Israel Launches War on Gaza-4 Isreali Killed by Rocket-Israel Launches War on Gaza

[freepalestine]

Israel Launches War on Gaza: Day 2 Live Coverage
09:20am
A rocket fired from the Gaza Strip on Thursday struck an apartment building in southern "isreal", killing three people, Israeli media said.

It was the first report of Israeli fatalities since Israel launched an air assault on the Gaza Strip a day earlier. (Reuters)

Published: Thursday, November 15, 2012 - 09:20
http://english.al-akhbar.com/live-event/israel-declares-war-gaza

---------------
Netanyahu Seeks International Support For Offensive
http://imemc.org/article/64563



news
http://maannews.net/eng/Default.aspx
http://english.al-akhbar.com/live-event/israel-declares-war-gaza
http://imemc.org/

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It's all fucking senseless violence. Hamas and the IDF are pricks the lot of them. I feel for the Gazans, the ordinary Palestinians and the Israelis who are injured/killed when violence flares up, and for the ordinary Gazans whose day to day lives are a misery, and will most likely become immiserated to a greater extent thanks to this latest rush of violence.

[el_chavista]

At least we scared him:

Israel's Channel 10 says Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hidden in an underground bunker as Palestinians intensify their rocket attacks against Tel Aviv.

[maskerade]

erhm...haven't the Israeli's been waging an intensified siege against gaza for the past week? it's hard to keep track of the truth as i've only read about it in mainstream media, but i'm getting so annoyed at the headlines being about tel aviv getting hit by rockets when the Gaza strip has been getting hammered by the IDF

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

At least we scared him:
I don't think "we" all support Hamas in this. Neither do "we" support the IDF.

[el_chavista]

erhm...haven't the Israeli's been waging an intensified siege against gaza for the past week? it's hard to keep track of the truth as i've only read about it in mainstream media, but i'm getting so annoyed at the headlines being about tel aviv getting hit by rockets when the Gaza strip has been getting hammered by the IDF
After the Palestinian missil atack came the Likud's reprisal.

I don't think "we" all support Hamas in this. Neither do "we" support the IDF.
We = thirdworldist antiimperialists :lol:

[Os Cangaceiros]

News reports about this in the states are pretty ridiculous. One I heard on the radio mentioned that Israeli troops were massing on the border of Gaza in a potential bid to, and I quote, "take out the terrorists". :rolleyes: Great rhetoric.

The slaughter is probably going to be extremely one-sided, just like in the last turkey shoot the Israelis did in Gaza.

[Robocommie]

News reports about this in the states are pretty ridiculous. One I heard on the radio mentioned that Israeli troops were massing on the border of Gaza in a potential bid to, and I quote, "take out the terrorists". :rolleyes: Great rhetoric.

The slaughter is probably going to be extremely one-sided, just like in the last turkey shoot the Israelis did in Gaza.

And, just like Cast Lead, the only time we'll hear about it is to hear about how absolutely necessary it all was, how heroic the Israelis are for doing it, and of course, how Obama is a son of a ***** for yet again not supporting our Israeli allies in their time of need (even though he is).

[Brosa Luxemburg]

We = thirdworldist antiimperialists :lol:

Oh. My. God.

Please tell me you are joking

[Robespierres Neck]

Ahmed Jaabari and his son was killed during an air strike (Operation Pillar of Cloud) while they were driving in a car. He was second-in-command of the military wing of Hamas. He's the first high-level Hamas official to be killed since 2008.

[The Intransigent Faction]

It's all fucking senseless violence. Hamas and the IDF are pricks the lot of them. I feel for the Gazans, the ordinary Palestinians and the Israelis who are injured/killed when violence flares up, and for the ordinary Gazans whose day to day lives are a misery, and will most likely become immiserated to a greater extent thanks to this latest rush of violence.

Look, I don't support either side ideologically speaking, either, but are you really trying to draw some kind of moral equivalence between the actions of Hamas and the IDF here? I'm not so convinced that firing some rockets in response, knowing that they may or may not hit something, is so easily comparable to a precision air strike on a funeral, especially given the larger context of the siege.

[Let's Get Free]

Huh, Obama gave this venture the green light.


http://www.startribune.com/nation/179359551.html?refer=y

[Sir Comradical]

It's all fucking senseless violence. Hamas and the IDF are pricks the lot of them. I feel for the Gazans, the ordinary Palestinians and the Israelis who are injured/killed when violence flares up, and for the ordinary Gazans whose day to day lives are a misery, and will most likely become immiserated to a greater extent thanks to this latest rush of violence.

I'd expect this 'both sides are bad' type nonsense from liberals not communists. We should support any steps by Egypt to open the border at Rafah to allow Hamas to get the missiles they need. The only language Israel understands are a few hundred dead IDF soldiers.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Where is the PFLP and DFLP in all of this? I find it hard to believe that they would just sit on the sidelines.

I think all of this is a precursor to an attack on Iran. Syria is destabilized, Palestine is getting bombed as the IDF attempts to take out as many militants as possible so that Palestinian groups cannot act against Israel as effectively in order to help Iran in the event of conflict.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I'd expect this 'both sides are bad' type nonsense from liberals not communists. We should support any steps by Egypt to open the border at Rafah to allow Hamas to get the missiles they need. The only language Israel understands are a few hundred dead IDF soldiers.
How are you not restricted yet.

[brigadista]

according to twitter new bombings of gaza today

[Avanti]

i like when people write "israel" as "isreal", because it sounds like "is real".

i enjoy word games.

"isreal" has had quite much a meaning for me as well. was born in a palestinian refugee camp in lebanon in 1979.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Look, I don't support either side ideologically speaking, either, but are you really trying to draw some kind of moral equivalence between the actions of Hamas and the IDF here? I'm not so convinced that firing some rockets in response, knowing that they may or may not hit something, is so easily comparable to a precision air strike on a funeral, especially given the larger context of the siege.

So you're not drawing moral equivalence, but the IDF is worse because it fires into funerals whereas Hamas 'just' fires into populous cities?

I mean, there is certainly an argument to say that the IDF is more blood-thirsty and brutal than Hamas and, in certain circumstances (such as a ground invasion of Gaza), we should get behind Hamas as a military - rather than a political - unit, but i'm just not really fussed about who is slightly better/slightly worse for targeting funerals, shopping malls or whatever.

They both have a blatant dis-regard for the lives of workers on the others' side, and so as a Socialist I feel obliged to point out that, due to this nationalistic and anti-worker bent, we shouldn't be 'supporting' either side's political objectives as demonstrated through their military actions.

[red flag over teeside]

Looks as if the Israeli government is using this attack on Gaza as a dry run for an attack on Iran. The Israeli goverment should be tried as war criminals for attacking defenceless citizens. Of course this wont happen.

What can be done in the UK apart from petitions? Petitions have never stopped a war.

[Comrade Samuel]

I'd expect this 'both sides are bad' type nonsense from liberals not communists. We should support any steps by Egypt to open the border at Rafah to allow Hamas to get the missiles they need. The only language Israel understands are a few hundred dead IDF soldiers.

Yes because if hypothetically Israel and Palistine's roles where switched it would be rainbows and sunshine in this region.

Liberals support Israel in this conflict (just ask Obama and most of congress) and so do conservatives for that matter, communists shouldn't support religious extremism in any capacity but but at the same time it would make sense to want to lean toward Palistine because they are the ones being repressed here.

In the end it should be simple: support the workers, fuck the warring factions who are getting them killed.

[cynicles]

Yes because if hypothetically Israel and Palistine's roles where switched it would be rainbows and sunshine in this region.

Liberals support Israel in this conflict (just ask Obama and most of congress) and so do conservatives for that matter, communists shouldn't support religious extremism in any capacity but but at the same time it would make sense to want to lean toward Palistine because they are the ones being repressed here.

In the end it should be simple: support the workers, fuck the warring factions who are getting them killed.

The first thing you say in this post makes absolutely zero sense since the line you quote from Sir Comradical said absolutely nothing of the variety. Whatever point you're trying to make by saying this is stupid.

Why is it that you would attach any level of support to stupid Ikwani and political islam just because of support for Palestinians.

Except it isn't simple since it's a crude ethnic cleansing and colonization being carried out, not some supper familiar urban class struggle being carried out in Berlin. This 'I support the workers' crap is just a convenient way of avoiding having to deal with reality, facts and what is at worst a mildly complex situation. It's no different then stupid pacifist liberals who say shit like ' I'm opposed to the use of force by everyone gandhi derp derp'.

[Sir Comradical]

Yes because if hypothetically Israel and Palistine's roles where switched it would be rainbows and sunshine in this region.

Liberals support Israel in this conflict (just ask Obama and most of congress) and so do conservatives for that matter, communists shouldn't support religious extremism in any capacity but but at the same time it would make sense to want to lean toward Palistine because they are the ones being repressed here.

In the end it should be simple: support the workers, fuck the warring factions who are getting them killed.

If their roles were switched we'd support the Israeli struggle. Duh. What's your point? The Palestinians are being slaughtered in Gaza because they're defenceless, what they need are weapons to defend themselves. As for Hamas, yeah sure, they're Islamist fuckwits, but they're also the legitimate government of the Palestinian people. We can sit here and wish for some super perfect leftist organisation to emerge that we can endorse to take up the struggle, but reality doesn't work that way.

To quote Lenin:

"For example, if tomorrow, Morocco were to declare war on France, India on England, Persia or China on Russia, and so forth, those would be “just”, “defensive” wars, irrespective of who attacked first; and every Socialist would sympathise with the victory of the oppressed, dependent, unequal states against the oppressing, slaveowning, predatory “great” powers."


How are you not restricted yet.

You've been here since June. Stfu.

[Grenzer]

I'd expect this 'both sides are bad' type nonsense from liberals not communists. We should support any steps by Egypt to open the border at Rafah to allow Hamas to get the missiles they need. The only language Israel understands are a few hundred dead IDF soldiers.

This is exactly the kind of nonsense I'd expect from Islamists, anti-semites, and Arab nationalists, not communists. I would have said that this is surprising, but we already knew that's what you are.

You've reduced anti-imperialism to moralistic nonsense and infantile emotionalism, robbing it of its strategic context: the balance of class forces. The victory of Hamas wouldn't help the working class at all. If Hamas won, they'd probably start their own genocide of the Israelis and create a situation that's possibly worse than the one we're seeing now.

The Zionist state is undeniably a chauvinist, racist apartheid state, but the solution is not to invert the situation, but abolish it.

[Sir Comradical]

This is exactly the kind of nonsense I'd expect from Islamists, anti-semites, and Arab nationalists, not communists. I would have said that this is surprising, but we already knew that's what you are.

You've reduced anti-imperialism to moralistic nonsense and infantile emotionalism, robbing it of its strategic context: the balance of class forces. The victory of Hamas wouldn't help the working class at all. If Hamas won, they'd probably start their own genocide of the Israelis and create a situation that's possibly worse than the one we're seeing now.

The Zionist state is undeniably a chauvinist, racist apartheid state, but the solution is not to invert the situation, but abolish it.

I'm an anti-semite for wanting the people of Gaza to have the means of defending themselves? Aren't you the idiot who said the Islamist cutthroats in Syria are fighting for proletarian revolution or some such similar nonsense? So you support islamists when they're supported by gulf monarchies, Turkey and the CIA, but don't want islamists to defend their country from Zionist assault?

[Rafiq]

Ghost has never demonstrated support for Islamists.

And you're foolish to think the Islamists are the "Palestinian people". What then, are the "American people"? Bourgeois-Liberals? Should we support Obama because the "people" wanted him?

There is no class analysis here. Palestinian support for Hamas was desperate, only reflects their hatred for fatah. Even then, if they really supported Hamas, it is false consciousness.

[The Intransigent Faction]

So you're not drawing moral equivalence, but the IDF is worse because it fires into funerals whereas Hamas 'just' fires into populous cities?

I mean, there is certainly an argument to say that the IDF is more blood-thirsty and brutal than Hamas and, in certain circumstances (such as a ground invasion of Gaza), we should get behind Hamas as a military - rather than a political - unit, but i'm just not really fussed about who is slightly better/slightly worse for targeting funerals, shopping malls or whatever.

Exactly. As I said, neither side deserves ideological support. But as to your first question, absolutely. I think James Sterba (and others) made a compelling case that they aren't morally equivalent. The Palestinians don't exactly have a standing army to fight back, and a mass exodus into Egypt is not an option (and shouldn't happen even if it were because they have every right to live there). The rockets are the most effective means they have to resist militarily in some fashion.


They both have a blatant dis-regard for the lives of workers on the others' side, and so as a Socialist I feel obliged to point out that, due to this nationalistic and anti-worker bent, we shouldn't be 'supporting' either side's political objectives as demonstrated through their military actions.

Uh huh. By the same logic the RPF killing some civilians in the crossfire would make it wrong for them to take up arms against the Interahamwe militia who got arms from the French. Sorry, but that's bs. You don't have to support a group politically to not draw a moral equivalence where one group of people is being victimized and the other is the victimizer. If you really think the two are equivalent, then you're no better than the IDF generals saying that "Israel is simply defending itself".

[Comrade Samuel]

The first thing you say in this post makes absolutely zero sense since the line you quote from Sir Comradical said absolutely nothing of the variety. Whatever point you're trying to make by saying this is stupid.

Why is it that you would attach any level of support to stupid Ikwani and political islam just because of support for Palestinians.

Except it isn't simple since it's a crude ethnic cleansing and colonization being carried out, not some supper familiar urban class struggle being carried out in Berlin. This 'I support the workers' crap is just a convenient way of avoiding having to deal with reality, facts and what is at worst a mildly complex situation. It's no different then stupid pacifist liberals who say shit like ' I'm opposed to the use of force by everyone gandhi derp derp'.

The point I was making is that if their roles were reversed we would all be sitting here whining and complaining about those poor Israelis and talking about how we should fight those evil Palistinians- for all intents and purposes they are the same and it is for that reason we should not be thinking that fighting for or against either side would solve a thing.

There is a difference between peacefully advocateing an independent Palistinian state and urging people to take up arms so that one can be created- one that may I add would likely be in perpetual war if it did exist.

I am aware of the oppression that Palestinians must put up with but if you think an unwinnable war will solve that or even so much as improve it slightly then you must be off your rocker.I'm by no means a pacifist but have you even considered the possibility that instead of taking sides when two reactionary forces are trying to overpower one another that we perhaps just try to help by sending food, water and medical supplies rather than RPGs? In the long term no matter which side wins the worker loses with this conflict so why do we not at the very least try to limit the death toll?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

You've been here since June.
Getting past this irrelevancy, in the short amount time I have been here, I have witnessed you say this:


I'm not a fan of all this degenerate hipster jackassery I've seen lately on FB about the irony of a "workers bomb" or some shit. The military defense of the DPRK is extremely important. This isn't a country the US can simply walk over and we should salute the North Korean people for insisting so strongly on their independence and self-defense even if that means having a powerful army and nuclear weapons.

and this:


^ Who cares. Invading Poland expanded Soviet power and that's all that matters.

and this:


I know a lot of MLs hate Khrushchev, but I really like the guy. What happened to the Khrushchevite Revisionists tendency that was here before?

and this:


I support the Syrian Army.


