Syria: Neither Riyadh nor Tehran but Popular Revolution

[freepalestine]

Any Oponions




Syria: Neither Riyadh nor Tehran but Popular Revolutionby Jamie Allinson
First published: 25 August, 2012
Just as the Assad regime in Syria approaches what appears to be its terminal decomposition, prominent figures on the Anglophone left are hurrying to defend it—or at least to oppose its opponents. The anti-anti-dictatorship crowd includes not only sub-Ickean conspiracists such as Michael Chossudovsky but also people one would have expected to know better, such as *Tariq Ali, George Galloway *and John Rees. Some of the arguments are expressed in more inflammatory style than others—such as Galloway’s claim that the Syrian uprising is a ‘massive international conspiracy’—but................
http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/syria_neither_riyadh_nor_tehran_but_popular_revolu tion




















[URL="http://angryarab.blogspot.gr/2012/08/how-can-i-take-seriously-this-article.html"]

[cynicles]

I find it interesting how low this argument has devolved at this point. I always here from the pro-Assad crowd about how all these people on the left are selling out to imperialist then you turn around and hear from the unquestioning opposition about how all these leftists are supporting Assad, they both need to cut the victimization crap out. They also both seem to be over simplifying each other's positions in order to make arguments with one another because they can't actually argue based on fact because they're either getting information from Assad's propoganda machine or "citizen jounralists". I say anyone who support neither the regime or the sectarian opposition should just not even bother anymore and start trying to build solutions. It's impossible to argue with these people, they've all gone insane.

[ckaihatsu]

I say anyone who support neither the regime or the sectarian opposition should just not even bother anymore and start trying to build solutions. It's impossible to argue with these people, they've all gone insane.


It's not that the *people* -- arguably on *both* sides, even -- have gone insane, it's more that the situation everyone's *dealing* with, is insane and intractable.

The way I see it is that the world -- its global civilization and economics, etc. -- has a certain *inertia*, a certain pace of developments, in the most generic sense, and currently this pace is determined in a top-down way by the requirements of the markets. At the very head of it is imperialism, as in NATO, since we know that an imperialist conquest of markets is what the underlying economics requires. This inanimate macro-scale motivation is what gives rise to imperialist geopolitical initiatives, like the recent counter-revolutionary interventions in Libya and now Syria.

The default 'mainstream' position on the world as-it-is is to say that 'this is how the world is', which leads one right into the default state of geopolitics and its imperialist intervening in the Middle East -- the slightest "superhero" pretext will enable a cop-like mentality to rush into whatever local hot-spot over there happens to be problematic.

In the current case of Syria this situation comprises the ass-end of the world as it rotates -- it's a political sinkhole in a global economic landscape that's *littered* with sinkholes as the globe barely even turns anymore.

To term anyone who's *trying* to deal with such a morass as 'insane' is understandable, since the overall situation only festers and worsens, but it's not altogether sane to just *ignore* something so important and critical to global developments, either.

[cynicles]

I think you're being a little unnecessarily wordy and not understanding me, I'm not advocating ignoring the situation, I'm advocating ignoring these elements on both sides of the debate who refuse to engage. They're either entrenched emotionally in the issue in the case of the opposition members who offer up the same argument time and time again going on an on, constantly in denial about what's happening on the ground deluding themselves into believing what is now a civil sectarian war is still a 'revolution' like in Egypt. Or, they're Assad apologists regurgitating some political nostalgia of the 60s trying to convince themselves that the regime is atleast the lesser of two evil by robbing Syrians of political agency by some conspiracy theory that this all started with US-Saudi-Qatari plot ignoring that the initial uprising was grounded in real grievances which have been lost in this political maelstrom. I'm not using insane to describe the regime and opposition I'm aware they have motivations and goals, I'm referring to the political discourse that has permitted the crisis, particularly the activist community and portions of independent academia. The entire reason I'm suggesting developing solutions is because it's no longer productive to engage these people, but they're are possibility with alternative solutions that exist outside the current political framework that currently give only two solutions.

