nations' actions -- you're a nationalist.





1. Fund the Free Syrian Army with private arms dealers.


Then the private arms dealers are going to want *their* private interests represented as part of whatever the new government in Syria would be.





2. Send people to help those who are getting wounded.


*Or*, oppose any worsening of the conflict -- as from inviting or allowing external nationalist interventions -- so that the people of Syria can tend to their own "internal" matters, including medical ones.





3. Engage actively with the world, or internally in the governments as my father did, and get governments to provide some help some how, even if in self-interested gains, as long as they aren't imperialistic. As long as it benefits the Syrian people somehow.


Again, inviting outside interests just complicates the situation with more competing interests who are going to each want their own slice of the pie once hostilities have simmered down.





4. Spread the word around to people you know or in your community as I have on campus here at the University of Colorado at Boulder.


Sure, people all over the world should understand what's going on in Syria, but when someone asks you *why* you think including *more* self-interested parties to join in on the conflict is a good thing, what are you going to tell them -- ? -- !





5. Let the people then get ready to establish their government as they want it.








Syria: The regime is shaking - elements of dual power emerge

Written by Mousa Ladqani
Sunday, 29 January 2012

The Syrian revolution has entered a higher stage in the last few weeks. The number and size of demonstrations have reach record numbers, towns are falling under the control of the defected soldiers- including areas surrounding the capital Damascus, and embryonic forms of popular power are appearing on the stage in the form of popular councils.




Unfortunately, the petty-bourgeois opposition politicians who have appointed themselves as "leaders" of the people, never believe or trust the masses. More concretely, they are afraid of the independent movement of the masses as it threatens their own "leadership" position. Still, after seeing these marvellous development and the iron determination of the masses, the Syrian National Council (SNC), and the General Commission of the Syrian Revolution (GCSR)are both calling for foreign intervention [i]to save the revolution from being militarized! At a time when the masses are taking the initiative and arming themselves, creating their own power, these gentlemen of the liberal opposition are appealing for "peace," an appeal which amounts to leaving the people unarmed in the face of brutal military repression.

Things are moving quickly. It is difficult to gauge precisely the stage the movement is at. What is clear to many activists in Syria is that there is no turning back. The developing dual power in Zabadani and other places can only be resolved in one of two ways: either the masses seize the initiative boldly, or the regime smashes the movement in blood.

The demands of the day are:

• A national general strike must be called immediately. Occupy work places, factories, and offices. Paralyze what remains of the power of the regime.

• It is time for a general armed insurrection. Mobilize the free soldiers. Arm the masses. Appeal to the ranks and lower officers of the Army to defect and join the revolutionary people. It is time to take Damascus. March on Versailles.

• No to foreign intervention. The Syrian masses can and must complete the job themselves. Denounce the political leaders who keep sewing illusions among the people. The masses are more than capable of overthrowing Assad.

• From workers councils in all factories and workplaces.

• Democratically elected councils in every neighbourhood. Link revolutionary councils from all villages, towns, cities and workplaces in a democratically elected national council of representatives expressing the will of the people and the interests of the revolution. Down with impotent and bankrupt SNC and GCRS. For a revolutionary government based on committees of workers, farmers and youth.

http://www.marxist.com/syria-regime-is-shaking-elements-of-dual-power-emerge.htm

[NoMasters]

You come in here supporting imperialist intervention, ultra nationalism, are condescending towards the working class and give uncritical support to organisations aimed at ethnic cleansing. In doing so you use direct racial and ethnic slurs and derogatory language.

In other words: go cry me a river.

Spend some time in OI and rethink your politics. Because right now they suck and are wrought with reactionary sentiments.

That is....if you are not a troll.

Why are you assuming I support all of those things? I was just discussing the possibilities at the beginning before the theorists came in and destroyed it.

I am closer to the left than almost anyone who posted in this thread. I find a lot of those who posted in this forum to be authoritarianistic.

This is a political discussion about the Syrian crisis and you are trying to tell me that just because I am discussing the actual politics of the situation, which includes the NATO and the resolution to get Assad to step down.

If you want me to theorize like most people did this is what it'd be:

"We must stop the violence in Syria and still allow them to be sovereign of internationalism. We should try to do that as peacefully as possible."

[Zostrianos]

The UN is bullshit. Instead of voting by majority, they allow vetos to block any sensible resolution that's passed (the biggest culprit being America, consistently blocking resolutions that condemn Israel's crimes).
And even when resolutions pass, some countries still do whatever the fuck they want - like America did when it invaded Iraq after being prohibited by the UN. What did the UN do in retaliation? Jack shit, it just let Bush kill thousands of innocent Iraqis and plunge the country into chaos. "We categorically forbid you, but if you go ahead we won't do anything" :rolleyes::thumbdown:

The UN is a fucking joke, an embarrassment to the world, and I wouldn't be surprised if they just sit back and let Assad kill more and more of his citizens.