You're incredibly open with your support of often right-wing, bloodthirsty ethnic nationalist struggles. You do not care about the working class, and characterise every non-US state as if they were some kind of kind revolutionary bastion when in reality they'd snatch up economic monopoly in a heartbeat if they had the chance.

Your weird third-world patriotism, combined with your support of bourgeois military, bourgeois states and 'pick a side' logic in which bombing innocent Israeli citizens is considered 'rightful vengeance', is some of the most reactionary shit I've ever seen.

Hence, you should be restricted.

P.s. I bet you have a military fetish IRL.

[Proteus2]

I fucking hate Barak Obama and the US because if they withdrew their military support for Israel now, this slaughter would not be taking place. Its a proxy war. Bastards.

[Sir Comradical]

Getting past this irrelevancy, in the short amount time I have been here, I have witnessed you say this:

You're incredibly open with your support of often right-wing, bloodthirsty ethnic nationalist struggles. You do not care about the working class, and characterise every non-US state as if they were some kind of kind revolutionary bastion when in reality they'd snatch up economic monopoly in a heartbeat if they had the chance.

Your weird third-world patriotism, combined with your support of bourgeois military, bourgeois states and 'pick a side' logic in which bombing innocent Israeli citizens is considered 'rightful vengeance', is some of the most reactionary shit I've ever seen.

Hence, you should be restricted.

P.s. I bet you have a military fetish IRL.

Yes, no shit, our tendencies are different and I defend everything you've quoted me as saying on the grounds of anti-imperialism (except for the Khrushchev one) which means supporting the military defense of regimes that are under attack by imperialist proxies, or supporting the right of oppressed people to defend themselves from imperialist aggression regardless of the flag they fly under. Where did I suggest bombing Israeli citizens? The people of Gaza need arms primarily, overwhelmingly, and obviously to fight the IDF and if you can't see that, then all you're doing is drawing some kind of sick moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians. Hell I'll take it further, if the Arab states decided to invade Israel, I'd support that too. Oppressed peoples defend themselves with arms, not with ultra-left cowardice, capitulation, and defeatist douchebaggery.

[Ocean Seal]

How are you not restricted yet.
Should people be restricted for supporting anti-fascist partisans in Eastern Europe in killing Nazis?

[GallowsBird]

Am I the only one darkly amused about all the rhetoric from the Western Media™ about Netanyahu's great anti-terrorist stance and how he is standing up to terrorist and protecting civilians? The same Netanyahu whose party is the successor to the terrorist organisation Irgun and its political wing Herut? It reminds me of the same, and even more ironic rhetoric in regards to Begin.

But more to the point, and don't take me as specifically supporting Hamas here, but I find it highly hypocritical that Hamas were the "big bad" terrorists for sending some bombs which causes relatively few deaths, and yet, Israel is taking a great and heroic stance against terrorism and murder by committing acts of terrorism and murder that are yet again leaving many Palestinian civilians dead. It boggles the minds. I can't say I am surprised, it is getting to close to the end of Netanyahu's term for there not to be yet another large Israel push for land in Palestine.

[Devrim]

Hell I'll take it further, if the Arab states decided to invade Israel, I'd support that too. Oppressed peoples defend themselves with arms, not with ultra-left cowardice, capitulation, and defeatist douchebaggery.

The idea that regional war is any sort of answer for the working class is blatantly absurd. A full scale regional war would only be possible with a real change in the balance of imperialist terror, most probably a challenge by some emerging power, most likely China, to US supremacy. In that case it would be a war fought by different imperialist proxies. The duty of communists in that case would be to argue for revolutionary defeatism, not to support the Arab states, and the tying of working class interests to their respective national capitals.

The irony of advocating regional war from the US or Western Europe, and then accusing others of cowardice is laughable.

Devrim

[Rafiq]

a regional war wont happen..
but if it did, devrim would support isreal.

He sure will! Look at him, calling for revolutionary defeatism and all... That totally signifies support for the Israeli state!

Seriously freepalestine you're a fucking joke.

[Thirsty Crow]

a regional war wont happen..
but if it did, devrim would support isreal.
Most probably since any concerted action towards social revolution, across borders and illusory conflicts of identity, would undermine the national project, right? So we end up with "implicit", or "objective" support for a particular national state, its own imperialist ambitions and the more powerful imperialism it also serves as a proxy...right?

[Geiseric]

If their roles were switched we'd support the Israeli struggle. Duh. What's your point? The Palestinians are being slaughtered in Gaza because they're defenceless, what they need are weapons to defend themselves. As for Hamas, yeah sure, they're Islamist fuckwits, but they're also the legitimate government of the Palestinian people. We can sit here and wish for some super perfect leftist organisation to emerge that we can endorse to take up the struggle, but reality doesn't work that way.

To quote Lenin:

"For example, if tomorrow, Morocco were to declare war on France, India on England, Persia or China on Russia, and so forth, those would be “just”, “defensive” wars, irrespective of who attacked first; and every Socialist would sympathise with the victory of the oppressed, dependent, unequal states against the oppressing, slaveowning, predatory “great” powers."



You've been here since June. Stfu.

What the fuck, HAMAS is not the "Legitimate government of Palestinians." Get a grip, we need to make it so nobody is being killed at all, so they can solve things in a peaceful way, which would benefit the palestinians a whole lot more than a counter insurgency effort against a much advanced army. Again get a grip, HAMAS is hardly a proletarian organization, and is hardly supported by anything more than a minority of the palestinian population.

Lenin said "We would sympathize," with any nation that is being invaded by an imperialist power, and we do, however that doesn't equate to supporting a terrorist group, which Lenin himself struggled against. Ever heard of the Nardoniks?

[Geiseric]

Yes, no shit, our tendencies are different and I defend everything you've quoted me as saying on the grounds of anti-imperialism (except for the Khrushchev one) which means supporting the military defense of regimes that are under attack by imperialist proxies, or supporting the right of oppressed people to defend themselves from imperialist aggression regardless of the flag they fly under. Where did I suggest bombing Israeli citizens? The people of Gaza need arms primarily, overwhelmingly, and obviously to fight the IDF and if you can't see that, then all you're doing is drawing some kind of sick moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians. Hell I'll take it further, if the Arab states decided to invade Israel, I'd support that too. Oppressed peoples defend themselves with arms, not with ultra-left cowardice, capitulation, and defeatist douchebaggery.

It's hardly ultra left to not support Islamists. So would you support Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda after 9/11 because they happen to be from the middle east? Even as they are funded by Saudi capitalists? If so then you have nothing in common with Marxism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Am I the only one darkly amused about all the rhetoric from the Western Media™ about Netanyahu's great anti-terrorist stance and how he is standing up to terrorist and protecting civilians?

The US press is at its most "unfair and imbalanced" when it comes to US and Israeli aggression.

The NY Times yesterday had a cover photo of Israelis hiding in a basement somewhere. The LA Times had a story when Israel started bombing that went like this:


"IDF makes good on it's promise to defend against Hamas attacks."

"Scores of Palestinians dead"

"IDF spokesman said: 'we can't allow Gaza to hold 1/2 of our people in terror'"

"Palestinian rockets threatened X million Israelis (i.e. people were scared) with terror"


In the us media, worried Israelis > dead Palestinians

[Devrim]

a regional war wont happen..
but if it did, devrim would support isreal.

Of course I wouldn't support Israel. This is pretty much a bare faced lie. I have never said or written anything in support of the Israeli state. It doesn't, however, in any way surprise me to see this sort of dishonesty from bourgeois nationalists.

Devrim

[pastradamus]

http://sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/579027_4863412993512_678769982_n.jpg
http://sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/148576_470105869706803_1356907669_n.jpg



This tells the story better than anything.

[l'Enfermé]

Getting past this irrelevancy, in the short amount time I have been here, I have witnessed you say this:



and this:



and this:



and this:




You're incredibly open with your support of often right-wing, bloodthirsty ethnic nationalist struggles. You do not care about the working class, and characterise every non-US state as if they were some kind of kind revolutionary bastion when in reality they'd snatch up economic monopoly in a heartbeat if they had the chance.

Your weird third-world patriotism, combined with your support of bourgeois military, bourgeois states and 'pick a side' logic in which bombing innocent Israeli citizens is considered 'rightful vengeance', is some of the most reactionary shit I've ever seen.

Hence, you should be restricted.

P.s. I bet you have a military fetish IRL.
He gets to say crap like that and I got restricted for 7 months because I jokingly remarked that a NATO intervention on the side of Assad would be preferable to a NATO intervention on the side of Jihadists and hardcore Islamic fundamentalists?

Does anything on RevLeft ever make sense?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Does anything on RevLeft ever make sense?

Not really, RevLeft is great in many ways, but it's mostly just a shitfest with no content. Then again I prefer this over the ban happy folks at r/communism. Though over there they have a pretty good grasp on how to prevent sectarianism

[freepalestine]

1 example today
ycHfahe9DKs



Sunday, November 18, 2012

the sparks that are not reported
""This time round, on 8 November, a week before Ahmad Jabari was assassinated, Israeli soldiers shot dead 13-year-old Ahmad Abu Daqqa while he was playing football outside his house in Gaza. Palestinian PFLP militants retaliated with a bomb and then a missile fired at an armoured personnel carrier[Patrolling inside the Gaza Border Fence], wounding several Israeli soldiers. Israel responded by shelling first another football field and then a mourning tent, killing four civilian non-combatants and wounding dozens (http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2012/11/17/mouin-rabbani/bibis-first-war).""
http://angryarab.net/2012/11/18/the-sparks-that-are-not-reported/




the goal
""Instead, the ongoing attacks in Gaza are part of a long-term strategy to coerce the Palestinians into giving up their pursuit of self-determination and submitting to Israeli rule in an apartheid state (http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2012/11/16/john-mearsheimer/a-pillar-built-on-sand).""
http://angryarab.net/2012/11/18/the-goal/


isreali terrorism
"" "I can't precisely decide whether these children are being shot at as a target, but in some cases the bullet comes from the front of the head and goes towards the back, so I think the gun has been directly pointed at the child." "I speak Hebrew so I shouted to the Israelis. The officer said, 'Come out' so the women went first, waving a white flag. They opened fire from just 15 metres away. How could they not tell they were children? They could see them (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/4279102/Bullets-in-the-brain-shrapnel-in-the-spine-the-terrible-injuries-suffered-by-children-of-Gaza.html)." ""
http://angryarab.net/2012/11/18/israeli-terrorism-9/



QZEK5uzHUzk




Shahd abu Salama
#GazaUnderAttack| Names and ages of killed people in the ongoing Israeli attacks on Gaza
http://palestinefrommyeyes.wordpress.com/

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/nora/listen-rana-bakers-recordings-medic-press-conference-warship-attacks-gaza

[Rafiq]

The US press is at its most "unfair and imbalanced" when it comes to US and Israeli aggression.

The NY Times yesterday had a cover photo of Israelis hiding in a basement somewhere. The LA Times had a story when Israel started bombing that went like this:



In the us media, worried Israelis > dead Palestinians

You know what though, here is something to think about: Compared to other situations or "injustices" across the globe, the case in Palestine is grossly over-reported,. Yes, this is a fact no one can deny. Why don't we hear about the Kurds in the media? There are countless other examples. Why is Israel an exception? You cannot deny this, in the New York times reports on the hardships of Palestinians exist objectively. And here, on this site, this obsession with the Palestinian conflict mystifies me. At first, I categorized this as an unconscious expression of antisemitism of which ideologically had not been purged from the minds of western Leftists (And I say this not because Leftists speak out against the crimes of the Israeli state, but because in the face of all of this, even among Anarchists and strict Marxists, there is this subconscious disregard for a class analysis, a great hatred for Israel. Is this an expression of anti imperialism? No, the Americans have hundreds of allies, and dozens of of which are as close) . But it is much more complex than that, and in recent months I had realized this is not the case most of the time. Perhaps Israel itself embodies what all contemporary societies (or Advanced captialism) were built upon: The second world war, without which capitalism would have perished. Ideologically, it has left its mark.

And then, at the opposite end, we have these obscure "Leftists", crypto-chauvinists (graffic, for example) who speak of "The barbaric Arabs" and "The palestinians" as a collective whole against civilized Israel. In this regard they are no better than the Arab nationalists.

[Comrade Jandar]

You know what though, here is something to think about: Compared to other situations or "injustices" across the globe, the case in Palestine is grossly over-reported,. Yes, this is a fact no one can deny. Why don't we hear about the Kurds in the media? There are countless other examples. Why is Israel an exception? You cannot deny this, in the New York times reports on the hardships of Palestinians exist objectively. And here, on this site, this obsession with the Palestinian conflict mystifies me. At first, I categorized this as an unconscious expression of antisemitism of which ideologically had not been purged from the minds of western Leftists (And I say this not because Leftists speak out against the crimes of the Israeli state, but because in the face of all of this, even among Anarchists and strict Marxists, there is this subconscious disregard for a class analysis, a great hatred for Israel. Is this an expression of anti imperialism? No, the Americans have hundreds of allies, and dozens of of which are as close) . But it is much more complex than that, and in recent months I had realized this is not the case most of the time. Perhaps Israel itself embodies what all contemporary societies (or Advanced captialism) were built upon: The second world war, without which capitalism would have perished. Ideologically, it has left its mark.

And then, at the opposite end, we have these obscure "Leftists", crypto-chauvinists (graffic, for example) who speak of "The barbaric Arabs" and "The palestinians" as a collective whole against civilized Israel. In this regard they are no better than the Arab nationalists.

No offense but you seem to have some residual anger against your own "culture" or background as I believe you said at one point you were once a Muslim.

[Rafiq]

No offense but you seem to have some residual anger against your own culture as I believe you said at one point you were once a Muslim.

I'm not going to sit here and fucking take this. This is fucking racism right here. My own culture? My own fucking culture? What's this? In an older thread I spoke of how multiculturalism is racist, it catagorizes or "alienates" people of other ethnicities, dismisses them as animals who are not responsible for their beliefs and are just this way. And here is a good example. Jandar, how appropriate would it be to give western irreligious folk the identity of being of "Christian culture"? What does this even mean? You really think this is some kind of "cultural insecurity"? Do you realize who you're talking to? If you knew me in real life, you'd know this great irony. I don't even have a "culture" to "go against" you fuck. Christ if you told me that in person I'd fuck you up on the spot. And if the admins are half as competent as they claim they are they'd give you a warning for this shit right here. I have such a residual anger against Arab culture, that's why I go by this name, why the shit under it is in Arabic, and so on. You stupid piece of shit. Here I was, posting in a consistent manner, on par with the rest, and instead of formulating some sort of real rebuttal, you dismiss it as "Self hatred" or "Anger". All because I was a Muslim over two years ago. I don't know what to make of this... Sorry I wasn't born the way I am now, I suppose that signifies I'm still struggling with religion and still have anger toward Islam (When the FUCK did I mention Islam in that post?).

If it was anyone else, he would have kept his mouth shut.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

No offense but you seem to have some residual anger against your own "culture" or background as I believe you said at one point you were once a Muslim.
And what 'culture' would this be?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Am I the only one darkly amused about all the rhetoric from the Western Media™ about Netanyahu's great anti-terrorist stance and how he is standing up to terrorist and protecting civilians? The same Netanyahu whose party is the successor to the terrorist organisation Irgun and its political wing Herut?

