Syrian Children being shot in the knees and detained in woeful conditions

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17532966#TWEET116617

Anybody still want to make the case for supporting the dictator Assad and his cronies?

Same old crap from the anti-imps. They play the same game as the Israelis, actually. As long as the intelligence/'proof' window hasn't shut, they play the 'deny, deny, deny' game. Whilst the Israelis attack as soon as the intelligence window shuts (As they'll no doubt do with Iran very soon), when the proof window shuts the "anti-imperialists" go suspiciously silent on defending the latest dictator simply out of anti-western sentiment, and go back to supporting the latest dictatorship that's in vogue with whichever out-of-touch, intellectual elite is pretending to uphold 'true' Marxism-Leninism or whatever it is gets them off.

Just to clarify, this is torture of the highest, most despicable degree. I reckon anybody who, in the face of this evidence, still maintains support for the Syrian bougeoisie, should be restricted or banned outright. Or am I just a liberal for not accepting that shooting children in the kneecaps and detaining them against any manner of human decency is just part of the good anti-US fight? :rolleyes:

[Ostrinski]

I reckon anybody who, in the face of this evidence, still maintains support for the Syrian bougeoisie, should be restricted or banned outright.While I agree 100% I doubt we'll see it, MLs and anti-imps apologize for much more than stuff like this.

[Yefim Zverev]

bbc news... on syria

bbc as one of most manipulative news agency on earth, I ve been there...

kkkkk

[l'Enfermé]

Kind of funny that there is no evidence to prove this, isn't it? The only thing these rebels have going for them is the "confessions" of visibly tortured captured government soldiers.

Though shooting children in the knees is nothing compared to when rebel snipers snipe children in the head.

Maybe you'll post an article from Al Jazeera that tells us how great everything is in Bahrain right now.

[Zav]

I really want to make an arrow to the knee joke, as inappropriate as that is.

[ВАЛТЕР]

and the rebels are not doing the same or even worse? I don't buy a word that comes from "their" sources. Supporting the rebels is supporting a bunch of reactionary Wahhabi. Not that I support Assad or his politics, but these "rebels" are just foreign fighters streaming in over the borders to fight in the name of Islam, not the people.

http://rt.com/news/syria-information-wars-west-553/ (http://rt.com/news/syria-information-wars-west-553/)


4lDIWYbNIV4

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

and the rebels are not doing the same or even worse? I don't buy a word that comes from "their" sources. Supporting the rebels is supporting a bunch of reactionary Wahhabi. Not that I support Assad or his politics, but these "rebels" are just foreign fighters streaming in over the borders to fight in the name of Islam, not the people.

http://rt.com/news/syria-information-wars-west-553/ (http://rt.com/news/syria-information-wars-west-553/)


4lDIWYbNIV4

I agree that the rebels do not deserve our support, merely the people of Syria. Given that a lot of the fighting has taken place in towns, it's likely to be fact that a lot of civilians have died.

The rebels who want to emulate the NTC in Libya can go fuck themselves, but it's dangerous to then have the following logic: the rebels oppose Assad, the rebels are bastards, therefore all those who oppose Assad right now in Syria are bastards.

It seems clear to me that there is popular discontent in Syria that is being clamped down on. We should not be afraid to oppose Assad; the anti-imperialists seem to have framed the debate in binary terms - that we either support assholes like Qaddafi and Assad or we are somehow for imperialism. We shouldn't be afraid to oppose Assad from a revolutionary standpoint.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Kind of funny that there is no evidence to prove this, isn't it? The only thing these rebels have going for them is the "confessions" of visibly tortured captured government soldiers.

Though shooting children in the knees is nothing compared to when rebel snipers snipe children in the head.

Maybe you'll post an article from Al Jazeera that tells us how great everything is in Bahrain right now.

The woman reporting on this was formerly a lawyer for anti-apartheid activists in SA, a co-founder of Equality Now and helped to establish rape as an act of genocide post-Rwandan Genocide. I'd probably think that her testimony is quite reliable.

I post an article quoting a fairly reliable source, and you simply shrug it off because 'rebel snipers snipe children in the head', without ANY source/evidence whatsoever, and then make a completely nonsensical remark about Bahrain afterwards.

Sort yourself out. Assad is purporting genocide right now. You may be happy to overlook that for the sake of your petty politics, but such complicity to me is remarkable for a Socialist; we are meant to care about the poor and the needy, not overlook their strife simply because their cause doesn't fit neatly into our worldview.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

and the rebels are not doing the same or even worse? I don't buy a word that comes from "their" sources. Supporting the rebels is supporting a bunch of reactionary Wahhabi. Not that I support Assad or his politics, but these "rebels" are just foreign fighters streaming in over the borders to fight in the name of Islam, not the people.


How in the blazes does the fact that there are Wahabist fighters amongst the Rebels become ALL the Rebels are foreign Wahabists? Anybody who thinks all the rebels are angels is a fool, but it's simplistic and reductionist to think that they are all foreign fighters. It's also simply false ... many of the rebels are defectors from the Syrian army, many are Syrian expats, and many are also young Syrians.

There were foreign Jihadis in Iraq and are in Afghanistan, but most of the people fighting in the various militias were actually Iraqis and Afghans respectively ... the presence of foreign fighters is is no way exclusive with the presence of local fighters. Nor are the two groups necessarily coordinating.

Are there Jihadists there? Yes. Are some foreign? Yes. Are all of them? No.

[R_P_A_S]

So that little girl in the video was not injured by Government forces? Yes is fucked up that they are "coaching her" on what to say... But seriously.. all of the sudden Bashar's regime is the victim of "propaganda" and media bias? give me a break. :rolleyes:

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

the vast majority of suicide bombers in iraq were saudi nationals.


Oh, well, sorry, I was under the impression that there were vast militias of insurgents totally unrelated to the suicide bombing campaign. I guess the existence of the Baathist militias and Mahdi Army militias were propaganda by the US government? I don't even know what you're trying to prove by saying that.


also the vast majority of syrians are against the rebels, foreign jihadists or localised sectarian groups, and their backers etc -What, did you poll them? I guess you went into Homs and took a survey of what the people there thought of the government? Do you have any evidence or did you pull that out of your rear end?


well you may find it is . And how do you prove that? Perhaps the rebels are just the victims of a vicious propaganda campaign by the government? There is overwhelming evidence that the government, and many of the rebels too, have committed atrocities.

[piet11111]

I read an article about Syria some time ago where someone compared the list of killed attributed to the Syrian state and on that list where those killed by the IDF at the Israeli border during a protest weeks earlier.

That the BBC also put this in the article
On Tuesday, Radhika Coomaraswamy, the UN special representative for children and armed conflict, said they had received claims that the rebel Free Syrian Army was using children as fighters. and makes no further mention of FSA acts against the population tells me enough about the intention behind the article.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

well read it again.or read more than western info.


http://angryarab.blogspot.co.uk/ mostly in english


I think you are confused as to what I was saying. Valter (? I don't know Cyrillic) said that ALL Syrian Rebels were foreign Jihadists, what I was saying was that the presence of Salafi rebels from abroad is not mutually exclusive with there being homegrown Syrian fighters. Iraq was merely an example of a war where there were both foreign Jihadists and native Iraqi militias both fighting against the US. The comparison with Syria is that there are obviously both Syrian and foreign fighters in Syria right now, fighting the government. It is slandering the Syrians who died at the hands of their regime to accuse them all of being foreign Salafi fundamentalists.

I agree that it's best to get more than just the bbc's view on it, but the fact that it's on the bbc doesn't make it automatically false. Thanks for the blog link though.


with respect,why would people in syria support a civil war .or nato intervention. i know people who are in syria ,some of who are not exactly supporters of the govt.

It seems the Syrian government started the civil war by shooting down unarmed protesters repeatedly. I can understand why Syrians would want peace or to avoid NATO Intervention, and I can also see them quite legitimately saying that a post-Assad government could even be worse than Assad himself, if certain extremist or sectarian elements take power. But it seems really difficult to establish what the actual majority of Syrians want because the Syrian state is militarizing the society there, and the Syrian regime is really at fault for creating this whole situation.

