Iraqi Working Class Backs Resistance

[YKTMX]

From the General Union of Oil Employees in Basra:




We and all peaceful and free people of the world have been following with great attention the American and Zionist aggression against Lebanon for more than two weeks now. This is despite the sadness and pain that this compounds in our hearts as a result of the total destruction and the killing of innocent people, and the displacement and dispossession that our brothers in Lebanon are exposed to in these days. At the same time, we are proud of the wonderful steadfastness and resilience of the Lebanese people and the Islamic resistance confronting the Zionist barbaric aggression - achieving more and more victories against the Zionist occupation forces.

The most painful to the heart is the degrading positions adopted by Arab countries which have affirmed to all that they are agents of America and Israel.

This is in contradiction to the Iraqi people who forgot their injuries and killing due to the terrorist operations affecting them in addition to the occupation forces, so much so that they got out into the streets and demonstrated in solidarity with their brothers in Lebanon and collected contributions to support them .

We in the General Union of Oil Employees are painfully following this brutal aggression. We announce our protest against these criminal and barbaric actions that Zionist aggression has perpetrated against our brothers in Lebanon and at the same time we appeal to all the honorable and free people of the world to demonstrate and protest about what is happening to Lebanon. We also urge our people in Basra to help their brothers in Lebanon and support the brave Islamic resistance there.

We denounce the coward and degrading positions adopted by some Arab countries and we declare our solidarity with the Lebanese people and Islamic resistance and we are proudly greeting them and God with you.

Click (http://www.basraoilunion.org/)


It seems my brand of anti-working class "Islamism" is infecting the Iraqi working class!

How awful.

Yeah, yeah, Hizbollah are fighting off the baby killers and defending the Lebanese people, but what's their position on stem cell research?

:lol:

[TupacAndChe4Eva]

Fight one battle at a time.

Who do you think is justified in this particular situation? Forget bullshit, I know who is at fault, and it certainly isn't Hezbollah, not any more.

Support Hezbollah in their fight against the Zionists.

Well done. unlike others on here, you have my full support.

[Jamal]

This is great, at least support from the masses of the working class.

Hasta La Victoria Siempre!

[Severian]

Should be "union bureaucrats support Hezbollah". The leadership of this union is fairly close to the Sadrists, from its past actions.

In contrast to most of the unions in Iraq which are linked to workers' parties, either the CP or the Worker-Communist Party.

The General Union's bureaucrats boast of the union's non-party nature - which, as usual, is a cover for its support to capitalist politicians. At one point they called a strike to support the Basra governor's demand for provincial autonomy. (The Basra governor's close to the Sadrists.)

A demand which only serves to divide workers in different parts of Iraq, somewhat parallel to the religious-sectarian divisions. Hopefully I don't need to belabor how large a problem those divisions are right now - and how the different Islamist groups are slaughtering workers belonging to different religious sects.

Which is not to imply that everything in this statement is wrong. Certainly working people should be on the side of the Lebanese nation against Israeli imperialism - and Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese nation. The difficulty is, that only part of the Lebanese nation is actively resisting....those sectarian divisions are a factor again.

[Enragé]

how strong are the unions anyway? especially those linked to either CP or WCP?

[YKTMX]

In contrast to most of the unions in Iraq which are linked to workers' parties, either the CP or the Worker-Communist Party

Let me get this straight: you're criticising them for not linking themselves with either a Stalino-collaborationist nest of vultures or Bordigite ultra-left loons?

Wow.


At one point they called a strike to support the Basra governor's demand for provincial autonomy. (The Basra governor's close to the Sadrists.)



Great.

The people of Basra should want "autonomy" from the occupation government, its torturers, its "troops", its police. I'd support that.


Hopefully I don't need to belabor how large a problem those divisions are right now - and how the different Islamist groups are slaughtering workers belonging to different religious sects.


Sadr is an anti-sectarian figure, which makes your point slightly pointless.


The difficulty is, that only part of the Lebanese nation is actively resisting....those sectarian divisions are a factor again.

For historical reasons Hizbollah are stronger in the south and weaker in other places. So? The Reds were "stronger" in Moscow and Petrograd and "weaker" in the outlying areas of Russia.

It hardly proves anything other than strategic problems.

[Leo]

Hizbullah is an islamic fundmentalist organization.

Hizbullah is a reactionary organization.

Hizbullah is an anti-working class organization. Lebannon was a shithole before the Israeli invasion. If anyone cares anything about the Lebanese working class, they would remember how brutally the last strike was suppressed.

Hizbullah is not figthing to defend Lebanese workers, it is fighting to defend the territory it held, therefore Hizbullah is also an imperialist organization.

Supporting Hizbullah is not a bit different than supporting Israel.

Now, petty-bourgeoise leftists from the west get excited when they see some reactionary fundmentalists killing imperialists and they don't stop there but they also accuse people who criticize reactionary fundmentalists with 'cultural chuvanism'.

Well, as someone from the middle east I want to clear things out a little bit. Petty bourgeoise leftists have no idea (as usual) what the fuck they are talking about. The state of Israel is an imperialist anti-working class state. Hizbullah is an imperialist anti-working class organization. Both of them are the enemies of communism, both of them are the enemies of the working class.

So if you claim you are a communist or a marxist or an anarchist or whatever and then say that you support Hizbullah then just FUCK OFF!!!

:angry:

[YKTMX]

Hizbullah is an anti-working class organization..

With the support of the active working class organsations and 85% of the working class people in Lebanon?

God, I'd love to be the member of an anti-working class organization that had that kind of solidarity and links with the class.


Lebannon was a shithole before the Israeli invasion.

You're a fool. Any idiot with half a handle on events knows that Lebanese society was recovering after years of war and occupation. That bourgeois democracy was beginning to really take hold in Lebanon and the Lebanese people doing better than ever since they kicked the Israelis out in 2000.

The baby killers' invasion and annhilation of the Lebanese state means all that work will have to begin again.


Hizbullah is not figthing to defend Lebanese workers, it is fighting to defend the territory it held, therefore Hizbullah is also an imperialist organization.

You don't understand what imperialism means. Read a book.


Supporting Hizbullah is not a bit different than supporting Israel.

Well, apart from them being totally different, yes, I can see what you're saying.

The choice is clear: rampaging imperialists vs. Lebanese resistance fighters.

There is no "third camp".


Hizbullah is an imperialist anti-working class organization. Both of them are the enemies of communism, both of them are the enemies of the working class.



The working class of Iraq, Lebanon and the rest of the middle east seems to disagree.


So if you claim you are a communist or a marxist or an anarchist or whatever and then say that you supports Hizbullah then just FUCK OFF!!!

Or....I could post a picture of Hezbollah to annoy you? I'll do that.

http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/ArticleImages/hezbollahLebanon_web.jpg

[Enragé]

:lol:


There is no "third camp".


well there is actually
its called death.
:)

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 04:40 PM
:lol:


There is no "third camp".


well there is actually
its called death.
:)
:lol:

haha, aye.

I wonder when the worker-leftists will adopt a position of mass suicide of the Lebanese working class.

Resistance or death!

"Well, umm...."

[Leo]

With the support of the active working class organsations and 85% of the working class people in Lebanon?

God, I'd love to be the member of an anti-working class organization that had that kind of solidarity and links with the class.

Working class does support reactionaries from time to time. I bet you would be a Nazi if you were in Germany during the WWII. After all more than 85% of the German population actively supported them.


That bourgeois democracy was beginning to really take hold in Lebanon and the Lebanese people doing better than ever since they kicked the Israelis out in 2000.

The baby killers' invasion and annhilation of the Lebanese state means all that work will have to begin again.


I am not denying those, but if you actually didn't ignore the whole thing I wrote, you would get my point.

"Hizbullah is an anti-working class organization. Lebannon was a shithole before the Israeli invasion. If anyone cares anything about the Lebanese working class, they would remember how brutally the last strike was suppressed."


You don't understand what imperialism means. Read a book.

Hizbullah is fighting for territories, they might be defending their own territories but still they are fighting, or to be more accurate they are making Lebanese workers do the fighting. Would you stop calling Israel an imperialist state if they were being invaded and they were still sending Israeli workers to die for their territory?


Well, apart from them being totally different, yes, I can see what you're saying.

The choice is clear: rampaging imperialists vs. Lebanese resistance fighters.

There is no "third camp".

Hizbullah is not ressistance fighters. They are trying to defend their territory and their power.

The right way is internationalism. Taking sides in an imperialist war is not internationalism. Taking the side of an organization who kills workers is not internationalism. There is no fucking difference between supporting them or Israel.


The working class of Iraq, Lebanon and the rest of the middle east seems to disagree.

So? They support their own ruling class. The working class of Israel and rest of the west also supports their own ruling class. There is no fucking difference.

[YKTMX]

I bet you would be a Nazi if you were in Germany during the WWII.

I bet.


After all more than 85% of the German population actively supported them.

Hmmm. What's your source for this? Certainly the organised working class never supported Nazism or Hitler before his takeover. And it's rather difficult to divine actual levels of support thereafter since dissenters were liquidated. I'd guess you're just making a rhetorical point that's lacking in substance - which is a good debating tactic.


If anyone cares anything about the Lebanese working class, they would remember how brutally the last strike was suppressed."