Irgun and Lehi were participating in a glorious anti-imperialist national liberation struggle, though ;)

[Prometeo liberado]

I'm not going to sit here and fucking take this. This is fucking racism right here. My own culture? My own fucking culture? What's this? In an older thread I spoke of how multiculturalism is racist, it catagorizes or "alienates" people of other ethnicities, dismisses them as animals who are not responsible for their beliefs and are just this way. And here is a good example. Jandar, how appropriate would it be to give western irreligious folk the identity of being of "Christian culture"? What does this even mean? You really think this is some kind of "cultural insecurity"? Do you realize who you're talking to? If you knew me in real life, you'd know this great irony. I don't even have a "culture" to "go against" you fuck. Christ if you told me that in person I'd fuck you up on the spot. And if the admins are half as competent as they claim they are they'd give you a warning for this shit right here. I have such a residual anger against Arab culture, that's why I go by this name, why the shit under it is in Arabic, and so on. You stupid piece of shit. Here I was, posting in a consistent manner, on par with the rest, and instead of formulating some sort of real rebuttal, you dismiss it as "Self hatred" or "Anger". All because I was a Muslim over two years ago. I don't know what to make of this... Sorry I wasn't born the way I am now, I suppose that signifies I'm still struggling with religion and still have anger toward Islam (When the FUCK did I mention Islam in that post?).

If it was anyone else, he would have kept his mouth shut.

This is holiday goddamn cheer folks. You got everything here in one post. Racism. Abligatory curse words. Religion. And a swipe at the Admins. Amazing! I, for one would like the Admins to issue a warning to myself, Rafiq and Comrade Jandar for posting a bunch of shit that comes to nothing but shit. Shit.

[Ismail]

And what 'culture' would this be?Rafiq is an Arab and an ex-Muslim. I do see where Jandar is coming from considering that a few months back a debate I had with Rafiq went like so:

Me: "The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was an imperialist act, with the pretext that they were 'invited' into the country."
Rafiq: "Yes, fuck those Soviet fuckers and their shitty state-capitalism!"
Me: "The Afghans resisted this invasion and successfully kicked the Soviets out of their country."
Rafiq: "RAWRRRGHHHHH HOW DARE YOU SIDE WITH THE INSANE BACKWARDS FEUDAL ISLAMIC REACTIONARIES YOU HOXHAIST PIECE OF SHIT!!11"

And then he adopted a schizophrenic position that the Soviets were an imperialist power on one hand and should have been opposed in Afghanistan, and yet actual opposition was evil because they were mad mullahs, which was followed by apologias of the Soviet position.

[Ostrinski]

here we go

edit: Take a fucking seat you all. Rafiq is an arab and former Muslim and it has fuck all to do with his position. Some unfeigned bigots and racists in this thread.

[Questionable]

Rafiq is an Arab and an ex-Muslim. I do see where Jandar is coming from considering that a few months back a debate I had with Rafiq went like so:

Me: "The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was an imperialist act, with the pretext that they were 'invited' into the country."
Rafiq: "Yes, fuck those Soviet fuckers and their shitty state-capitalism!"
Me: "The Afghans resisted this invasion and successfully kicked the Soviets out of their country."
Rafiq: "RAWRRRGHHHHH HOW DARE YOU SIDE WITH THE INSANE BACKWARDS FEUDAL ISLAMIC REACTIONARIES YOU HOXHAIST PIECE OF SHIT!!11"

And then he adopted a schizophrenic position that the Soviets were an imperialist power on one hand and should have been opposed in Afghanistan, and yet actual opposition was evil because they were mad mullahs, which was followed by apologias of the Soviet position.

When I saw Ismail and Rafiq are about to have it out...

http://i.imgur.com/7RGwi.gif

[Rafiq]

Is Rafiq an Arab? That bastard! Trying to hide his Arab background by going by a totally non Arab name and using arabic text for his header. He of course, opposed the Mujahadeen because they're total Arabs. Or is this about him being a Muslim over two years ago? Hah! That's it! After years of developing his theoretical foundations, it was all so he could attack Muslims! That scum. The fact that he percieves Islamists as a major threat to the middle eastern proletariat is ludicrous, probably just reflects his insecurity. Never mind his constant attack on Libertarians, Eastern spiritualists and so on, it's all under the guise of attacks on Islam!

The men in our Avatars, Ismail, Stalin and Dzerzhinsky were aspiring theologians. Your beloved Hoxha was an ex-muslim (though strategically supported the muj). And?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Rafiq is an Arab and an ex-Muslim.
What kind of 'Arab'? Bedouin? Huteimi? Solluba? Omani? Yemeni? This is a problem I have with the notion of 'ethnic culture'. The very word 'culture' itself can be deflated and conflated to fit around too large a selection of topics. Isolated Self-Determination of a specific culture or people is an unnecessary in-group out-group that does nothing but create more un-needed fractures that divide the working class.

Who is to say that one culture has claim over land any more than another? I do not mean this in the sense of Palestinians or Kurds fighting for independence and equality in their respective regions, as they are actually being actively oppressed by a government (who consequently 'lays claim' to that particular region as the region of 'their culture'), but why should we ever fight for an ethically-based state, capitalist or not!? Madness!

Gosh, I went off a bit there. I'm tired and might not have understood you correctly.


Me: "The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was an imperialist act, with the pretext that they were 'invited' into the country."
Rafiq: "Yes, fuck those Soviet fuckers and their shitty state-capitalism!"
Me: "The Afghans resisted this invasion and successfully kicked the Soviets out of their country."
Rafiq: "RAWRRRGHHHHH HOW DARE YOU SIDE WITH THE INSANE BACKWARDS FEUDAL ISLAMIC REACTIONARIES YOU HOXHAIST PIECE OF SHIT!!11"

And then he adopted a schizophrenic position that the Soviets were an imperialist power on one hand and should have been opposed in Afghanistan, and yet actual opposition was evil because they were mad mullahs, which was followed by apologias of the Soviet position.Well, would there really be a positive outcome for the working-class if the mullahs or the SU won? I don't see how It'd be schizophrenic to be against them both. :confused:

[Rafiq]

Nvm

[Jimmie Higgins]

You know what though, here is something to think about: Compared to other situations or "injustices" across the globe, the case in Palestine is grossly over-reported,. Yes, this is a fact no one can deny. Why don't we hear about the Kurds in the media? There are countless other examples. Why is Israel an exception? You cannot deny this, in the New York times reports on the hardships of Palestinians exist objectively. And here, on this site, this obsession with the Palestinian conflict mystifies me. At first, I categorized this as an unconscious expression of antisemitism of which ideologically had not been purged from the minds of western Leftists (And I say this not because Leftists speak out against the crimes of the Israeli state, but because in the face of all of this, even among Anarchists and strict Marxists, there is this subconscious disregard for a class analysis, a great hatred for Israel. Is this an expression of anti imperialism? No, the Americans have hundreds of allies, and dozens of of which are as close) . But it is much more complex than that, and in recent months I had realized this is not the case most of the time. Perhaps Israel itself embodies what all contemporary societies (or Advanced captialism) were built upon: The second world war, without which capitalism would have perished. Ideologically, it has left its mark.

And then, at the opposite end, we have these obscure "Leftists", crypto-chauvinists (graffic, for example) who speak of "The barbaric Arabs" and "The palestinians" as a collective whole against civilized Israel. In this regard they are no better than the Arab nationalists.I'm actually really shocked by this response.

It's covered for the same reasons that Latin American conflicts were covered in the US in the 1980s. Why was South Africa was "obsessed over" why Iran has been obsessed over in the late 1970s and why the Kurds were obsessed over when it was politically convenient for the US?

The US has to have reporting like this because the US is so involved and internationally isolated in supporting Israel. US needs Israel like it needed the Shah in Iran - it needs a strong proxy in the region and it allows the US to appear more moderate by letting Israel play "bad cop".

[Ismail]

Trying to hide his Arab background by going by a totally non Arab name.I don't recall bringing up your username anywhere.


He of course, opposed the Mujahadeen because they're total Arabs.More like because the Afghan resistance was headed by religious leaders, which caused you to go on about how they were evil as you ranted about Islam, etc. while covering for the Soviet position.


The fact that he percieves Islamists as a major threat to the middle eastern proletariat is ludicrous, probably just reflects his insecurity.I don't know why you're bringing up random stuff I never mentioned.


Your beloved Hoxha was an ex-muslimYeah, he stopped being one around the age of... 12 or something. His uncle, who he spent much of his youth with, was basically an atheist.


(though strategically supported the muj)."Strategically supported" the Afghan resistance against imperialism, yes, as did every other communist, who do not champion one imperialist cause over another.


Well, would there really be a positive outcome for the working-class if the mullahs or the SU won? I don't see how It'd be schizophrenic to be against them both. :confused:What does "against both" mean in practice? Saying "oh, I'm against the Soviets, but..." is not being "against both," it's apologizing for Soviet imperialism. There were leftist organizations in Afghanistan who worked to rally people against the invasion. Of course the circumstances were not very favorable for their growth, what with the US and Pakistan arming the most reactionary segments of the resistance while both those segments and the Soviets worked to decimate said leftists.

No one is "for" the Mujahideen, just as no one is "for" Hamas or any other reactionary organization taking advantage of leadership vacuums.

[Prometeo liberado]

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.4583615648106405&pid=1.7&w=114&h=155&c=7&rs=1
I'm pretending to be interested in this nonsense.
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.4517374396596824&pid=1.7&w=109&h=155&c=7&rs=1
I'm pretending to listen to these posts, yet am really thinking about my hair.
http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5000777235826857&pid=1.7&w=94&h=144&c=7&rs=1
Am being bled to death by the repetitive adolescents of these posts.

[Ismail]

Just so people know what the Albanian position was, here's an entry from Hoxha's diary on December 31, 1979:

As is known, there are many insurgent movements in Afghanistan led by patriots who want neither the Soviet yoke nor the yoke of their agents, but they are described as Moslems and their anti-imperialist patriotic movement is described as an Islamic movement. This is a common label which world capitalism uses to revive religious animosities and strife and to give liberation movements the mediaeval meaning of religious wars. There is no doubt that the Afghan liberation fighters, who have risen against the yoke of imperialism, social-imperialism and the monarchy, are Moslem believers. Afghanistan is one of those countries where religion is still alive and active. However, it is not just their religion, which makes these people rise arms in hand against the occupiers of their homeland. Of course they are not Marxists, but they are patriots who want the liberation of their homeland, they are representatives of the democratic bourgeoisie. They do not want to live under the yoke of foreigners, regardless of the fact that their views are still far from those revolutionary bourgeois-democratic views, which result in deep-going reforms in the interest of their peoples.

But the struggle they are waging is of great importance, not only for Afghanistan, but also for the other peoples. It is evident that, with its intervention in Afghanistan, the Soviet Union is fulfilling its imperialist strategic plans to secure key military positions in those countries and especially to extend its imperialist domination to the heart of Asia and the Middle East. It is known that Afghanistan borders on China and Pakistan. So the Soviet Union wants to consolidate its strategic-military positions against China and pro-American or pro-British Pakistan. On the other hand, it is known that Afghanistan also borders on Iran, and indeed the Afghan insurgents present themselves as friends, well-wishers and co-fighters of Khomeini. Hence, if the Afghan insurgents triumph over the Soviets and their tools, this would be to the advantage of Khomeini. This, of course, is not an easy task, nor one that can be accomplished in a matter of days, nevertheless, the people of Afghanistan who are brothers lip religion with the Iranian Shiites, are creating problems for the imperialists and the social-imperialists.

With their military intervention in Afghanistan, the Soviets are encircling Iran from the north and the south, and if the United States of America intervenes in Iran with armed forces, then the Soviet Union, too, will commence its operations in that direction, of course, in order to capture part of Iran, but not, I think, to confront American imperialism in an armed struggle as yet.

Therefore, the Soviets are preparing for an eventual war, which might be waged in the big oil-bearing zone, the Middle East. Syria, where the Soviet influence is; more apparent, has not yet condemned the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, but the other Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia and Egypt, have done so. Thus all these countries have spoken out against the Soviets over their barbarous actions in Afghanistan and their aims to dominate it. So, in this situation, the Arab countries cannot accept any intervention by the United States of America with armed forces in Iran.

Thus, all world opinion has been aroused against the actions of the Soviets and, as the foreign news agencies report, Moscow has been forced to declare that it wilt withdraw its troops from Afghanistan as soon as the situation is stabilized. This is the same old refrain which the imperialists always resort to after they have intervened with military force and occupied countries and peoples. But the reaction of world opinion against the Soviet intervention makes an American intervention in Iran less possible or more difficult. In other words, the world is realizing that the imperialists and social-imperialists are aggressors, that they are oppressors of the peoples and exploiters of their wealth.

Naturally, the two superpowers reach secret agreements over the division of spheres of influence between them, but this division also gives rise to great opposition, causes a fierce militant revolutionary reaction on the part of the masses of the people who suffer the consequences of these agreements; this situation impels the peoples to revolt against the internal and external oppression of local and world capitalism.

[Ostrinski]

Just so people know what the Albanian position was, here's an entry from Hoxha's diary on December 31, 1979:Word?

[Os Cangaceiros]

"Fire Afghan patriots!"

[Ismail]

"Fire Afghan patriots!"Ah yes, that sort of stuff is in his diary as well. November 3, 1983:

As news agencies report, in recent days the Afghan patriots attacked the general staff of the Soviet army of occupation and the embassy of the Soviet Union in Kabul. The reports also speak of bold actions in the other major cities of the country and attacks on Soviet strategic military positions. Fire, uninterrupted fire, on the foreign occupiers!And in December 1983:

Frequently when I read reports or see on the TV shots of the fighting and daring actions which the Afghan fighters carry out against powerful formations or motorized columns of the Soviet army of occupation, jumping from rock to rock amongst the snow and ice, the rain and countless other difficulties, and armed only with rifles, my mind goes back to our glorious National Liberation War, to the heroism and sacrifices of our valiant, patriotic and revolutionary people. Of course, our war was at a much higher level and much better organized and, above all, it was led by our Communist Party on the basis of the teachings of Marxism-Leninism. Our people, rallied in the Democratic Front organization, closely united, without distinction as to region or religion, were more conscious about the ideals for which they had to and did fight and about the character of the state which they would build on the ruins of past regimes, after the victory. Nevertheless, I repeat that the struggle of the people of Afghanistan is a just struggle, and the Afghan patriotic fighters deserve to be honoured and respected by all the patriotic forces of the world, to be supported so that they can step up their liberation war even further until they drive the Soviet occupiers completely from their homeland. And, whether the Soviet social-imperialists and their local lackeys like it or not, this will certainly be realized in the not too distant future. The people of Afghanistan will regain their freedom and independence.

[Grenzer]

Freedom and independence under the rule of arch-reactionary Islamists.. uh huh..

[Ismail]

Freedom and independence under the rule of arch-reactionary Islamists.. uh huh..As opposed to freedom and independence in a country filled with Soviet tanks and bombed-out villages (in a situation similar to Palestine, amusingly enough, since apparently every single resistance fighter "hid behind civilians")?