[manic expression]

Babies in incubators, babies in incubators.

Some people really never learn.

[l'Enfermé]

I think you are confused as to what I was saying. Valter (? I don't know Cyrillic) said that ALL Syrian Rebels were foreign Jihadists, what I was saying was that the presence of Salafi rebels from abroad is not mutually exclusive with there being homegrown Syrian fighters. Iraq was merely an example of a war where there were both foreign Jihadists and native Iraqi militias both fighting against the US. The comparison with Syria is that there are obviously both Syrian and foreign fighters in Syria right now, fighting the government. It is slandering the Syrians who died at the hands of their regime to accuse them all of being foreign Salafi fundamentalists.

I agree that it's best to get more than just the bbc's view on it, but the fact that it's on the bbc doesn't make it automatically false. Thanks for the blog link though.



It seems the Syrian government started the civil war by shooting down unarmed protesters repeatedly. I can understand why Syrians would want peace or to avoid NATO Intervention, and I can also see them quite legitimately saying that a post-Assad government could even be worse than Assad himself, if certain extremist or sectarian elements take power. But it seems really difficult to establish what the actual majority of Syrians want because the Syrian state is militarizing the society there, and the Syrian regime is really at fault for creating this whole situation.
The vast majority of these rebels are actually Islamists, Foreign Islamists, Mercenaries and NATO and NATO-puppet troops. Regarding Syrians that died at the hands of the Syrian government, there is literally no evidence that the Syrian government is "killing it's own people", besides Western-funded opposition "news sources" and "witnesses"(who in many cases aren't even real existing people, just made-up names). It's a civil war between the Syrian Government, supported even by the Kurds who despise it, and Western-backed Islamists and NATO troops("advisers").

Regarding the Syrian government starting the Civil War, the first shots were fired by these wonderful rebels who began assassinating security forces and government officials and civilians in order to create unrest and justify NATO intervention, like in Libya(where reports later proven to be false were thrown at Western populaces really fast, to bring them on the side of intervention). It's not a new tactic, look at the motherfuckers in the KLA. Those criminal fucks began massacring Serbs, in order to provoke a Serbian reaction, and when the Serbs retaliated and began massacring Albanians(before this the vast majority of dead were Serbs, btw), this justified a NATO intervention(which naturally accelerated the pace at which Albanians were being massacred, but NATO doesn't give a shit does it) and then after KLA commanders went on bragging about how they tricked the West into intervention.

There are fucks in power and even nastier, much more horrible fucks fighting against them that want to enslave the Syrian people even more under their filthy Islamic laws. The majority of Syrians support the first group. I've got enough friends in Syria to tell me that much(Chechens, distant relatives that left the Caucasus and settled in the Levant when the resistance against Russian conquest was broken).

[Grenzer]

The rebels who want to emulate the NTC in Libya can go fuck themselves, but it's dangerous to then have the following logic: the rebels oppose Assad, the rebels are bastards, therefore all those who oppose Assad right now in Syria are bastards.

I'd be surprised if any actually use this logic, it's more that they are simply looking for any opportunistic excuse to justify their support of bourgeois scum like Assad. There is absolutely nothing revolutionary about such a position. No matter how many times you make it abundantly clear that you condemn Western intervention, they're still going to bring up this strawman.

Classic "anti-imperialism" performs a valuable service for capital: it co-opts people who might otherwise be revolutionary into perpetuating the reign of capital. As always, the reformist left and social-democrats are tripping over themselves in defense of a capitalist regime, so long as it is opposed to the United States.

You're pretty much beating your head against a wall with this one comrade..

[marl]

Borz, the troops aren't shooting protestors? Seriously?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83m0m0tF7hk

I don't want to defend the foreign rebels, but the government is just as bad, if not, worse.

[l'Enfermé]

Borz, the troops aren't shooting protestors? Seriously?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83m0m0tF7hk
Yeah how many protestors did you see shot in that video? Zero, is it?

[marl]

I chose that particular video because one can see the flashes of lethal rounds being shot. There's some gross footage out there if you really want it.


Try looking up Syria on liveleak.

[X5N]

Yeah, the Syrian government is the victim here, being oppressed and slandered by the Western imperialists...:rolleyes:

[Lilith]

Yeah, the Syrian government is the victim here, being oppressed and slandered by the Western imperialists...:rolleyes:

It might not be such a terrible idea to take articles on the matter with a grain of salt when the source is BBC News.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Well, now even Der Spiegel and mainstream media admit that hundreds of "Revolutionaries" from Jordan Saudi Arabia and the Arab World are invading Syria, to "Free Syria"... and i guess you heard about the French soldiers helping the "revolutionaries" on how to use the german and french made Rocket launcher MLRS? The reason i'm an anti-imperialist is because i hate bigger capitalist countries trying to flare up conflicts and turn the countries into even bigger shitholes than they already are. Look at Iran, can anyone here honestly tell me that they do not support the revolution against the US' Shah in 1979? Of course we would all want a communist workers revolution, but to the oppressed nations of the third world the fight against imperialism is more prudent.

[X5N]

It might not be such a terrible idea to take articles on the matter with a grain of salt when the source is BBC News.

And what would you consider non-biased sources? RT and Syrian state television?

[Lilith]

No, of course not. I would not consider any state sources non-biased. Apparently unlike some people here, I am not so naive.

[piet11111]

People "news" articles like these are meant to pave the way for "humanitarian" intervention first they will establish no fly zones then safe zones for their troops to operate from (and having a bunch of civilians there so any government response is automatically an attack on civilians) and before you know it its Libya all over.

Assad is scum and absolutely should be overthrown but not by having the Imperialists taking over and turn Syria into a sweatshop economy with zero rights for the workers all to benefit western capitalism.

[R_P_A_S]

any of you fools choosing to stay silent AGAINST Bashar and his murderous army simply because you got a hard on for Russia, China and anything that says anti-NATO.. get over your self.. please. No one is saying back the rebels and back NATO intervention. At least acknowledge that the Bashar government is killing innocents. Not just in the last year but the entire tenure of Bashar and his father too. Fuck BBC as a "reliable" source there are many out there.

[Lilith]

No one is saying back the rebels and back NATO intervention.

And yet that is precisely the climate that articles such as this seek to create, and are creating quite successfully. Assad and the rebels are as bad as each other.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

And yet that is precisely the climate that articles such as this seek to create, and are creating quite successfully. Assad and the rebels are as bad as each other.

So we can only use articles that convey our exact message? Okay, i'll pick you up on that standard in future threads, shall I?

Btw, the 'source' isn't BBC News, the source is Navi Pillay, whose word I would attribute much more credibility to than the BBCs, Syria State TVs or yours.:thumbup1:

But yeah, you go on keep jacking off over strongman Assad, maybe you can photoshop a picture of him onto a collage of Stalin, the kims, Mao, Hoxha and Ahmedinajad and have that BDSM gangbang you've always dreamed of, comrade.

[dodger]

Belgian nuns raped: Latest Reports. Canadian soldier crucified. "TRUTH--1ST CASUALTY of WAR", True today, as true as the 1st time the sentiment was uttered.

Let's make sure none of our boys and girls don't get involved in that mayhem. That would be a concrete achievement. Leave the Syrian nation to sort out there own problems. Outside interference by others can only be for the ill.

[Lilith]

But yeah, you go on keep jacking off over strongman Assad, maybe you can photoshop a picture of him onto a collage of Stalin, the kims, Mao, Hoxha and Ahmedinajad and have that BDSM gangbang you've always dreamed of, comrade.

Its cute that you have to resort to this, but unfortunately for you, you have no clue at all what you are talking about, nor, clearly, even the vaguest sense of what my politics are.

[ВАЛТЕР]

How in the blazes does the fact that there are Wahabist fighters amongst the Rebels become ALL the Rebels are foreign Wahabists? Anybody who thinks all the rebels are angels is a fool, but it's simplistic and reductionist to think that they are all foreign fighters. It's also simply false ... many of the rebels are defectors from the Syrian army, many are Syrian expats, and many are also young Syrians.