[ckaihatsu]

I think you're being a little unnecessarily wordy and not understanding me, I'm not advocating ignoring the situation, I'm advocating ignoring these elements on both sides of the debate who refuse to engage. They're either entrenched emotionally in the issue in the case of the opposition members who offer up the same argument time and time again going on an on, constantly in denial about what's happening on the ground deluding themselves into believing what is now a civil sectarian war is still a 'revolution' like in Egypt. Or, they're Assad apologists regurgitating some political nostalgia of the 60s trying to convince themselves that the regime is atleast the lesser of two evil by robbing Syrians of political agency by some conspiracy theory that this all started with US-Saudi-Qatari plot ignoring that the initial uprising was grounded in real grievances which have been lost in this political maelstrom. I'm not using insane to describe the regime and opposition I'm aware they have motivations and goals, I'm referring to the political discourse that has permitted the crisis, particularly the activist community and portions of independent academia. The entire reason I'm suggesting developing solutions is because it's no longer productive to engage these people, but they're are possibility with alternative solutions that exist outside the current political framework that currently give only two solutions.


http://the19thbrumaire.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/the-transitional-programme-of-the-syrian-revolutionary-left-translation-part-1/

[cynicles]

That program seems to place fault of sectarianism exclusively on the regime which simply isn't the case in addition to not addressing the sectarian and militarized elements of the opposition. This is delusional, how do they plan on dealing with this? If they neither acknowledge the sectarian thrust from their own end or have a plan to deal with it how can they expect to realistically defuse tensions? Disassembling the clientelist state in Syria may get rid of the sectarian thrust from the regimes end but until they get real and acknowledge the external factors and challenge them this is just going to continue long after Bashar steps down in some form or another.

[ckaihatsu]

That program seems to place fault of sectarianism exclusively on the regime which simply isn't the case in addition to not addressing the sectarian and militarized elements of the opposition. This is delusional, how do they plan on dealing with this? If they neither acknowledge the sectarian thrust from their own end or have a plan to deal with it how can they expect to realistically defuse tensions?




Disassembling the clientelist state in Syria may get rid of the sectarian thrust from the regimes end but until they get real and acknowledge the external factors and challenge them this is just going to continue long after Bashar steps down in some form or another.


It's addressed in the statement:





[R]evolutionary groups on the ground, which are leading the movement, emphasise their commitment to the three principles (peaceful revolution, absolute rejection of foreign military intervention and the determination to overthrow the regime and abstention from dialogue with it) [and] we note that a part of the internal opposition to the Assad regime are interested in dialogue with that same regime and more dangerously that part of the opposition, mainly based abroad support the current militarization of the Intifada in order to find a foothold inside. And, most dangerous, they seek and are calling for external military intervention. The effects of this position have begun to be felt inside the country, with emergence of voices in the local co-ordinators calling for international protections, moving finally to demands for a no-fly zone! Or the same thing which led in Libya precisely to the direct intervention of NATO.

[Sir Comradical]

Typical wishy washy liberal cliffite nonsense. I'm sorry but Iran is not an imperialist power. The countries that are supporting the FSA however, are. Leftists should back the Assad government against the proxy armies of imperialism.

[cynicles]

It's addressed in the statement:
I'm not reading anything in there that accounts for the militarized oppositions contributions to sectarianism. You are right about the second quote I did miss that part.

[freepalestine]

Jamie Allinson’s “Leftist” take on the Syria conflict: a critique (Part I)

By As'ad AbuKhalil - Sat, 2012-09-01 17:53- Angry Corner



This is the season. There is a myth of a “revolution” in Syria and the myth requires stories, tales, fabrications and distortions, especially when the revolutionaries are none other than the armed gang members of the Free Syrian Army and the various Jihadis who flocked to Syria. To claim that the conflict in Syria is now a revolution is one thing, but to claim that it is a leftist revolution requires more effort and fabrications and distortions, even if the effort is well-intentioned.

Don’t get me wrong. There was at one point a popular uprising in Syria which constituted demonstrations and protests in some parts of the country, especially in rural areas where the cruel neo-liberal policies (that please Western governments and money lending institutions) prevailed in the country. But the promising popular uprising was killed many months ago, stolen by Qatar and Saudi Arabia and their fundamentalist clients.

Now Jamie Allinson is trying to hard to convince us not to believe our own eyes and to pretend that leftist revolutionaries are leading the “revolution” in Syria.

To make his argument, Allinson had to create characters that don’t exist. He begins his long article by claiming that “prominent figures on the Anglophone Left are hurrying to “defend the Syrian regime,” and then adds they otherwise they are trying to “oppose its opponents.” Notice how he polemically mixes the two stances together so that in his mind, any opposition to the opposition – even opposition to al-Qaeda and Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) in Syria, is equal to defense of the regime. This trick is as old and as vulgar as polemics of the Baath itself.