But this is the stupidity of it all. The dominant issue right now is anti-imperialism. The dominant issue at the time of a strike is solidarity with strikers. You can't confuse the two. If Islamists oppose or attack striking workers then I absolute opppose that. If Islamists defend the Lebanese people and deal blows to the global imperialist system, I support them. The problem for people like you is that you think leftism is all about "morality" and "clean hands" - which is presumably you keep insisting that Israel is just as "bad" as hezbollah. For you, it's not about beating imperialism, but being "good" and "right" and defeating imperialism.


Hizbullah is fighting for territories

Yes, territories that belong to the Lebanese people. By this, albeit absurd, standard, the Vietcong were "imperialist" when they defended Vietnamese villages?

It's all rather silly.



So? They support their own ruling class.

I'd be surprised if you, as you claim, live in the Middle East considering the complete naivete of your opinions on Middle Eastern affairs. It's a fact that the Middle Eastern ruling class, apart from Iran and Syria, are actually quite hostile to Hezbollah. They didn't support the Lebanese resistance, they merely "condemned Israel". In fact, it's the support for Hezbollah in the Arab poor and working class that has forced the Middle Eastern dictatorships (like Jordan and Egypt) to take a "harder line".

[Leo]

What's your source for this? Certainly the organised working class never supported Nazism or Hitler before his takeover. And it's rather difficult to divine actual levels of support thereafter since dissenters were liquidated. I'd guess you're just making a rhetorical point that's lacking in substance - which is a good debating tactic.

I actually studied Nazi Germany intensely so I know how things worked in the Third Reich. Basically almost everyone supported the Nazis after their takeover. For example, Gestapo was unbelievably small yet it had collected unbelievable amounts of information even on ordinary citizens because practically everyone acted as a civilian collabrator. I know pretty good resources on Nazi Germany, pm me if you are interested.


But this is the stupidity of it all. The dominant issue right now is anti-imperialism. The dominant issue at the time of a strike is solidarity with strikers. You can't confuse the two. If Islamists oppose or attack striking workers then I absolute opppose that. If Islamists defend the Lebanese people and deal blows to the global imperialist system, I support them. The problem for people like you is that you think leftism is all about "morality" and "clean hands" - which is presumably you keep insisting that Israel is just as "bad" as hezbollah. For you, it's not about beating imperialism, but being "good" and "right" and defeating imperialism.

Don't get confused, Islamists don't defend the Lebanese people, they defend their rule over them. Islamists don't care about the Lebanese people, just as Israel don't care about the Israeli people.

And I don't give a fuck about morality, It's about internationalism, communism and the working class for me and Hizbullah is opposed to all of those. Hizbullah is objectively not any different from Israel. If they win, the Lebanese working class would still be suffering, and the situation the global proletariat is in would not be different at all.

As for you, all you care is to see someone killing the invadors. Would you be waving Zionist flags if someone invades Israel? What you do is not different from doing that.


Yes, territories that belong to the Lebanese people.

Defending property eh? <_< How appropriate... Well I don&#39;t want to dissapoint you but no is going to give those territories to the Lebanese people.


It&#39;s a fact that the Middle Eastern ruling class, apart from Iran and Syria, are actually quite hostile to Hezbollah.

Not really.


They didn&#39;t support the Lebanese resistance, they merely "condemned Israel".

Well, they couldn&#39;t have, there is something called &#39;international politics&#39; and they couldn&#39;t afford to support a group that is called terrorists.


In fact, it&#39;s the support for Hezbollah in the Arab poor and working class that has forced the Middle Eastern dictatorships (like Jordan and Egypt) to take a "harder line".

Yeah, many people are nationalistic and reactionary in the middle east, so? Almost all of the people who supported Hizbullah also support their own ruling class. For example, in Egypt Muhammed Hüsnü Mübarek is still incredibly popular.

[Alf]

YKTMX: "It&#39;s a fact that the Middle Eastern ruling class, apart from Iran and Syria, are actually quite hostile to Hezbollah".

That&#39;s enough to make Hezbollah an agent of Iranian and Syrian imperialism (after all those rockets raining down on Israeli civilians aren&#39;t made in small sweat shops in southern Lebanon).

Before you tell me to read a book about imperialism, I have read one. The Junius Pamphlet, written by Rosa Luxemburg in prison in 1915:

"Imperialism is not the creation of any one or of any group of states. It is the product of a particular stage of ripeness in the world development of capital, an innately international condition, an indivisible whole, that is recogniseable only in all its relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will".

"Today, the nation is but a cloak that covers imperialist desires, a battle cry for imperialist rivalries, the last ideological measure with which the masses can be persuaded to play the role of cannon fodder in imperialist wars".

Keep up the good work Leo. I know for a fact that you do indeed come from where you say you come from. Wouldn&#39;t agree that there was that much active support for the Nazis by the German population, especially the working class, but the point you are making is entirely valid: the argument that an organisation is working class because large numbers of workers support it at a given moment can be used to confer a working class character on virtually any political formation.

[Xiao Banfa]

Hezbollah can in no way be compared to Nazis; they&#39;re not racist, not expansionist, not sectarian.
Their infrastructure is available to all religious groups within Lebanon.

They don&#39;t expect to gain power even in their own country. They are a party in cabinet but they aren&#39;t the dominant power.

Hezbollah are flawed but unless the average lebanese leftist wants to lie down and take israeli agression he/she must work with them.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 10:08 AM
Sadr is an anti-sectarian figure, which makes your point slightly pointless.
Yeah, I thought so once - well, not that naiively - but I&#39;ve read a newspaper in the last 2 years.

Sadr&#39;s Mahdi Army is at the forefront of sectarian killings of Sunnis right now. Even more than other Shi&#39;a militias. It was Sadr&#39;s militia, for example, who killed 30 Sunnis in the Jihad neighborhood - demanding to see ID&#39;s so they could tell who had a Sunni name. (http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/world/15001947.htm)

To deny responsibility, the Sadrist politicians.....blame the Sunnis. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/04/world/middleeast/04cnd-iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) "“You see,” he said, “this is the violence, this is the terror — it’s all being done by Baathists and Takfiris,” Mr. Shanshal said, referring to extremist Sunni groups."

So your comment demonstrates that you&#39;re cooking on another planet, completely out of touch with events in Iraq.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:21 AM
Sadr&#39;s Mahdi Army is at the forefront of sectarian killings of Sunnis right now. Even more than other Shi&#39;a militias. It was Sadr&#39;s militia, for example, who killed 30 Sunnis in the Jihad neighborhood - demanding to see ID&#39;s so they could tell who had a Sunni name. (http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/world/15001947.htm)
Severian, didn&#39;t you hear?&#33; According to YKISOW, the militias and the "resistance" are targeting "occupation forces ... only"&#33; Pay no attention to the mounds of civilian deaths behind the bloody curtain. The Sadrists, Ba&#39;athists and other mujahedin are our comrades in arms&#33; Nothing to see here&#33; Long live Hizb&#39;allah, Hamas, the al-Ma&#39;di and the armies of the new Caliphate&#33;

Now, move along or he&#39;ll throw acid in your face, infidel&#33;

Miles

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Aug 5 2006, 10:56 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Aug 5 2006, 10:56 AM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 04:21 AM
Sadr&#39;s Mahdi Army is at the forefront of sectarian killings of Sunnis right now. Even more than other Shi&#39;a militias. It was Sadr&#39;s militia, for example, who killed 30 Sunnis in the Jihad neighborhood - demanding to see ID&#39;s so they could tell who had a Sunni name. (http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/world/15001947.htm)
Severian, didn&#39;t you hear?&#33; According to YKISOW, the militias and the "resistance" are targeting "occupation forces ... only"&#33; Pay no attention to the mounds of civilian deaths behind the bloody curtain. The Sadrists, Ba&#39;athists and other mujahedin are our comrades in arms&#33; Nothing to see here&#33; Long live Hizb&#39;allah, Hamas, the al-Ma&#39;di and the armies of the new Caliphate&#33;

Now, move along or he&#39;ll throw acid in your face, infidel&#33;

Miles [/b]
Mooncalf

[YKTMX]

Sadr&#39;s Mahdi Army is at the forefront of sectarian killings of Sunnis right now. Even more than other Shi&#39;a militias.

Rubbish.

Sadr is an anti-sectarian figure. He&#39;s said repeatedly he wants to unite Sunni and Shia in a general opposition to occupation and the puppet government.

If there are sectarian killings linked to the Mahdi army, then it&#39;s to be deplored. The point is that though the Sadr movement itself is anti-sectarian, not all of its fighters may be. The Shia have suffered many atrocious bombings and the like, which is always likely to leave a bitter taste in the mouth. But this doesn&#39;t negate the general line of the Mahdi army, or their purpose.

No doubt some Red Army soldiers violated the principles of socialism during the Civil War - it doesn&#39;t mean you go away in a huff declaring them "just as bad". Or even, as Miles and the Bordigites have done, side the Vichy government and the occupation forces.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 05:30 AM


Sadr&#39;s Mahdi Army is at the forefront of sectarian killings of Sunnis right now. Even more than other Shi&#39;a militias.

Rubbish.

