"gays Flee" Iraq Shia Death Squads

[James]

I would like to read what people think about this, especially those who consider themselves left wing and oppose "the occupation". What are the implications for democracy?


Gays flee Iraq as Shia death squads find a new target

Evidence shows increase in number of executions as homosexuals plead for asylum in Britain

Jennifer Copestake
Sunday August 6, 2006
The Observer


Hardline Islamic insurgent groups in Iraq are targeting a new type of victim with the full protection of Iraqi law, The Observer can reveal. The country is seeing a sudden escalation of brutal attacks on what are being called the 'immorals' - homosexual men and children as young as 11 who have been forced into same-sex prostitution.
There is growing evidence that Shia militias have been killing men suspected of being gay and children who have been sold to criminal gangs to be sexually abused. The threat has led to a rapid increase in the numbers of Iraqi homosexuals now seeking asylum in the UK because it has become impossible for them to live safely in their own country.

Ali Hili runs the Iraqi LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) group out of London. He used to have 40 volunteers in Iraq but says after recent raids by militia in Najaf, Karbala and Basra he has lost contact with half of them. They move to different safe houses to protect their identities, but their work is incredibly dangerous.

Eleven-year-old Ameer Hasoon al-Hasani was kidnapped by policemen from the front of his house last month. He was known in his district to have been forced into prostitution. His father Hassan told me he searched for his son for three days after his abduction, then found him, shot in the head. A copy of the death certificate confirms the cause of death.

Homosexuality is seen as so immoral that it qualifies as an 'honour killing' to murder someone who is gay - and the perpetrator can escape punishment. Section 111 of Iraq's penal code lays out protections for murder when people are acting against Islam.

'The government will do nothing to tackle this issue. It's really desperate when people get to the stage they're trading their children for money. They have no alternatives because there are no jobs,' Hili says.

Graphic photos obtained from Baghdad sources too frightened to identify themselves as having known a gay man, and seen by the Observer, show other gay Iraqis who have been executed. One shows two men, suspected of having a relationship, blindfolded with their hands tied behind their backs - guns at the ready behind their heads - awaiting execution. Another picture captured on a mobile phone shows a gay man being beaten to death. Yet another shows a corpse being dragged through the streets after his execution.

One photograph is of the mutilated, burnt body of 38-year-old Karar Oda from Sadr City. He was kidnapped by the Badr Brigade in mid-June. They work with the Ministry of Interior and are the informal armed wing of the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq, who make up the largest Shia bloc in the Iraq parliament. Oda's family were given an arrest warrant signed by the Ministry of Interior which said their son deserved to be arrested and killed for immorality as a homosexual. His body was found ten days later.

Dr Haider Jaber is currently seeking asylum in the UK after fleeing Iraq in 2004. He says the abuse started to escalate in his neighbourhood after the invasion. One night, walking home from work, he was surrounded by five men, who told him he had to become a heterosexual Muslim. He says they abused him for wearing jeans and a T-shirt with English writing, and told him he should adopt traditional robes. As a crowd gathered to watch, he was then beaten and kicked to the ground.

The threats continued. Armed militiamen broke into his family home and then his workplace looking for him. Jaber finally left the country in April. His partner, Ali. was not so lucky. Jaber learned of his Ali's murder a few days after leaving Iraq. 'They didn't send the body to the family to have a grave or a flower garden. They said he didn't deserve it because he was an animal,' he said.

Ibaa Alawi has also fled Iraq. A former employee at the British embassy in Baghdad, Alawi met Tony Blair on one of his surprise visits to Iraq. He said Blair was concerned about the safety of the Iraqis working there and praised their bravery. 'Tony Blair said the British government was thankful for our efforts and knew we were putting our lives at risk working for the British embassy in Baghdad.'

Alawi is upset the same government is not willing to help him out. He believes the Home Office will refuse him asylum because it would have to face up to the level of chaos in Iraq, and how much influence is being waged by radical Islamists - and face the fact that, for some, there is still no freedom in Iraq.

· Jennifer Copestake's film on homosexual executions in Iraq will be shown on More4 News on August 7 at 8pm


link:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story...1838222,00.html (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1838222,00.html)

[Forward Union]

Sure they kill gays, but they're anti-imperialist right? Victory to the Shia death squads ! :wacko:

But sensibly, what Is there to say? This is just disgusting.

[BobKKKindle$]

In analysing the atrocities committed in the Name of Islamic Sharia Fundamentalist Moralism within the Iraqi resistance movement, I feel that the most sensible course is to apply the principle of Cost Benefit Analysis; that is, to Recognize the benefits that the Iraqi Resistance has brought to the Leftist Struggle, and contrast these benefits with the points on which we Disagree (Such as Discrimination of Homosexuals) and from this analysis, we can draw a conclusion as to whether the Resistance has had a net positive or negative effect for us as leftists, and from that we can decided whether to support or Opposse the Resistance.

For me personally, the Oppression of Homosexuals is a small price to pay for the Opposition to the Hegemonic Imperialism of the United States. The reason for this being that our primary goal as Leftists, must be the overthrow of Capitalism above the causes of Oppressed Minorities. Whilst the Conquest of Iraq in order to achieve acess to resources and markets is a direct result of Capitalism, the persecution of Homosexuals is borne of Islamic Fundamentalism, which, whilst worthy of Opposition, is a lesser evil than that of Imperialist domination.

However, the refusal of the UK government to help is completely absurd, because according to the source below, Homosexuals were treated better under Sadaam, and given that the resistance has arisen since the Western invasion, it is surely the moral duty of Britain and AmeriKa to take responsibility for the implications of their actions, especially for minorities. But one cannot expect Bourgeois Governments to do such things.

http://gaymiddleeast.blogspot.com/2006/04/...-saddam_12.html (http://gaymiddleeast.blogspot.com/2006/04/gay-iraqis-fared-better-under-saddam_12.html)

[James]

a thread of a similar nature (on sectarianism) in politics;
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...pic=53830&st=0& (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53830&st=0&)

[James]

bobkindles, what do you think of "islamic fundamentalism" which has imperial ambition?

[Tetsuo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 04:35 PM
For me personally, the Oppression of Homosexuals is a small price to pay for the Opposition to the Hegemonic Imperialism of the United States.
This is just a guess on my part, but you're straight, aren't you?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Tetsuo+Aug 6 2006, 07:11 PM--> (Tetsuo @ Aug 6 2006, 07:11 PM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 04:35 PM
For me personally, the Oppression of Homosexuals is a small price to pay for the Opposition to the Hegemonic Imperialism of the United States.
This is just a guess on my part, but you're straight, aren't you? [/b]

This is just a guess on my part, but he'd probably like the SWP. And of course im being provocative in sayign so, but I would assume, as he seems to follow the same line.

[Enragé]

This truly is awful.

And should be fought against.
Is there any word on iraqis organising militias on more secular, or perhaps even leftist, grounds?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And you all believe The Observer, a well-known source of truth (and not at all a cheerleader for the US/UK agression in Iraq)?

[James]

I guess we will never know untill the observer provides footnotes and bibliography...
So may i assume that you think that this sort of thing is not going on? You should send a letter to the london Iraqi LGBT and take it up with them.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 03:13 PM
I would like to read what people think about this, especially those who consider themselves left wing and oppose "the occupation".
Why are you questioning the existence of the occupation by using raised commas?