But who are these prominent leftists? George Galloway is named among three. I never thought that Galloway, a misogynist buffoon, should be counted on the Left but we can let that one pass only because this makes Allinson’s task easier for him, and we do want him to have an easy time on a topic that he may not be that familiar with.

Allinson may know about Syria what Trotsky knew about the Bronx when he addressed a rally there early in the 20th century saying: “workers and peasants of the Bronx.” Allinson does not even make room for some of us on the Left who oppose the Syrian regime and who call for its immediate overthrow and who also oppose the Syrian exile opposition and the Free Syrian Army gangs.


Allinson then belittles or dismisses the notion of an international reactionary-Zionist conspiracy in Syria. But it is not really a conspiracy. How could it be a conspiracy when the parties involved (US, France, UK, Germany, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan) through their media and official pronouncements publicly make their intentions and objectives clear? It is now more like an official regional-global war of proxy (where the Syrian regime is also is a member of a counter regional-international camp).

This dismissal by Allison can only imply that he believes that American and Western Zionists who are calling daily for more arms and NATO intervention to help the FSA gangs is motivated by real love for a real…revolution? By Allinson’s logic, Zionists and Salafis and Ikhwans are all part of a glorious revolution, which he believes has leftist features and objectives.

He ridicules the idea that the armed movement in Syria is an extension of US imperial policies, despite the fact that the US Congress has been dispensing millions upon millions of dollars to that movement. Does Allinson think that the US is merely charitably aiding a leftist revolution, without even knowing it? Does John McCain call for more arms for the Syrian revolution without knowing what Allinson knows: that it really is a leftist movement?


Allinson then ridicules the notion that the Western media spread lies. He implies it would not be possible for the Western media to spread lies. His understanding seems to imply that they are only agents of truth, and truth alone.
Allinson is not only generalizing about the Western Left, he also adds the Arab Left to the mix, but he singles out “Egypt’s revolutionary currents” — unnamed — for praise while other Arab leftists are tossed in the same vulgar camp with the likes of George Galloway. He happens to use one article in Al-Akhbar (which he read in translation) to say that the paper dismisses all Arab uprisings as “political Sunnism.” Here, Allinson is talking about something I happen to know about: he is talking about the paper I write for. This contention by Allinson is a blatant lie.

The paper has published articles about extremist Sunni fanatical currents in Syria (and Lebanon) and this topic has even received the attention of the Western media. That does not in any way mean that all Arab uprisings are dismissed as “political Sunnism.” If Allinson’s ideological task is a very difficult one, he can’t make it easier simply by fabrications or distortions.

More later.


http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/a...ritique-part-i

















Jamie Allinson’s “Leftist” take on the Syria conflict: a critique (Part II)

By As'ad AbuKhalil - Tue, 2012-09-04 12:03- Angry Corner


Allinson admits that the situation in Syria is very “complicated” but thinks he can eliminate the complication by merely talking to “people within Syria.” He talks about “charges” that the Free Syrian Army is trained, funded, and armed by Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and US and then reaches this conclusion: that there “are elements of truth to this story.” Then he adds rather dismissively that “in any revolution” there will be “outside powers” which will “try to do this.”

Allinson is right. There were outside powers in the Spanish Civil War and in the Russian revolution, but Allinson forgets that he is making the case – on Syria – for the side that is receiving the support of outside reactionary forces in the region and the world. Yes, there is outside intervention in every civil war, and reactionary and imperialist powers will try to intervene in every civil war and “revolution,” but Allinson forgot that he is arguing for the recipients of this outside intervention. This is no small matter.

Allinson rejects the notion that the Syrian “revolution” consists of elements “working for Western intelligence agencies.” Well, intelligence information is not easy to come by and we will not know for a while whether any of the parties in Syria are receiving intelligence support or not. But we know for sure that the US and other Western and oil and gas regimes are sponsoring and employing and controlling the very elements that constitute what Allinson calls “the Syrian revolution.” It is a matter of public record that the US government, among others, is sponsoring and paying various sides of the Syrian opposition. We learned from WikiLeaks and from US newspapers that several opposition outlets and personalities are directly funded by the US government, and Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been involved in sponsoring – nay, controlling – various segments of the exile Syrian opposition and of the various armed groups.