Sadr is an anti-sectarian figure. He&#39;s said repeatedly he wants to unite Sunni and Shia in a general opposition to occupation and the puppet government.

If there are sectarian killings linked to the Mahdi army, then it&#39;s to be deplored.
And Sadr&#39;s words speak louder than his followers&#39; actions, huh? As a materialist, I disagree.


The Shia have suffered many atrocious bombings and the like, which is always likely to leave a bitter taste in the mouth.

.....you think?

But I&#39;m glad you finally noticed what your precious "resistance" has been doing. 3,000 dead Iraqi civilians a month, mostly due to the Sunni "resistance" on the one hand and the Sadrists and other Shi&#39;a militia on the other.

The Sadrists, incidentally, hold the ministries of health, agriculture, transport, and education (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0525/p01s04-woiq.html) in the "Vichy" government, as you call it.

The "Bordigists", as you bizarrely call the centrist Worker-Communist Party, oppose the occupation, the government, and call for the immediate withdrawal of the occupying armies. They&#39;ve been proposing an oil workers&#39; strike behind that demand.

Despite these facts, you prefer the Sadrists, and accuse the "worker-communists" of collaboration in order to justify Islamist violence against them.

This can only be explained for a downright preference for bourgeois nationalism over workers&#39; parties, a belief that the bourgeoisie must substitute for the workers in the fight against imperialism.

Which, I&#39;ve pointed out, is an inevitable consequence of your "state capitalist" ideology. If the Chinese, Vietnamese, and Cuban victories over imperialism were won by some class other than the workers....why can&#39;t that happen elsewhere?

If you deal with facts, those were proletarian revolutions, and only proletarian revolutions can deal comparable blows to imperialism. But we see here you&#39;re badly allergic to facts.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Severian+Aug 5 2006, 12:21 PM--> (Severian @ Aug 5 2006, 12:21 PM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 05:30 AM


Sadr&#39;s Mahdi Army is at the forefront of sectarian killings of Sunnis right now. Even more than other Shi&#39;a militias.

Rubbish.

Sadr is an anti-sectarian figure. He&#39;s said repeatedly he wants to unite Sunni and Shia in a general opposition to occupation and the puppet government.

If there are sectarian killings linked to the Mahdi army, then it&#39;s to be deplored.
And Sadr&#39;s words speak louder than his followers&#39; actions, huh? As a materialist, I disagree. [/b]
As a dialectician, I think the two things are in conflict.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 06:33 AM

And Sadr&#39;s words speak louder than his followers&#39; actions, huh? As a materialist, I disagree.
As a dialectician, I think the two things are in conflict. [/quote]
No shit. The question is, why do you believe the words, and explain away the actions? You might as well believe Bush&#39;s stated reasons for invading Iraq.

Besides wishful thinking, and a love of bourgeois nationalism, I can think of another reason.

I&#39;ve been noticing the British SWP&#39;s brand of dialectical materialism has little to do with materialism.....probably helps explain and excuse yer comrade Rosa L&#39;s hostile obsession with dialectical materialism. Maybe you&#39;d care to join this thread? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53835)

[Jamal]

Hizbullah is fighting for territories, they might be defending their own territories but still they are fighting, or to be more accurate they are making Lebanese workers do the fighting. Would you stop calling Israel an imperialist state if they were being invaded and they were still sending Israeli workers to die for their territory?


Ok first of all, Israel did not invade Hezbollah, it invaded Lebanon so being with the resistance in Lebanon doesn&#39;t make you a fundementalist.
second, Hezbollah is not defending its territory, it has no territory.&#33; Its just a political party that are resisting, it does not like controll south Lebanon :wacko:
third, Hezbollah is not composed of Hasan Nasrallah&#33; It is a party that is composed of working people, so who should fight? should they get someone for Tiwan to do their fighting? WTF&#33;


For example, in Egypt Muhammed Hüsnü Mübarek is still incredibly popular.

hehe&#33; :D
that shows how much you know about the middle east&#33;
Mubarak is increadibly popular hahhahhaaa :D &#33;
every time I read it it makes me laugh.


Hezbollah is not an imperialist party&#33; Its ideas are way older than the imperialism&#33; It holds ideas from the middle ages so that makes it fundimentalist not imperialist&#33;

For Hezbollah to stop fighting, Israel should stop making an firtile enviroment for them to do that&#33; Israel could have released the Lebanese prisioners in the 2000 when it retreated towards the boarder. It could have also retreated from Shibaa farms also in the 200 when it retreated. It could have also givven us the map of the mines that it planted in our south killing tens of people every year.

So why didn&#39;t Israel do that? It neads to have some cards ready to have an excuse to perform its imperialistic beyonds. So when Hezbollah captured the two Israeli soldiers to exchange them for the Lebanese prisioners still in the Israeli prisions it acted like a poor helpless country that has just been assaulted and gave it self an excuse to do all it did in Lebanon.

Hezbollah is a resistance that is resisting for Lebanon and not just its interests. Is it in their interests to free the communist Samir Kuntar from the Israeli prisions? Is it in their interests to have all the villiges of the people that it is made up from to be destroyed? Is it its interest for its head quarters to be below ground level?

Well obviously, I don&#39;t think so&#33;

[Leo]

Hezbollah is not defending its territory, it has no territory.&#33; Its just a political party that are resisting, it does not like controll south Lebanon

It practically controlls southern Lebannon and the Lebanese government anaunced they can&#39;t do anything at all against the Hizbullah.


that shows how much you know about the middle east&#33;
Mubarak is increadibly popular hahhahhaaa biggrin.gif &#33;
every time I read it it makes me laugh.


Originally posted by Wikipedia
A poll released by the Pew Research Center indicate that an overwhelming majority of Egyptians express confidence in Mubarak&#39;s leadership, with some 86% of those polled indicating they had either "a lot of confidence" or "some confidence" in Mubarak&#39;s leadership

Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_...#2005_elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Egypt#2005_elections)

Mübarek got 88.6%

[Jamal]

It practically controlls southern Lebannon and the Lebanese government anaunced they can&#39;t do anything at all against the Hizbullah.


NO THEY DON"T &#33; I live in Lebanon, and I can tell if they control the South or not&#33; The only part of the south they controll is the border.




(Wikipedia)
A poll released by the Pew Research Center indicate that an overwhelming majority of Egyptians express confidence in Mubarak&#39;s leadership, with some 86% of those polled indicating they had either "a lot of confidence" or "some confidence" in Mubarak&#39;s leadership



Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_...#2005_elections

Mübarek got 88.6%


hehe :)
yeah well its good your doing research, but its bad that you failed to analyze.
88.6% its a bad result for a dictator like Husni Mubarak, Saddam got 99.99% and Hafez Al Asad got 96% and his son now Bashar got 90.5%.

They know how to dictate in a democratic way if you know what I&#39;m talking about.
I know a girl in Egypt, she told me that in their town, the mayor voted for Mubarak on behalf of the whole town.

[Devrim]

It is interesting the way that Leo is being condemned on here for arguing for basic internationalist positions. One of the biggest problems in the Middle East is that the working class is being pulled completely into the idea of &#39;national defence&#39;. I spent the afternoon in a café with Leo arguing with a Trotskyist. He accused us of "taking the same line as the Israeli state", and of "pacifism" while all the time arguing that we have to support Hizbullah. He ended up denying that there was a working class in Israel, and by saying that a victory for Hizbullah over Israel would be a massive victory for the working class across the region.

In all countries in the Middle East today the idea of nationalism has an immensely strong grip upon the working class. Leftists constantly talk about the &#39;resistance&#39; in Palestine, and how the Palestinians are undefeated. These are the same sort of leftists as we argued against today. It doesn&#39;t even occur to them that the Palestinian working class is actually one of the most defeated working classes in the world. They have virtually lost the capacity to act on their own behalf, and have fallen into the trap of being soldiers in a war between two competing nationalisms. The Israeli working class is in a very similar position. They too are completely tied to the idea of national defence. Those who talk about supporting Hizbullah, or the Iraqi resistance usually have very little to say about the working class. The Trotskyist that we spoke to today didn&#39;t mention the working class once.

Of course people are very distressed by the images of murdered children that they see night after night on their TV screens. People want to do something about the situation. It is a very basic human urge, but what can the working class actually do to stop the mass slaughter that is going on in Lebanon today? The answer is unfortunately very little. Neither the working class in Israel nor the working class in Lebanon are going to rise up against this war. That is a fact. However, that doesn&#39;t mean that communists should not take an internationalist line of a &#39;plague on both your houses&#39;. That is the historic position of the communist movement, represented by Lenin, and the &#39;Zimmerwald left&#39; in 1916, and remains no less valid today. That Trotskyist, and all other sorts of leftists, who have called on the working class to ally itself to one capitalist faction or another in every single war since 1945, are there too today, not calling for the working class to defend its own interests, but once again trying to tie them to the ideology of national defence, and calling for them to die in capitalist wars. The position of the communists is somewhat different. We stand for the working class as a class for itself against all national capitals however &#39;oppressed&#39;, and however &#39;leftist&#39;.