Anyway, unfortunately this kind of thing is not news as it has been going on for a while now in Iraq.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

James:


So may I assume that you think that this sort of thing is not going on?

I suspect it is, but it is in the interests of the ruling class to get us to hate muslims, so they big this up.

The solution is to argue first for the occupation to end, and second for the establishment of a secular state, where religious beliefs are respected and sexual orientation kept out of the law.

As one of my friends put it to me in an e-mail:


the main political point to focus on is that it is a problem brought about by the occupation and that only complete self-determination for Iraqis can ever lead to a solution. That both stipulates one's support for gay rights in Iraq and undercuts those who would use it to support the continued occupation of Iraq.

However, I wonder how many gays are murdered in the US by religious nuts?

How much of that do we hear about in the Observer?

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 03:35 PM
The reason for this being that our primary goal as Leftists, must be the overthrow of Capitalism above the causes of Oppressed Minorities.
capitalism will not be overthrown in iraq anytime soon, regardless of the anti-occupation forces.

[Noah]

For me personally, the Oppression of Homosexuals is a small price to pay for the Opposition to the Hegemonic Imperialism of the United States.

There is much more oppression in Islamic fundamentalism than just gays. It's women, education, sports every aspect of life is Islamised.

Oh and the rape and murder of families who aren't Muslim is also a small price to pay?

If the Extremist-Muslims defeat imperialism then they don't change anything. The new newly created Muslim state (probably a dictatorship) simply changes the forms of impression which basically means the majority of people still suffer in one way or another. How will the victory of fundamentalist be liberation for the Iraqi people? They won't be liberated they'll be oppressed in another system.

Capitalism oppresses the Iraqis but so does Islamic-extremism.


I suspect it is, but it is in the interests of the ruling class to get us to hate muslims, so they big this up.

Actually it is happening on a massive basis, under Saddam gays were safe because of strict rules assuming the gays kept quite and not that many people new.

Now if someone is even suspected of being gay they are killed. It's not just happening to gays it's happening to hundreds of people everyday but the media never covers it the only way you would know is if you are communicating to any minorities in Iraq at the moment. Everything considered anti-Islam / Un-Islamic seems to be dealt with in an increasingly inhumane manner.

For example girls who are of Yezidis, Mandaean or Christian beliefs are raped and are forced to convert but more usually killed and mutilated. The same happens to gays you'd be surprised but some of them are raped.

I don't hate all Muslims, that's absurd and I don't want it to sound like that. But being a relative to those dead to Americans and Islamic extremists in Iraq there's no way I can support either of the two because both of them slaughter us.


second for the establishment of a secular state

That would be very good but somehow I highly doubt that would happen at this moment in time thanks to the coalition forces who have exacerbated tensions between shi'ites and sunnis.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noah:


There is much more oppression in Islamic fundamentalism than just gays. It's women, education, sports every aspect of life is Islamised.

US christians are responsible for more deaths, oppression, murder and rape than the most crazed muslim on the planet, now or ever: Vietnam 3 million, just for starters.

[The UK comes a close second.]

And who is responsible for training, keeping in power and supporting the most repressive muslim regimes on earth? The US, and the UK.

So, you need to balance your comments with those salient facts Noah.

[Morag]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 7 2006, 02:35 AM
Noah:


There is much more oppression in Islamic fundamentalism than just gays. It's women, education, sports every aspect of life is Islamised.

US christians are responsible for more deaths, oppression, murder and rape than the most crazed muslim on the planet, now or ever: Vietnam 3 million, just for starters.

[The UK comes a close second.]

And who is responsible for training, keeping in power and supporting the most repressive muslim regimes on earth? The US, and the UK.

So, you need to balance your comments with those salient facts Noah.
I think Noah's argument still stands, actually. Just because someone else is arguably worse doesn't mean we should support Islamic fundamentalists. We can refuse to support both and actually offer people a real option.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 11:04 PM

For me personally, the Oppression of Homosexuals is a small price to pay for the Opposition to the Hegemonic Imperialism of the United States.

There is much more oppression in Islamic fundamentalism than just gays. It's women, education, sports every aspect of life is Islamised.

Oh and the rape and murder of families who aren't Muslim is also a small price to pay?

If the Extremist-Muslims defeat imperialism then they don't change anything. The new newly created Muslim state (probably a dictatorship) simply changes the forms of impression which basically means the majority of people still suffer in one way or another. How will the victory of fundamentalist be liberation for the Iraqi people? They won't be liberated they'll be oppressed in another system.

Capitalism oppresses the Iraqis but so does Islamic-extremism.


I suspect it is, but it is in the interests of the ruling class to get us to hate muslims, so they big this up.

Actually it is happening on a massive basis, under Saddam gays were safe because of strict rules assuming the gays kept quite and not that many people new.

Now if someone is even suspected of being gay they are killed. It's not just happening to gays it's happening to hundreds of people everyday but the media never covers it the only way you would know is if you are communicating to any minorities in Iraq at the moment. Everything considered anti-Islam / Un-Islamic seems to be dealt with in an increasingly inhumane manner.

For example girls who are of Yezidis, Mandaean or Christian beliefs are raped and are forced to convert but more usually killed and mutilated. The same happens to gays you'd be surprised but some of them are raped.

I don't hate all Muslims, that's absurd and I don't want it to sound like that. But being a relative to those dead to Americans and Islamic extremists in Iraq there's no way I can support either of the two because both of them slaughter us.


second for the establishment of a secular state

That would be very good but somehow I highly doubt that would happen at this moment in time thanks to the coalition forces who have exacerbated tensions between shi'ites and sunnis.
Imperialism is the priority.

The Iraqis will over throw the fundamentalists themselves once the foreign devils are out of the way.
Cant do everything at once now.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 03:13 PM
I would like to read what people think about this, especially those who consider themselves left wing and oppose "the occupation". What are the implications for democracy?


Gays flee Iraq as Shia death squads find a new target

Evidence shows increase in number of executions as homosexuals plead for asylum in Britain

Jennifer Copestake
Sunday August 6, 2006
The Observer


Hardline Islamic insurgent groups in Iraq are targeting a new type of victim with the full protection of Iraqi law, The Observer can reveal. The country is seeing a sudden escalation of brutal attacks on what are being called the 'immorals' - homosexual men and children as young as 11 who have been forced into same-sex prostitution.
There is growing evidence that Shia militias have been killing men suspected of being gay and children who have been sold to criminal gangs to be sexually abused. The threat has led to a rapid increase in the numbers of Iraqi homosexuals now seeking asylum in the UK because it has become impossible for them to live safely in their own country.

Ali Hili runs the Iraqi LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) group out of London. He used to have 40 volunteers in Iraq but says after recent raids by militia in Najaf, Karbala and Basra he has lost contact with half of them. They move to different safe houses to protect their identities, but their work is incredibly dangerous.

Eleven-year-old Ameer Hasoon al-Hasani was kidnapped by policemen from the front of his house last month. He was known in his district to have been forced into prostitution. His father Hassan told me he searched for his son for three days after his abduction, then found him, shot in the head. A copy of the death certificate confirms the cause of death.

Homosexuality is seen as so immoral that it qualifies as an 'honour killing' to murder someone who is gay - and the perpetrator can escape punishment. Section 111 of Iraq's penal code lays out protections for murder when people are acting against Islam.