What allowed those arch-reactionary Islamists to poise as freedom-fighters to the Afghan populace in the first place?

[Ostrinski]

Shut the fuck up. No one's going to take a Stalinist talking about Soviet imperialism seriously. Nor does anyone give a fuck about Albania or Hoxha in this thread anyway.

[Ismail]

No one's going to take a Stalinist talking about Soviet imperialism seriously.Considering the amount of Trots and other "communists" who praise or otherwise cover the post-Stalin leadership and its international pawns (such as Cuba) for intervening in Afghanistan, Angola, Ethiopia, etc., of course they'll ignore words on Soviet imperialism by a Marxist-Leninist, who, after all, recognizes the distinction between the leaderships of Lenin and Stalin on one hand, and Khrushchev, Brezhnev and onwards on the other.

[Grenzer]

I don't think the Taliban were freedom fighters in the minds of anyone other than Hoxha and a few confused Afghan peasants.

The Taliban was directly supported materially by the United States. It takes on more and more the appearance of an inter-imperialist struggle. At best, I don't see how supporting Taliban was any different from Mao supporting the United States in practice. The reality is that it's probably a whole lot worse than that.

[Ismail]

I don't think the Taliban were freedom fighters in the minds of anyone other than Hoxha and a few confused Afghan peasants.The Taliban came into existence in 1994 as a result of the post-1992 civil war. The label "Mujahideen" encompassed a wide variety of religious, tribal and otherwise conservative groups opposed to the Soviet occupation. Acting as if the Afghan resistance consisted of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Osama bin Laden (blindly followed by sheep-like peasants) is a gross simplification.

Of course US imperialism financed the most reactionary segments of the resistance which at the same time had no trouble posing as liberation fighters, seeing as how the former arose in the name of traditional leadership (which the peasantry easily identified with) and the latter in the name of Islamic "solidarity."


I don't see how supporting Taliban was any different from Mao supporting the United States in practice.China actively collaborated with the USA and Pakistan in the Afghan war, directly funding and arming the same Mujahideen groups while ignoring leftist organizations which were also fighting the Soviets. Albania supported Afghan resistance in principle, just as any communist looking at Afghanistan today would support resistance to foreign troops in principle. In all such cases the most important task on the ground is for a revolutionary vanguard to lead the struggle for national and social liberation.

As Hoxha wrote in his diary on February 13, 1980:

In Afghanistan the Soviets encountered resistance. The men of the American government exploited this quite openly, came to terms with the reactionary leadership of Pakistan and declared that they would provide, and did in fact provide, economic and military aid to Pakistan so that it can defend itself against an eventual Soviet attack and the USA can make use of the Afghans' guerrilla war for their own interests.

As is known, the meeting of Moslem countries was held in Islamabad. There it was decided that all the Moslem countries should help the Afghan people and the so-called Committee which is directing the war against the Soviets inside Afghanistan. We see that China is active in these open actions and subversive manoeuvres, declaring that it is helping the Afghan refugees in Pakistan with arms and ammunition and also giving them economic aid. Hence, we can say that a new confrontation has emerged around the borders of Afghanistan, within which the Soviet troops are stationed, on the one side is the Soviet army which is fighting against the Afghan insurgents, and on the other side, Pakistan and China, and behind them the United States of America, which are trying to use the war of the insurgents to their own advantage. Thus, in this zone there is an open local conflict between the Soviets and the Afghans, and a disguised conflict between the Soviets and the Americans behind the scenes, and the present Afghan officials and the Chinese likewise behind the scenes.And on July 1, 1980:

The Marxist-Leninists must master historical materialism and apply it in practice. They must see the development of the world and the changes occurring in it from the angle of Marxism-Leninism. He who upholds the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet social-imperialists and considers it a just and necessary action cannot be considered a Marxist, he is an anti-Marxist. Those self-styled Marxist-Leninists who try to "argue" that the Afghan people and the elements of the middle and even of the top bourgeoisie who fight against the Soviet occupiers should not be described as patriots cannot be called Marxists, they are anti-Marxists. He who thinks and acts in this way has understood nothing of the teachings of Marxism-Leninism on alliances, on national liberation fronts and struggles. Likewise the thoughts and actions of some "communist" comrades abroad who fail to see the anti-imperialist aspects of the struggle of the Arab peoples, the Iranian people and the Moslem world cannot be called Marxist-Leninist thoughts and actions. To underestimate these anti-imperialist moments, to fail to make the most of them and display "orthodoxy" by demanding that these peoples in revolution abandon belief in their religion, and the customs and habits which derive from it almost at once, shows at least Marxist-Leninist ideological immaturity.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

What does "against both" mean in practice? Saying "oh, I'm against the Soviets, but..." is not being "against both," it's apologizing for Soviet imperialism. There were leftist organizations in Afghanistan who worked to rally people against the invasion. Of course the circumstances were not very favorable for their growth, what with the US and Pakistan arming the most reactionary segments of the resistance while both those segments and the Soviets worked to decimate said leftists.

No one is "for" the Mujahideen, just as no one is "for" Hamas or any other reactionary organization taking advantage of leadership vacuums.
How is it apologising for soviet imperialism!? If my country was caught between an invasion by China and a coup d'etat by radical right-wing ethnocentric movements, I wouldn't support either of them!

I don't support the IDF who harrass, displace, torture and murder hundreds of thousands of Palestinians every year, nor do I support or back Islamist Hamas and It's blatantly puppeteering purposes. It's as simple as that - there's no 'apologism' for imperialists going on when you refuse to get behind them.

[Ismail]

How is it apologising for soviet imperialism!?Because it's saying "I'm for the status quo" (i.e. occupation) in effect. The Mujahideen, despite the obvious fact of its reactionary leadership, represented to the vast majority of Afghans a force against Soviet imperialism and for national liberation. Just saying "I oppose both" means nothing concrete.


If my country was caught between an invasion by China and a coup d'etat by radical right-wing ethnocentric movements, I wouldn't support either of them!Rafiq made a similar argument last time. It's ridiculous since, in the first place, (assuming you live in the USA) the Neo-Nazis in question would not be seen as "national liberators" by the vast majority of the populace, so the question wouldn't even come up. It'd be too busy killing off blacks, Jews, and anyone else and thus sabotage any struggle. Not to mention that any Chinese occupation would probably just be the result of an imperialist war between it and the USA, with the Neo-Nazis representing American "glory."

Secondly, the situation in the USA is far different: the US is an industrialized superpower, Afghanistan was and is one of the least developed countries with tribalism and peasant economies all over the land. There's no question of bourgeois-democratic developments or anything of the sort in the former.

I don't support the IDF who harrass, displace, torture and murder hundreds of thousands of Palestinians every year, nor do I support or back Islamist Hamas and It's blatantly puppeteering purposes. It's as simple as that - there's no 'apologism' for imperialists going on when you refuse to get behind them.Hamas and Fatah, despite their right-wing stands, have the backing of a large majority of Palestinians. The task of communists in Palestine is to demonstrate the limited nature of both parties' anti-Zionist posturing and also their bourgeois nature.

In Afghanistan the task of the communists was to link up with the Afghan resistance (99% of which was with the Mujahideen) and to form an independent alternative which, tested through struggle, would play a leading role in the national liberation war against the Soviets. Instead the Afghan leftists, of which most all were Maoist in orientation, subordinated themselves to the Mujahideen and suffered the consequences of that action, just as the KKE suffered from signing the Varkiza Treaty in 1945.

[Let's Get Free]

I don't think the Taliban were freedom fighters in the minds of anyone other than Hoxha and a few confused Afghan peasants.

The Taliban was directly supported materially by the United States. It takes on more and more the appearance of an inter-imperialist struggle. At best, I don't see how supporting Taliban was any different from Mao supporting the United States in practice. The reality is that it's probably a whole lot worse than that.


Groups like the Taliban and Hamas have no fundamental conflict with imperialism. They dont represent the revolutionary workers and youth, but the semi-feudal landlords, pre-feudal warlords and corrupt clergy. Just as the Taliban collaborate with British and US imperialism in Afghanistan today, there is a high degree of cooperation between Hamas' military wing and the Israeli army.

[Ismail]

Groups like the Taliban and Hamas have no fundamental conflict with imperialism. They dont represent the revolutionary workers and youth, but the semi-feudal landlords, pre-feudal warlords and corrupt clergy. Just as the Taliban collaborate with British and US imperialism in Afghanistan today, there is a high degree of cooperation between Hamas' military wing and the Israeli army.This is correct. Such proof can be seen in the attempts by the US to get various Taliban officials on its side.

I do recall reading that Hamas was originally established with subtle IDF support, since it did a nice job splitting the Palestinian resistance.

[Geiseric]

Because it's saying "I'm for the status quo" (i.e. occupation) in effect. The Mujahideen, despite the obvious fact of its reactionary leadership, represented to the vast majority of Afghans a force against Soviet imperialism and for national liberation. Just saying "I oppose both" means nothing concrete.

Rafiq made a similar argument last time. It's ridiculous since, in the first place, (assuming you live in the USA) the Neo-Nazis in question would not be seen as "national liberators" by the vast majority of the populace, so the question wouldn't even come up. It'd be too busy killing off blacks, Jews, and anyone else and thus sabotage any struggle. Not to mention that any Chinese occupation would probably just be the result of an imperialist war between it and the USA, with the Neo-Nazis representing American "glory."

Secondly, the situation in the USA is far different: the US is an industrialized superpower, Afghanistan was and is one of the least developed countries with tribalism and peasant economies all over the land. There's no question of bourgeois-democratic developments or anything of the sort in the former.
Hamas and Fatah, despite their right-wing stands, have the backing of a large majority of Palestinians. The task of communists in Palestine is to demonstrate the limited nature of both parties' anti-Zionist posturing and also their bourgeois nature.

In Afghanistan the task of the communists was to link up with the Afghan resistance (99% of which was with the Mujahideen) and to form an independent alternative which, tested through struggle, would play a leading role in the national liberation war against the Soviets. Instead the Afghan leftists, of which most all were Maoist in orientation, subordinated themselves to the Mujahideen and suffered the consequences of that action, just as the KKE suffered from signing the Varkiza Treaty in 1945.

So you support the Mujahadeen but you don't support the Hungarian revolutionaries? Does anybody else see that as inconsistent?

[Ismail]

So you support the Mujahadeen but you don't support the Hungarian revolutionaries? Does anybody else see that as inconsistent?There were no "revolutionaries" in Hungary in 1956 except for the "Stalinists" hated by everyone.

You had Imre Nagy and Co., who had endured "Stalinist repression" and who deposed the "Stalinist" Rákosi with Soviet support. They called for decollectivization, the promotion of artisan shops in towns, good relations with Yugoslavia, a more supportive policy towards religion and "national culture," etc. During the uprising Nagy went further to the right, calling for a withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact and linking up with the West, and legalized the Social-Democratic and Smallholder parties, both obviously bourgeois and reactionary.

The "workers' groups" were pro-Yugoslav and joined with Nagy.

Then of course you had the good ol' far-right types who denounced socialism as against God and the King and all that fun stuff while massacring "Stalinist secret police" and, you know, party members.

Then the Soviets decided that Nagy, who they had hitherto supported, went much too far. So they brought out Kádár who had initially backed the "revolution" and had also endured "Stalinist repression," but who was also fully supportive of Soviet revisionism, to take power.

As Hoxha put it, the Hungarian counter-revolution was put down by counter-revolutionaries, who liquidated the old party, brought in a new one, and continued on with the fight against "Stalinism" and the "the cult of the individual," promoted market reforms, made concessions to Hungarian nationalism, etc. Thus in time Hungary was transformed from "Stalinist hell" to the wonders of state-capitalism while most of the intellectuals who were irate in 1956 over "dogmatism" and restrictions on liberalism were mostly content by the early 60's.

[Grenzer]

Groups like the Taliban and Hamas have no fundamental conflict with imperialism. They dont represent the revolutionary workers and youth, but the semi-feudal landlords, pre-feudal warlords and corrupt clergy. Just as the Taliban collaborate with British and US imperialism in Afghanistan today, there is a high degree of cooperation between Hamas' military wing and the Israeli army.

Well that's exactly what I was saying and why they shouldn't be supported. Hence why I was saying that the Mujahideen in the Afghan war served as a proxy for American interests.

It's inaccurate to characterize the relationship between Hamas and the IDF as one of "cooperation". Negotiation is not the same thing as cooperation.


It is really a bastardization to reduce the situation to a binary choice, but if the choice is between the feudal class of Afghanistan against the Soviet bourgeoisie, then it is obvious which should be supported for much the same reason why no one should have been supporting the Dalai Lama and the "struggle of the Tibetan people against Chinese domination" in the 1950's.

The Soviets should be condemned for their actions, but that should not lead to supporting feudal reactionaries.

[Ismail]

It is really a bastardization to reduce the situation to a binary choice, but if the choice is between the feudal class of Afghanistan against the Soviet bourgeoisie, then it is obvious which should be supportedExcept then you can justify imperialism in pretty much any instance where the country on the receiving end lacks a significant capitalist economy. Nor, contrary to popular belief, was every Mujahideen leader a knuckle-dragging moron whose first instinct was to smash schools with a supersized copy of the Quran binded with the bones of women. Some of them had University educations and actually had relatively generic promises of bourgeois democracy and whatnot (since, you know, Afghanistan was a constitutional monarchy and then a republic before the PDPA coup.)


for much the same reason why no one should have been supporting the Dalai Lama and the "struggle of the Tibetan people against Chinese domination" in the 1950's.This doesn't really make much sense. Tibet had historical links to China lasting hundreds of years and its relative independence as a feudal entity was propped up by British imperialism and made possible by instability in the rest of China. The liberation of Tibet was a more or less popular act opposed by the aristocracy, clergymen, etc.

The Soviet occupation by contrast was highly unpopular (and followed on the tails of an unpopular government which came to power by military coup) and the regime in place could barely exist without the Soviets acting against the Mujahideen much in the same way the Americans fought against the Viet Cong with massacres, bombings, etc.

[Sir Comradical]

The idea that regional war is any sort of answer for the working class is blatantly absurd. A full scale regional war would only be possible with a real change in the balance of imperialist terror, most probably a challenge by some emerging power, most likely China, to US supremacy. In that case it would be a war fought by different imperialist proxies. The duty of communists in that case would be to argue for revolutionary defeatism, not to support the Arab states, and the tying of working class interests to their respective national capitals.

The irony of advocating regional war from the US or Western Europe, and then accusing others of cowardice is laughable.

Devrim

That's one possibility, another possibility is if the surrounding Arab states have socialist revolutions that result in a large scale war ending with Israel's defeat. Obviously the only answer ultimately for the working class is a global revolution, however in situations where an aggressive gendarme of imperialism like Israel repeatedly terrorises an occupied people, and where those being occupied would obviously call for neighbouring states to assist them, I have no problems sticking by what I said.


What the fuck, HAMAS is not the "Legitimate government of Palestinians." Get a grip, we need to make it so nobody is being killed at all, so they can solve things in a peaceful way, which would benefit the palestinians a whole lot more than a counter insurgency effort against a much advanced army. Again get a grip, HAMAS is hardly a proletarian organization, and is hardly supported by anything more than a minority of the palestinian population.