The struggles of the working class that matter today are the everyday struggles in defence of workers living conditions. A class that is capable of fighting for its own interests is a class that is capable of resisting the imperialists, and their drive towards war. A class that is not capable of fighting for its own interests is one that get pulled along into any &#39;national liberation&#39; struggle that nationalists of all shades, from leftists to Islamacists will call on it to sacrifice itself for, either on the battle field, or on the &#39;home front&#39;. The important struggles for the working class are those in defence of their own economic interests, and it is by the development of these struggles that the working class can begin to emerge as a force able to struggle against imperialist war.

The working class in the Middle East today is nearly completely tied to nationalist ideology. However, it does still retain the capability of being able to act in its own interests, the massive strike in Lebanon in May 2004 showed that the working class retained its ability to struggle for its own interests. All those who arguing for the working class to fight for its own interests have a positive role to play in the class struggle. Those who argue for it to align itself to this, or that faction of capital are acting in the interests of capitalism. It maters not what colour flag they try to rally the working class behind. They are rallying it for its slaughter in the interests of the bourgeoisie.

Devrim Valerian

Enternasyonalist Komünist Sol

[Jamal]

Well comrade, you are right in most of your post.
The difference between what you are saying and real life is that here the working class has no chance to stand together or asside. Israel is bombing too many things, its killing too many people. Its an invasion not just a conflict between two sides. Israel is inside lebanon we cannot just stay asside. Its either run away, fight, get killed or live under opression and injustice of Zionism.

[Devrim]

The difference between what you are saying and real life is that here the working class has no chance to stand together or asside.
I am not denying the reality of the situation. I don&#39;t see that there is any possibility of a working class alternative being posed in Lebanon at the present time. There are times when the working class are reduced to passive observers on the stage. I think that this moment in Lebanon is one of them.


Its an invasion not just a conflict between two sides. Israel is inside lebanon we cannot just stay asside. Its either run away, fight, get killed or live under opression and injustice of Zionism.
What you seem to be saying here is that there are times when the working class has to give up its own interests, and fall behind the national bourgeoisie. However terrible the situation, it doesn&#39;t mean that communists should advocate the working class falling behind a slogan of national defence. Even though it is sometimes impossible to do anything of a revolutionary nature that does not mean that communists should rally behind the defence of the nation.

The working class across the whole of the Middle East is in great danger of being pulled into a cycle of vicious ethnic/sectarian fratricide. Even in Turkey, possibly the most stable country in the Middle East, there is an increasing ethnic division between Kurds, and Turks, which in my opinion is much worse now than when the war in the South East was at its height. Against this spectre of war, and sectarian violence the only think that workers can reply with is class struggle. The alternative is that the working class stops to exist as a class with any potential of acting for itself. At the moment this has happened in Lebanon, Israel, and Palestine. It does not mean that in the long term the position is irreversible, but it does mean that today there is no possibility of working class interests emerging onto the agenda in these countries.

For revolutionaries in Lebanon the struggle has become a very basic one of how to survive. For revolutionaries in the rest of the Middle East the task is to oppose nationalism and the ideology of &#39;national interest&#39;, and to take part in the class&#39; struggles for the defence of its own class interests, and not national ones.

The same tasks apply in the West, and those who call on the working class to forget its interests as a class, and rally behind different nationalist factions, whether they be Lebanese or Kurdish, Sunni, or Shia, in the name of fighting against imperialism, are merely cheerleaders for capitalism as the entire region drifts increasingly towards war, and barbarism.

Devrim Valerian

Enternasyonalist Komünist Sol

[YKTMX]

And Sadr&#39;s words speak louder than his followers&#39; actions, huh? As a materialist, I disagree.

Then the "actions" of Red Army soldiers also "speak louder" than the socialist, revolutionary rhetoric of Lenin and Trotsky, yes?

Or, when the Red Army goes on a raping rampage through Europe that&#39;s "expressing" some deep proletarian urge to procreate, perhaps?

Or what about "excesses" carried out by the Cheka?

The point is that Sadr and his army are an anti-sectarian force. He&#39;s always worked to unify Iraqis AND to link the struggle of Iraqis with wider struggles and social movements outside Iraq. I remember the SWP got criticised for having a member of the Sadr movement speak at one event on the basis that the Sadr movement was an "anti-working class movement". They seemed to have missed the point that this was yet another of those strange, seemingly pecuilar to the Middle East, "anti-working" class movements that was actually managing to mobilize and gain the support of the working class and the poor in places like Sadr City on an anti-imperialist, nationalist and anti-sectarian basis.


3,000 dead Iraqi civilians a month, mostly due to the Sunni "resistance" on the one hand and the Sadrists and other Shi&#39;a militia on the other.

The large majority of resistance operations target occupation soldiers, as well as collaborators, Iraqi army and police etc. This is a fact.

In any case, I&#39;ve never denied that there are reactionary terrorists in Iraq. It&#39;s not a question of defending every bombing operation or every attack, it&#39;s about defending the right of Iraqis to wage armed struggle to defend themselves from imperialism.


The "Bordigists", as you bizarrely call the centrist Worker-Communist Party, oppose the occupation, the government, and call for the immediate withdrawal of the occupying armies. They&#39;ve been proposing an oil workers&#39; strike behind that demand.

Hmm, "centrist" in the sense of their byzantine personality cultism? Or perhaps their support My for fascist Islamophobic demonstrations (http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/display/ShowJournal?moduleId=103277&categoryId=39221)?

And wasn&#39;t it a couple of days ago that you were criticising the Oil Workers in Basra for being "in league" with the "Sadrists". So, I assume it&#39;s the "good" Oil Workers that the Bordigists are organising here?

You see the difference here is precisely this: whilst you talk materialism, you "do" idealism. It&#39;s not these rather laughable ultra-left cults that are organizing the Arab working class and oppressed - it&#39;s the Islamic and nationalist resistance movements - which these groups refuse to support. Why is that?


This can only be explained for a downright preference for bourgeois nationalism over workers&#39; parties, a belief that the bourgeoisie must substitute for the workers in the fight against imperialism.

A bit rich coming from a supporter of the Cuban Revolution, MD, but that&#39;s by-the-by. Once again, the poor people from the megaslum of Sadr City and the people of Fallujah are not "bourgeois", their leaders are not bourgeois in any meaningful sense. They are an army of the poor and working class who are mobilized by an anti-imperialist ideology.

Your "worker-communists" (who, as I&#39;ve said, are neither workers nor communists) have no real presence in the class, mobilize no significant forces and have zero influence on the class they, and you, pretend to speak for. Whilst the Iraqi brothers and sisters "write their names in the stars" defending their country, these people sit about pontificating on the legitimacy of racist cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.


If you deal with facts, those were proletarian revolutions

I suppose by "facts" you mean bullshit history, Stalinist mythology and distortion of Marxism. It&#39;s weird, you seem to be following some of sort of reverse trajectory, Sev. Rather than giving up official Communism for Trotskyism, you seem to be retreating from your, albeit ultra-dogmatic, revolutionary socialism into a bizarre kind of Tankie cheerleaderism. I wonder how long it&#39;s going to take you to "revise" your position on the Hungarian revolution.

Proletarian revolution is the conscious act of the organised working class imposing their will on history - it&#39;s not petty bourgeois intellectuals running about in the jungle. The Cuban revolution, like the Chinese revolution, was the product of a long anti-imperialist process of which, sadly, the proletariat was not able to rest control from the petty bourgeois autocrats.

I can only assume that, like so many others, your own class background makes you susceptible to the notion that the masses are too "stupid", too "religious", too "reactionary" to make history for themselves. No, it&#39;s up to people like Maryam Namazie, Chairman Mao and Che Guevara to "lead the way".

[Martin Blank]

When all else fails, YKISOW sticks his fingers in his ears and hums to himself to drown out the facts. Never let little facts stand in the way of Big Lies&#33;

Miles

[Jamal]

However terrible the situation, it doesn&#39;t mean that communists should advocate the working class falling behind a slogan of national defence

its not national defence, its not to defend "Lebanon", its to defend the people that live in Lebanon and I think that the working class is defending its own interests when defending themselves from slaughter.

[Noah]

Sadr is an anti-sectarian figure, which makes your point slightly pointless.


Do you support Sadr YKTMX?

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 03:43 PM

Sadr is an anti-sectarian figure, which makes your point slightly pointless.


Do you support Sadr YKTMX?
Yes.

[Noah]

So I assume you support the rape of non-muslim girls and murder of non-muslim families and the forced conversions?

How can a leftist support a man that wants to incorporate Islam into the country&#39;s legal system and force Muslim beliefs on people who are neither Shi&#39;ite or Sunni but a totally different religion altogether.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 03:57 PM
So I assume you support the rape of non-muslim girls and murder of non-muslim families and the forced conversions?


No.

If you don&#39;t understand my position, see this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53811)

[Noah]

Okay, Sadr forces the coalition to leave Iraq that&#39;s anti-imperialism&#33;

Sadr will set up a Muslim state and although he claims he won&#39;t take power, he probably will take it upon himself to start a Muslim state and then &#39;manage&#39; it.

Then what? Like Iran, you have extreme hate and racism towards non-muslims and massacres that hardly anyone knows about.

How can you support anti-imperialism and the freedom of Iraq simply for it to turn into an Islamist state, same shit different spoon my friend the people are still oppressed.

I read your post on your stance too.

4) to support for national liberation movements of all political stripes,
and
5) support for the liberation of women, homosexuals and victims of racism.