'The government will do nothing to tackle this issue. It's really desperate when people get to the stage they're trading their children for money. They have no alternatives because there are no jobs,' Hili says.

Graphic photos obtained from Baghdad sources too frightened to identify themselves as having known a gay man, and seen by the Observer, show other gay Iraqis who have been executed. One shows two men, suspected of having a relationship, blindfolded with their hands tied behind their backs - guns at the ready behind their heads - awaiting execution. Another picture captured on a mobile phone shows a gay man being beaten to death. Yet another shows a corpse being dragged through the streets after his execution.

One photograph is of the mutilated, burnt body of 38-year-old Karar Oda from Sadr City. He was kidnapped by the Badr Brigade in mid-June. They work with the Ministry of Interior and are the informal armed wing of the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq, who make up the largest Shia bloc in the Iraq parliament. Oda's family were given an arrest warrant signed by the Ministry of Interior which said their son deserved to be arrested and killed for immorality as a homosexual. His body was found ten days later.

Dr Haider Jaber is currently seeking asylum in the UK after fleeing Iraq in 2004. He says the abuse started to escalate in his neighbourhood after the invasion. One night, walking home from work, he was surrounded by five men, who told him he had to become a heterosexual Muslim. He says they abused him for wearing jeans and a T-shirt with English writing, and told him he should adopt traditional robes. As a crowd gathered to watch, he was then beaten and kicked to the ground.

The threats continued. Armed militiamen broke into his family home and then his workplace looking for him. Jaber finally left the country in April. His partner, Ali. was not so lucky. Jaber learned of his Ali's murder a few days after leaving Iraq. 'They didn't send the body to the family to have a grave or a flower garden. They said he didn't deserve it because he was an animal,' he said.

Ibaa Alawi has also fled Iraq. A former employee at the British embassy in Baghdad, Alawi met Tony Blair on one of his surprise visits to Iraq. He said Blair was concerned about the safety of the Iraqis working there and praised their bravery. 'Tony Blair said the British government was thankful for our efforts and knew we were putting our lives at risk working for the British embassy in Baghdad.'

Alawi is upset the same government is not willing to help him out. He believes the Home Office will refuse him asylum because it would have to face up to the level of chaos in Iraq, and how much influence is being waged by radical Islamists - and face the fact that, for some, there is still no freedom in Iraq.

· Jennifer Copestake's film on homosexual executions in Iraq will be shown on More4 News on August 7 at 8pm


link:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story...1838222,00.html (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1838222,00.html)
this is no justification for occupation....


The white western world is not the guadian of the wrest of people.
And everyone who thinks they are needs to get over themselves!

The middle east has civil rights movements. Why dont you support htier movements as if they were PEOPLE with self determination then assume they need imperialists help?!

[Tetsuo]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 6 2006, 11:07 PM
The solution is to argue first for the occupation to end, and second for the establishment of a secular state, where religious beliefs are respected and sexual orientation kept out of the law.
Yeah, because once they hear some western lefty really, really wants them to have a secular state, those radical Islamists will just hop right to it :rolleyes:

It's easy enough for straight people to say that secularism comes second. Not so easy for the gays being targetted by Islamists, is it? Or, for that matter, the trade unionists and communists that Shi'ite Islamists have a history of targetting.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Morag:


I think Noah's argument still stands, actually. Just because someone else is arguably worse doesn't mean we should support Islamic fundamentalists. We can refuse to support both and actually offer people a real option.

I do not disagree, except, since the US/UK are a bigger threat to everybody (gays, straights, etc etc) right now, it is important that their imperial 'adventures' are stopped; so one can support the resistance without supporting their backward ideas.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tetsuo:


Yeah, because once they hear some western lefty really, really wants them to have a secular state, those radical Islamists will just hop right to it

Forgive me for saying this, but with that sort of attitude we would never support any political idea, except those that had a local effect.

The idea is to mobilise opposition at home, as we have in the UK, not just to affect ideas 5000 miles away.


It's easy enough for straight people to say that secularism comes second. Not so easy for the gays being targetted by Islamists, is it? Or, for that matter, the trade unionists and communists that Shi'ite Islamists have a history of targetting.

May I turn your accusation around: do you think those you are criticising for their anti-gay stance are going to listen to you?

One can take both on: a demand for the end of the occupation and a demand for gay rights has, and will continue to, mobilise hundreds of thousands in the UK (and in other countries that don't adopt a narrow-minded 'anti-fundamentalist' attitude).

The Iraqi oppostion notices that, and it allows the anti-war movement to take the argument to UK muslims (who will now listen to us, since we have demonstrated we have principles with which they can agree, but others they can respect).

In the UK, we have built one of the most successful anti-war movements in human history, if not the most successful.

You only have to look at the pictures and links I have posted on other threads to see how we have united muslim and jew, atheist and christian, black and white against this heinous war.

And we have done this, not by starting with where we disagree, but with where we agree.

[Tetsuo]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 7 2006, 09:41 AM
Forgive me for saying this, but with that sort of attitude we would never support any political idea, except those that had a local effect.
I'm just being practical. You can "argue" for whatever you like, you have nothing to offer the Islamists and they have no respect for the western left whatsoever, they will never listen to us.

In any case, the left should be focussing more on local and domestic issues. If for no other reason than because we can actually effect those things.


The idea is to mobilise opposition at home, as we have in the UK, not just to affect ideas 5000 miles away.
I'm not even sure what this sentence is supposed to mean.


May I turn your accusation around: do you think those you are criticising for their anti-gay stance are going to listen to you?
They won't. But I'm not going to be some uncritical cheerleader for a group of people who would quite happily see me dead.


In the UK, we have built one of the most successful anti-war movements in human history, if not the most successful.
You really, truly believe this, don't you?

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the war went right ahead and the occupation continues. In what bizarre little fantasy world is that "success"?

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by bobkindles+--> (bobkindles)In analysing the atrocities committed in the Name of Islamic Sharia Fundamentalist Moralism within the Iraqi resistance movement, I feel that the most sensible course is to apply the principle of Cost Benefit Analysis;[/b]

What is it with you and this 'cost benefit analysis' crap? You shouldn't be supporting people who are murdering queers period, regardless of what they do to 'fight' imperialism/blow-up working class Iraqis'.

How much will you tolerate?

How many queers have to die before you'll change your mind? 100? 1000? 5000? 10 000?

It's a cliche, but the ends do not justify the means - sure you can support resistance to US imperialism but you dont have to frame this in such a cold way, and you certainly should not just dismiss the 'bad', and emphasise the 'good' - cost benefit analysis is for capitalits, 'realists', and other reactionaries who happily sacrifice human beings for their own gain, their own interests.


Originally posted by bobkindles+--> (bobkindles)
For me personally, the Oppression of Homosexuals is a small price to pay for the Opposition to the Hegemonic Imperialism of the United States. [/b]

For you 'personally'? Of course, you're not a 'homosexual' are you? So why should you care?

Have you heard of the concept of critical support? Its useful when talking about movements like the 'iraqi resistance' - which in reality is a diverse mass of rival groups, militias, secularists, islamists etc.

It should never be a question of saying, 'well the iraqi resistance is useful from my POV, too bad about those homosexuals!' - you should be critical of the resistance movement, and denounce those involved in this opppression, not giving them a free-pass because you think they're doing a good job blowing up US soldiers.