Allinson was even more amusing when he admitted that outside reactionary and imperialist powers are supporting elements in the Syrian opposition and armed groups but added that “the weaponry and funding in question is not very much.” It is rather comical to maintain that while the US, France, UK, Germany, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and UAE – among others – are funding and arming elements of the Syrian opposition and armed groups, the amount is rather small. How could the amounts be small with this coalition of some of the wealthiest countries in the world? And the US Congress has been dispensing millions upon millions of dollars, not counting the amount that are spent as part of covert US operations.

Allinson does not in any way object to using some guess work to bolster his claims: he argues that anti-aircraft guns and cannons that have been spotted with the Syrian armed groups “are most likely” to have been taken with defectors. He does not give evidence. He does not need evidence. He has a propaganda task to undertake. Allinson never heard of the massive shipment of arms (the Lutfallah ship) that was intercepted by the Lebanese Army off the coast of Lebanon. Allinson also adds that even the light arms of the FSA “seem to come from the Syrian army itself.” The writer does not bother to tell us about the sources of his “information” perhaps because his guess work has no sources except figments of his imagination. What is rather amusing is that even after the release of public information about Western and Gulfi financial and military support for the gangs of the Free Syrian Army, Allinson does not mind recycling the discredited propaganda story about funding from “Syrian exile businessmen in the Gulf.” The story was peddled early on without evidence in order to disguise the early Gulf funding.

Allinson’s method of research continues: he says that “the regime armor appears to have been hit with improvised bombs.” Appears to whom? Allinson adds that the fact that armed groups are asking for outside help proves that the “conspiracy is perhaps not so massive or effective.” Here, Allinson’s piece deserves a place in the Onion instead being presented as a serious political (and leftist) analysis of the Syrian situation. So according to Allinson, even when armed groups request NATO help, this does not change the leftist character of the “revolution” because the request proves its autonomy. The logic is rather indicative of the efforts of the author who is desperate to find leftism where it does not exist.

To be continued.

This is a critique of Jamie Allinson's article "Syria: Neither Riyadh nor Tehran but Popular Revolution" published in New Left Project (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/syria_neither_riyadh_nor_tehran_but_popular_revolu tion) (25 August 2012).



http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/angry-corner/jamie-allinson%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cleftist%E2%80%9D-take-syria-conflict-critique-part-ii




















Jamie Allinson’s “Leftist” take on the Syria conflict: a critique (Part III)

By As'ad AbuKhalil - Fri, 2012-09-07 18:02- Angry Corner



Allinson’s basic weakness is that he is willing to subsume all developments in Syria, from the activities and murders by the Free Syrian Army and even the defection of regime henchmen, like Manaf Tlass and Riad Hijab, as part of a “revolutionary process.”

Allinson endorses the Saudi-Qatari-US-French-UK-led militarization of the Syrian opposition movement and states that only the Western left calls for an end to the violence in Syria. Allinson is unaware of the deep divisions within the home-based Syrian opposition (not the exiled one) on this subject, and seems ignorant of the demands (rightful or wrongful) by elements of local opposition for a return to civil protests.

One can not be sure how Allinson assumes that there are calls coming from the “quarters” of the Western left – as if it is a monolithic political movement – and it is more surprising that he assumes that calls by the Western left (on his side or against his side) will make any difference in Syria, as if the Syrian population and its political movement really cares about the pronouncements of the Western left.

Allinson then makes a radical shift in analysis and concedes that Syria is indeed undergoing a civil war, but adds that it still retains “revolutionary dynamics” within it. One strains to recognize the features of the revolutionary dynamics. Are they recognizable in the Islamic names of military units of the FSA? Are they recognizable in the military units that are named after oil and gas sheikh and rulers? Are they recognizable in the marginalization of women? Are they recognizable in the absence of any agenda of social justice in the political programs of Syrian National Council and the Muslim Brotherhood? Are they recognizable in sectarian murders and kidnappings? Or are they recognizable in the alliances of the exile Syrian opposition which takes orders from Qatari ruler and from Western leaders? Allinson is so hard at work to impose leftist revolutionary jargon on a movement that has no connection with revolutionism whatsoever.

To be sure, the political uprising that started in Syria had a class element: the rural poor were protesting against cruel neo-liberal policies adopted by the regime, to the glee of Western governments and lending institutions. After all, cruel neo-liberal policies often win the praises of Western leaders and are often referred to as “reforms” or “liberalization” in the Western press.

The class dimension was suppressed not only by the repression of the regime, but also by the imposition of the agenda of gulf oil and gas regimes (and the Muslim Brotherhood – a mere tool of Qatar and Saudi Arabia in the case of Syria) on the political movement. The regime was quite cognizant of the class dimension of the early phase of the political protest in Syria and even condescendingly referred to protesters as Abu Shahhata (father of flip-flops) in order to appease to middle class Sunnis and to mock the poor background of the protesters.