[Omsk]

Wait wait wait,where do you think you are going?You started this,and now you want people to stop talking?

Lets first clear some things:

1. I pointed out the nationalist and rascist stances of the user."Disgusting Slavic Serbs" part of the post.And the support for the nationalist KLA.

2. He apologised.

3. He than tried to pass the ball on me,calling me a "Serb ultra-nationalist"

Now,let make a little pause.

Where did i come out as a "Serb ultra-nationalist"?

Yes,thats right,nowhere.

[NoMasters]

Wait wait wait,where do you think you are going?You started this,and now you want people to stop talking?

Lets first clear some things:

1. I pointed out the nationalist and rascist stances of the user."Disgusting Slavic Serbs" part of the post.And the support for the nationalist KLA.

2. He apologised.

3. He than tried to pass the ball on me,calling me a "Serb ultra-nationalist"

Now,let make a little pause.

Where did i come out as a "Serb ultra-nationalist"?

Yes,thats right,nowhere.

I didn't call you that.

But it seems that the response towards the KLA is either explained by Slavic nationalism or hatred towards anything that involves the West.

Or you just don't know what you are talking about, which I doubt.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I didn't call you that.

But it seems that the response towards the KLA is either explained by Slavic nationalism or hatred towards anything that involves the West.

Or you just don't know what you are talking about, which I doubt.




Why the fuck does he keep bringing the word "Slav" into this? Obviously he is a racist if he always brings up the word Slav and keeps using it in a negative context. I don't think I'd be allowed to spout of about Blacks, or Latinos in the same way. He doesn't just have something against Serbs, but Slavs as well. He is a nationalist, racist, bourgeois, wrapped in a red banner. He isn't even being subtle about it, just outright hateful.

Fuck you, and your family. Your cousins died like dogs fighting to spread imperialism and you father has innocent blood on his hands.

[Omsk]

Slavic nationalism


Y-y-you are linking me with Slavic nationalism?

Do you see the picture that i use as my avatar.

To Slavic nationalists,the man in the picture is the greatest villain the world has ever known.

Slavic nationalists despise J.V.

[gorillafuck]

The UN is bullshit. Instead of voting by majority, they allow vetos to block any sensible resolution that's passed (the biggest culprit being America, consistently blocking resolutions that condemn Israel's crimes).
And even when resolutions pass, some countries still do whatever the fuck they want - like America did when it invaded Iraq after being prohibited by the UN. What did the UN do in retaliation? Jack shit, it just let Bush kill thousands of innocent Iraqis and plunge the country into chaos. "We categorically forbid you, but if you go ahead we won't do anything" :rolleyes::thumbdown:

The UN is a fucking joke, an embarrassment to the world, and I wouldn't be surprised if they just sit back and let Assad kill more and more of his citizens.you're a "luxembourgist" and you want troops to go into Syria to take out Assad?

that doesn't make sense.


But it seems that the response towards the KLA is either explained by Slavic nationalism or hatred towards anything that involves the West.they attempted to ethnically cleanse serbs and gypsies!

[ed miliband]

you're a "luxembourgist" and you want troops to go into Syria to take out Assad?

that doesn't make sense.



it basically seems liberals who consider themselves "marxists" or "communists" choose to take up the mantle of "luxembourgist" (and occasionally "left communist") because the connotations aren't as bad

[Zostrianos]

you're a "luxembourgist" and you want troops to go into Syria to take out Assad?


Where in my post did I say anything about sending troops? They could isolate him, cut off funding, and a host of other things.

[R_P_A_S]

Well being an ethnic Albanian I remember quite well when the NATO liberated us from Serbian oppression. I want the Syrians to have that same feeling..

And yes, I hope they destroy every single person involved in the killing of civilians in Syria. I cannot bear to see another picture of 20 children wrapped in orange bags, shot in the head, or blown up by mortars and tanks..

NATO has liberated people??? :laugh:

[gorillafuck]

Where in my post did I say anything about sending troops? They could isolate him, cut off funding, and a host of other things.that makes just as little sense. the luxembourgist position would be no action against Syria.

[KrasnayaRossiya]

Hurray to Russia and PR China!
Finnaly we and the Chinese have come to senses not to allow the Western mercenaries,terrorists and Islamists to destroy another free country like they did with Libya.
Long live Assad,death to NATO-Zionist-Islamist aggression!