Would it be so hard to say that you oppose US forces, hope they are defeated etc., and support those actively fighting against the US and its allies? By saying you just support the iraqi resistance, not only are you supporting these deaths squads, but also those 'resistance fighters' who spend their time blowing up every-day people - that is crap.


[email protected]

The reason for this being that our primary goal as Leftists, must be the overthrow of Capitalism above the causes of Oppressed Minorities.

Spoken like a true white heterosexual male :lol:

Fuck 'oppressed minorities', it's all about what effects me, forget the fact that 'oppressed minorities' are actually the majority of the globes population, i'm assuming you regard 'non-white' people as oppressed minorities yeah?

It is possible to fight capitalism, racism, sexism etc. simultaneously, in fact i think we must fight all of these things, it is not necessary for us to choose one issue over another.


bobkindles

Whilst the Conquest of Iraq in order to achieve acess to resources and markets is a direct result of Capitalism, the persecution of Homosexuals is borne of Islamic Fundamentalism, which, whilst worthy of Opposition, is a lesser evil than that of Imperialist domination.

Way to miss the point spectaculary.

The point is not that we should be making a hierarchy of suffering, but rather that we would oppose all oppression. You can be anti-US imperialism and not support people who murder queers, or iraqi civilains, it's not the case that you have either support ALL of the iraqi resistance movement or none at all.




And, Rosa Lichtenstein - you seem to be trying very hard to play-down this issue, sidetracking it with comparisons with christians in the US etc. - that are irrelevant to this discussion. That the media has a vested interest in promoting this story, or that christians in the US kill queers as well (and im sorry, it's nothing like what happens in the 'middle east' AT ALL) is fine, but by bringing those other issues up you're avoiding talking about the topic at hand, and the topic at hand is not a game of, 'who oppresses queers worst?' - your posts are coming off very close to something of an apologist stance.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 07:59 AM

It's easy enough for straight people to say that secularism comes second. Not so easy for the gays being targetted by Islamists, is it? Or, for that matter, the trade unionists and communists that Shi'ite Islamists have a history of targetting.
i know a homosexual trot who supports hezbollah.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier
i know a homosexual trot who supports hezbollah.


Although they are no doubt a homophobic organisation, has there been any information about hezbollah attacking/murdering queers in Lebanon? Because that it was we're talking about here.

[TC]

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 6 2006, 03:26 PM
Sure they kill gays, but they're anti-imperialist right? Victory to the Shia death squads ! :wacko:

But sensibly, what Is there to say? This is just disgusting.
Don't use a dumb excuse to make this into a sectarian thing, they're not anti-imperialists: the Shia death squads were organized to fight the Sunni Ba'th Resistance.

These death squads are composed of SCIRI and DAWA shia Badr Brigade fighters who faught the secular Iraqi government for decades and are now loyal to the interior ministry of the "new Iraqi govenment", they are essentially the Americans brownshirts in Iraq. They aren't revolutionaries they're the contras!

These people are proxy forces of the Imperialists who are practically giddy that the Americans put their Aytollah's in charge so they can make an Iran-for-America in Iraq.


Anti-imperialists support the Patriotic Iraqi Resistance, the secular, arab socialist and communist forces of the Iraqi Army and Republican Guards, Iraqi Communist Party Cadre, the Fedayeen, the marxist Iraqi Patriotic Alliance, and the other secular anti-imperialist groups that these Shia death squads are designed to target.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+Aug 7 2006, 12:51 PM--> (Black Dagger @ Aug 7 2006, 12:51 PM)
NewKindOfSoldier
i know a homosexual trot who supports hezbollah.


Although they are no doubt a homophobic organisation, has there been any information about hezbollah attacking/murdering queers in Lebanon? Because that it was we're talking about here. [/b]
As far as i know there hasnt been anything like that.

And rest assured that if there were there would've been massive coverage of it.

Anyway, just goes to show that you can support certain aspects of something without embracing the whole.
Ofcourse we dont agree with hezbollah, but we do agree with them fighting against imperialism.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by TragicClown+Aug 7 2006, 01:03 PM--> (TragicClown @ Aug 7 2006, 01:03 PM)
Additives [email protected] 6 2006, 03:26 PM
Sure they kill gays, but they're anti-imperialist right? Victory to the Shia death squads ! :wacko:

But sensibly, what Is there to say? This is just disgusting.
Don't use a dumb excuse to make this into a sectarian thing, they're not anti-imperialists: the Shia death squads were organized to fight the Sunni Ba'th Resistance.

These death squads are composed of SCIRI and DAWA shia Badr Brigade fighters who faught the secular Iraqi government for decades and are now loyal to the interior ministry of the "new Iraqi govenment", they are essentially the Americans brownshirts in Iraq. They aren't revolutionaries they're the contras! [/b]
only partly so.

They did work together with the sunni resistance during the battle of Najaf and the siege of fallujah. Probably also on other occasions but those two are the only ones im sure of.

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 01:08 PM

only partly so.

They did work together with the sunni resistance during the battle of Najaf and the siege of fallujah. Probably also on other occasions but those two are the only ones im sure of.
No they didn't. You are thinking of the Mehdi Army, which is a completely different Shia organization, who follow a different branch of the religion and do not support Ayatollah Sistani's Iranian style version of Shia islam.

The death squads as the article said are from SCIRI, the Badr Brigades, which is the military of the other, pro-American Shia faction, who work through the interior ministry.

They had nothing to do with the defense of Najaf.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tetsuo:


I'm just being practical. You can "argue" for whatever you like, you have nothing to offer the Islamists and they have no respect for the western left whatsoever, they will never listen to us.

Forgive me for saying this, but I do not possess your direct link to the divine mind.

So, how you could possibly know this, is a mystery.

Of course, the aim is to undermine the support they might get from ordinary muslims; that will dry up if they see other alternatives emerging -- which they would/could not do given your attitude.


You really, truly believe this, don't you?

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the war went right ahead and the occupation continues. In what bizarre little fantasy world is that "success"?

Blair is now a dead duck in the UK, all down to our opposition.

The same is true of Bush; the opposition in the UK/US/elsewhere, gave the resistance in Iraq the encouragement they needed to see that, like in Vietnam, oppsotioin in Iraq and in the metropolitan centres could send the occupyimg forces packing.

This has tied the US/UK down in a war they cannot win, preventing the invasion of Syria and Iran (openiong up space for places like Venezuela to go theit own way, since the US has not got the power to fight on so many fronts).

Pretty successful, I'd say.

[TC]

Yah i agree with Rosa Lichtenstein and think that was quite an apt post.


Resistance to imperialism has achieved real geopolitical, materially relevant aims.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Black Dagger:


And, Rosa Lichtenstein - you seem to be trying very hard to play-down this issue, sidetracking it with comparisons with christians in the US etc. - that are irrelevant to this discussion. That the media has a vested interest in promoting this story, or that christians in the US kill queers as well (and im sorry, it's nothing like what happens in the 'middle east' AT ALL) is fine, but by bringing those other issues up you're avoiding talking about the topic at hand, and the topic at hand is not a game of, 'who oppresses queers worst?' - your posts are coming off very close to something of an apologist stance.

Not so; any persecution of gays anywhere is unacceptable, and should be opposed, but you have to see where all this is coming from.

US/UK agression in the area over the last 100 years has given life and oxygen to every backward imam in the M east. Islamic fundamentalism is a reaction to western imperialism.