Lenin said "We would sympathize," with any nation that is being invaded by an imperialist power, and we do, however that doesn't equate to supporting a terrorist group, which Lenin himself struggled against. Ever heard of the Nardoniks?

No, he said "every Socialist would sympathise with the victory of the oppressed, dependent, unequal states against the oppressing, slaveowning, predatory "great" powers.

[p0is0n]

Gilad Sharon (son of former Israeli premier Ariel Sharon) reportedly stated that "The residents of Gaza are not innocent, they chose Hamas" and that "the Americans did not stop after Hiroshima, the Japanese did not capitulate fast enough so they hit Nagasaki too".

Ridiculous.

[Yazman]

MODERATOR ACTION:


Shut the fuck up. No one's going to take a Stalinist talking about Soviet imperialism seriously. Nor does anyone give a fuck about Albania or Hoxha in this thread anyway.

Don't tell people to shut up! It isn't your job! If somebody makes off-topic posts then PM a moderator if you need something done about it.

Otherwise, if you're not contributing meaningfully to the thread in a positive way, then you shouldn't post.

I'm infracting you if I see you do this again! Don't do it!

This constitutes a warning to Ostrinski.

[TheOther]

I support Hamas and Hezbollah. However I am in favor of peace and love between Israelis and Palestinians. I think that the most scientific solution is for an Israeli Socialist Party to rise to government and power, and stop all invasionf of Palestine. However because of the extreme ultra-patriotism propaganda in Israel, I think that even many poor Israelis hate muslims, palestines and support their fascist government




Oh. My. God.

Please tell me you are joking

[TheOther]

True, I hate capitalism so much, that the last thing in the world i would do is to curse and offend a leftist, even if he is stalinist, maoist, ultra-leftist or any other type of socialism



MODERATOR ACTION:



Don't tell people to shut up! It isn't your job! If somebody makes off-topic posts then PM a moderator if you need something done about it.

Otherwise, if you're not contributing meaningfully to the thread in a positive way, then you shouldn't post.

I'm infracting you if I see you do this again! Don't do it!

This constitutes a warning to Ostrinski.

[R_P_A_S]

I have a question... On how this "all started" Not the entire conflict BUT just this particular one.

On Friday or Thursday? Nov. 16 Israel killed a Hamas leader. This was in retaliation of Hamas firing over 80 some rockets in the 2 days prior to the 16th?

Why was Hamas firing rockets? "Just to see what they will hit?" If you ask me thats pretty fucking stupid.

[bricolage]

I have a question... On how this "all started" Not the entire conflict BUT just this particular one.

On Friday or Thursday? Nov. 16 Israel killed a Hamas leader. This was in retaliation of Hamas firing over 80 some rockets in the 2 days prior to the 16th?

Why was Hamas firing rockets? "Just to see what they will hit?" If you ask me thats pretty fucking stupid.
Jabari was killed on the 14th.
On the 11th and the 12th rockets had been fired at southern Israel. This comes after the 10th when after a jeep patrolling the border was attacked (injuring 4) the IDF responded and killed 4 teenagers playing football (and injured a bunch more), subsequently there was a range of other attacks on Gaza. The day before two missiles had been fired from Gaza, this was in response to a 13 year old Palestinian being killed during gunfire in a village in Gaza. Likewise on the 6th rockets had been fired, but this was also after a Palestinian civilian had been killed close to the border. Most of 2012 follows a similar pattern, in numerical terms there have probably been more Palestinian attacks on Israel, in terms of damage (both human and social) it swings vastly in the other direction, highlighting the asymmetric nature of the conflict.

[bricolage]

added to that theres the west bank also
how many clashes have there been in the west bank this year?
I was under the impression they had mostly been confined to gaza.

[bricolage]

i dont know what western news says.
they rarely mention any news about iof attacks on gaza.
i doubt they mention that 4 people have been killed in the past 4 days by iof in westbank protests.
yeah I know, I was asking about earlier in the year.

99% of palestinian rockets are always in response to iof attacks ..which are evry other day.
i know

as for hamas apart from 2009 attack on gaza and the last few days they havent fired rockets in the past 5/6years
they claimed responsibility for rockets in october at the very least. think earlier in the year as well.

[R_P_A_S]

Jabari was killed on the 14th.
On the 11th and the 12th rockets had been fired at southern Israel. This comes after the 10th when after a jeep patrolling the border was attacked (injuring 4) the IDF responded and killed 4 teenagers playing football (and injured a bunch more), subsequently there was a range of other attacks on Gaza. The day before two missiles had been fired from Gaza, this was in response to a 13 year old Palestinian being killed during gunfire in a village in Gaza. Likewise on the 6th rockets had been fired, but this was also after a Palestinian civilian had been killed close to the border. Most of 2012 follows a similar pattern, in numerical terms there have probably been more Palestinian attacks on Israel, in terms of damage (both human and social) it swings vastly in the other direction, highlighting the asymmetric nature of the conflict.


thanks for that info! So I gather that this was some random attack on an IDF patrol jeep?

Retaliation was Israel IDF killing 4 teenagers playing Soccer? SEE! this is where I have an issue with the "reporting" IDF just went up to the teenagers and opened fired? Why did IDF target kids playing soccer?

So in Hama's mind.. firing rockets at random spots in Israel is a way to "get back at them?

[bricolage]

thanks for that info! So I gather that this was some random attack on an IDF patrol jeep?

Retaliation was Israel IDF killing 4 teenagers playing Soccer? SEE! this is where I have an issue with the "reporting" IDF just went up to the teenagers and opened fired? Why did IDF target kids playing soccer?
I think it was either from helicopter or tank fire and I don't the precise details of it. they might have been playing close to the border. israeli fire can often be quite indiscriminate, if anyone finds out anymore information on this I'd be interested.


So in Hama's mind.. firing rockets at random spots in Israel is a way to "get back at them?
pretty much.

[R_P_A_S]

I think its irresponsible for Hamas to fire rockets with no intended targets. I mean look what happens to the innocent Palestinian people in return? They get murder by IDF missiles...

[Rafiq]

Before I respond to this, I'd just like to demonstrate that Jandar could learn quite a lot from Jimmie Higgins, who instead of resorting to personal attacks actually attempts to formulate a response to the contents of my post.


I'm actually really shocked by this response.

It's covered for the same reasons that Latin American conflicts were covered in the US in the 1980s. Why was South Africa was "obsessed over" why Iran has been obsessed over in the late 1970s and why the Kurds were obsessed over when it was politically convenient for the US?

The US has to have reporting like this because the US is so involved and internationally isolated in supporting Israel. US needs Israel like it needed the Shah in Iran - it needs a strong proxy in the region and it allows the US to appear more moderate by letting Israel play "bad cop".

Okay, but none the less, this was far from my point. The Palestinian struggle isn't inherently a Leftist struggle (not anymore at least). And I don't quite know how to express it... The conflicts in Latin America, the struggle against apartheid were focused on by western Leftists quite exceedingly, however in the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict this was clearly something else entirely. I do not want to jump to the conclusion that it is anti semitism, because although this may very well be true in certain cases (RZ hijacking, rounding up Jews, etc.) it isn't a feasible generalization. As I've said, the Israel Palestine conflict may very well embody the foundational parent of advanced capitalism, the second world war. The abandonment of a class analysis in this regards is theoretically dangerous for Marxists, a subconcious support for "the resistance" be it Hamas or another reactionary group should be recognized and dealt with.

[Rafiq]

I don't recall bringing up your username anywhere.

Indeed, yet you sympathized with Jandar's wonderful insight, that I'm just "going against my own culture". Again, I must express I don't know what he means by this. If I was simply opposing the Hamas, or Islamists in general, because I hate my own "culture" (I presume this is 'Arab culture' which as another user mentioned is not homogeneus apart from music, food, etc.). If this were true, why would I make it blatantly obvious that I'm an Arab? To furtherly slap his ridiculous conclusion upside the head, why would my signature, and my header be in Arabic? I'm clearly not an Arab nationalist, but I have something of an affinity with... I don't know, this "style", from architecture to the alphabet. I do not tend to speak for how I look, but as far as my appearance goes it would be extremely easy for me to pretend to be white, and I'm somewhat disgusted by that prospect (of pretending to be another ethnicity). I really don't know what both of you are getting at, I will not deny more than a year and a half ago, I struggled with sustaining my Atheism (a simple look at one of my posts from early 2011 will make this clear). Though to suggest that this is still apparent, this insecurity (to even suggest this months later from when it existed) is laughable.

I'm sorry Ismail... Is this your comeback? After months? Have you been so dumbfounded in the past months, that this post by Jandar invoked something of a synapse in that weak, delusioned mess some call a brain? Arguing with you dumbed me down, quite a bit actually. I lowered my standards. But soon enough I stopped wasting my time with the likes of you and started to engage myself in debates of a more serious nature.


More like because the Afghan resistance was headed by religious leaders, which caused you to go on about how they were evil as you ranted about Islam, etc. while covering for the Soviet position.


Well, Ismail, I've never used the word evil. The fact that you subconsciously bring it up demonstrates how theoretically and perhaps, even intellectually bankrupt you really are. And unlike you, I don't hold ideology as the basis for my support. Unlike you, I am capable of an objective class analysis. But I will not divulge once more in regards to Afghanistan, you have long lost that debate (looking back, though, I did make a few mistakes). I will not plunge into detail of how the "afghan resistence" embodied the interests of a reactionary class, of Hoxha's theoretical inconsistancy (my my, are my standards so low for me, that I would actually make a criticism of Hoxha's theoretical foundations! May as well do the same for the likes of Bob Avakian!), of how it is indeed actually possible to refrain from siding with two "diametrically opposing forces" while demonstrating support for a third: The international revolutionary proletariat, all at the same time recognizing the Soviets (or the PDPA) were indeed more intrinsically progressive (while understanding this does not signify our support for their interests). No, instead, I will laugh.


I don't know why you're bringing up random stuff I never mentioned.


Then on what basis do you concur with Jandar, of my supposed keenness in "going against my own culture"?


Yeah, he stopped being one around the age of... 12 or something. His uncle, who he spent much of his youth with, was basically an atheist.


And while I will indeed ignore the fact that you are incapable of confronting the likes of Stalin and Dzerzhinsky in regards, and countless other Marxists, I will express my apologies for not having at my disposal an Atheist uncle who was able to properly educate me and repel the ideological forces around me of which I simply deemed as objective reality. I am sorry. Actually, on behalf of all users on this forum who were previously religious, I apologize. I was never, ever explicitly or extremely openly religious, but the fact that I was not born an Atheist (or become irreligious at 12) signifies that I should submit an apology to the mighty Ismail. By the way...

What kind of disgusting Feudal logic is this, by the way? "You're granfadda was a fisherman, your fadda was a fisherman, an u'll b a fishamana too goddamit!". What the fuck? Sorry Ismail, you're about three hundred years late. All Marxists start somewhere, not from inheriting it from exhaulted ancestors or their "background". With this logic, there would be no Marxists, there would be no Bolsheviks... Dare I say, there would be no Hoxhaists. What was any Marxist at 16 years old, Ismail?


What does "against both" mean in practice? Saying "oh, I'm against the Soviets, but..." is not being "against both," it's apologizing for Soviet imperialism. There were leftist organizations in Afghanistan who worked to rally people against the invasion. Of course the circumstances were not very favorable for their growth, what with the US and Pakistan arming the most reactionary segments of the resistance while both those segments and the Soviets worked to decimate said leftists.


Look at what a fucking idiot Ismail is. It's actually pretty funny now. I can't believe he actually believes this. Ismail, actually is under the impression opposing two parties is impossible. There is a third, (it is shocking, I know, all of this class shmass stuff, I know you're not familiar with it but..) Ismail, it is the international revolutionary proletariat and their interests.


No one is "for" the Mujahideen, just as no one is "for" Hamas or any other reactionary organization taking advantage of leadership vacuums.


You're right, the Afghan resistance did not originate from Afghan landowners and feudal aristocrats, but was an abstract entity which was just hijacked by the mujahadeen. Why am I arguing with you about this again? We know how this will end.

[Rafiq]

Everyone: steer clear of Ismail. I have been beggining to suspect he is nothing more than a troll. He took a thread about the Palestinian conflict and turned it into another Hoxha thread. When I saw his "if anyone is interested" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2535659&postcount=61) post (I am being very literal here) I bursted out laughing. I saw it on the phone and while I was out at lunch people looked at me, confused. I could not help it (and seeing his Stalin avatar did not do much to revoke it of it's hilarity, I will say that much). Oh Christ. Just don't respond to him, he's a troll, and he's incapable of engaging himself in a rational discussion. He pretends to be a Marxist because he has an obscure fetish with Albania, I don't know, whatever floats your boat, just don't expect to be taken seriously on a theoretical and intellectual scale and do well to post your fantasies on Albanian-nationalist forums.

[Grenzer]

It is simply irrelevant whether one is technically "for" the Mujahideen; when one is directly supporting them, for all practical intents and purposes there is very little difference as to whether they are doing so as an actual Islamist, or a 'Marxist', much as is the case with the so-called Anarchists who defend voting for as the "lesser evil" while simultaneously claiming to stay true to their "anarcho-autnonmist principles". They might claim to be anarchists, but practical purposes their actions are indistinguishable from that of an ordinary liberal.

Your argument could quite easily be used in defense of American foreign policy: The US isn't "for" the racism and anti-semitism of the anti-Gaddafi militants, gee whiz, it's just for their right to self-determination!

We recognize that this line of logic is completely bankrupt, and at the end of the day it remains that the US is supporting the most reactionary forces of the region, and is supporting and rewarding Islamists, anti-semites, and other reactionaries so long as their interests coincide with the US' own.

I don't think we can say that this extremely formulaic, moralistic conception of "anti-imperialism" has any real roots in classical Marxism. More likely that this is a product of the Cold War and the "New Left". During the Cold War, all regional conflicts, even if they did not directly involve the United States and Soviet Union, tended to polarize around the United States and Soviet Union. As always, it was necessary for the drones of the Soviet Union, China, or whatever the pseudo-marxist flavor of the week was to follow their interests like obedient sheep. This brand of "anti-imperialism" is nothing but an ideological expression of Soviet, Chinese, and Albanian foreign policy, and seeks to give moral imperative to their diktats.

The communist movement has been completely shattered and it will be years, maybe decades before it starts to reform itself once again. Making shallow, and ultimately meaningless, displays of support for the most reactionary forces imaginable does nothing to speed this along.

I also literally laughed out loud on seeing the post Rafiq pointed out, as did the person I immediately showed it to.

[LiberationTheologist]

Obviously the mass media ploy by anglo capitalist and zionist media (propaganda) always attempts to make it look like Palestinians are the aggressor in every so called peacefire that happens in Gaza and the West Bank since 2000 and I'm sure well before that. This is an ongoing purposefully orchestrated plan.

They pick some little stone flinging or some little foot long rocket firing point in time and and use that as their justification to launch a full out bombardament and now drone attack and murder a lot of people. But they never acknowledge how they after a claimed cease fire they murdered some people and destroyed houses to provoke some little 1-2 foot "missiles" being fired off. This has happened time and again over the pat 20 years and I have kept a clear timeline of incidents.