There were foreign Jihadis in Iraq and are in Afghanistan, but most of the people fighting in the various militias were actually Iraqis and Afghans respectively ... the presence of foreign fighters is is no way exclusive with the presence of local fighters. Nor are the two groups necessarily coordinating.

Are there Jihadists there? Yes. Are some foreign? Yes. Are all of them? No.

The VAST MAJORITY of the rebels are Islamist radicals. How is it that the rather large Armenian population in Syria is not among their ranks? Probably because at least under Assad they have a right to their churches, schools, and community centers. Something that these fundamentalist savages wouldn't even consider giving them.

The rebels are reactionaries. End of story.

A perfect outcome of this would be that both Assad and his troops, as well as the rebels all come out into the street, and shoot themselves in the head.

[gorillafuck]

I really want to make an arrow to the knee joke, as inappropriate as that is.you're right, it would be incredibly inappropriate. saying you want to make one but won't is inappropriate too.

I won't say this is or isn't happening but here's something for people that criticize others for being skeptical: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)

[bcbm]

Or am I just a liberal for not accepting that shooting children in the kneecaps and detaining them against any manner of human decency is just part of the good anti-US fight? :rolleyes:

yes. this pales in comparison to what nato or other imperialist forces would perpetrate against the syrian people.


Look at Iran, can anyone here honestly tell me that they do not support the revolution against the US' Shah in 1979?

up until about the point they started jailing and executing communists... and, you know, the religious police...


The VAST MAJORITY of the rebels are Islamist radicals.

islamist radicals are the most powerful anti-imperialist force in the region at the moment.

[Red Commissar]

The VAST MAJORITY of the rebels are Islamist radicals. How is it that the rather large Armenian population in Syria is not among their ranks? Probably because at least under Assad they have a right to their churches, schools, and community centers. Something that these fundamentalist savages wouldn't even consider giving them.

The rebels are reactionaries. End of story.

A perfect outcome of this would be that both Assad and his troops, as well as the rebels all come out into the street, and shoot themselves in the head.

Wasn't this the position of Mubarak and co. in Egypt, with respect to the MB 'control' of street protests, Was there not media parroting fears of a theocracy and possible backlash against the Copts? Are we still not seeing that with fears over Egypt's political future dominated by the MB on one hand and the Salafist party on the other?

My question is where was this kind of concern for Egypt that came around for Libya and Syria? What makes those states different? Where do we go along with the government's claims and where do we don't? This is not very consistent, squeezing out 'Islamists' and other reactionaries in one case, and ignoring them in the other.

I think the rebels' problem is more apparent, IMO, with the Kurdish minority who have been usually oppressed by the government through deprivation of citizenship, but have reacted lukewarm to the movement. This is mostly since they know the rebels might not really solve their marginalization.

Long story short, I don't see how any of this crackdown is justified because they need to fight 'reactionaries'. Any more than what the rebel groups have been doing in response to the government.

[l'Enfermé]

islamist radicals are the most powerful anti-imperialist force in the region at the moment.
Not they're not. They aren't anti-imperialist at all in general. Look at the Islamist radicals that just took over Egypt, they, like the former regime, are also America's *****es. What about the Islamist radicals in Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia is one of the most vocal pro-Western Imperialism forces in the world. And these Islamist radicals in Syria, who take their orders from NATO, what qualifies them as anti-Imperialist? What about the Islamist radicals in Iran, who to annex all Shia territories into their little empire(and have been saying so since the 1979). These too are anti-Imperialists?

No. Islam is an expansionist and oppressive ideology, and has been since Mohammed invented it. There is nothing anti-Imperialist about it.

[l'Enfermé]

I think the rebels' problem is more apparent, IMO, with the Kurdish minority who have been usually oppressed by the government through deprivation of citizenship, but have reacted lukewarm to the movement. This is mostly since they know the rebels might not really solve their marginalization.

Probably because the Kurds(and all other minorities)know that these wonderful rebels will go all Saddam Hussein on their asses if they win.

[Yefim Zverev]

Most of the rebels are actually not rebels. There numerous mercenaries, infiltrators from various factions (USA, Eu countries, Turkey etc.) who fight and provoke against the current regime.

[Yefim Zverev]

islamist radicals are the most powerful anti-imperialist force in the region at the moment.

I would revise this sentence as "islamic radicals are the most powerful anti-imperialist force in the region desired by imperialists and (even supported by imperialists time to time).

[piet11111]

where does she get her info ??who does she work for ??
can you not see the bigger picture.


The information passed to the UN is most likely groomed to fit imperialist interests.

Similar to how all evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons is based on American and Israeli intelligence reports.

[#FF0000]

no tears 4 assad
no cheers 4 imperialists

[Franz Fanonipants]

fuck assad

fuck nato

fuck the un

fuck liberal internationalism

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

yes. this pales in comparison to what nato or other imperialist forces would perpetrate against the syrian people.



So, should we then vote for the Labour Party in the next election? Because their policies, although horrendous, pale in comparison to what the coalition is doing right now.

How about that logic eh? :rolleyes:

[manic expression]

So, should we then vote for the Labour Party in the next election? Because their policies, although horrendous, pale in comparison to what the coalition is doing right now.

How about that logic eh? :rolleyes:
The appropriate comparison would be not voting for the Republican Party.

[dodger]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/albums/thumbs/9/84b5b0d900e7e70f584d4cfd96749184_9055.jpg?dl=13330 75561



There is very little one can add......perhaps the uniform changes but the crude propaganda does not(British WW1 Poster.)



^^^^^^^^^

[R_P_A_S]

Most of the rebels are actually not rebels. There numerous mercenaries, infiltrators from various factions (USA, Eu countries, Turkey etc.) who fight and provoke against the current regime.

Most.. what percentage is most? See this is the kind of comments that people make and just run with. I'm not saying that I don't agree. The FSA is a mix pot.

[gorillafuck]

I would revise this sentence as "islamic radicals are the most powerful anti-imperialist force in the region desired by imperialists and (even supported by imperialists time to time).just because recently the US has used Islamist radicals to it's advantage in Libya and Syria and supports Saudi Arabia doesn't mean that the US desires Islamist radicals. thats ridiculous. Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, Iraqi Islamist militias, are all obviously thorns in the US's side in the middle east.

[Rafiq]

just because recently the US has used Islamist radicals to it's advantage in Libya and Syria and supports Saudi Arabia doesn't mean that the US desires Islamist radicals. thats ridiculous. Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, Iraqi Islamist militias, are all obviously thorns in the US's side in the middle east.

They'd rather fight Islamists than communists in the middle east, for sure.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Saying that the rebellion in Syria was not caused by the material conditions IN Syria and the management failures of their State and instead by hordes of mythical Saudi Arabian Salafists is naive and not based on any serious analysis of the material conditions. Yes, reactionary elements in Syria are probably better positioned than Leftist elements, buy WHY is that, and what possible role could the Syrian state have in creating or preserving that tradition? More importantly, how will any supposed Islamist government prevent the people from then coming and overthrowing THEM if that Islamist government fails to actually answer the material problems of the people?

The Muslim Brotherhood took over Egypt after the fall of Mubarak. Does that justify Mubarak's violence against the people? Should Leftists in Egypt weep and beg for Mubarak to return? Of course not, they try to make sure that the Muslim Brotherhood shares the same fate as Mubarak. The same goes for Syria.


The VAST MAJORITY of the rebels are Islamist radicals. How is it that the rather large Armenian population in Syria is not among their ranks? Probably because at least under Assad they have a right to their churches, schools, and community centers. Something that these fundamentalist savages wouldn't even consider giving them.

The rebels are reactionaries. End of story.

A perfect outcome of this would be that both Assad and his troops, as well as the rebels all come out into the street, and shoot themselves in the head.