So, as I said, the main problem is plain for all to see.

---------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Tragic; we see eye to eye on yet another issue! :)

[Enragé]

Originally posted by TragicClown+Aug 7 2006, 01:13 PM--> (TragicClown @ Aug 7 2006, 01:13 PM)
[email protected] 7 2006, 01:08 PM

only partly so.

They did work together with the sunni resistance during the battle of Najaf and the siege of fallujah. Probably also on other occasions but those two are the only ones im sure of.
No they didn't. You are thinking of the Mehdi Army, which is a completely different Shia organization, who follow a different branch of the religion and do not support Ayatollah Sistani's Iranian style version of Shia islam.

The death squads as the article said are from SCIRI, the Badr Brigades, which is the military of the other, pro-American Shia faction, who work through the interior ministry.

They had nothing to do with the defense of Najaf. [/b]
:blush: yea you're right.

i was thinking of al Sadr's men.

and as for the rest, i agree with lichtenstein.

[Tetsuo]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 7 2006, 02:16 PM
Forgive me for saying this, but I do not possess your direct link to the divine mind.

So, how you could possibly know this, is a mystery.
I don't know it for a fact, but it's a fairly reasonable assumption. Since when do radical Shi'ite Islamists living in Iraq care what lefties living in Britain think? What possible reason would they have for listening to us?


Of course, the aim is to undermine the support they might get from ordinary muslims; that will dry up if they see other alternatives emerging -- which they would/could not do given your attitude.
How are you going to undermine the support of the people actually doing the fighting in Iraq? Why should Iraqis listen to you or me?


Blair is now a dead duck in the UK, all down to our opposition.
Nothing to do with massive fuck ups over immigration, crime, housing, education, health and benefits? Or the cash for peerages scandal?

Nobody outside of the lefty milleu and a few of the mainstream papers even cares all that much about Iraq anymore.


The same is true of Bush; the opposition in the UK/US/elsewhere, gave the resistance in Iraq the encouragement they needed to see that, like in Vietnam, oppsotioin in Iraq and in the metropolitan centres could send the occupyimg forces packing.
Oh aye, because if it wasn't for a bunch of lefties doing a few marches that most people in Iraq will know little or nothing about, they'd have just let the forces of imperialism trample all over them :rolleyes:

People resist imperialism in Iraq because they are under attack, not because the SWP encouraged them to do it. Jesus, talk about delusions of grandeur.

[Noah]

US/UK agression in the area over the last 100 years has given life and oxygen to every backward imam in the M east. Islamic fundamentalism is a reaction to western imperialism.

I agree, Islamic fundamentalism can be gotten rid off once the imperialists are out I just don't see that happening.

What I do see happening if the imperialists leave is a Muslim state, probably a dictatorship that will take back Iraqi people and their mindsets 100s of years back into extremism.

All I was trying to say is they are both bollocks and openly supporting the resistance, despite their aims and ideologies will backfire onto the left.

[BobKKKindle$]

It's a cliche, but the ends do not justify the means - sure you can support resistance to US imperialism but you dont have to frame this in such a cold way, and you certainly should not just dismiss the 'bad', and emphasise the 'good' - cost benefit analysis is for capitalits, 'realists', and other reactionaries who happily sacrifice human beings for their own gain, their own interests.

How can you possibly discount Cost benefit Analysis as a Tool of Capitalism? As Marxists, we must apply scientific observation and analysis to the material conditions which Capitalism creates, and must not be tricked by metephysical moralism that has no relevance to the Material Conditions in which we are living. That is one of the key diffrentiations between Marxism and Utopian Socialism. If we are to hold any Morality, then it must be a Morality grounded in Consequentialism and Utilitarianism - We Judge Actions based on their net outcome. To say that we are not trying to fulfil our own interests is absurd, because actions are not moral absolutes, but rather change depending on ones viewpoints and objectives. For a leftist such as myself, the Iraqi Resistance are key in destroying the imperialist hegemony of the US. For you, who holds idealistic moral standards so dear, the murder of a few homosexuals outweighs the struggle against Imperialism.

During a Time of Revolution, do you think we will have the option to choose your morally acceptable means of establishing Working Class powers?

Please note that I am not discounting the costs brought about by the Resistance Movement - But given the Choice to Support, or Oppose, I think that support is by far the more sensible option.

[Black Dagger]

Good work on dodging my entire post there bob! :D


Originally posted by bob+--> (bob)
How can you possibly discount Cost benefit Analysis as a Tool of Capitalism? [/b]

Do you support reformism as well? I mean, reformism brings tangible benefits to people right now?

I dont like 'cost-benefit' analysis because, at least the way you apply it, it comes off more like cold pragmatism, and you clearly don't give a fuck about queers getting murdered in Iraq, and it probably has nothing at all to do with 'cost benefit analysis'.


Originally posted by bob+--> (bob)
As Marxists, we must apply scientific observation and analysis to the material conditions which Capitalism creates, and must not be tricked by metephysical moralism that has no relevance to the Material Conditions in which we are living. That is one of the key diffrentiations between Marxism and Utopian Socialism. If we are to hold any Morality, then it must be a Morality grounded in Consequentialism and Utilitarianism - We Judge Actions based on their net outcome. [/b]

So you can predict the future?

How can you judge actions based on outcomes that you cannot foresee?

You can only guess as to what the outcomes will be, and when you start sacrificing the lives of oppressed people, you're very clearly setting a potentially disatrous precedence.


Originally posted by bob

For a leftist such as myself, the Iraqi Resistance are key in destroying the imperialist hegemony of the US. For you, who holds idealistic moral standards so dear, the murder of a few homosexuals outweighs the struggle against Imperialism.

How many queers have to die before you actually give a fuck? Hmmm?

Would you support white supremacists if they were fighting against imperialism?

And why do you keep mentioning morals?

You are the only person to use the this term,


Originally posted by you
it is surely the moral duty of Britain and AmeriKa to take responsibility for the implications of their actions

You were saying?


[email protected]

During a Time of Revolution, do you think we will have the option to choose your morally acceptable means of establishing Working Class powers?

Shit analogy.

Killing capitalists/counter-revolutionaries is not the same as killing oppressed people/queers.


bob

Please note that I am not discounting the costs brought about by the Resistance Movement - But given the Choice to Support, or Oppose, I think that support is by far the more sensible option.

This is exactly what you're doing!

You support anti-gay death squads yes?

I've already explained that you don't need to support anti-gay death squads, yet you're ignorant enough to support ANYONE who picks up a gun in iraq, regardless of their actions, political, social or religious beliefs.

It is easy to find segments of the resistance to support who are not a part of anti-gay death squads, so why bother supporting these people? Why not support secular groups? Communist groups? Why support death squads at all?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tetsuo:


I don't know it for a fact, but it's a fairly reasonable assumption.

On the contrary, saying something like this will never happen is unreasonable.

At the start of the UK miners' stirike in 1984, you could hardly find a group of workers who were as homophobic, or as sexist; but as a result of the strike and the support they got from their wives and from the gay community, not only did the miners themselves ban their own page 3 girl from The Miner, they invited gays to lead one of their big demonstrations in London.

So, people can and do change.

But, you with your semi-divine wisdom, are planning on them never changing, so you throw your hands in the air, give up, draw reactionary conclusions, and play right into the hands of the main gay/women/children-killers on the planet, the US military. Very clever.