Do the same for yourself and you will see this play out again and again. I'm probably preaching to choir but this needs to be made clear to others who may be fall victim to the media propaganda of the dangerous rock throwers and 1-2 feet "missiles."

How Israel shattered Gaza truce leading to escalating death and tragedy: a timeline

Submitted by Ali Abunimah on Thu, 11/15/2012 - 14:29

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/how-israel-shattered-gaza-truce-leading-escalating-death-and-tragedy-timeline

[Rafiq]

always thought u were an american

I, for one, was always under the impression Americans aren't an ethnicity but I'll take your word for it. Not that I really give a shit anyway.

[Ismail]

of how it is indeed actually possible to refrain from siding with two "diametrically opposing forces" while demonstrating support for a third: The international revolutionary proletariat, all at the same time recognizing the Soviets (or the PDPA) were indeed more intrinsically progressive (while understanding this does not signify our support for their interests).Saying that Soviet social-imperialism was "indeed more intrinsically progressive" is all that needs to be said from you. I'm pretty sure the class interests of the international revolutionary proletariat does, in fact, include opposing imperialism, no matter what "humanitarian" or any other argument is used to support it.

What made the PDPA "intrinsically progressive" if they couldn't even carry out any reforms because, in the first place, they had no basis in the people (having come to power in a coup d'état), and in the second place because they became stooges of the Soviets, which were occupying Afghanistan like the US occupied South Vietnam? The whole argument basically smacks of a "civilizing mission" on the part of the Soviets against the "backward" Afghans who apparently couldn't be trusted to improve things on their own, even though there already existed plenty of leftist student activity, among other things. The PDPA promptly suppressed that activity, of course, because many of the said students were against Soviet revisionism.


Then on what basis do you concur with Jandar, of my supposed keenness in "going against my own culture"?Because it just seems to be the typical "I FUCKING HATE EVERYTHING I USED TO BELIEVE IN" attitude that I've seen from certain ex-Christians and whatnot.


There is a third, (it is shocking, I know, all of this class shmass stuff, I know you're not familiar with it but..) Ismail, it is the international revolutionary proletariat and their interests.And as I said above, their interests were clearly in opposing imperialism, not cheering one imperialist power above another. Unless you believe it was in their interests to cheer on the Soviets? Because you've never actually said what the "international revolutionary proletariat" was supposed to do in Afghanistan, but I can guarantee that this homogenous force—which only comes into being when left-communists can't oppose an imperialist act or resistance movement—would and will never become a popular force so long as it was saying "hey Afghans, I know you're being oppressed by imperialism and capitalism, but you better well like it!"


You're right, the Afghan resistance did not originate from Afghan landowners and feudal aristocrats, but was an abstract entity which was just hijacked by the mujahadeen.Afghanistan is the only country in history where landowners and feudal aristocrats comprised the majority of the populace, thus demonstrating either the power of Islam over Marxism or Rafiq's shilling for "progressive" imperialism.


It is simply irrelevant whether one is technically "for" the Mujahideen; when one is directly supporting them, for all practical intents and purposes there is very little difference as to whether they are doing so as an actual Islamist, or a 'Marxist', much as is the case with the so-called Anarchists who defend voting for as the "lesser evil" while simultaneously claiming to stay true to their "anarcho-autnonmist principles". They might claim to be anarchists, but practical purposes their actions are indistinguishable from that of an ordinary liberal.This is absurd; you're equating voting for Democrats with popular resistance to a foreign invasion.


Your argument could quite easily be used in defense of American foreign policy: The US isn't "for" the racism and anti-semitism of the anti-Gaddafi militants, gee whiz, it's just for their right to self-determination!Who mentioned the USA anywhere? Neither Libya nor Syria have/had any question of national liberation, considering that neither is occupied by foreign troops. The rebels in both cases are clearly in the hands of US imperialism. The Afghan national resistance, by contrast, was led by reactionary elements, but the popular basis of the rising cannot be doubted nor the character of the struggle. Progress in Afghanistan clearly began with expelling the Soviet invaders and thus eliminating the principal contradiction at work.


As always, it was necessary for the drones of the Soviet Union, China, or whatever the pseudo-marxist flavor of the week was to follow their interests like obedient sheep. This brand of "anti-imperialism" is nothing but an ideological expression of Soviet, Chinese, and Albanian foreign policy, and seeks to give moral imperative to their diktats.I don't know why you're comparing an imperialist superpower and a then-aspiring imperialist superpower with Albania, which certainly wasn't "taking sides" and had no ability to influence anything in Afghanistan.


The communist movement has been completely shattered and it will be years, maybe decades before it starts to reform itself once again. Making shallow, and ultimately meaningless, displays of support for the most reactionary forces imaginable does nothing to speed this along.Again, you are taking the view that the Mujahideen was comprised of nothing more than "barbarians" and that this somehow invalidates the struggle against Soviet occupation.

The idea that resistance to foreign invasion is okay unless you're a Muslim and your movement is Islamic is ridiculous. It was, in the end, the Soviet invasion (and the lack of popular basis for the PDPA regime beforehand) which allowed the most reactionary elements within the Mujahideen to both receive US and Pakistani funding and pose as the "saviors" of the country. The principal blame for the way Afghanistan developed after 1992 lays with the Soviets and their revisionist lackeys in the PDPA. Any objective analysis would demonstrate this.

[Rafiq]

Saying that Soviet social-imperialism was "indeed more intrinsically progressive" is all that needs to be said from you. I'm pretty sure the class interests of the international revolutionary proletariat does, in fact, include opposing imperialism, no matter what "humanitarian" or any other argument is used to support it.

What made the PDPA "intrinsically progressive" if they couldn't even carry out any reforms because, in the first place, they had no basis in the people (having come to power in a coup d'état), and in the second place because they became stooges of the Soviets, which were occupying Afghanistan like the US occupied South Vietnam? The whole argument basically smacks of a "civilizing mission" on the part of the Soviets against the "backward" Afghans who apparently couldn't be trusted to improve things on their own, even though there already existed plenty of leftist student activity, among other things. The PDPA promptly suppressed that activity, of course, because many of the said students were against Soviet revisionism.

Because it just seems to be the typical "I FUCKING HATE EVERYTHING I USED TO BELIEVE IN" attitude that I've seen from certain ex-Christians and whatnot.

And as I said above, their interests were clearly in opposing imperialism, not cheering one imperialist power above another. Unless you believe it was in their interests to cheer on the Soviets? Because you've never actually said what the "international revolutionary proletariat" was supposed to do in Afghanistan, but I can guarantee that this homogenous force—which only comes into being when left-communists can't oppose an imperialist act or resistance movement—would and will never become a popular force so long as it was saying "hey Afghans, I know you're being oppressed by imperialism and capitalism, but you better well like it!"

Afghanistan is the only country in history where landowners and feudal aristocrats comprised the majority of the populace, thus demonstrating either the power of Islam over Marxism or Rafiq's shilling for "progressive" imperialism.

This is absurd; you're equating voting for Democrats with popular resistance to a foreign invasion.

Who mentioned the USA anywhere? Neither Libya nor Syria have/had any question of national liberation, considering that neither is occupied by foreign troops. The rebels in both cases are clearly in the hands of US imperialism. The Afghan national resistance, by contrast, was led by reactionary elements, but the popular basis of the rising cannot be doubted nor the character of the struggle. Progress in Afghanistan clearly began with expelling the Soviet invaders and thus eliminating the principal contradiction at work.

I don't know why you're comparing an imperialist superpower and a then-aspiring imperialist superpower with Albania, which certainly wasn't "taking sides" and had no ability to influence anything in Afghanistan.

Again, you are taking the view that the Mujahideen was comprised of nothing more than "barbarians" and that this somehow invalidates the struggle against Soviet occupation.

The idea that resistance to foreign invasion is okay unless you're a Muslim and your movement is Islamic is ridiculous. It was, in the end, the Soviet invasion (and the lack of popular basis for the PDPA regime beforehand) which allowed the most reactionary elements within the Mujahideen to both receive US and Pakistani funding and pose as the "saviors" of the country. The principal blame for the way Afghanistan developed after 1992 lays with the Soviets and their revisionist lackeys in the PDPA. Any objective analysis would demonstrate this.

lol. Does everyone see this shit. Oh god look at this assclown. Is he serious? No, he cant be.

I will admit it is tempting to respond, because its so easy. I will not lower my standards, and knowing hes just a troll makes this prospect less desirable.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[LiberationTheologist]

^^^^ I think you just strongly disagree with the person on issues. The word troll has a much more specific meaning and I don't think it applies here.



Let us look at the question from a theoretical point of view. Let's say you are living under military occupation and/or siege and there is a socially oppressive organization that is resisting an invader.

Your choices are

1.work with that socially oppressive organization to resist the invader

2. create your own organization and work with that socially oppressive resistance against the invader

3. create your own organization and work against both that socially oppressive organization and the invader

4. do nothing

5. cooperate with the invader



Now this is simplifying things a bit but nonetheless my course of action would be easily chosen. My first choice would be #2 then my second choice would be #1.

[Ismail]

Yes. To "resist both" at a time when one's own organization is tiny means, in effect, to give ammo to the occupier and to inevitably be seen as weakening the war effort in the eyes of the vast majority of its rank-and-file participants. The goal is to build up an independent and revolutionary force capable of leading the national liberation struggle, which was what was done in Albania with great success.

[GallowsBird]

I do not want to jump to the conclusion that it is anti semitism, because although this may very well be true in certain cases (RZ hijacking, rounding up Jews, etc.) it isn't a feasible generalization.

A contention that came from Zionist propaganda. The hijackers of Air France Flight 139 led by Wilfred Bose did not separate "Jews" they seperated Israelis. The only hostage to comment on the matter, Ilan Hartuv an Israeli who worked for the government ironically, himself stated that it wasn't based on "racism". The whole story was propaganda to, yet again, blacken the name of Anti-Zionists/Anti-Israel activists and fighters and legitimise Israel and its policies by saying "well look at who our enemies are, Nazis all". No one on the left should support such nonsense.

Haaretz article:
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/setting-the-record-straight-entebbe-was-not-auschwitz-1.372131

[Yazman]

MODERATOR ACTION:

I've just infracted Rafiq for flames. The topic of this discussion may indeed be a sensitive issue but that doesn't give you license to target another user and flame them.

If you think somebody is a troll - don't sit there making smug little posts about how you think that person is a troll. You DO NOT make public posts about it. ONLY make a post on Revleft if it contributes meaningfully to the topic of discussion (unless you're in chit chat and then feel free to post any old crap). If you think somebody is troll, here's what you do:

Send a private message to a moderator about it and they will investigate.

Don't make posts about it. Don't use it as leverage in an argument. Don't "call out" other users over it.

I don't want to see any more flames or flamebaiting in this thread. The next person who flames somebody else is getting infracted straight up.

This is your only warning.

[Grenzer]

This is absurd; you're equating voting for Democrats with popular resistance to a foreign invasion.

No, it's not; but I imagine that it would be appear to be so if one abandons class analysis. That's the entire problem with basing support for something on whether it's "popular" is that the idea of the "people" is anti-Marxist and crosses class lines. We can really only speak of the "people" as a homogenous mass when classes have been abolished. The basis of popular resistance to the Soviets were the peasantry and other feudal detritus, not the proletariat.

The commonality in both examples is that they seek moralism to justify support for class alien forces.



Who mentioned the USA anywhere? Neither Libya nor Syria have/had any question of national liberation, considering that neither is occupied by foreign troops. The rebels in both cases are clearly in the hands of US imperialism. The Afghan national resistance, by contrast, was led by reactionary elements, but the popular basis of the rising cannot be doubted nor the character of the struggle. Progress in Afghanistan clearly began with expelling the Soviet invaders and thus eliminating the principal contradiction at work.

No one is denying that the Mujahideen has a "popular basis", but its class basis was with the feudal peasantry and landlords. The actual proletariat tended to support the PDPA. The peasantry can only have progressive agency when it is subordinated to the leadership of the revolutionary proletariat, not feudal landowners.

And what is the "character of the struggle" exactly? I hope you're not going to say "anti-imperialist". Lenin and Bukharin correct ascertained that imperialism is a stage of capitalism, and something that characterizes the capitalist economy holistically at the global scale. What results from this is that imperialism is not something that can be opposed merely at the national level; it has to be part of a larger struggle. Furthermore, as a characteristic of the global capitalist economy, something can only be said to be "anti-imperialist" insofar as it advances the position of the international proletariat in seizing political power because only the abolition of capital at the global level can result in the abolition of imperialism, which as I have mentioned is an international, not localized phenomenon.

Supporting the "anti-imperialist" Mujahideen not only not does this, it does the opposite. The victory of the Mujahideen retards the development of the productive forces and the corresponding development of the Afghan proletariat. It does not open up any opportunities for the proletariat to seize power elsewhere in the world either.

It is clear from the circumstances that the Afghan proletariat was not in an effective position to take leadership of the Afghan peasantry, which were fully under the thrall of reactionary feudal ideology. In ideal circumstances, proletarian revolution elsewhere could allow the international proletariat to come to the aid of the Afghan proletariat, join forces, and put to the sword any alien class who would oppose its dictatorship. This includes the reactionary peasantry under the leadership of the feudal landlords, if need be.

Failing that, the victory of the Soviet bourgeoisie would be the next most progressive outcome. The Soviets were developing the productive forces and developing the proletariat. As in all such conditions, this primary accumulation came at the expense of the peasantry. It is a much less favorable outcome than the first, but far more desirable than the next.

The victory of the Mujahideen would, and did, result in the implementation of a political program more reactionary than anything the bourgeoisie or petit-bourgeoisie could dream up. They retarded to the development of the productive forces, and delayed the consolidation of proletarian forces.

The first two options are the only sane, rational ones that any Marxist could pursue. Any debate worth having would be between those two positions, but the third? It can only be considered in the extreme abstract. When the words are said aloud, "I support the Mujahideen and reactionary Islamism", it becomes apparent that it defies not only Marxism, but common sense.



I don't know why you're comparing an imperialist superpower and a then-aspiring imperialist superpower with Albania, which certainly wasn't "taking sides" and had no ability to influence anything in Afghanistan.

Well then I'll spell it out for you: all three have claimed to be the sole inheritors of Marxism; all three have, to varying degrees, vulgarized Marxism in the pursuit of their national interests. It is true that Albania had no ability to influence anything in Afghanistan(let alone anywhere in the world), but this particular breach of materialism and class analysis can probably attributed to Hoxhaism's ideological heritage in Maoism and Stalinism.


Again, you are taking the view that the Mujahideen was comprised of nothing more than "barbarians" and that this somehow invalidates the struggle against Soviet occupation.

This is a tragic and deliberate mischaracterization of my position. It is slander, simply.

My position has always been based on an analysis of the class forces at play. The ideology of the Mujahideen is the ideological reflection of the feudal forces of Afghanistan; that its basis was within the feudal landowners and most reactionary segments of the peasantry. What invalidates their struggle against Soviet occupation is it was not proletarian in nature, and did not serve the interests of the proletariat.


The idea that resistance to foreign invasion is okay unless you're a Muslim and your movement is Islamic is ridiculous.

It is ridiculous, which is probably why I never said that or implied it. This is just more slander.