As you already mentioned these two conflict.

How can you support Sadr and support women&#39;s rights, homosexuals freedom and equality&#33;

:lol:

Like you said to me in the other topic Sheridan. Stupid.

[YKTMX]

Because I think Iraqis should have the right to determine their own future, which they cannot while Iraq is under the control of imperialism. I belief in self-determination. If Sadr was to set up the kind of state you described, though I doubt you have evidence that he would apart from "AHH&#33; THE MUSLIMS ARE COMING&#33;&#33;" then I would totally reject that.

But the comparison stands. The Vietcong&#39;s aim was to set up a Stalinist authoritarian state. Does this mean you wouldn&#39;t have supported the struggle of the Vietnamese people against the French and then the Americans?

[Noah]

Sadr has openly admitted to wanting an Islamist state, if you don&#39;t know this then obviously you are blind to the truth in Iraq.

Here is an interview where he openly admits this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cemXlr9umZ8

I quote Sadr &#39;I&#39;m just striving to apply the religious legal system&#39;

The vietnamese people supported the Vietcong, if you know any Iraq people you&#39;ll find most of them are terrified of what will happen to them if they don&#39;t lend support to their sect as a Shi&#39;ite or Sunni. However, I don&#39;t have much knowledge on Vietnam so I can&#39;t answer your question&#33;

And if your a Mandaean like me, well your fooked either way.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 04:19 PM
Sadr has openly admitted to wanting an Islamist state, if you don&#39;t know this then obviously you are blind to the truth in Iraq.

Here is an interview where he openly admits this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cemXlr9umZ8

I quote Sadr &#39;I&#39;m just striving to apply the religious legal system&#39;
Answer my question, I answered yours quite directly.

Would you have supported the Vietnamese Stalinists in the Vietnam war?

[Noah]

Sorry I editied.

[YKTMX]

The vietnamese people supported the Vietcong, if you know any Iraq people you&#39;ll find most of them are terrified of what will happen to them if they don&#39;t lend support to their sect as a Shi&#39;ite or Sunni. However, I don&#39;t have much knowledge on Vietnam so I can&#39;t answer your question&#33;

I&#39;m not talking about that.

I&#39;m asking whether YOU would have supported the Vietnamese resistance considering what kind of State they set up after their victory?

It&#39;s a fairly simple question and requires very little knowledge of Vietnam to answer it.

[Noah]

Yes I would have supported it. But you are comparing the Mahdi army and the Vietcong who have totally different aims and ideologies.

If the Vietcong was an Islam-fundamentalist organisation I wouldn&#39;t support it (that doesn&#39;t mean i&#39;m supporting the USA though) because religion is oppressive and forces one sects ideas onto the rest of the countries...

Iraq and Vietnam are two totally different situations now and comparing them, in a simplistic manner such as this (Ignoring Iraq&#39;s complicated societies, tribes and beliefs) is silly.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 04:26 PM
Yes I would have supported it. But you are comparing the Mahdi army and the Vietcong who have totally different aims and ideologies.

Exactly my point.

You only think that oppressed people with the right "aims" and "ideologies" should be supported. I don&#39;t. I think ALL oppressed people have the right to win their freedom through armed struggle, regardless of the banner they fight under.

That&#39;s the distinction, and I&#39;m quite happy with it.

[Noah]

You only think that oppressed people with the right "aims" and "ideologies" should be supported. I don&#39;t. I think ALL oppressed people have the right to win their freedom through armed struggle, regardless of the banner they fight under.

And you think the Mahdi is all people? You think the majority of Iraq backs the Mehdi army.

Young boys are tricked into joining and once they are in there&#39;s no going out unless you want your family killed and your sisters raped. I&#39;m not refuting the fact that there are Mahdi supports but you seem to think that the Mahdi army is some perfect form of resistance and works to free people of oppression.

At the end of the day, your political &#39;statement&#39; says that you support homosexuals and women in their struggle and you promote equality, this makes no sense because you support Islamic fundamentalism which opposes all three of these.

And also you refuted the fact that Sadr wants a religious legal system and when I provided the evidence, you erm seem to have ignored it :rolleyes: .

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 10:48 AM

However terrible the situation, it doesn&#39;t mean that communists should advocate the working class falling behind a slogan of national defence

its not national defence, its not to defend "Lebanon", its to defend the people that live in Lebanon and I think that the working class is defending its own interests when defending themselves from slaughter.
I disagree that the working class is defending its own interests by being draged into a national war of self defence. When the left advocates this they are advocating people joining in the slaughter under a national flag. The first world war was stopped by workers fighting for their own class interests. While I do not think that this is possible in Lebanon, or Israel at the moment, it is not the job of revolutionaries to act as recruiting sergents for national wars.
Devrim

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 04:15 PM
Because I think Iraqis should have the right to determine their own future, which they cannot while Iraq is under the control of imperialism. I belief in self-determination. If Sadr was to set up the kind of state you described, though I doubt you have evidence that he would apart from "AHH&#33; THE MUSLIMS ARE COMING&#33;&#33;" then I would totally reject that.

But the comparison stands. The Vietcong&#39;s aim was to set up a Stalinist authoritarian state. Does this mean you wouldn&#39;t have supported the struggle of the Vietnamese people against the French and then the Americans?
Don&#39;t people notice how these sort of leftists talk about &#39;Iraqis&#39; national &#39;self determination, and the Vietnamese &#39;people&#39;, but rarely talk about the working class?

[Noah]

Don&#39;t people notice how these sort of leftists talk about &#39;Iraqis&#39; national &#39;self determination, and the Vietnamese &#39;people&#39;, but rarely talk about the working class?

Yeah and how one leftist believes the setup of an Islamic state is the &#39;Iraqi people&#39;s&#39; right to self determination&#33;

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by devrimankara+Aug 6 2006, 06:27 PM--> (devrimankara @ Aug 6 2006, 06:27 PM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 04:15 PM
Because I think Iraqis should have the right to determine their own future, which they cannot while Iraq is under the control of imperialism. I belief in self-determination. If Sadr was to set up the kind of state you described, though I doubt you have evidence that he would apart from "AHH&#33; THE MUSLIMS ARE COMING&#33;&#33;" then I would totally reject that.

But the comparison stands. The Vietcong&#39;s aim was to set up a Stalinist authoritarian state. Does this mean you wouldn&#39;t have supported the struggle of the Vietnamese people against the French and then the Americans?
Don&#39;t people notice how these sort of leftists talk about &#39;Iraqis&#39; national &#39;self determination, and the Vietnamese &#39;people&#39;, but rarely talk about the working class? [/b]
Exactly.

What kinda communist would confuse bourgeois democracy with "self-determination"? It doesn&#39;t matter where your bosses are, surely? Seems kinda contradictory to me.

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 04:08 PM
Sadr will set up a Muslim state and although he claims he won&#39;t take power, he probably will take it upon himself to start a Muslim state and then &#39;manage&#39; it.
Hang on, that sounds kinda familar. Oh yeah, it&#39;s Trotskyism&#33; :lol:

[Enragé]

Originally posted by devrimankara+Aug 6 2006, 06:23 PM--> (devrimankara @ Aug 6 2006, 06:23 PM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 10:48 AM

However terrible the situation, it doesn&#39;t mean that communists should advocate the working class falling behind a slogan of national defence

its not national defence, its not to defend "Lebanon", its to defend the people that live in Lebanon and I think that the working class is defending its own interests when defending themselves from slaughter.
I disagree that the working class is defending its own interests by being draged into a national war of self defence. When the left advocates this they are advocating people joining in the slaughter under a national flag. The first world war was stopped by workers fighting for their own class interests. While I do not think that this is possible in Lebanon, or Israel at the moment, it is not the job of revolutionaries to act as recruiting sergents for national wars.
Devrim [/b]
no he&#39;s not saying something like "lets go join hezbollah."

He talks about defending the lebanese people.
As in organizing militias if possible to defend villages from those that attack it, by aiding the people which are being attacked by land, by air, and even by sea.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+Aug 7 2006, 12:40 PM--> (NewKindOfSoldier @ Aug 7 2006, 12:40 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 06:23 PM

[email protected] 6 2006, 10:48 AM

However terrible the situation, it doesn&#39;t mean that communists should advocate the working class falling behind a slogan of national defence

its not national defence, its not to defend "Lebanon", its to defend the people that live in Lebanon and I think that the working class is defending its own interests when defending themselves from slaughter.
I disagree that the working class is defending its own interests by being draged into a national war of self defence. When the left advocates this they are advocating people joining in the slaughter under a national flag. The first world war was stopped by workers fighting for their own class interests. While I do not think that this is possible in Lebanon, or Israel at the moment, it is not the job of revolutionaries to act as recruiting sergents for national wars.
Devrim
no he&#39;s not saying something like "lets go join hezbollah."

He talks about defending the lebanese people.
As in organizing militias if possible to defend villages from those that attack it, by aiding the people which are being attacked by land, by air, and even by sea. [/b]
Do you really imagine that it is possible to set up independent working class militas in this situation? Any militia formed outside of a massive period of class struggle will end up being sucked into taking a side in a capitalist war. Revolutionaries can not subsitute themselves for the class when it is week.