By way of contrast, we in the anti-war movement do not; we got organised and muslims started to change. I lost count of the number of muslims (in traditional clothing, male and female) who were carrying copies of Socialist Worker on that march on Saturday. That would not have happened even four years ago.

They vote for a genuine socialist/united front party (Respect) in their tens of thousands now.

This would not have happend even 3 years ago.

So we can get socialist ideas to muslims; but not if you label them, and treat them all as 'fundamentalist' gay-haters.


How are you going to undermine the support of the people actually doing the fighting in Iraq? Why should Iraqis listen to you or me?

Well, labelling them, and lining up with genuine fascists in the BNP, slagging muslims off, is not a good place to start.

Even doing nothing whatsoever would be better than that!


Nothing to do with massive fuck ups over immigration, crime, housing, education, health and benefits? Or the cash for peerages scandal?

They did not help, but the biggest blow to his popularity was his decision to invade Iraq, and brown-nose Bush.


Oh aye, because if it wasn't for a bunch of lefties doing a few marches that most people in Iraq will know little or nothing about, they'd have just let the forces of imperialism trample all over them

Well, you can sneer and sit on your backside all you like, but the evidence suggests that it was exactly this that dented their support, and exposed their lies. Indeed, it is precisely why they had to lie to us in the first place (because the anti-war movement was so strong), and then they got caught out.

And 2 million on the street in London (30 million world wide) and Feb 15th 2003 is hardly a 'few lefties'.

You try and do better.

Go on big mouth, off you go....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noah:


I agree, Islamic fundamentalism can be gotten rid off once the imperialists are out I just don't see that happening.

What I do see happening if the imperialists leave is a Muslim state, probably a dictatorship that will take back Iraqi people and their mindsets 100s of years back into extremism.

Noah, the fundamentalist states (like S Arabia) were deliberately set up by the west to keep the population down so they could be robbed.

Had that not happend there would be no space for these religious extremists to grow.

Get rid of the imperialists, and watch the class war resume and these regimes topple, as they do elsewhere.

[Janus]

I think this shows that those who support these fundamentalist groups are walking a thin line.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 04:02 AM
I think this shows that those who support these fundamentalist groups are walking a thin line.
by "those who support these fundamentalist groups", do you mean, those who support anti-gay death squads? That is the truth of the matter, and that is how you should present it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Janus:


I think this shows that those who support these fundamentalist groups are walking a thin line

I agree; those who support fuandamentalist dialecticians should be ashamed of themselves.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BD:


by "those who support these fundamentalist groups", do you mean, those who support anti-gay death squads? That is the truth of the matter, and that is how you should present it.

Now, why do you have to put things this way?

If you can show that these death squads are identical with the entire Iraqi resistance movement, then you might just have a point.

But can you?

[Janus]

by "those who support these fundamentalist groups", do you mean, those who support anti-gay death squads? That is the truth of the matter, and that is how you should present it.
:blink:

I'm saying that those who support such fundamentalist and extremist groups even if they say they only support certain aspects of their policies are walking a thin line.

[Janus]

I agree; those who support fuandamentalist dialecticians should be ashamed of themselves.
What does dialectics have to do with a bunch of fundamentalist death squads?

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Rosa+--> (Rosa)Now, why do you have to put things this way?[/b]

Because in the context of the thread, this is what is being discussed.

The thread is not about the general resistance movement, when Janus mentioned people supporting fundamentalists i assumed he was talking about bobklindles and his support of the anti-gay death squads (they are fundamentalists).


Originally posted by [email protected]

If you can show that these death squads are identical with the entire Iraqi resistance movement, then you might just have a point.

But can you?

You've misunderstood my point, i'm not saying that they are identical at all.



Janus
I'm saying that those who support such fundamentalist and extremist groups even if they say they only support certain aspects of their policies are walking a thin line.

That is a very sanitised way of putting it. The 'certain aspects' or 'policies' that you're talking about is not just reactionary ideology, but anti-gay death squads, what is it going to take for the 'line' to be crossed? How many dead queers?

Maybe, when they start executing gay people in the town centres? Would supporting that sort of group be crossing the line?

I can't believe you don't see the absurdity of this discussion.

[Janus]

That is a very sanitised way of putting it. The 'certain aspects' or 'policies' that you're talking about is not just reactionary ideology, but anti-gay death squads, what is it going to take for the 'line' to be crossed? How many dead queers?

Maybe, when they start executing gay people in the town centres? Would supporting that sort of group be crossing the line?

I can't believe you don't see the absurdity of this discussion.
What are you talking about? I support you here.

The "certain parts of their policies" that I'm referring to is their anti-imperialist policies.

Perhaps I should repeat my statement again: People who support fundamentalist groups in their fight against imperialism even if they remain critical are walking a thin line because that support in political dimensions means an inherent support for acts such as this.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Janus:


I'm saying that those who support such fundamentalist and extremist groups even if they say they only support certain aspects of their policies are walking a thin line

According to you, but there are other principled comrades who disagree.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BD:


You've misunderstood my point, i'm not saying that they are identical at all.

If so, then you will have to allow that support for the resistance does not mean support for such fundamentalists, since the two are not identical.

[Janus]

According to you, but there are other principled comrades who disagree.
I'm well aware of that but I'm specifically referring to people who support this Shia group.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ah; but does anyone here do that???

[Janus]

but does anyone here do that???
No one here has done so explicitly but the "unconditional but critical line" gets a little sketchy when you come to groups such as this.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Perhaps that is because we have so little reliable imformation

[Tetsuo]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 7 2006, 05:49 PM
On the contrary, saying something like this will never happen is unreasonable.

At the start of the UK miners' stirike in 1984, you could hardly find a group of workers who were as homophobic, or as sexist; but as a result of the strike and the support they got from their wives and from the gay community, not only did the miners themselves ban their own page 3 girl from The Miner, they invited gays to lead one of their big demonstrations in London.
Not the same scenario. The level of homophobia and misogyny in radical Islam is so great as to be incomparable to mining communities of the 1980s. Furthermore, one of the biggest influences on attitudes was the fact that you had queers and women standing in solidarity with miners, which has a lot to do with why people changed their mind. This can't happen in Iraq, because it's pretty damn difficult to stand in solidarity with somebody who will murder or severely beat you for the most minor of transgressions or even just for being who you are.

To compare it with the scenario during the miners strike, is not only simplistic, but an insult to the miners who went out on strike. And I'd really like to see some evidence for this highly suspicious claim that miners were more homophobic or more sexist on average than any other group of workers in the 1980s.


But, you with your semi-divine wisdom, are planning on them never changing, so you throw your hands in the air, give up, draw reactionary conclusions, and play right into the hands of the main gay/women/children-killers on the planet, the US military. Very clever.
I don't know exactly what will happen in the future, but I'm reasonably sure that if radical Islamists in Iraq do stop being a bunch of homophobic, misogynist, religious bigots in the near future, it won't be as a result of the SWP putting an argument across.

Sure enough to say that it will never happen, anyway.


By way of contrast, we in the anti-war movement do not; we got organised and muslims started to change. I lost count of the number of muslims (in traditional clothing, male and female) who were carrying copies of Socialist Worker on that march on Saturday. That would not have happened even four years ago.
Leaving aside the question of whether carrying a copy of Socialist Worker indicates any agreement with your politics (I've lost count of the number of times I've bought one to make paper sellers shut the fuck up), that's purely anecdotal and furthermore, the situation of Muslims in the UK (where they are working with the SWP) is not the same as the situation of Muslims in Iraq (where they've probably never even heard of you).