My position on resistance to foreign invasion, as with all such things, is determined by class analysis and what benefits the proletariat the most in the sense of strengthening its position to make revolution.


It was, in the end, the Soviet invasion (and the lack of popular basis for the PDPA regime beforehand) which allowed the most reactionary elements within the Mujahideen to both receive US and Pakistani funding and pose as the "saviors" of the country. The principal blame for the way Afghanistan developed after 1992 lays with the Soviets and their revisionist lackeys in the PDPA. Any objective analysis would demonstrate this.

Again with the "popular" stuff? That seems to be a recurring theme here, and with Stalinism as a greater whole. Whenever the concept of "people" or "popular" (whether it be "popular front", "popular basis", or "popular support) you can be sure that class analysis has been thrown squarely out the window along with any reason to take statements based on such invocations seriously.

Far from opposing these reactionary elements, you've supported endorsing them. The most direct cause of the Taliban's rise to power is that the Mujahideen took political power, something that you've supported. The hypocrisy here is enormous.

You've supported the Mujahideen's struggle for political power, then you blame the consequences of them taking power on the Soviets? This is completely irrational.


Yes. To "resist both" at a time when one's own organization is tiny means, in effect, to give ammo to the occupier and to inevitably be seen as weakening the war effort in the eyes of the vast majority of its rank-and-file participants.

To be discredited in the eyes of the reactionary Afghan peasantry.. what a god damn shame that would be.


The goal is to build up an independent and revolutionary force capable of leading the national liberation struggle, which was what was done in Albania with great success.

Which apparently is done by supporting the most counter-revolutionary, reactionary forces that one can find.

I'm not sure why you're invoking Albania here. The CPA opposed the feudal landlords and forced them into submission. This did not happen in Afghanistan, and there was no possibility of that happening. The proletariat was supporting the Soviets, not vice versa. It was the Mujahideen that represented the interests of the landlords, and the Soviets that opposed them.

If this subject is to be derailed even further, then it would be best to create a new thread on it. I'm with Rafiq, however. This is a gigantic farce. There is simply no real debate to be had on this subject. Nine out of ten class conscious workers will reject supporting the Mujahideen. It is an insane position, there is no other way to describe it.

[TheOther]

True, we have to be realists. The world out there is a jungle. And in times of stress and violence, we cannot resort to theories. Humans have a survival mechanism like animals. And I think the best option for palestinians is to support Hamas and Hezbollah. We cannot demand for all palestinians to apply a mechanical fundamentalist marxism solution for this crisis. Because there is not an organized left that would be able to overthrow the Israeli capitalist government in Israel and not an organized marxist party that could rule in Palestine. If they sit without doing nothing because Hamas is "reactionary" like some people say here they would be obliterated.

Besides Hamas is only behaving according to the law "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", if somebody hits you, you are supposed to hit that person back, wether what you do is immoral or moral. The excess of moralism, theory and psycho-rigid thinking can block any will to fight. The world out there is not a piece of cake. Look at how Israeli citizens are supporting the mass murdering of Palestinians.

Man if an Israeli citizen hits, I will hit him back even if i am labeled anti-semite, hitler or any thing. The Israeli government and media resorts to the anti-semite card to defend themselves from any acussations of crime.





^^^^ I think you just strongly disagree with the person on issues. The word troll has a much more specific meaning and I don't think it applies here.



Let us look at the question from a theoretical point of view. Let's say you are living under military occupation and/or siege and there is a socially oppressive organization that is resisting an invader.

Your choices are

1.work with that socially oppressive organization to resist the invader

2. create your own organization and work with that socially oppressive resistance against the invader

3. create your own organization and work against both that socially oppressive organization and the invader

4. do nothing

5. cooperate with the invader



Now this is simplifying things a bit but nonetheless my course of action would be easily chosen. My first choice would be #2 then my second choice would be #1.

[Ismail]

We can really only speak of the "people" as a homogenous mass when classes have been abolished. The basis of popular resistance to the Soviets were the peasantry and other feudal detritus, not the proletariat.This is assuming two things:

1. The proletariat welcomed the Soviet invasion;
2. The Soviet invasion had no imperialist motives and was merely the vast majority of the peasantry being misled.


The commonality in both examples is that they seek moralism to justify support for class alien forces.I don't see how resisting imperialism is "moralism." No serious Marxist would defend, say, Italian colonial wars in Libya or take the side of the Spanish against the Rif Republic.


The actual proletariat tended to support the PDPA.Did it?


The peasantry can only have progressive agency when it is subordinated to the leadership of the revolutionary proletariat, not feudal landowners.Really? Who says that? Amanullah Khan was a feudal monarch and yet he rallied the Afghan people (=peasantry) against the British, and was obviously viewed as a progressive personality by Lenin and Co. Peasants suffered much from economic exploitation in colonial countries and often reacted to this oppression.

The peasantry cannot lead a revolution, but they can certainly oppose imperialism and colonialism when given leadership. That this leadership was in the hands of landowners and the clergy does not change the character of the struggle when the question is one of national liberation.


Lenin and Bukharin... held opposite views on the matter, considering that the latter was a left-communist. As for Lenin and Stalin,

"The Communist International must enter into temporary alliance with bourgeois democracy in colonial and backward countries, but should not merge with it, and under all circumstances should uphold the independence of the proletarian movement even if it is in the most embryonic form."
(V.I. Lenin. Collected Works Vol. 31. 1974. p. 150.)

"Socialists... must also render determined support to the more revolutionary elements in the bourgeois-democratic movements for national liberation in these countries and assist their uprising—or revolutionary war, in the event of one—against the imperialist powers that oppress them."
(Ibid. Vol. 22. 1974. pp. 151-152.)

"In countries like Morocco, where the national bourgeoisie has, as yet, no grounds for splitting up into a revolutionary party and a compromising party, the tasks of the communist elements is to take all measures to create a united national front against imperialism."
(J.V. Stalin. Works Vol. 7. 1952. p. 149.)


Furthermore, as a characteristic of the global capitalist economy, something can only be said to be "anti-imperialist" insofar as it advances the position of the international proletariat in seizing political power because only the abolition of capital at the global level can result in the abolition of imperialism, which as I have mentioned is an international, not localized phenomenon.Lenin pointed out that,

"The dialectics of history are such that small nations, powerless as an independent factor in the struggle against imperialism, play a part as one of the ferments, one of the bacilli, which help the real anti-imperialist force, the socialist proletariat, to make its appearance on the scene."
(V.I. Lenin. Collected Works Vol. 22. 1974. p. 357.)

The struggle of the Afghan people was linked to the struggle of the people of Iran, Lebanon, and the Arab world more generally against both American and Soviet imperialism. Afghanistan became the "Soviet Vietnam," damaging its "internationalist" image abroad and placing great strains on public opinion and Soviet military capabilities.


The victory of the Mujahideen retards the development of the productive forces and the corresponding development of the Afghan proletariat.Fetishizing the productive forces gets one nowhere. There was a growing intelligentsia under the regimes of Zahir Shah and Mohammed Daoud; the PDPA did not "develop" the productive forces anymore than they did, and in fact you had a situation where the Sparts were praising the Soviet invasion for "creating" the Afghan proletariat, and gave as evidence Afghans working as repairmen for Soviet tanks.

The PDPA was turned into an agency of Soviet social-imperialism following the invasion, despised by the vast majority of Afghans even more than it had been before. Under such conditions no real economic development could be possible.


It does not open up any opportunities for the proletariat to seize power elsewhere in the world either.Discontent in the USSR clearly rose due to the invasion, although obviously there was no party to take advantage of that and transform that discontent into anything revolutionary.


The victory of the Mujahideen would, and did, result in the implementation of a political program more reactionary than anything the bourgeoisie or petit-bourgeoisie could dream up. They retarded to the development of the productive forces, and delayed the consolidation of proletarian forces.I'm pretty sure civil war following the Soviet withdrawal retarded economic development, with Pakistan in particular playing a destabilizing role through its backing of the Taliban, which eventually took power against the interests of most other Mujahideen forces.

It was due to US imperialism and its proxies (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.) and, of course, the lack of a revolutionary party in the country that warlords were strengthened at the expense of those Mujahideen elements declaring themselves so-called "Islamic socialists," followers of Ali Shariati, etc.


What invalidates their struggle against Soviet occupation is it was not proletarian in nature, and did not serve the interests of the proletariat.Neither did the PDPA's policy of state capitalism. As Lenin pointed out, the stage of imperialism makes possible the fact that the working-class does not to simply stand still and wait for industrialization, but is able to take the lead in all popular struggles in alliance with (and with leadership over) the peasantry, and carry out the bourgeois-democratic and socialist revolutions.

Such happened in Albania, where the numerically small working-class had its revolutionary vanguard and led what was termed a people's revolution, which went on into the socialist revolution without interruption.


Far from opposing these reactionary elements, you've supported endorsing them. The most direct cause of the Taliban's rise to power is that the Mujahideen took political power, something that you've supported. The hypocrisy here is enormous.The direct cause of the Taliban's rise to power was Pakistani support for it since Hekmatyar and other forces allied to the ISI were unable to dislodge the post-1992 Kabul government.

Forgive me if I don't take someone who talked about the Taliban as if they were the Mujahideen and existed in the 80's seriously on this point.


You've supported the Mujahideen's struggle for political power, then you blame the consequences of them taking power on the Soviets? This is completely irrational.I don't think the various Mujahideen leaders could have posed as "saviors" of Afghanistan from foreign aggression without, you know, the whole foreign aggression thing.


The proletariat was supporting the Soviets, not vice versa. It was the Mujahideen that represented the interests of the landlords, and the Soviets that opposed them.You have no evidence that Afghan workers welcomed the Soviet invasion. In addition, you forget that the PDPA throughout the 80's continuously sought to give amnesty to various warlords and landowners if they would cease fighting. Recall that the Soviets shot Hafizullah Amin upon entering the country, who was taking a line the Soviets considered "ultra-left" against the landowners and other reactionary strata.


This is a gigantic farce. There is simply no real debate to be had on this subject. Nine out of ten class conscious workers will reject supporting the Mujahideen. It is an insane position, there is no other way to describe it.Too bad for you that the line of pro-Albanian and Maoist parties was that the Soviet invasion was to be opposed and that the Afghan people (peasants and workers and students who fought against the Soviet occupation and PDPA regime) were correct in waging a national liberation war. It's not some "fringe" position.

[Rafiq]

That's why I don't respond to Ismail, he takes things out of context and formulating a response is impossible this way. That's why I used to use huge font, so I can signify to everyone that he is incapable of responding to something without taking it out of context, ex. "I don't like Oranges, I would not support them, but saying apples are better is worse."

Ismail: Okay so let's see what Hoxha has to say about your love of Oranges:

Etc.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Yazman]

If you have comments on a moderator's action, do not make a post replying to it. Send a PM. This isn't the appropriate place. It's off-topic posting. Don't do it again please.

[Krano]

p-oYp6xM6D8
cIHWTOBYE9U
H8amgsXRdZQ

[Ismail]

That's why I don't respond to Ismail, he takes things out of context and formulating a response is impossible this way. That's why I used to use huge font, so I can signify to everyone that he is incapable of responding to something without taking it out of context, ex. "I don't like Oranges, I would not support them, but saying apples are better is worse."You claim you're against the Soviet invasion but call the occupation (actually the Soviets themselves) "intrinsically progressive." That is, in fact, support for an imperialist power and echos the line of many Trots that the "Stalinist bureaucracy" was unwittingly "exporting the gains of the October Revolution" to Afghanistan (i.e. backwards Afghan tribal guys were being civilized by the white man.)

If I said the US invasion of Afghanistan was "intrinsically progressive" because it overthrew the Taliban government anyone would recognize that I'd be apologizing for American imperialism, the same force which collaborated with Pakistani intelligence during the arming of the worst elements of the Mujahideen to begin with.

If the Soviet Union was "intrinsically progressive" in Afghanistan then where else was it "intrinsically progressive"? Was US imperialism "intrinsically progressive" anywhere? How about British and French imperialism? What did Soviet capitalism do that somehow made its imperialism suck less than any other to the point where it could actually play a progressive role? What about those who claim that the US invasion of Iraq had some "progressive" aspects because communist parties could form (and be shot at and harassed by all the reactionary groups and militias which subsequently sprung up)?

[Alf]

New article on the ICC website:


Israel/Palestine: Populations held hostage by imperialist war

Once again, Israeli jets and missiles have been pounding Gaza. In 2008, ‘Operation Cast Lead’ led to almost 1,500 deaths, the majority of them civilians, despite all the claims made about ‘surgical strikes’ against terrorist targets. The Gaza Strip is one of the most impoverished and densely populated areas in the world and it is absolutely impossible to separate ‘terrorist facilities’ from the residential areas that surround them. With all the sophisticated weapons at the Israelis’ disposal, the majority of causalities in the current campaign are also women, children, and the old.

Not that this concerns the militarists at the head of the Israel state. Gaza is once again being collectively punished, as it has been not only through the previous onslaught but through the blockade which has crippled its economy, hampered efforts to rebuild following the devastation of 2008, and kept the population at near starvation levels.

Compared to the firepower wielded by the Israelis, the military capacities of Hamas and the more radical jihadist groups in Gaza are puny. But thanks to the chaos in Libya, Hamas has got its hands on longer-range missiles. Not only Ashdod in the south (where three residents of a block of flats were killed by a missile fired from Gaza) but Tel Aviv and Jerusalem itself are now in range. The numbing fear that grips Gaza residents every day is also beginning to make itself felt in Israel’s main cities.

In short: both populations are held in hostage to the opposing military machines that dominate Israel and Palestine – with a little help from the Egyptian army that patrols the borders of Gaza to prevent undesirable incursions or escapes. Both populations are in the firing line in a situation of permanent war – not only in the form of rockets and shells, but through being compelled to shoulder the growing burden of an economy distorted by the needs of war. And now the world economic crisis is forcing the ruling class on both sides of the divide to introduce new cuts in living standards, new increases in the prices of basic necessities.

In Israel last year, the soaring price of housing was one of the sparks that lit the protest movement which took the form of mass demonstrations, street occupations and assemblies – a movement directly inspired by the revolts in the Arab world and which raised slogans like “Netanyahu, Assad, Mubarak are all the same” and “Arabs and Jews want affordable housing”. For a brief but exhilarating moment, everything in Israeli society – including the ‘Palestinian problem’ and the future of the occupied territories – was open to question and debate. And one of the main fears of the protestors was that the government would respond to this incipient challenge to national ‘unity’ by launching a new military adventure.

This summer, on the occupied West Bank, rises in fuel and food prices were met by a series of angry demonstrations, road blockades and strikes. Workers in transport, health and education, university and school students and the unemployed were on the streets facing the police of the Palestinian Authority and demanding a minimum wage, jobs, lower prices, and an end to corruption. There have also been demonstrations against the rising cost of living in the Kingdom of Jordan.

For all the differences in living standards between the Israeli and Palestinian populations, despite the added oppression and humiliation of military occupation suffered by the latter, the roots of these two social revolts are exactly the same: the growing impossibility of living under a capitalist system in profound crisis.