Devrim

[Enragé]

Do you really imagine that it is possible to set up independent working class militas in this situation? Any militia formed outside of a massive period of class struggle will end up being sucked into taking a side in a capitalist war. Revolutionaries can not subsitute themselves for the class when it is week.

no but parts of the working class can organize themselves in self defence. Certain areas were leftism is strong for instance.

[Jamal]

Do you really imagine that it is possible to set up independent working class militas in this situation
Yes


When the left advocates this they are advocating people joining in the slaughter under a national flag.
I will ask you a question, what is better: to fight under the national flag defending the people of the country or die in your home or just run away?
by the way, a naion is not just borders and land, it has people living inside it; that&#39;s what we are aming to defend.

[Devrim]

I would say that to just run away is best.
Devrim

[Jamal]

you usually confront your problems by running?

[RedKnight]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 10:18 PM
you usually confront your problems by running?
No, but this isn&#39;t our problem. This is a battle between certain zionists and islamists. We Communists should not be adding to the carnage. If we as indivisuals want to help, we should be serving in a non-combatant capacity. Join the red cross, or red crescent. Help with relief and evacuation. I hope that if you were a german in the third reich that you wouldn&#39;t have fought against the allies, just because of the bombing of Dresden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II), by the british and american air forces.

[Jamal]

Its not Zionists against Islamists, its Zionists against the people that live in Lebanon.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 11:41 PM
Its not Zionists against Islamists, its Zionists against the people that live in Lebanon.
:lol:

This thread is becoming totally hilarious.

Comrades are now, seriously, suggesting that the Lebanese working class should, en masse, "run away". One can only imagine the scenes as thousands of proles "down tools" in the Lebanese factories so they can "run away".

Boss: "Where are you going"?
Workers: "We&#39;re running away from the Zionists"
Boss: "Why don&#39;t you just stay and defend yourselves?"
Workers: "We don&#39;t want a petty-bourgeois European liberals to think we&#39;re Islamists".
Boss: "You&#39;re all fired".


Satire. Is. Dead.

[Noah]

Comrades are now, seriously, suggesting that the Lebanese working class should, en masse, "run away". One can only imagine the scenes as thousands of proles "down tools" in the Lebanese factories so they can "run away".

I don&#39;t know what you mean here, maybe I just don&#39;t understand can you elaborate?

Why shouldn&#39;t the proles run away? The proles and Hezbollah are different. People support Hezbollah but that doesn&#39;t mean they&#39;ll fight with them. Them average Lebanese man is no where near trained as much as a Hezbol guerilla.

I&#39;m sure some are staying and are willing to defend their land but do you think they can fight America&#39;s proxy with their houses and villages flattened and there&#39;s no food or water? What will they fight with stones? They&#39;ll be shot like dogs if not blown to smitherines in the inaccurate bombing of the zionists.

Most of the Lebanese aren&#39;t ready to fight.

[RedKnight]

Originally posted by YKTMX+Aug 7 2006, 11:51 PM--> (YKTMX @ Aug 7 2006, 11:51 PM)
[email protected] 7 2006, 11:41 PM
Its not Zionists against Islamists, its Zionists against the people that live in Lebanon.
:lol:

This thread is becoming totally hilarious.

Comrades are now, seriously, suggesting that the Lebanese working class should, en masse, "run away". One can only imagine the scenes as thousands of proles "down tools" in the Lebanese factories so they can "run away".

Boss: "Where are you going"?
Workers: "We&#39;re running away from the Zionists"
Boss: "Why don&#39;t you just stay and defend yourselves?"
Workers: "We don&#39;t want a petty-bourgeois European liberals to think we&#39;re Islamists".
Boss: "You&#39;re all fired".


Satire. Is. Dead. [/b]
Do you really expect that the lebanese buissness owners in the area will stay and try to defend there property? :rolleyes: I do not. I feel that they will likely try to take there assets and set up shop elsewhere. If they do not, I feel that there factories should be demolished with them in it, for there stupidity. :P Familys fled and took up temporary residence in the country, during the german blitz of London. It&#39;s just good common sense.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Jamal+--> (Jamal)I will ask you a question, what is better: to fight under the national flag defending the people of the country or die in your home or just run away?[/b]

Devrim
I would say that to just run away is best.

The question was a direct one with two choices. I answered it. I did not suggest that running away was a political response. I said that it was the best of the two choices offered. There are times when people run away. In fact I think that there are actually rather a lot of Lebanese refugees in Syria now. What do the leftists suggest that they do? Would you like them to all go back and fight for &#39;their&#39; country?

[Jamal]

There were 3 choices: 1-fight 2-die 3-run.


In fact I think that there are actually rather a lot of Lebanese refugees in Syria now.
yeah, so?


said that it was the best of the two choices offered.

When was runing away a choice to the left? When was it an option?
If the left run away, who will stay?

[Devrim]

O.K. three choices, I misread it.

When was runing away a choice to the left? When was it an option?
If the left run away, who will stay?
This sounds very radical, but is totally without substance.

There have been lots of times in history when workers have had to run away. Certainly lots of leftists fled Turkey after the military coup in 1980. Yes, others stayed. Some were murdered, and some were put in prison. Are you suggesting that we should condemn those who left?

I don&#39;t know what political tradition you belong to Jamal, but I am quite certain that some of its leading members were at some time forced into exile.

There are times when people have to run away. I would not actually suggest it, but faced with the choices you gave me, I felt it was the least worse option.

So there are times when revolutionaries run away. It may sound very macho to raise slogans like &#39;Liberty or Death&#39;, but they are little more than slogans. The sort of thing that leftists nedd when they are trying to make the working class rally around the flag.



In fact I think that there are actually rather a lot of Lebanese refugees in Syria now.
yeah, so?

Are you going to condemn them for running away too?

Should they come back to Lebanon, and join in the defence of the nation?

Let&#39;s just go back to the original question:
I will ask you a question, what is better: to fight under the national flag defending the people of the country or die in your home or just run away?

When the left rallies around the national flag it is worth nothing to the working class. Worse it starts to be a tool of capitalism, as it rallies workers in defence of the state, and drags them into national, and sectarian war.

When the communists support nationalism, who will argue for revolutionary politics?

Devrim

[Jamal]

Are you suggesting that we should condemn those who left?

You just reached my point: we should not condem those who left, but praise those who stayed and are doing something about it.


So there are times when revolutionaries run away

There is contradiction in this statement; how is someone revolutionary if he runs away? where is the revolution in that?


When the left rallies around the national flag it is worth nothing to the working class. Worse it starts to be a tool of capitalism, as it rallies workers in defence of the state, and drags them into national, and sectarian war.

ok, I&#39;m gonna repeat myself for like, I don&#39;t know I lost count&#33;
Its not a war for the sake of the nation or whatever. We are not the ones that are attacking, its defence; its selfedefence which is in the interest of all, not just the working class. Its not ganna go to any kind of a secterian war, it has united most of the people(see the thread "A Very Important Statement")

[вор в законе]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 4 2006, 04:25 PM
Lebannon was a shithole before the Israeli invasion.
If you claim that the Israeli invasion will &#39;&#39;civilize&#39;&#39; Lebanon with this invasion, then you are a fascist.

I can&#39;t believe that there are people who call themselves communists that equate Hezbollah and Israel.

Israel is the aggresor while Lebanon is defending herself through Hezbollah.

Anyone who equates Hezbollah, a political organization (aye that&#39;s right a political organization which has mass base support of millions of people unlike what Bush and Condi and the rest of their followers who seem to be posing as communists and regard them as mere terrorists) and Israel which is a nation-state has nothing to do with communism or any left-wing ideology to begin with.

[Noah]

There is contradiction in this statement; how is someone revolutionary if he runs away? where is the revolution in that?


You can still be revolutionary and lose battles, it happened in Cuba. Castro lost many comrades so ran away to the mountains and got support there (maybe it was Che but same principle).

[Leo]

If you claim that the Israeli invasion will &#39;&#39;civilize&#39;&#39; Lebanon with this invasion, then you are a fascist.

I obviously don&#39;t claim it. I am againt such idea more than you are.


Israel is the aggresor while Lebanon is defending herself through Hezbollah.

No Hizbullah is defending itself, it&#39;s territories and the authority it has over the working class. It is using nationalism, racism, religious fundmentalism to get working class people die for their interests. For fucks sake, just read the entire thread.

[RedKnight]

Originally posted by Red Brigade+Aug 8 2006, 02:51 PM--> (Red Brigade &#064; Aug 8 2006, 02:51 PM)
Leo [email protected] 4 2006, 04:25 PM
Lebannon was a shithole before the Israeli invasion.
If you claim that the Israeli invasion will &#39;&#39;civilize&#39;&#39; Lebanon with this invasion, then you are a fascist.

I can&#39;t believe that there are people who call themselves communists that equate Hezbollah and Israel.

Israel is the aggresor while Lebanon is defending herself through Hezbollah.