They vote for a genuine socialist/united front party (Respect) in their tens of thousands now.
Respect is not socialist, it is a cross-class electoral alliance between the SWP, communitarian Muslims and a few other bits and bobs.


So we can get socialist ideas to muslims; but not if you label them, and treat them all as 'fundamentalist' gay-haters.
I never said anything of the kind, and unless you can show me a post where I've said anything even approaching what you've accused me of, I'd appreciate an apology.

Most Muslims living in the UK are sound. A growing minority are fundamentalists, you can't just ignore that.


Well, labelling them, and lining up with genuine fascists in the BNP, slagging muslims off, is not a good place to start.
Again, this is uncalled for and insulting. The fact that I am highly critical both of Islam and radical Islamists does not mean that I am "lining up with genuine fascists" or "slagging muslims off" as a group. And the fact that you are unable to distinguish the two says a lot about why the BNP has more support amongst working class people than the SWP or Respect ever will.


They did not help, but the biggest blow to his popularity was his decision to invade Iraq, and brown-nose Bush.
What do you base this upon? Do you not think that things which actually effect people in this country directly are more likely to effect Blair's popularity than the war in Iraq?

Jesus, when did the SWP start recruiting idealists?


Well, you can sneer and sit on your backside all you like, but the evidence suggests that it was exactly this that dented their support, and exposed their lies. Indeed, it is precisely why they had to lie to us in the first place (because the anti-war movement was so strong), and then they got caught out.
What "evidence" is this?


And 2 million on the street in London (30 million world wide) and Feb 15th 2003 is hardly a 'few lefties'.
One million, max, one million or even two million people harldy comprises a mass movement.

And that was at the absolute peak of the anti-war movement's popularity, three years ago, try holding a march against the Iraq war now and see how many show up.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tetsuo:


The level of homophobia and misogyny in radical Islam is so great as to be incomparable to mining communities of the 1980s.

The point was, that people change.

You apparently look at the world and see things superglued as they are, then give up:


I don't know exactly what will happen in the future, but I'm reasonably sure that if radical Islamists in Iraq do stop being a bunch of homophobic, misogynist, religious bigots in the near future, it won't be as a result of the SWP putting an argument across.

Nothing would ever change with that attitude.


This can't happen in Iraq, because it's pretty damn difficult to stand in solidarity with somebody who will murder or severely beat you for the most minor of transgressions or even just for being who you are.

Well, the opposite is the case if Outrage is anything to go by.

And more negativity:


Leaving aside the question of whether carrying a copy of Socialist Worker indicates any agreement with your politics (I've lost count of the number of times I've bought one to make paper sellers shut the fuck up), that's purely anecdotal and furthermore, the situation of Muslims in the UK (where they are working with the SWP) is not the same as the situation of Muslims in Iraq (where they've probably never even heard of you).

The point was, once again, that people change. You might find that hard to believe, but that is your problem. I certainly do not plan to tailor my politics to your pessimistic view of human potential.


Respect is not socialist, it is a cross-class electoral alliance between the SWP, communitarian Muslims and a few other bits and bobs.

So you say.


BNP has more support amongst working class people than the SWP or Respect ever will.

Once again, they can be broken from this.


Jesus, when did the SWP start recruiting idealists?

Prayers I do not think are going to help you.

And still more negativity:


One million, max, one million or even two million people harldy comprises a mass movement.

Had it been 3 million, I suspect you'd have said the same.

If you can do better Mr 'I Give up', do so.

[Tetsuo]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 8 2006, 04:05 PM
The point was, that people change.

You apparently look at the world and see things superglued as they are, then give up:


I don't know exactly what will happen in the future, but I'm reasonably sure that if radical Islamists in Iraq do stop being a bunch of homophobic, misogynist, religious bigots in the near future, it won't be as a result of the SWP putting an argument across.

Nothing would ever change with that attitude.
Well, when you and the couple of hundred or so other activists who make up the core of the SWP manage to completely change ideologically committed, radical Islamists' minds about queers and women, without actually criticising them on anything, ever, let me know.


Well, the opposite is the case if Outrage is anything to go by.
You're going to have to be a little clearer than that.


And more negativity:


Leaving aside the question of whether carrying a copy of Socialist Worker indicates any agreement with your politics (I've lost count of the number of times I've bought one to make paper sellers shut the fuck up), that's purely anecdotal and furthermore, the situation of Muslims in the UK (where they are working with the SWP) is not the same as the situation of Muslims in Iraq (where they've probably never even heard of you).

The point was, once again, that people change. You might find that hard to believe, but that is your problem. I certainly do not plan to tailor my politics to your pessimistic view of human potential.
You say negativity, I say materialism :)



Respect is not socialist, it is a cross-class electoral alliance between the SWP, communitarian Muslims and a few other bits and bobs.

So you say.
Indeed I do. Care to demonstrate otherwise?


Once again, they can be broken from this.
The BNP is a racist organisation, with a leadership largely made up of ideologically committed fascists. Yet working class people do vote for them. Why do you think this is?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tetsuo:


Well, when you and the couple of hundred or so other activists who make up the core of the SWP manage to completely change ideologically committed, radical Islamists' minds about queers and women, without actually criticising them on anything, ever, let me know.

Where did I say that this was an aim of mine, or of the SWP's?


You're going to have to be a little clearer than that.

I could say the same of you; in fact I will.


You say negativity, I say materialism

In which case, I suggest you buy a dictionary.


Indeed I do. Care to demonstrate otherwise?

Easy:

http://www.respectcoalition.org/index.php?sec=39


The BNP is a racist organisation, with a leadership largely made up of ideologically committed fascists. Yet working class people do vote for them. Why do you think this is?

You are not much of a 'materialist' if you have to ask me for such advice.

[Tetsuo]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 8 2006, 09:31 PM
Where did I say that this was an aim of mine, or of the SWP's?
Given that you appear to consider it quite acceptable to label anybody criticising Islam as a possible fascist sympathiser, it's a reasonable inference from your posts.


I could say the same of you; in fact I will.
What would you like me to be clearer about, exactly?


In which case, I suggest you buy a dictionary.
For a start, if you're going to the dictionary for your definition of materialism, you're in a bit of a tough spot from the start, in terms of political theory. Secondly, my analysis is a materialist one, the reason that I am so pessimistic about the ability of the left to organise anything more complex than a wine tasting in an Odd Bins, is because the left has abandonned materialism in all but name for idealistic, liberal moralising.


Easy:

http://www.respectcoalition.org/index.php?sec=39
I see a bit of social democracy here and there and a lot of liberalism. Which of Respect's policies are "socialist" exactly?


You are not much of a 'materialist' if you have to ask me for such advice.
Haven't you ever heard of a rhetorical question?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tetsuo:


For a start, if you're going to the dictionary for your definition of materialism, you're in a bit of a tough spot from the start, in terms of political theory.

Forget my recommendation that you get a dictionary, it won't do you any good. In fact, you need reading lessons.


What would you like me to be clearer about, exactly?

You require me to support everything I assert with proof; so how about the tables being turned around, and you back a few things up?