You said they were FOREIGN Islamists. Are there Sunni radicals in the rebels? Probably, there were in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, and Syria is obviously no different. Are there foreign fighters? There may well be in Syria too, al Qaeda already made a call to arms. But you are jumping to the conclusion that MOST are foreign Jihadi fanatics and not local Syrian fighters of various ideologies including Islamism, which is jumping to conclusions.

Just like in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, the Islamists are playing a major role. And just like in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, the presence of Islamists among the protesters and anti-government activists does not justify the government slaughtering innocent people or unarmed protesters, or committing any human rights abuses for that matter. Nor does it justify slandering ALL anti-government activists as Islamists and reactionaries. There's a good chance that whatever government would come out of a revolution in Syria, just like in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, and in fact every other revolution in history, would be somewhat reactionary and would need to be toppled. That doesn't mean we should be an apologist for a dictatorial State which is no better.


Most of the rebels are actually not rebels. There numerous mercenaries, infiltrators from various factions (USA, Eu countries, Turkey etc.) who fight and provoke against the current regime.

Evidence? This is just a loopy conspiratorial rant.


Probably because the Kurds(and all other minorities)know that these wonderful rebels will go all Saddam Hussein on their asses if they win.

That's what the Mubarak government said. It is skillful manipulation by the State. The Islamists are, in fact, doing precisely what the State wants them to do whenever they target Christians-the State has a material interest in heightening the tensions between the groups. Like in Egypt, the MB and Salafist fundamentalists are only powerful because they are the group which is best positioned against the State.

It should be noted too that Assad and the late Saddam come from the same Baathist ideology, and neither the Assad dynasty or the Iraqi Baathists seem to have any particular problem with killing their own people to hold on to power.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

have you read any of the links.
are you aware of external factors.
where do you get your info.


I don't see anything on either the "mainstream" press or the blog that you've been posting which prove that armed anti-regime forces in Syria are mostly foreign fighters. I've read a lot of bad things about armed anti-regime activists but not that they are predominantly foreign. What about the Syrian army defectors? They, presumably, are not foreign fighters.


as for iraqi and syrian regimes they were enemys.The fact that they were enemies doesn't mean that they didn't have similar political ideologies and systems.

[#FF0000]

So, should we then vote for the Labour Party in the next election? Because their policies, although horrendous, pale in comparison to what the coalition is doing right now.

How about that logic eh? :rolleyes:

uh huh.

isn't that the same logic you're using tho

that the imperialist folks getting involved are better than assad?

[#FF0000]

I don't see anything on either the "mainstream" press or the blog that you've been posting which prove that armed anti-regime forces in Syria are mostly foreign fighters. I've read a lot of bad things about armed anti-regime activists but not that they are predominantly foreign. What about the Syrian army defectors? They, presumably, are not foreign fighters

Yo regardless of how many foreign nationals are working with the rebels (the answer, if you're wondering, is a lot) there is still tons of weapons smuggling going on from outside forces to arm the rebels, the rebels who don't even make up a significant minority in the country.

Real talk this is more like a coup than it is a revolution and you have to a hole in your skull to not see that.

Then again you fucking idiots are the same ones who were riding NATO's dick when they went into Libya so haha hey

[gorillafuck]

They'd rather fight Islamists than communists in the middle east, for sure.I don't think that's necessarily true. focuses on certain enemies are just tactical. the US chose to fight nazi germany instead of the soviet union when that was a more pressing matter.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yeah it's unfortunate but true that the radical Islamists are pretty much the vanguard of "anti-imperialist resistance" in the middle east.

It would be great if we still lived in the 70's and there were relevant, more "palatable" groups for the left to support, like secular nationalists, but unfortunately that's not the case.

That's not to say that we should support radical Islamists, they suck. I just think that people really just want to wish for something that's not there, like they're hoping that some PFLP-type group will sprout up in a bunch of countries and start magically spouting the language of anti-imperialism. Unfortunately though Islam, as a politicized ideology, is what most people turn to as an opposition movement against whatever regime they live in. It creates a powerful unifying ideology which is incredibly important for any resistance movement.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Yo regardless of how many foreign nationals are working with the rebels (the answer, if you're wondering, is a lot) there is still tons of weapons smuggling going on from outside forces to arm the rebels, the rebels who don't even make up a significant minority in the country.


"Rebels have foreign support"=/="Rebels are mostly foreign fighters". Valter wasn't talking about foreign support of the rebels (of course Syria receives arms from Russian Imperialists), he was saying all of the rebels were foreign fighters. That's a very different claim. As I said in an earlier example, the fact that Iraqi insurgents included both foreign "Jihadists" (and foreign arms) did NOT mean that there were not substantial number of Iraqi insurgents and that the insurgents did not have some amount of local support. It also does not mean that the US government's actions did not lead to the support of the insurgent movement. Saying "All the rebels are foreign fighters" is a way of whitewashing the Syrian state and oversimplifying the situation, and is much different from saying "The rebels include foreign fighters and foreign arms".

This doesn't mean people should think the rebels are great or anything. People can disagree with US policy in Afghanistan and disagree with simplistic caricatures of the groups which America is fighting to support the war effort, but that doesn't mean they support the Taliban either.


Real talk this is more like a coup than it is a revolution and you have to a hole in your skull to not see that.I'm unclear as to why you're being a dick. What I would call the evens right now is a "civil war" and the Syrian regime is not innocent at all in the events unfolding.



Then again you fucking idiots are the same ones who were riding NATO's dick when they went into Libya so haha heyBullshit, I never said anything in support of NATO, what the fuck are you even talking about? This is just irrelevant trolling

[Red Commissar]

Probably because the Kurds(and all other minorities)know that these wonderful rebels will go all Saddam Hussein on their asses if they win.

It's not so much a fear of killings as it is continued marginalization regardless of who is in power. Kurds haven't really been targeted in the same manner as some other communities due to their sheer size (largest minority and all) and lack of connection to the government (denial of citizenship until then for some only strengthens that). Some have been active in demonstrations here and there, with even the Kurdish tricolor popping up much to both the chagrin and joy of Syrian administrators seeing it as justification of it being secessionist and American-backed in origin.

The main reason though with the lack of 'spirit' is that some Kurds are unsure that the any subsequent government would ditch the Arab-centered policies that Ba'ath and pre-Ba'ath had used. It's not worth it for them to put in so much effort into this, especially since the rest of the country seemingly ignored them when they protested in 2004 after murders of some youth by the police in a soccer match (government listed reasons including but not limited to thuggery by the youth, secessionist sentiment through flags, and supporting imperialism through chants for Dubya). Why stick your neck out for them when they didn't do so for you?

Plus, a very major concern among those is the role Turkey has had in supporting the opposition groups, be it in their 'peaceful' form as the Syrian National Council by giving them a place to have meetings and diplomatic support, or giving the Free Syria Army safe haven in Hatay and other areas across the border. With Turkey's treatment of the Kurds in Turkey as it is, plus the prior history of Syria's former support of the PKK in the 1980s and 1990s until it ended, it doesn't provide them with much comfort of a possible Syria that has strong influence from Turkey that will probably move them even further from any chance at getting genuine rights. Turkey would not want such recognitions nearing on a federal system that's a common argument in those circles, lest it further agitate Kurds in Turkey as the situation in Iraq has done (despite the economic dominance Turkey has in the Kurdish region there currently).

When Arab League observers were brought to one of the main Kurdish settlements in the northeast, the government took them to the Assyrian neighborhoods who applauded the government's 'protection' against their Kurdish neighbors who they said were trying to rob and kill them, to reinforce the government's position that This is classic use of dividing the self-contained interests of minorities and pinning them against one another in a state.

I'm failing still to see how this kind of aggrandizing about the danger towards minorities is different from Mubarak's own position that the Copts and other minorities relied on his government to protect them from the Islamists and others who would come to harm them if he was gone. These were real possibilities- and I wasn't really seeing the same harping on about how bad Egyptian protestors were if they were to overthrow the government.