Anyone who equates Hezbollah, a political organization (aye that&#39;s right a political organization which has mass base support of millions of people unlike what Bush and Condi and the rest of their followers who seem to be posing as communists and regard them as mere terrorists) and Israel which is a nation-state has nothing to do with communism or any left-wing ideology to begin with. [/b]
Israel ,for all of it&#39;s possible faults, is most certainly more "civilised" than a clerical fascist regime. Israel is a deformed bourgeois democracy, while hezbollah is trying to set up an islamic theocracy, with sharia law. But liberation can never be forced from without. It must come from within. THe people of lebanon, and the rest of the middle east, must free themselves from there superstition and oppression. It takes two to fight. There is plenty of blame to go around. There are zionists, like the National Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Union_%28Israel%29), who desire to settle all of palestine, and islamists who do not recognise israel&#39;s right to exist and want to set up an islamic republic. Israel has also been the victim of rocket attacks. Regardless of who started it, who is going to finish it? The National Socialist German Workers Party also was a political organization which was elected to office. And they also had armed fighters as well, called brown shirts.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 04:08 PM
I would say that to just run away is best.
Devrim
An organisation which preaches and practices that...will attract people who tend to run away, physically and politically. Some kinda party might be successfully built in that way...but not a revolutionary one.

In contrast....Hezbollah attracted brave and self-sacrificing fighters, by being the organization willing to fight the Israeli occupation, for years and years. Those are the kind of people who are needed to build a communist organization, too.

Noah wrote:

You can still be revolutionary and lose battles,

Of course, but what&#39;s being advocated here is not to fight at all. To sit back and say "A plague on all your houses."

Lebanese working people would justifiably despise any organization that took that attitude. So of course the Lebanese CP and other left groups are not taking that attitude. It would be political suicide. The Lebanese CP is, reportedly, organizing its own armed groups - to fight the invasion in cooperation with Hezbollah.

It&#39;s kinda interesting to contrast Lebanon and Iraq; the Iraqi and Lebanese CPs are not essentially different. But they&#39;ve chosen opposite tactical courses of action, since they face such different tactical situations. Including Islamist groups which have chosen different tactical courses.....(e.g. Hezbollah is not engaging in wholesale sectarian slaughter at the moment.)

I&#39;m trying to figure out why there&#39;s so much anti-Hezbollah sentiment coming out of the woodwork suddenly on this board - when sometimes I&#39;ve been almost the only one speaking against support to the bloody-handed, antiworker "Iraqi resistance." There can&#39;t be a good reason for this contrast.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Severian+Aug 9 2006, 09:24 AM--> (Severian @ Aug 9 2006, 09:24 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 04:08 PM
I would say that to just run away is best.
Devrim
An organisation which preaches and practices that...will attract people who tend to run away, physically and politically. Some kinda party might be successfully built in that way...but not a revolutionary one.

[/b]
This statement has attracted a lot of attention, but what I said was that it was better to run away than fight under a national flag. At no point did I suggest it as a political policy. I feel that the people who have been playing upon it are often those who are quiet happy to sit there bravely suggesting that people in far away countries die in defence of national, and sectarian interests. Certainly it wasn&#39;t a statement of organisational policy that people should run away. However, I refuse to condemn those who have fled Lebanon. The working class has no interest in sacrificing itself on either side in this war.


Jamal
ok, I&#39;m gonna repeat myself for like, I don&#39;t know I lost count&#33;
Its not a war for the sake of the nation or whatever. We are not the ones that are attacking, its defence; its selfedefence which is in the interest of all, not just the working class. Its not ganna go to any kind of a secterian war, it has united most of the people(see the thread "A Very Important Statement")

We would say that it would be almost impossible for workers to organise militias in the present period in Lebanon, and not be sucked into the idea of national defence. This seems to be taken by many people to say sit back, and do nothing. I don&#39;t think that this is the case. It is in fact the same position taken by Lenin at Zimmerwald.

I think that it expressed quite well by Severian:
The Lebanese CP is, reportedly, organizing its own armed groups - to fight the invasion in cooperation with Hezbollah.
and by Red Brigade:
Israel is the aggresor while Lebanon is defending herself through Hezbollah.

Now, what seems to be being said here is that the left should fight for the defence of Lebanon alongside Hizbullah. It seems quite close to the idea of national defence to me. What we are saying is that the working class has no interest in aligning itself with any bourgeois faction, and that it should fight for its own interests.


Anyone who equates Hezbollah, a political organization (aye that&#39;s right a political organization which has mass base support of millions of people unlike what Bush and Condi and the rest of their followers who seem to be posing as communists and regard them as mere terrorists) and Israel which is a nation-state has nothing to do with communism or any left-wing ideology to begin with.

So those who say that the working class should fight for its own interests have &#39;nothing to do with communism&#39;. In which case what would one say about those who encourage workers to take part in capitalist wars?

It is quite strange to see the &#39;left&#39; in Turkey coming out with exactly the same slogans as the MHP (the fascist party). There seem to be a lot of people who want to talk about &#39;people&#39;, and very few who are talking about class.


Of course, but what&#39;s being advocated here is not to fight at all. To sit back and say "A plague on all your houses."

Lebanese working people would justifiably despise any organization that took that attitude. So of course the Lebanese CP and other left groups are not taking that attitude. It would be political suicide.

Refusing to take sides in capitalist wars is continually being derided as &#39;sitting back and doing nothing&#39;. I am sure that the same criticisms were thrown at Lenin, and the Bolsheviks in the first world war. Since World War Two those who claim to be Leninists have supported every capitalist war. You name a war, and I am sure we can find some Lenisist/Trotskyist/Stalinist/Moaist faction who have supported it, all in the name of &#39;national liberation of course&#39;.

National liberation today is nothing more than a tool to bind the working class to national capital.

Finally,
I&#39;m trying to figure out why there&#39;s so much anti-Hezbollah sentiment coming out of the woodwork suddenly on this board - when sometimes I&#39;ve been almost the only one speaking against support to the bloody-handed, antiworker "Iraqi resistance." There can&#39;t be a good reason for this contrast.

Actually, I think that a lot of it has come from Alf, Ümit, and myself. I first posted on here about a week ago, and Alf said he didn&#39;t post here often. We would all certainly agree with you though &#39;against support to the bloody-handed, antiworker "Iraqi resistance." &#39;. I think that that is all there is to it.

Devrim

[chebol]

Apparently some people here are too stupid with their heads packed full of wool and the "correct theoretical interpretation of marxism (or insert prefered term here)" to be able to differentiate between an imperialist aggressor state invading and oppressing neighbouring peoples; and an inter-imperialist war, such as WWI.

Their inability to do so reflects a mechanistic &#39;understanding&#39; of marxism, and translates into effective support for Imperialism, by denying the differnece between forces fighting for Imperialist domination, and those resisting.

This is particularly clear in those idiots who cannot differentiate between national liberation struggles and "islamist fundamentalism", that bug-bear that plagues so much of the &#39;Left&#39;, not least because it does exist, and is therefore harder in the denying by those &#39;leftists&#39; apparently willing to live on pluto. Take one ticket directly to irrelevant "third-campism. Do not pass Go. Do not collect the support of the proletariat in order to create a socialist revolution.

Was the French resistance to Nazism "christian fundamentalist", or even anything aproaching it? Does it even fucking matter? Apparently, to some people, the French should have all fled to, what, Spain, Sweden?????

Get real, you idiots. The Lebanese proletariat, those real people who you mouth which such apparent conviction, are being massacred.

And the worst of it is these people, caught up in their "islamist-ophobia", don&#39;t even appear to get who Hezbollah really is...

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/678/678p12.htm
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/676/676p12b.htm

[Marion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 01:12 PM
Apparently, to some people, the French should have all fled to, what, Spain, Sweden?????

I thought what was meant by "running away" and the context it was made in had been made perfectly clear in previous posts.


Get real, you idiots. The Lebanese proletariat, those real people who you mouth which such apparent conviction, are being massacred.

Actually, a part of this debate has recently focussed upon whether getting involved or not in the Israel-Lebanon conflict is more likely to lead to the massacre of the Lebanese proletariat. The fact that members of the Lebanese working class are being killed is one we are all aware of. It seems clear to me that participating in the conflict is more likely to lead to their massacre than not doing so, although you&#39;re obviously free to disagree and state your case. Obviously, however, this isn&#39;t necessarily the only issue to be taken into account in the debate as a whole.

[вор в законе]

No Hizbullah is defending itself, it&#39;s territories and the authority it has over the working class. It is using nationalism, racism, religious fundmentalism to get working class people die for their interests.

As a matter of fact you are right. So tell me mister idealist what are you proposing for the Lebanese working class, bend over Israel? Let them bomb the shit out of them? The Communists are obliged to support all national-resistances, even if the resistance has a form of extreme nationalism (that&#39;s why its called a national resistance), when it is against Imperialist super states such as Israel, which essentially is the arm of the USA in the Middle East.

The Communist Party militia of Lebanon does not have significant power there to lead the resistance movement.

So, last time I checked, in the real world, there is only one organization that makes a successful resistance against the Israelis and that is Hezbollah.

Supporting Hezbollah doesn&#39;t mean that we endorse their backward political platform.


Israel ,for all of it&#39;s possible faults, is most certainly more "civilised" than a clerical fascist regime.

What on earth are you mumbling there? :lol:

Lebanon is a SECULAR state and after three entire decades Christians and Muslims live in harmony, despite the instigations of Israel and guess what, right now they are more united than ever.