There has been much speculation about the motives behind the recent escalation. Is Netanyahu trying to stir up nationalism to boost his chances of re-election? Has Hamas been stepping up rocket attacks to prove its war-like credentials in the face of a challenge from more radical Islamist gangs? Does the Israeli military aim to topple Hamas or merely to degrade its military capacities? What role will be played in the conflict by the new regimes in Egypt? How will it affect the current civil war in Syria?

These are all questions worth pursuing but none of them affect the fundamental issue: the escalation of imperialist conflict is totally opposed to the needs of the vast mass of the population in Israel, Palestine and the rest of the Middle East. Where the social revolts on both sides of the divide make it possible for the masses to fight for their real, material interests against the capitalists and the state which exploits them, imperialist war creates a false unity between the exploited and their exploiters and sharpens divisions between the exploited on one side and the exploited on the other side. When Israeli jets bomb Gaza, it produces new recruits for Hamas and the jihadists for whom all Israelis, all Jews, are the enemy. When the jihadists fire rockets into Ashdod or Tel Aviv, it makes more Israelis turn to ‘their’ state for protection and for revenge against the ‘Arabs’. The pressing social issues which lay behind the revolts are buried in an avalanche of nationalist hatred and hysteria.

But if war can push back social conflict, the opposite is also true. In the face of the current escalation, ‘responsible’ governments like those of the USA and Britain are calling for restraint, a return to the peace process. But these are the same governments currently waging war in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. The USA is also Israel’s main military and financial backer. We cannot look to them for ‘peaceful’ solutions any more than we can look to states like Iran who have openly armed Hamas and Hezbollah. The real hope for a peaceful world does not lie with the rulers, but with the resistance of the ruled, their growing understanding that they have the same interests in all countries, the same need to struggle and unite against a system which can offer them nothing but crisis, war, and destruction.

Amos , 20/11/12.

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201211/5352/israelpalestine-populations-held-hostage-imperialist-war

[Rafiq]

Hmmm? He's still going at it? Fine, out of my generosity I will spare this whimpering dog a crumb of the food he asks. You don't know what progressive means, for Marxists. As communists our support is given on the basis of class interest, not objective historical progress. Under the Soviet backed PDPA the productive forces existent in afghanistan would certianly progress, and to deny that the PDPA was more socially progressive than the backward feudal landlords and the false conscious peasants who followed them is laughable. To deny the American bourgeois-liberal imperialists are more socially progressive than the Taliban signifies lunacy. However all this means, is that, although support for either is inherently opposed to the interests of the proletariat, supporting an even more reactionary force is worse. This is not to be interpreted as a "lesser of two evils argument" (for example, even though the Muj were more reactionary, that does not signify our support for the Soviet bourgeoisie). And for the record, in case anyone is reading this, I did not say inristically progressive, I said more inristically progressive. There is a difference. The problem lies with the fact that not only was the "capitalism" of the Afghan resistance worse, it was not capitalism at all, it was the embodiment of the interests of several reactionary feudal classes. As a Marxist it is important we analyse and recognize these things, and as Communists it is important we base our support through class interest. That is the point, what, we Marxists are not abstract spectators who simply guide the dumb humans in achieving historical progress. And it means nothing that the majority of hte oppressed classes in Afghanistan sided with the Afghan muj, they were not doing so on behalf of their own class interest. And now that I use another historical example, be it the American support for the invasion of Afghanistan or the simple fact that the great majority of Hungarians probably supported the Hungarian uprising, you will claim that this analogy does not work, because "well the Afghans were leading an national resistence against the invaders, in other words, they were very admirable and easier to romanticize". This is nothing short of anti-scientific and anti-Marxist. You can't just base your support for the most reactionary of groups because "they were more popular" or, at first glance, they represented the stereotypical freedom fighters against the invaders. What the hell is this? Oh wait, you're not a Marxist, and the only reason you support them is because... Do I even need to say it? No, we all know why. In another thread you claimed that Albania was more progressive because there were laws allowing husbands to shoot their disobedient wives done away with, and supported the use of state-force in order to end this practice. You then base support for the Feudal landowners of Afghanistan (don't fucking say you base your support for the peasantry and so on, as they were in a state of false consciousness, and I'm sure even Hoxha recognized this). How does this work again? It doesn't. Bourgeois imperialism is antithetical to the interests of the revolutionary proletariat, indeed, but in the face of what? Does this mean we unequivocally support reactionary forces like the Mujahadeen? Well, you got what you wanted Ismail. In 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed and before that the war was long over. The Mujahadeen was victorious, and their victory in national liberation paved the way for the national development of the Afghan proletariat, furtherly planting the seeds for their class consciousness, and ultimatly, in the year 2000, leading to a proletarian revolution. Oh wait, that didn't happen, as a matter of fact, the Afghani "people" faced something much worse than they could ever dream of.You're a clown, and you're not worth my time. I can feel my brain cells slowly disinigrating by even pretending to take you seriously. You're worse than Avanti, at least he's an entertaining troll.

Does anyone now see how he takes things out of context? Does everyone now see why I used to use large fonts, and why now, I am no longer going to respond to him?

And, by the way Ismail, I'm not going to respond to whatever you have to say to this. Because I know of exactly what you're going to say.I renounced wasting my time with you long ago.

[Rafiq]

By the way, Ismail, I'm curious. Do you oppose American Imperialism? Sure you do. So... Don't you support the Taliban? With your logic, and you cannot say otherwise, yes, you support the Taliban, both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, against the American invaders as they (the Taliban) represent the interests of the Afghani people. if you (because of your support for the Afghan freedom fighters against the revisionist hoards) do not support the Taliban today against the Americans, you're anti scientific, and only disdain from supporting them because:

1) It's a banable offense

or

2) You cannot romanticize them in an easier fashion, and the western media (unlike the Mujaheddin when they were fighting the soviets) does not portray them as heroic freedom fighters anymore.

But I think we all know why. It's because a certain someone who isn't worth mentioning isn't alive to gift us with his insight.

[Ismail]

You don't know what progressive means, for Marxists. As communists our support is given on the basis of class interest, not objective historical progress.Funny how "class interest" seems to coincide with the interests of an imperialist superpower.


Under the Soviet backed PDPA the productive forces existent in afghanistan would certianly progress, and to deny that the PDPA was more socially progressive than the backward feudal landlords and the false conscious peasants who followed them is laughable.Social progress is great; having it turned into an instrument of their oppression is not so great. It doesn't work when Americans say "look at all these schools we've opened up now that the Taliban is gone!" and it shouldn't work when the Soviets say "look at how women have growing equality with men!"

Do not forget that for all the "socially progressive" acts of the PDPA regime, many women continued to oppose it, grouped around RAWA and other organizations. You could (and probably would) denounce them as "useful idiots" or something, but then again conservatives say the same thing about homosexuals who band together to oppose the demagogic Zionist line that "Israel is good and Palestine is bad because the former does not criminalize homosexuality."

I also don't see how the economy would "certainly progress" under the PDPA which was, again, willing to give land back to the landowners among other things as part of Soviet-backed "reconciliation" starting from Karmal onwards.

You know what would make the Afghan economy progress? A truly popular government led by a communist party, which would carry out genuine land reform, carry out genuinely progressive policies in all spheres, and because it came from the mass of people and played a leading role in the struggle against Soviet domination would easily be able to expose those tribal, religious, etc. elements who would obviously turn around after the war and denounce the "atheist communists."


To deny the American bourgeois-liberal imperialists are more socially progressive than the Taliban signifies lunacy.Correct. To say that this matters one bit when the American bourgeoisie oversees the invasion and occupation of a country is apologia for imperialism.


However all this means, is that, although support for either is inherently opposed to the interests of the proletariat, supporting an even more reactionary force is worse. This is not to be interpreted as a "lesser of two evils argument" (for example, even though the Muj were more reactionary, that does not signify our support for the Soviet bourgeoisie).But when the "even more reactionary force" is quite literally the Afghan people, the vast majority of the country, in town and countryside (you can't tell me the Soviet occupation was well-received), doesn't that tell you that maybe, just maybe, they're reacting to an unjust invasion of their country by an imperialist power which seeks to use it as a geopolitical pawn in opposition to its rival?

Doesn't that tell you that siding with this people (and the Soviet invasion was condemned internationally by pretty much every everyone not a Spart or member of a pro-Soviet party) is indeed a more progressive act? It's undeniable that the "Soviet Vietnam" played a role in exacerbating the USSR's crises. It's undeniable that, as the Soviets themselves admitted to each other halfway into the war, they quite simply lost the "war of minds" in Afghanistan. What communist wants to be associated with the taint of collaborationism (which is inevitably what would happen when confronted with a militant and replying with "oh yeah, the Soviets suck, but you suck too and the Soviets are improving women's rights so I'll just stand around and jerk off") and giving the field of the national liberation struggle entirely to reaction?

Going on about how Soviet imperialism sucks but it's not that bad because of women's rights and other policies imposed on a population and sanctified by foreign occupation (and also some vague talk about the "productive forces" developing in conditions of never-ending war) is not qualitatively different from defending the fascist occupations of Ethiopia, Libya, Albania, Korea, Manchuria, etc. because "the productive forces" were being developed.

"Productive forces" is actually a really nice argument for any reactionary. After all, if you read Deng's works he basically just goes on about how the Chinese need to adopt a market economy because they, as "Marxists," realize they need to "develop the productive forces," hence why China looks and acts like a capitalist society today because they're just following Marx by overcoming China's economic backwardness.

Such is the result of reducing Marxism to economic determinism. In such conditions a communist party taking the lead in making the mass of the people conscious of their abilities and uniting them against occupation is clearly inferior to subordinating Afghanistan to the interests of Soviet imperialism so that the people will forever associate anything progressive and left-wing with mass murder and foreign domination.

This also appears to be the only case in the world where to struggle for communism is actually a bad thing because, ipso facto, you're objectively aiding the Mujahideen. Last time we debated you said every non-Mujahideen resistance group constituted "Muj" "asslickers" so yeah.


And it means nothing that the majority of hte oppressed classes in Afghanistan sided with the Afghan muj, they were not doing so on behalf of their own class interest.So their class interests were served by being oppressed by capitalism and imperialism?

What's funny is that for people who go on about how "stageism" is reactionary and how Stalin was a "Menshevik" you seem to have no problem basically saying "the correct strategy of the Afghan communists and people in a situation of national upheaval is to do nothing and wait for Afghanistan to become sufficiently capitalist." I wonder why Lenin didn't tell that to Amanullah Khan and why, on the contrary, the Soviets praised the Afghans for kicking out the British?


or the simple fact that the great majority of Hungarians probably supported the Hungarian uprising,It's not a fact if you have to qualify it with "probably." And it's not a fact in either case; the UN reported 2500 casualties as a result of the Uprising (mixing in kills from the Soviet and rebel sides) whereas an estimated 20,000 Afghans were killed in March 1979 alone by PDPA forces in Herat, before the Soviets even invaded the country. According to the most recent study of the Uprising, no more than 15,000 persons actively supported it in a population of 9 million.


In another thread you claimed that Albania was more progressive because there were laws allowing husbands to shoot their disobedient wives done away with, and supported the use of state-force in order to end this practice. You then base support for the Feudal landowners of Afghanistan (don't fucking say you base your support for the peasantry and so on, as they were in a state of false consciousness, and I'm sure even Hoxha recognized this). How does this work again? It doesn't.Well lets see the differences, shall we?

Albania
1. The Communist Party of Albania led a national liberation war and won it, gaining the support of the large majority of the population. During the war and afterwards women played a notable role in the armed forces and state administration.
2. Since during the war most of the tribal elders collaborated in some capacity with the Italian or Nazi German occupiers, they were either executed or forced to flee the country in the course of the war.
3. There was not a rebellion against the Albanian state and Hoxha was not in a position to plead for Soviet troops to come and save him from certain doom.

Afghanistan
1. A Soviet-backed military coup brings to power a "communist party" which proceeds to initiate bourgeois land reform among other measures while suppressing leftist forces. The actual involvement of the PDPA itself in the coup was basically nill and it was carried out by a few officers who happened to be PDPA members.
2. Since there was no popular struggle beforehand and due to the incompetence of the government the landowners and clergy propagandize against it and find many listeners. Since army loyalty came from the barrel of a gun whole segments could and did desert to the emerging rebels.
3. Afghan leader Taraki pleads for the Soviets to invade the country because not only can he not defeat the rebellions, but they are quite obviously on the march towards the capital. Taraki is overthrown by Amin, who improves ties with Western countries. USSR, which initially declined to send in troops, suddenly has a change of heart, invades the country and kills Amin, accusing him of having been a "CIA agent" and replacing him with an obedient puppet.


The Mujahadeen was victorious, and their victory in national liberation paved the way for the national development of the Afghan proletariat, furtherly planting the seeds for their class consciousness, and ultimatly, in the year 2000, leading to a proletarian revolution. Oh wait, that didn't happen, as a matter of fact, the Afghani "people" faced something much worse than they could ever dream of.Yeah that's totally not the result of Pakistan backing Hekmatyar's men and later the Taliban against a government which was... not like the Taliban, and the US of course ignoring the Mujahideen after the Soviet withdrawal and leaving its ally Pakistan to do whatever it wanted. The Afghan people should have just allowed their country to become a neo-colony.


And, by the way Ismail, I'm not going to respond to whatever you have to say to this. Because I know of exactly what you're going to say.I renounced wasting my time with you long ago.
I will admit it is tempting to respond, because its so easy. I will not lower my standards, and knowing hes just a troll makes this prospect less desirable.So which one is right?


By the way, Ismail, I'm curious. Do you oppose American Imperialism? Sure you do. So... Don't you support the Taliban? With your logic, and you cannot say otherwise, yes, you support the Taliban, both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, against the American invaders as they (the Taliban) represent the interests of the Afghani people.The US is actively seeking with some success to divide the "extremists" from the "reasonable" commanders who are willing to collaborate with US imperialism. Of course the Taliban are viewed by many Afghans as representing resistance to the Americans and this cannot be ignored. Yet as always it is the task of Afghan communists to create an independent party to lead the struggle against occupation. I doubt the Taliban would work with leftists (especially since the ISI is pulling most of its strings), which, of course, is good from the standpoint of the class interests of the proletariat and peasantry since it would expose the Taliban's credentials as an "anti-imperialist" force.

I don't support the Taliban just like I don't support the Mujahideen. And yet I also don't adopt a bullshit view that says "I oppose imperialism and resistance to it equally, but imperialism is a bit better here." In those cases I support resistance, because only in that way can the principal contradiction be overcome and solved, and when conditions are right it will be solved not by reactionaries and opportunists posing as "saviors" and "liberators," but by a revolutionary vanguard of the working-class.

Edit: It's funny to see your views from two years ago:

I would support the Afghan Communists over the Reactionary Muahajadeen any day. Those are the kinds of people who approve Polygamous Marriage, in which a man would have several wives with their children in different locations, visiting them as he chooses..
(Source: Afghan People, and Even Religious Reactionary's around where I live).

Though I don't agree with any form of Invasions by countries, the Soviets had every right to fund the Afghan Communists against them.Outside of a superficial change from "Afghan Communists" to state-capitalists, this still remains your line today.

[brigadista]

thought this thread was about gaza situation?

[Krano]

ShzjYA_c2Ko
EfF07HSsfGc