IMO the only group of people who really stand to suffer serious repercussions if the Assad government is taken down are the Alawites, due to the perception of them being favored by the government over the 'majority'. In effect this underscores the very sectarian nature of the conflict, despite the opposition's claims to the contrary.

[Sir Comradical]

"Syrian Children being shot in the knees and detained in woeful conditions"

From article:

"On Tuesday, Radhika Coomaraswamy, the UN special representative for children and armed conflict, said they had received claims that the rebel Free Syrian Army was using children as fighters."

Maybe it's because children are being used by the "Free" Syrian Army as child soldiers? People completely disregard the fact that it's a full blown civil war and the Free Syrian Army are proxies of Saudi Arabia & NATO like the rebels in Libya.

[Rafiq]

I don't think that's necessarily true. focuses on certain enemies are just tactical. the US chose to fight nazi germany instead of the soviet union when that was a more pressing matter.

Communism in the Middle East as a movement (potentially would) destroys U.S. buisness interests in the region, much like Southeast asia and latin america. Islamists aren't entirely pro colonialism, but they're Moralist Neo Liberalists.

That's different from the U.S. alligning itself with an Imperialist superpower against anothef.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

uh huh.

isn't that the same logic you're using tho

that the imperialist folks getting involved are better than assad?

Nope, i'm not making a judgement on the rebels as a mass, as they aren't a homogenous group. If I were fighting with the allies against Fascism in WW2, I wouldn't automatically tag all anti-fascists with the same brush.

My point is that there can be no support for Assad in the name of anti-imperialism, for he and his regime are perpetrating crimes just as bad as the imperialists, within the context of a war situation.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

"Syrian Children being shot in the knees and detained in woeful conditions"

From article:

"On Tuesday, Radhika Coomaraswamy, the UN special representative for children and armed conflict, said they had received claims that the rebel Free Syrian Army was using children as fighters."

Maybe it's because children are being used by the "Free" Syrian Army as child soldiers? People completely disregard the fact that it's a full blown civil war and the Free Syrian Army are proxies of Saudi Arabia & NATO like the rebels in Libya.

1. How can it be a full blown civil war, if it is being fought on behalf of foreign elements?

2. I'm amazed at how casual you are about shooting children in the kneecaps and putting the blame on the other side. I bet you don't have a go at the palestinians when they use children as human shields.

[manic expression]

1. How can it be a full blown civil war, if it is being fought on behalf of foreign elements?
The same way the Whites fought in part on behalf of foreign elements and still participated in a civil war.


2. I'm amazed at how casual you are about shooting children in the kneecaps and putting the blame on the other side. I bet you don't have a go at the palestinians when they use children as human shields.
If children are being used as child soldiers then some of them might get shot in the kneecaps while they're fighting.... Israel accuses Palestinians of using children as "human shields" because they don't think it's proper that Palestinian children are living on their "god-given land", not the same situation.

[Aspiring Humanist]

By the rhetoric in this thread it looks like you can't be anti-imperialist without supporting Assad's government

[Sir Comradical]

1. How can it be a full blown civil war, if it is being fought on behalf of foreign elements?

2. I'm amazed at how casual you are about shooting children in the kneecaps and putting the blame on the other side. I bet you don't have a go at the palestinians when they use children as human shields.

1. What?!?!

2. I'm just asking some basic questions based on what your source said. If children are used as mercenaries by the FSA, they'll inevitably be wounded or killed. The fact that you're siding with imperialism against Syria on the basis that the Syrian Army is horrendous, is a testament to the flaky and spineless politics of the soft left.

[Sir Comradical]

By the rhetoric in this thread it looks like you can't be anti-imperialist without supporting Assad's government

Since when did an elementary 'hands off Syria' position equal supporting Assad politically?

[seventeethdecember2016]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17532966#TWEET116617

I don't trust the BBC. They are too bias and point out only the most horrendous crimes and make it seem as though it is a common occurrence that the Syrian army shoots and detains children. Besides, who would seriously tell soldiers to do this to children when they are well aware of media influence in their country?
Assad obviously didn't give orders for this, it was likely from someone in the Bureaucracy or some self righteous soldiers.

Let's look at the facts.
Syria has an army of 200,000 with a huge Bureaucracy.
The Free Syrian Army(insurgents) have no more than 20,000, with a weak Syrian National Council.
The PKK support Assad.
The insurgents are using civilians as cover, which will cause a lot of collateral.
Syria's army is well prepared for a war, seeing that they've been developed their defense for war with Israel for decades.
The Majority of the Syrian people support Assad.
Islamists and Nationalists make up the Opposition.
Syria is a very dense country, and a Civil War will just butcher hundreds of thousands caught in the crossfires.
Assad, and his family, know that if they surrender they will likely be put to death, so surrendering isn't an option for them.


There is only one possible outcome if this continues. WAR!!!
Let the opposition put down their arms and end this nonsense!!!! The only way for Syria to liberate itself from Assad is through a Baathist party coup.
I will not watch Syrians killing Syrians, like in Libya, for the sake of some Pseudo-Democracy.

[scarletghoul]

I propose we introduce a rule that no one is allowed to start a thread with a BBC news article that contains awful allegations with no evidence against a country currently battling imperialism

[brigadista]

western press never put things in context

[gorillafuck]

Communism in the Middle East as a movement (potentially would) destroys U.S. buisness interests in the region, much like Southeast asia and latin america. Islamists aren't entirely pro colonialism, but they're Moralist Neo Liberalists.

That's different from the U.S. alligning itself with an Imperialist superpower against anothef.radical anti-American Islamist's are just as hostile to American business interests as communists. they are just not as disruptive to Americas rivals business interests. which in a way makes Islamist's (currently) more dangerous to the United States than some sort of hypothetical communist force that opposes all capitalist governments, but less dangerous to world capitalism.

[bcbm]

Not they're not. They aren't anti-imperialist at all in general. Look at the Islamist radicals that just took over Egypt, they, like the former regime, are also America's *****es. What about the Islamist radicals in Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia is one of the most vocal pro-Western Imperialism forces in the world. And these Islamist radicals in Syria, who take their orders from NATO, what qualifies them as anti-Imperialist? What about the Islamist radicals in Iran, who to annex all Shia territories into their little empire(and have been saying so since the 1979). These too are anti-Imperialists?

i guess i should have been more specific, i meant islamist as in al qaeda aligned. saudi arabia, iran and most other muslim rulers and many other groups are considered apostates. i am sure they will take money and guns from nato, but marching in the same direction occasionally does not mean they are marching together, their goal is a civil war across the entire region.


No. Islam is an expansionist and oppressive ideology, and has been since Mohammed invented it. There is nothing anti-Imperialist about it.

like it or not al qaeda and its allies are the ones who have done the most damage to nato and western interests in the middle east in the last two decades. obviously there long term goals are not anti-imperialist by any means, but as it stands they're the ones doing most of the fighting.

[gorillafuck]

and that's not even to mention that communist organizations can inadvertently serve certain states just as any other group can. I'm sure if the PFLP started conflict against Islamists in Palestine, Israel would be ecstatic that the movement against it's existence was being divided.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

1. What?!?!

2. I'm just asking some basic questions based on what your source said. If children are used as mercenaries by the FSA, they'll inevitably be wounded or killed. The fact that you're siding with imperialism against Syria on the basis that the Syrian Army is horrendous, is a testament to the flaky and spineless politics of the soft left.

lol, where have I once sided with imperialism, you absolute tool?

I've said, time and again, my position:

I don't support imperialism, I don't support Assad. I think we all have that in common. Further, if Assad is responsible for these terrible crimes (which it looks like he is) then he should go, and I adopt a position that supports genuine, intra-Syrian resistance to his dictatorship, whilst also wholeheartedly opposing the rebel elements that are foreign- and imperialist-backed.

To say simply it's not the fault of the Assad regime for detaining, torturing and executing children because they are being used as cover is ridiculous. Surely you cannot seriously espouse this position???:confused:

When the Israelis kill children being used as cover by the palestinians, what is your position then? Are the Israelis innocent in that particular activity, too?