Israel on the other hand is a nation-state and the basis of their nationalism was not common language or common culture but exclusively Religion: Judaism.

Talking about backward theocracies. :lol:

You then mention a &#39;&#39;clerical fascist regime&#39;&#39;. Apparently many of you are unable to grasp that Hezbollah is not ruling Lebanon. (1)

I also love it how you people consider Israel as a &#39;&#39;civilized&#39;&#39; state, perhaps because they are more western orientated unlike the &#39;&#39;Arab barbarians&#39;&#39;, but I assume that you are unaware of the apartheid like situation that exist in that country, unlike in Lebanon which, at least compared to Israel, is far more tolerant towards its ethnic groups.



Israel is a deformed bourgeois democracy, while hezbollah is trying to set up an islamic theocracy, with sharia law.

Goto 1


Now, what seems to be being said here is that the left should fight for the defence of Lebanon alongside Hizbullah. It seems quite close to the idea of national defence to me. What we are saying is that the working class has no interest in aligning itself with any bourgeois faction, and that it should fight for its own interests.

Now this would be an excellent suggestion if the Lebanese proletariat were class conscious. But they are not. The Communist Party of Lebanon has a nonsignificant influence there. So what the communists should &#39;support&#39; (well in reality we don&#39;t even support them we simply take their side) is to hope Hezbollah defend Lebanon because we don&#39;t want another puppet state in Lebanon, like in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Organizations that resist against Imperialism, regardless their motives, are serving our interests as communists. At all cost anyone who opposes USA and her puppet states, such as Israel, is serving our interests. If the USA magnifies her influence at this rate we will no longer be able to take advantage of the Inner Imperialist conflicts to make a revolution.


So those who say that the working class should fight for its own interests have &#39;nothing to do with communism&#39;. In which case what would one say about those who encourage workers to take part in capitalist wars?

Those who say that the working class should fight for its own interests, when they clearly know that this is impossible due to the lack of the material conditions, like in Lebanon, are... idealists.

Four weeks of fighting had left over 1,000 Lebanese dead and the displaced up to one million.

Israel has.. 51 dead.

Merhaba

[Alf]

In response to that post, I suggest Red Brigades re-read the thread. He seems to be mixing up the internationalist position with those posters who support Israel.

This has been a &#39;three way&#39; debate, in that sense. But the fundamental separation is the class line between the internationalist view and those who agree that you have to support the &#39;more progressive&#39; side in an inter-imperialist conflict. The fact that some support Israel and some support Hizbollah does not alter the basic fact that, in the present epoch of capitalism, any support for any national struggle is support for imperialist war.

[Jamal]

AAAAAAAAAHHH, man if I believed in God, I would have become an athiest by now&#33;
Nobody here "supports" Hezbollah&#33; They are just with them in their resistance agenda&#33;

And Alf, what you replied wasn&#39;t relative to what he posted&#33;

Red Brigade used Quotes when he wrote the post, so that shows you that he read the thread :wacko:

[More Fire for the People]

Hey, Jamal&#33; Is there any hope of building a national front against Zionist imperialism in Lebanon? Under a national front the workers could resist imperialism with the aid of the petty-bourgeoisie [Hezbollah] and the national bourgeoisie [Lebanese Army] while not depending upon them. Probably a pipe dream but I&#39;d like to know.

[Jamal]

There already is one, its called Jammoul: "The Lebanese National Resistance Front"

To find out more about it, see the other threads regarding the situation, most of them have something about Jammoul.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 06:15 AM
This statement has attracted a lot of attention, but what I said was that it was better to run away than fight under a national flag. At no point did I suggest it as a political policy.
That sounds like a political policy to me. A policy of nonresistance to imperialism. You restate it later in this post, objecting to any idea that workers should fight to defend Lebanon against imperialism. Well, I say "the role of Job does not suit a revolutionist."

And it&#39;s pretty ironic you keep quoting Lenin in support of your opposition to national liberation. You must know that wasn&#39;t his position - in fact Lenin and the early Comintern originated the idea that the world is divided into exploiting and exploited countries, and the working class should support and seek to lead the fight for national liberation against imperialism.

You&#39;re free to hold another position, of course, it&#39;s just not too honest to refer to Lenin in support of it.


I feel that the people who have been playing upon it are often those who are quiet happy to sit there bravely suggesting that people in far away countries die in defence of national, and sectarian interests.

You&#39;ve got a point - so let&#39;s examine it. Why are we even debating what people should do in Lebanon? (&#39;Course, I&#39;ve mostly just pointed out what all the nominally communist groups there are doing already.)

Condemning Hezbollah from the sidelines, or cheerleading for them from the sidelines - neither is joining the struggle.

So what should we be doing in our own countries - what should our line be there? Blaming Hezbollah, as our own rulers do? (Including some Arab regimes, and hm...I&#39;m not sure about the Turkish regime. I do know it&#39;s somewhat allied with Israel.)

Blaming both sides equally - fence-sitting? That&#39;s usually a facade for capitulation to the ruling class.

Or concentrating our fire on imperialism and "our own" ruling classes, demanding an immediate end to the bombing and invasion, and an immediate end to aid to the Israeli apartheid state?



(Severian)I&#39;m trying to figure out why there&#39;s so much anti-Hezbollah sentiment coming out of the woodwork suddenly on this board - when sometimes I&#39;ve been almost the only one speaking against support to the bloody-handed, antiworker "Iraqi resistance." There can&#39;t be a good reason for this contrast.
(Devrim)
Actually, I think that a lot of it has come from Alf, Ümit, and myself. I first posted on here about a week ago, and Alf said he didn&#39;t post here often. We would all certainly agree with you though &#39;against support to the bloody-handed, antiworker "Iraqi resistance." &#39;. I think that that is all there is to it.

You&#39;re far from the only ones - the same thing&#39;s been evident in a number of threads besides this one.

I think it&#39;s because the European imperialists and the U.S. Democratic Party "opposed" - or at least tactically criticised - the Iraq war, but are supporting the Israeli war against Hezbollah. France and the U.S. cosponsored a UN resolution; the Democrats are sometimes even more strongly pro-Israel than the Republicans.

And the left, as usual, is following along behind the bourgeoisie. Most of it is driven by anti-Americanism or merely anti-Bush sentiment - and isn&#39;t at all sure what it&#39;s for anymore.

[Devrim]

That sounds like a political policy to me. A policy of nonresistance to imperialism. You restate it later in this post, objecting to any idea that workers should fight to defend Lebanon against imperialism.

Yes, you are right, it is a policy line to say that workers should not fight to defend Lebanon, nor should they fight to defend any nation state. We say that workers should fight for their own interests wherever they are, and not tie themselves to capital, or any nation state. This is a political line.

We don&#39;t believe that workers should support the weaker state in wars, and we believe that this argument is responsible for the left trying to tie the working class to capital in every war since the Second World War.


And it&#39;s pretty ironic you keep quoting Lenin in support of your opposition to national liberation. You must know that wasn&#39;t his position - in fact Lenin and the early Comintern originated the idea that the world is divided into exploiting and exploited countries, and the working class should support and seek to lead the fight for national liberation against imperialism.

Yes, you have a point here, but actually I quoted Lenin&#39;s position at Zimmerwald. We think that his position on national liberation was deeply flawed. It certainly led to the massacre of the Turkish communists. However, in 1916 he was right. The left seem to have discarded this position, and have since the Second World War supported all wars, it is not important what ideology, (anti-fascism, national liberation...) they did it in the name of.


So what should we be doing in our own countries - what should our line be there? Blaming Hezbollah, as our own rulers do? (Including some Arab regimes, and hm...I&#39;m not sure about the Turkish regime. I do know it&#39;s somewhat allied with Israel.)

Blaming both sides equally - fence-sitting? That&#39;s usually a facade for capitulation to the ruling class.

Or concentrating our fire on imperialism and "our own" ruling classes, demanding an immediate end to the bombing and invasion, and an immediate end to aid to the Israeli apartheid state?


You are right. The Turkish state has military links to the Israeli state. You are also right to talking about &#39;concentrating our fire on imperialism and "our own" ruling classes&#39;. We believe that the class struggle in defence of workers own living standards is central to the struggle against war. A class that is able to fight for itself is also a class that will refuse to sacrifice itself in the name of &#39;national interest&#39;.


You&#39;re far from the only ones - the same thing&#39;s been evident in a number of threads besides this one.

I think it&#39;s because the European imperialists and the U.S. Democratic Party "opposed" - or at least tactically criticised - the Iraq war, but are supporting the Israeli war against Hezbollah. France and the U.S. cosponsored a UN resolution; the Democrats are sometimes even more strongly pro-Israel than the Republicans.

And the left, as usual, is following along behind the bourgeoisie. Most of it is driven by anti-Americanism or merely anti-Bush sentiment - and isn&#39;t at all sure what it&#39;s for anymore.

I don&#39;t know about this. I have only actually looked at the two threads about Lebanon, and one about American plans for the region as a whole. We, however, are not siding with any of the disgusting pro-Israel arguments that have been posted here. We are trying to pose a class alternative to the increasing cycle of escalating nationalism, and sectarianism across the entire region.

Devrim

[Ol' Dirty]

Huzah&#33; Someone supports the Lebenese resistance&#33; Vive de le Resistiance&#33; :D