The Syrian National Council and the Free Syrian Army never ever championed the poor, especially when their early supporters (before Western and Gulf moneys poured in) were wealthy Syrian businessmen residing in Gulf countries and enjoying good relations with Gulf regimes.

Allinson, lacking an original argument of his own, borrows from the same recycled arguments of the Free Syrian Army benefactors that one reads in the media of Saudi princes. We are told that any opposition to the “tactics” (tactics really refers to the war crimes by the gangs of the Free Syrian Army) leads to the persistence of suffering by the Syrian people. Surely, Allinson is aware that the emergence of the Free Syrian Army and its accumulation of Western and Gulf money and arms have not in any way diminished the suffering of the Syrian people. If anything, the suffering of the Syrian people seems to increase with every formation of a new unit by the FSA.

Allinson then admits that Western (he forgot to add Gulf) arms and funds are indeed entering Syria, but maintains that this has not in any way stopped the “robust popular mobilization.” Here, one is not sure what Allinson has in mind unless he is talking about the naming of new FSA units after Gulf leaders or the issuance of salutations to Arab dictators by the “revolutionary council” in Homs or elsewhere.

To be continued.



This is a critique of Jamie Allinson's article "Syria: Neither Riyadh nor Tehran but Popular Revolution" published in New Left Project (http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/syria_neither_riyadh_nor_tehran_but_popular_revolu tion) (25 August 2012).



http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/angry-corner/jamie-allinson%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cleftist%E2%80%9D-take-syria-conflict-critique-part-iii


Jamie Allinson’s “Leftist” take on the Syria conflict: a critique (Part IV)



By As'ad AbuKhalil - Mon, 2012-09-10 19:32- Angry Corner


Allinson has to deal with the facts on the ground: he has to admit that there are councils and outfits that speak on behalf of the Syrian people which are tools for foreign governments like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. But Allinson found a convenient way to deal with that: any major or minor Syrian opposition group that serves foreign interests, he dismisses it as irrelevant to the “revolution” on the ground. Thus, the Syrian National Council is not “representative” on the ground. While this may be true, he does not concede that there are other groups represented on the ground (especially the Islamist factions) which are no less subservient to Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Allinson’s account of the revolutionary councils in Syria bear more resemblance to Trotsky’s history of the Russian Revolution than to the situation on the ground in Syria. Allinson does not know that those same “revolutionary councils”– like the famous one in Homs, are blatant in their Islamist language and in their issuance of salutations to Arab potentates.

Allinson’s methodology is deeply flawed: to prove his point about the glorious “revolution” in Syria he relies on the accounts by Western reporters who share his admiration for the glorious “revolution” in Syria. This is like writing an article on Iran relying on Israeli newspapers, or writing an article on Lebanon relying on Saudi newspapers, or writing an article on Syrian opposition relying on Syrian regime media. But that is not all: ignoring the various invocation of Islamic names and personalities, and ignoring the various “revolutionary” salutations to the Arab gulf potentates (and even to Saad Hariri), Allinson insists that the Syrian revolutionaries are inspired by Gramsci. It is highly possible that Allinson considers Saad Hariri and Prince Hamad bin Jasem as followers of Gramsci.

Allinson cutely reaches a point of admitting that there is indeed a disproportionate number of “religious slogans” (Allinson has to ignore the prevalence of sectarian slogans and deeds in order to continue with the narration of the revolutionary fantasy story), but he relies on the account of another comrade of his to dismiss those slogans as mere performance. He then asks why people (who?) who accepted Hezbollah’s resistance against Israel should be bothered by the religious ideology of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) gangs.

Here he contradicts himself: he just assured us that the religious language means nothing but then draws a comparison to Hezbollah. It is true that Arab leftists supported Hezbollah’s military action against Israeli occupation and aggression, but he forgets that the same leftists are very vocal against any manifestation of Hezbollah’s religious ideology. Furthermore, if FSA gangs succeed in liberating the Golan Heights, I am sure that Allinson would see Arab leftists around the world cheering for them in full force. And if Hezbollah starts to behead and kidnap on a sectarian basis, leftists would be obligated to stand against it.