Stop trolling, you know full well that i'm neither 'soft-left' nor pro-imperialism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

like it or not al qaeda and its allies are the ones who have done the most damage to nato and western interests in the middle east in the last two decades. obviously there long term goals are not anti-imperialist by any means, but as it stands they're the ones doing most of the fighting.

What do we, as Socialists, gain from the al qaeda types kicking the ass of imperialism in the Middle East?

Do you not realise that the religious, pan-african Socialists, Terrorists, Fundamentalists who all bandy together would - if they kicked western imperialism out of the Middle East - just become the new imperialists. Look at Qaddafys idea for a United States of Africa or whatever he was advocating...how could that have turned into anything other than a nationalist, imperialist entity?

We should be above politics, for the sake of our reputations, our humanity and our dignity. We may be politically-minded people, but that doesn't mean we have to get involved in picking sides between imperialists and religious nut-jobs, both sides of whom are anti-worker and kill workers indiscriminately. Supporting the latter is cutting your nose to spite your face.

[gorillafuck]

What do we, as Socialists, gain from the al qaeda types kicking the ass of imperialism in the Middle East?

Do you not realise that the religious, pan-african Socialists, Terrorists, Fundamentalists who all bandy together would - if they kicked western imperialism out of the Middle East - just become the new imperialists. Look at Qaddafys idea for a United States of Africa or whatever he was advocating...how could that have turned into anything other than a nationalist, imperialist entity?

We should be above politics, for the sake of our reputations, our humanity and our dignity. We may be politically-minded people, but that doesn't mean we have to get involved in picking sides between imperialists and religious nut-jobs, both sides of whom are anti-worker and kill workers indiscriminately. Supporting the latter is cutting your nose to spite your face.yeah, but the point is that this is just as dangerous to the United States and western imperialism as communist revolution is. acknowledging that doesn't mean actually supporting Islamists.

[bcbm]

What do we, as Socialists, gain from the al qaeda types kicking the ass of imperialism in the Middle East?

bullets in the back of the head.


Do you not realise that the religious, pan-african Socialists, Terrorists, Fundamentalists who all bandy together would - if they kicked western imperialism out of the Middle East - just become the new imperialists. Look at Qaddafys idea for a United States of Africa or whatever he was advocating...how could that have turned into anything other than a nationalist, imperialist entity?

yes anti-imperialism is a bankrupt theory i know


Supporting the latter is cutting your nose to spite your face.

i don't support islamists but i think they are the primary anti-imperialist force in the region.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

yeah, but the point is that this is just as dangerous to the United States and western imperialism as communist revolution is. acknowledging that doesn't mean actually supporting Islamists.

Would still abide by the rule of capital, and church, and family, flag, state and dictatorship, though.

Whichever group rules over me, I do not care.

Foreign policy is a messy business.

[gorillafuck]

Would still abide by the rule of capital, and church, and family, flag, state and dictatorship, though.

Whichever group rules over me, I do not care.yeah, of course.

[Sir Comradical]

lol, where have I once sided with imperialism, you absolute tool?

I've said, time and again, my position:

I don't support imperialism, I don't support Assad. I think we all have that in common. Further, if Assad is responsible for these terrible crimes (which it looks like he is) then he should go, and I adopt a position that supports genuine, intra-Syrian resistance to his dictatorship, whilst also wholeheartedly opposing the rebel elements that are foreign- and imperialist-backed.

To say simply it's not the fault of the Assad regime for detaining, torturing and executing children because they are being used as cover is ridiculous. Surely you cannot seriously espouse this position???:confused:

When the Israelis kill children being used as cover by the palestinians, what is your position then? Are the Israelis innocent in that particular activity, too?

Stop trolling, you know full well that i'm neither 'soft-left' nor pro-imperialism.

Right, I've heard it all before. You don't support imperialism or Assad, but some imaginary workers movement that will occupy all the factories and seize power. While the working class in Syria is potentially powerful once they realise their strength and begin organising on class lines, the battle-lines are NOT drawn this way in the current conflict. There is no working class armed force capable of taking power. It is actually, dare I say, a case of NATO and the Saudis trying to remove an Iran-friendly regime from the region. Yeah sure, Assad's regime is prosecuting this civil war in a brutal fashion, but you've got to take sides between the forces that actually exist, you don't side with imaginary movements.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Right, I've heard it all before. You don't support imperialism or Assad, but some imaginary workers movement that will occupy all the factories and seize power. While the working class in Syria is potentially powerful once they realise their strength and begin organising on class lines, the battle-lines are NOT drawn this way in the current conflict. There is no working class armed force capable of taking power. It is actually, dare I say, a case of NATO and the Saudis trying to remove an Iran-friendly regime from the region. Yeah sure, Assad's regime is prosecuting this civil war in a brutal fashion, but you've got to take sides between the forces that actually exist, you don't side with imaginary movements.

You take sides if you want to.

I have no pretensions of any imminent move to the left. I don't expect that or demand it right now.

I simply refuse to get involved in this messy, tangled web.

[Sir Comradical]

You take sides if you want to.

I have no pretensions of any imminent move to the left. I don't expect that or demand it right now.

I simply refuse to get involved in this messy, tangled web.

If we're living in imperialist countries and if there is a slide towards war against Syria, we should agitate against it. Why not get on the front foot by taking a decisively anti-imperialist position?

Hands of Syria!
Hands of Iran!

[moulinrouge]

If we're living in imperialist countries and if there is a slide towards war against Syria, we should agitate against it. Why not get on the front foot by taking a decisively anti-imperialist position?

Hands of Syria!
Hands of Iran!

I always wonder why marxists who are obsessed with tiny european and american fascist groups are defending fascist nations like syria and iran.

America and the arab nations might be against assad, that does not mean assad should stay in power.

[Amal]

I always wonder why marxists who are obsessed with tiny european and american fascist groups are defending fascist nations like syria and iran.

America and the arab nations might be against assad, that does not mean assad should stay in power.
Be practical. A imperialist puppet like NTC of Libya would be worse for Syrian workers and people and the world. Until and unless someone better arises, there is no alternative to Assad at present. And I am sure, such a leader wouldn't be backed by imperialist powers.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If we're living in imperialist countries and if there is a slide towards war against Syria, we should agitate against it. Why not get on the front foot by taking a decisively anti-imperialist position?

Hands of Syria!
Hands of Iran!

Fine, but at the same time let's also agitate against Assad's regime's crimes.

Hands off the people of Syria!
Hands off the people of Iran!

You see what I did there? I turned your nationalist sloganeering into a more people-orientated type of sloganeering.:glare:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Be practical. A imperialist puppet like NTC of Libya would be worse for Syrian workers and people and the world. Until and unless someone better arises, there is no alternative to Assad at present. And I am sure, such a leader wouldn't be backed by imperialist powers.

Assad has never been friends with middle eastern imperialists.:rolleyes:

[Amal]

Assad has never been friends with middle eastern imperialists.:rolleyes:
Do you know one, a real revolutionary at present situation, who can be better than him? Come to reality first. If you think that you can do that better, then just go to Syria and ask the workers there. I hope they you have that little faith of them that they are workers and can understand who can be their class friendly.
In a real world, you even have to have business relation with the imperialists. Lenin imported a huge amount of machinery from those "imperialist" countries, probably a "anti-worker" step by you. I don't want to mention the Molotov-Ribbentrop treat just to avoid further callous debates.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Do you know one, a real revolutionary at present situation, who can be better than him? Come to reality first. If you think that you can do that better, then just go to Syria and ask the workers there. I hope they you have that little faith of them that they are workers and can understand who can be their class friendly.
In a real world, you even have to have business relation with the imperialists. Lenin imported a huge amount of machinery from those "imperialist" countries, probably a "anti-worker" step by you. I don't want to mention the Molotov-Ribbentrop treat just to avoid further callous debates.

Who can be better than the guy who spends his days in palaces ordering luxury goods with his families, whilst giving the orders to detain, torture and kill children? Hmm you're right, i'm not sure there is anyone better than that!

As for the rest of your post, I think i'll leave the class collaboration and 'business relations with imperialists' to you. I don't see what your point is anyway. Why don't the Syrians befriend the Venezuelans, the Brazilians, the Cubans etc.? Why would you overlook them, as a 'progressive', and then befriend the oil crooks in the Middle East, eh?

It's amazing that absolute reactionaries like Ahmedinajad, Qaddafy and Assad suddenly become 'progressives' and 'anti-imperialists' as soon as they get a bit of flak from the western world. Get with the times, it's 2012, not 1982. There is no cold war. Whether it is the US, UK, Germany, Syria or Iran who is purporting capital and purporting imperialism, shouldn't bother us. None of you seem able to answer this. All you say is, "it would be worse under the US" (the entire nation of US is seemingly the encapsulation of evil, so much for Marxian class analysis!). But what is worse than the tanks rolling in shooting all people, young and old, healthy and debilitated, male and female? And having the likes of Assad in charge brings us no closer, even in the long-term, to Socialist revolution and working class emancipation, than having the other set of imperialists in charge.

Instead of defending either set of reactionaries - the western war-mongerers or the brutal Assad regime, let's as a movement wash our hands of the entire lot of them.

[Sir Comradical]

I always wonder why marxists who are obsessed with tiny european and american fascist groups are defending fascist nations like syria and iran.

America and the arab nations might be against assad, that does not mean assad should stay in power.

Fascism isn't a word you throw around to describe regimes you think are really really really bad.

[The Cheshire Cat]

BBC tells us that a UN spokeswoman says that Syrian soldiers are shooting children in the knees and there are people here who actually believe it instantly? And they are the same ones who call for restricting fellow communists for not opposing Assad. I just have no words for this...

How could one, as a communist I pressume, instantly believe BBC, a lieing, cheating and indirectly murdering bourgeoisie propaganda channel when they report about a spokeswoman of one of the most war-mongering organisations in the world, which is known for unjustified millitairy actions and as an imposer of imperialism, who wants us to believe that Syrian soldiers, humans like everyone else, shoot children, possibly their own since there are also Syrian soldiers born in whatever city they are referring to, in the knees without a particular reason? Seriously?

I think those people are either incredibly naive or very very very eager to find things to make Assad look bad (and I don't think we need to make Assad look even more bad; every communist should be against him for he is the head of a state.)

[Amal]

Who can be better than the guy who spends his days in palaces ordering luxury goods with his families, whilst giving the orders to detain, torture and kill children? Hmm you're right, i'm not sure there is anyone better than that!
Callous strawman argument. He is the President and he should have a place. After all, even Presidents of democratic USA also lives in Palaces. I am sure that the lifestyle of Assad isn't higher than US Presidents. Probably you can show his orders to serve child meat on his dinner.

As for the rest of your post, I think i'll leave the class collaboration and 'business relations with imperialists' to you. I don't see what your point is anyway. Why don't the Syrians befriend the Venezuelans, the Brazilians, the Cubans etc.? Why would you overlook them, as a 'progressive', and then befriend the oil crooks in the Middle East, eh?
Which kind of "oil crooks"? The sheikhs of Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE and other emirates. They are now united to "democratize" Syria.

It's amazing that absolute reactionaries like Ahmedinajad, Qaddafy and Assad suddenly become 'progressives' and 'anti-imperialists' as soon as they get a bit of flak from the western world. Get with the times, it's 2012, not 1982. There is no cold war. Whether it is the US, UK, Germany, Syria or Iran who is purporting capital and purporting imperialism, shouldn't bother us. None of you seem able to answer this. All you say is, "it would be worse under the US" (the entire nation of US is seemingly the encapsulation of evil, so much for Marxian class analysis!). But what is worse than the tanks rolling in shooting all people, young and old, healthy and debilitated, male and female? And having the likes of Assad in charge brings us no closer, even in the long-term, to Socialist revolution and working class emancipation, than having the other set of imperialists in charge.
Well, your definition of absolute need to be saluted. But, with my little knowledge, I cannot understand how NTC can be less reactionary than Qaddafi, a bunch of feudal, tribal islamists. Ahmedinejad has good support of Iranians behind and at least he can say that he is much more democratic than the US backed emirates of middle east.

Instead of defending either set of reactionaries - the western war-mongerers or the brutal Assad regime, let's as a movement wash our hands of the entire lot of them.
Ya, Ya, seems like as both side are equal, therefore it doesn't matter if you take any side, the side of the imperialists. A wonderful logic to veil your own pro-imperialist mentality.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Callous strawman argument. He is the President and he should have a place. After all, even Presidents of democratic USA also lives in Palaces. I am sure that the lifestyle of Assad isn't higher than US Presidents. Probably you can show his orders to serve child meat on his dinner.

I was responding to a specific point.

Also, we all want to get rid of the President of the US. So by likening Assad to that position, you are being hypocritical in saying Assad 'should have a place'.:rolleyes::thumbdown: Either they both have a place, or they should both be overthrown.

I won't bother responding the rest of your pathetic post.

[#FF0000]

My point is that there can be no support for Assad in the name of anti-imperialism, for he and his regime are perpetrating crimes just as bad as the imperialists, within the context of a war situation.

Oh well yeah, fair enough. I agree. (Still ain't ever gonna cheer on any imperialists in any war ever)

[arilando]

I used to be a child like you, than i took an arrow in the knee.

[SinoRebel]

Is it any surprise that the party committing these atrocities is Ba'athist, which is a form of Arab Nazism?

(From the wiki article for Ba'athism)


al-Arsuzi was an Arab from Alexandretta who had been associated with Arab nationalist politics during the interwar period. He was inspired by the French Revolution, the German and Italian unification movements, and the Japanese economic "miracle".[3] His views were influenced by a number of prominent European philosophical and political figures, among them Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Oswald Spengler.[4] He was also influenced by the racial theories of Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Nazism.[5] al-Arsuzi claimed that historically Islam and the Prophet Muhammad had reinforced the nobility and purity of Arabs, which degenerated in purity because of the adoption of Islam by other people.[5] He had been associated with the League of Nationalist Action, a political party strongly influenced by fascism and Nazism with its paramilitary "Ironshirts", that existed in Syria from 1932 to 1939.[6] When al-Arsuzi left the party in 1939 after its popular leader died and the party had fallen into disarray, he founded the short-lived Arab National Party in 1939 and dissolved it later that year.[7] On 29 November 1940, al-Arsuzi founded the Arab Ba'ath Party.[1] Despite his pro-Nazi views, al-Arsuzi did not support the Axis Powers, and refused Italy's advances for an alliance.[5]While I am perfectly aware the rebels will be taken advantage of by the imperialist west, it would be in our best interests to make this fact known.

How it claims to be "inspired" partially from Marxism is simply sickening; I cannot help but be reminded of "third positionists" and all that other crypto-fascist rubbish.

I will give Assad credit for supporting the people of Palestine against the terrorist state of "Israel", however he only supports Palestine for Arab-Nationalist reasons, NOT for the ends of international leftism.

[Amal]

I was responding to a specific point.

Also, we all want to get rid of the President of the US. So by likening Assad to that position, you are being hypocritical in saying Assad 'should have a place'.:rolleyes::thumbdown: Either they both have a place, or they should both be overthrown.
If some kind of medieval tyrant suddenly appeared and want to overthrow Obama, I want to be on his side because that would be worse for Being practical, I know that state will exist in near future and with them head of states too. So accusing Assad for just having a palace is simply proving oneself a fool.

I won't bother responding the rest of your pathetic post.
You better live in your liberal fantasy world, better for you and workers of the world.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If some kind of medieval tyrant suddenly appeared and want to overthrow Obama, I want to be on his side because that would be worse for Being practical, I know that state will exist in near future and with them head of states too. So accusing Assad for just having a palace is simply proving oneself a fool.

You better live in your liberal fantasy world, better for you and workers of the world.