Allinson is at pains to prove the unprovable: and even wants to maintains that a fight for gender equality is even taking place within the ranks of the FSA: his evidence, as usual, is a link to a propaganda website or to a propaganda Youtube video that may or may not have any connection to the ground. More importantly, if there is any agenda of gender equality within the ranks of the FSA gangs (which are leading Allinson’s revolution), we would have read about it in Arabic.

Allinson admits that there is sectarian polarization in Syria, but he 1) blames it all on the regime (including presumably sectarian killings by the FSA gangs); and 2) he assures us that it could have been worse. So, we don’t need to worry because things could be worse. The evidence by Allinson is always flimsy and always unreliable: he wants to prove that the “revolution” is not sectarian by repeating the charges by the FSA gangs that all those who were murdered were “shabbiha” or collaborators. He adds that there are Alawis in their ranks: and he provides a list of Alawis who joined the “revolution.” This is like when the Lebanese Phalange Party in 1974 used to deny that it is sectarian and it would roll out a Muslim or two that it hired to prove that it has non-Christians among its ranks.

The piece concludes with a victory parade: Allinson tells us that there is a handful of leftist (Trotskyist, of course) who publish an on-line journal, and that they will steer the revolution towards the global Permanent Revolution. With that, the Syrian people have to ignore what they see before their eyes and just rely on the assurance of Western Trotskyist dreamers that a glorious revolution is sweeping their country, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.



This is a critique of Jamie Allinson's article "Syria: Neither Riyadh nor Tehran but Popular Revolution" published in New Left Project (http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/syria_neither_riyadh_nor_tehran_but_popular_revolu tion) (25 August 2012).



http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/angry-corner/jamie-allinson%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cleftist%E2%80%9D-take-syria-conflict-critique-part-iv

[Binh]

Angry Arab would have us believe that when our enemies aid our friends they cease to be our friends. Talk about an idiotic line of reasoning. And it wouldn't be so bad were it not for the ridiculous number of strawmen and the conspiracy theories he created to support his idiocy.

[khad]

Angry Arab would have us believe that when our enemies aid our friends they cease to be our friends. Talk about an idiotic line of reasoning. And it wouldn't be so bad were it not for the ridiculous number of strawmen and the conspiracy theories he created to support his idiocy.
Don't worry, you OWS pretender. You were always our enemy.

[cynicles]

What strawmen are you talking about? And yeah he said there are conspiracies, they do exist, just not the ones official theorists believe in about lizard men from some ancient galaxy.

[Sir Comradical]

Angry Arab would have us believe that when our enemies aid our friends they cease to be our friends. Talk about an idiotic line of reasoning. And it wouldn't be so bad were it not for the ridiculous number of strawmen and the conspiracy theories he created to support his idiocy.

This is from WSWS. I'm guessing this is you.

"Pham Binh, an activist of the Occupy Wall Street Class War Camp, is even more open in summing up the essentially pro-imperialist position advanced by all the pseudo-left groups. In an article “Libya and Syria: When Anti-Imperialism Goes Wrong” he attacks those who oppose imperialism as counterrevolutionary and defines US imperialism as a progressive force.

Binh writes that “the progressive instinct to oppose anything the US government does abroad became anything but progressive once the Arab Spring sprang up in Libya and Syria… The moment the Syrian and Libyan revolutions demanded imperialist airstrikes and arms to neutralize the military advantage enjoyed by governments over revolutionary peoples, anti-interventionism became counter-revolutionary because it meant opposing aid to the revolution.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/sep2012/igna-s10.shtml

1. Is this you?
2. If it is, do you stand by the position in bold?

[cynicles]

This is from WSWS. I'm guessing this is you.

"Pham Binh, an activist of the Occupy Wall Street Class War Camp, is even more open in summing up the essentially pro-imperialist position advanced by all the pseudo-left groups. In an article “Libya and Syria: When Anti-Imperialism Goes Wrong” he attacks those who oppose imperialism as counterrevolutionary and defines US imperialism as a progressive force.

Binh writes that “the progressive instinct to oppose anything the US government does abroad became anything but progressive once the Arab Spring sprang up in Libya and Syria… The moment the Syrian and Libyan revolutions demanded imperialist airstrikes and arms to neutralize the military advantage enjoyed by governments over revolutionary peoples, anti-interventionism became counter-revolutionary because it meant opposing aid to the revolution.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/sep2012/igna-s10.shtml

1. Is this you?
2. If it is, do you stand by the position in bold?
Normally I wouldn't trust anything coming out of the WSWS site because fo there history of lying and making shit up about opponents but that looks pretty bad.