I didn't accuse Assad of being a treacherous, anti-worker maggot just for having a palace. Probably his merciless oppression and murder of workers, his suppression of any sort of democracy and his support of Capitalism are reason enough to despise his guts...but wait, he's POSSIBLY, MAYBE fighting against elements of the US? Oh, well then he's an anti-imperialist hero of the working class, long live Assad and hands off Syria, eh?

Liberal fantasy world? Okay. People with politics like me will inflict the sort of pain upon the ruling class that reformist, out-of-touch stalinists like you could only dream of. Go back to masturbating over farm quotas and the gulag, you treacherous little Assad supporting reactionary.:thumbdown:

[honest john's firing squad]

2012 and communists are still taking sides in a bourgeois scuffle?

Aight, I'll leave you to it.

[Amal]

I didn't accuse Assad of being a treacherous, anti-worker maggot just for having a palace. Probably his merciless oppression and murder of workers, his suppression of any sort of democracy and his support of Capitalism are reason enough to despise his guts...but wait, he's POSSIBLY, MAYBE fighting against elements of the US? Oh, well then he's an anti-imperialist hero of the working class, long live Assad and hands off Syria, eh?
Problem is if Assad is really that shit as you have described, US would be his biggest supporter. I just can't understand how one ruler can have all the virtues that you have described and anti-US together.

Liberal fantasy world? Okay. People with politics like me will inflict the sort of pain upon the ruling class that reformist, out-of-touch stalinists like you could only dream of. Go back to masturbating over farm quotas and the gulag, you treacherous little Assad supporting reactionary.:thumbdown:
Mr. half-baked liberal, it's we, who are giving imperialism the greatest trouble around the world till today. Not the pseudo leftist liberals like you, who in reality act like imperialist agents. Those who cannot condemn the acts of imperialism, can not call themselves even leftist, communist is a far cry.

[honest john's firing squad]

Problem is if Assad is really that shit as you have described, US would be his biggest supporter. I just can't understand how one ruler can have all the virtues that you have described and anti-US together.
Being geopolitically oriented against the United States doesn't somehow exempt a bourgeois state from the possibility of waging class war on its own workers.

[Amal]

Being geopolitically oriented against the United States doesn't somehow exempt a bourgeois state from the possibility of waging class war on its own workers.
LOL, geopolitics has nothing related to class struggle AND THOSE WHO OPPOSE US ARE CERTAINLY THE GREATEST OPPRESSORS OF WORKING PEOPLE:crying:.

[honest john's firing squad]

LOL, geopolitics has nothing related to class struggle AND THOSE WHO OPPOSE US ARE CERTAINLY THE GREATEST OPPRESSORS OF WORKING PEOPLE:crying:.
Please re-read my post carefully and make a more educated reply.

[Amal]

Please re-read my post carefully and make a more educated reply.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? Those who doesn't agree to you aren't educated?
If educated means adding left(!) howling to legalize imperialist intervention, I don't want to be educated at all. Libyan people (workers too) are now cursing leftists like you, who helped imperialism by howling "capitalist, murderer Qaddafi" and so on ....... For people like you, the most developed country in Africa is in ruins now. Whatsoever, it isn't bothering to you, as all are "capitalist" and if one "capitalist dictator" is toppled and that bring misery to workers of that country isn't a matter at all.

[honest john's firing squad]

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? Those who doesn't agree to you aren't educated?
If educated means adding left(!) howling to legalize imperialist intervention, I don't want to be educated at all. Libyan people (workers too) are now cursing leftists like you, who helped imperialism by howling "capitalist, murderer Qaddafi" and so on ....... For people like you, the most developed country in Africa is in ruins now. Whatsoever, it isn't bothering to you, as all are "capitalist" and if one "capitalist dictator" is toppled and that bring misery to workers of that country isn't a matter at all.
Where have I even expressed support for the devastation of Libya? Isn't there some sort of medication you should be taking right now?

[Amal]

Where have I even expressed support for the devastation of Libya? Isn't there some sort of medication you should be taking right now?
Actually, people like you were howling "Qaddafi is scum" when Libya was under attack as you are howling now "Assad is a ....." while the imperialists are ready to jump on Syria. People like you are actually pseudo supporters of imperialism and its attacks.
Now, kindly tell me whether you support the intervention in Syria by "international community" or not. If no, then first say "imperialism, hands off from Syria" and later shout your anti-Assad rhetoric.

[honest john's firing squad]

People like you are actually pseudo supporters of imperialism and its attacks.
hahaha, you know me, selling arms to the NTC and the Syrian opposition like the counter-revolutionary I am :rolleyes:


Now, kindly tell me whether you support the intervention in Syria by "international community" or not.
I don't.


If no, then first say "imperialism, hands off from Syria" and later shout your anti-Assad rhetoric.
Why, when both are threats to the working class? Why can't I "decry" (over the internet, lol) both sides of the same bourgeois coin?

[Ismail]

Why, when both are threats to the working class? Why can't I "decry" (over the internet, lol) both sides of the same bourgeois coin?You can. Opposing imperialism is a part of that, since imperialism allows al-Assad and others to posture as "anti-imperialists," since it allows bourgeois nationalists and other opportunistic forces to be seen as heroes by the populace at large, and since it further strengthens the influence of, in this case, US imperialism and plays a contributing part in any coming inter-imperialist war.

During WWI people were imprisoned not just for opposing imperialist war in principle, but actively advocating revolutionary defeatism and working towards that end within their own countries regardless of how "barbarous" or anti-communist the other countries were, and that was an inter-imperialist war, not a case when one imperialism seeks to exert control and influence over another country against the interests of another (Russian) imperialism which seeks the same. In these cases proletarian internationalism entails opposing the imperialist interests of both states and for founding a Syrian communist party (or movement in your case, I suppose) for raising the consciousness of the Syrian proletariat.

As the Bolsheviks used to say: it is up to the working-class to overthrow their own bourgeoisie on their own initiative.

[Amal]

As the Bolsheviks used to say: it is up to the working-class to overthrow their own bourgeoisie on their own initiative.
Beg to differ a little with you on this point. Workers don't have any country at all, therefore own initiative means initiative of world proletariat i.e. those who are willing to assist the workers of Syria can take part.
Imperialists at present are much more united and so we have to be too.

[black magick hustla]

Beg to differ a little with you on this point. Workers don't have any country at all, therefore own initiative means initiative of world proletariat i.e. those who are willing to assist the workers of Syria can take part.
Imperialists at present are much more united and so we have to be too.

are you 12, an idiot, or a troll? i can't really wrap my mind around what makes you tick. you post some hilarious lysenkoist bs, downplay homosexuality, and now this. where do they make people like u

[Amal]

are you 12, an idiot, or a troll? i can't really wrap my mind around what makes you tick. you post some hilarious lysenkoist bs, downplay homosexuality, and now this. where do they make people like u
I have some of my own thoughts in this regard. If that doesn't fit your box size brain, I am helpless. When Islamist fundamentalists are working cross border in close connection with each other, then you are finding my posts "hilarious". Actually, the basic difference between you and me is that I want to do something in real and want to change while posting threads in websites is enough for you.
(Don't ask me what I have done so far, I am not obliged to report that to you anyway and I don't want to share that on net).

[Anderson]

Seems like this is going to be a long drawn out war with the rebel forces having just enough support to sustain their resistance

Can the rebels actually win against the government without outside support?

[Ismail]

Both parties are subservient to the Syrian government and in the 1950's-80's followed the Soviet line. They split in 1986 because one faction was enthusiastic about Gorbachev and the other was more critical of his policies. I doubt either holds any particularly revolutionary inclinations.

[ckaihatsu]

Seems like this is going to be a long drawn out war with the rebel forces having just enough support to sustain their resistance

Can the rebels actually win against the government without outside support?


[Saudi Arabia], together with the regime in Qatar, is creating a $100 million fund to place Syria’s “rebels” on their payroll. This formalizes the status of the armed groups known collectively as the Free Syrian Army as a mercenary force in the pay of the right-wing Gulf sheikdoms allied with US imperialism.

http://wsws.org/articles/2012/apr2012/pers-a04.shtml