Given that you appear to consider it quite acceptable to label anybody criticising Islam as a possible fascist sympathiser, it's a reasonable inference from your posts.

You clearly like making stuff up. You should get a job writing dossiers for Blair.


Which of Respect's policies are "socialist" exactly?

You are the one having problems with simple words like 'inference', so I suppose it was too much of me to expect you to cope with a few political ideas.


Secondly, my analysis is a materialist one, the reason that I am so pessimistic about the ability of the left to organise anything more complex than a wine tasting in an Odd Bins, is because the left has abandonned materialism in all but name for idealistic, liberal moralising.

In that case, I expect you will be organising a march in London, or better, Washington DC, of 5+ million; or even better still, a general strike?

Don't waste time arguing with us idealists: you 'materialists' have much better things to do.


Haven't you ever heard of a rhetorical question?

Who said that?

--------------------------------------------

Oh, you wondered what evidence there was that supported my assertion that the war in Iraq had damaged Blair's popularity; here it is (just a small sample....):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,897852,00.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FF15Aa03.html

http://www.hindu.com/2003/09/30/stories/2003093001721000.htm

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/wire/2004/...ions/index.html (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/wire/2004/06/11/blair_elections/index.html)

http://www.why-war.com/news/2003/02/18/blairspo.html

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001684.php

http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1008-03.htm

http://www.inquisitoronline.com/editorial/0306richard03.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-01-24-blair-us_x.htm

http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2003...poll030727.html (http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2003/06/27/blair_poll030727.html)

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 7 2006, 04:49 PM

I don't know it for a fact, but it's a fairly reasonable assumption.

On the contrary, saying something like this will never happen is unreasonable.

At the start of the UK miners' stirike in 1984, you could hardly find a group of workers who were as homophobic, or as sexist; but as a result of the strike and the support they got from their wives and from the gay community, not only did the miners themselves ban their own page 3 girl from The Miner, they invited gays to lead one of their big demonstrations in London.

Is there anything online about this?

Personally, I've noticed that most former Miners I've talked too have been further to the left than the working class in general....and I suspect that has a lot to do with the Miners Strike itself.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AS, I will try to find out.

There was much on the left about this in 1985/6, though.

I came across this:

http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/secB1.html

http://www.fifthinternational.org/LFIfiles/minerswives.html


Salt of the Earth. Account of New Mexican miners strike. Made at the height of the Cold War by blacklisted movie makers and mining families. Excellent analysis of how workers overcome racism and sexism. Heavily suppressed at the time, it is now one of the films that the Library of Congress is committed to preserving.

Even though the above has nothing to do with the UK miners, this was from here:

http://www.as.ysu.edu/~cwcs/LaborHistory.htm

I found this (which says it all, I think!!):


pcanning30-05-2002, 11:06 AM
I have very vivid memories of the strike. was involved in the group lesbians + gays support the miners. it was started by leftie gays in london and we drew in lots of all sorts of people. we'd shake collection tins in the line to get into the Heaven nighclub, the door***** made everyone donate before they got in (wonder if mr branson knew?), bronski beat did a big concert - we raised over £30k if I recall correctly) and we twinned with the Dulais valley in sth wales. that was the best bit. going there en masse to donate the van with the big pink triangle on the side! the locals were very kind but obviously a bit bemused. later we learnt that some locals had objected but had been shut up. after the strike the miners came on the gay pride march with the lodge banner - another highlight. and I recall a number of them and miner's wives later coming out.

because of the group the labour party conference the next year passed the first comprehensive pro-gay resolution. this was because the unions came across en masse, and it was the support of the miners which did the trick. it was a seachange from the previous macho negativity about gays. I think this was extremely significant in getting the labour movement on side for gays. chris smith et al made quicker progress because of us.

Here:

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:tKbAe...uk&ct=clnk&cd=3 (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:tKbAefJAM-0J:www.urban75.net/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-10059.html+%22Miners+strike%22+%2B+%22sexism%22&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=3)

There's loads more of this sort of stuff on that page.

More discussion here:

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:qDuww...uk&ct=clnk&cd=4 (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:qDuww179dRUJ:www.libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php%3Ft%3D1196%26start%3D30%26sid%3D2b00 709fa7f51876a0073b9cee33291f+%22Miners+strike%22+% 2B+%22sexism%22&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=4)

I also found this:


Lesbians and Gays Support the Palestinians - F*ck 'Outrage'
23.05.2005 16:22

In the Great 1984-85 miners strike we set up 'Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners'.
This was primarily to provide solidarity to one group of people under attack from another.

We did NOT make this conditional. We did not say on our banners 'Thatcher - Stop oppressing miners - miners stop oppressing gays'. There were no if's, no but's.

We were conscious, however, of the macho, sexist and homophobic traditions amongst mining communities - traditions that would hold them back in their own struggle. Nevertheless, our acts of solidarity helped transform the consciousness of many miners - and NUM branches lead that years Lesbian and Gay Pride march. This was part of a general winning over of the Trades Union and workers movements to make a stand against racism, sexism and homophobia - the oppressions that divide us all.

We need to do the same with the struggle over the middle east. We should have 'Lesbians and Gays Against the War', Lesbians and Gays Support the Palestinians'. Plain and simple. No if's, no buts. The Palestinian and Iraqi people who are resisting imperialism, war and occupation deserve and need our support. And as an oppressed community ourselves, as Lesbians and Gays we should provide that unconditionally.

We should make it clear that we wish to strengthen the struggle of the oppressed Palestinian and Iraqi peoples against imperialism, and that our secular and emancipatory Queer Revolutionary politics have this aim. We should try and avoid any stance which makes it appear that Lesbians and Gays wish to line up with the western imperialist and Zionist oppressors. We must dispel any illusion that we think imperialism and zionism are somehow 'more progressive' on questions of sexual liberation. Unfortunately 'Outrage' have consistently shown their lack of sensitivity and the necessary tactical sophistication on questions of racism and imperialism. They are in danger of providing imperialism with yet another weapon with which to beat the worlds black and brown people into submission.

We must understand that for the majority of people from the global south and its diasporas, homophobia can only be destroyed along with the racism, imperialism, zionism and capitalism that it is so deeply intertwined with.


Barry Kade

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/05/311...ml?c=on#c116292 (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/05/311646.html?c=on#c116292)

The discussion there is very relevant to the discussion here.

Articles here:

http://www.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/pubs/sr-js.htm


http://www.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/pubs/sr-js.htm

http://www.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/pubs/sr-js.htm

AS: hope that helps!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 9 2006, 12:54 AM
AS: hope that helps!!

You are a Gentleman and a Scholar....

Cheers. :)

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I think we can safely assume Respect are socialist. I found this by looking on their webpage, at the top of which is a banner displaying Respect's values, the first three of which are Respect, Equality, Socialism. :o

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AS:


You are a Gentleman and a Scholar....

I haven't had the operation yet; it's booked for next spring....

[Tetsuo]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 9 2006, 01:09 AM
Forget my recommendation that you get a dictionary, it won't do you any good. In fact, you need reading lessons.
*yawn*

If you're going to resort to personal insults as a substitute for debate, I'm not going to bother.


You require me to support everything I assert with proof; so how about the tables being turned around, and you back a few things up?
What would you like me to back up? You're not being very specific.


You clearly like making stuff up. You should get a job writing dossiers for Blair.
Who accused who of "lining up with the BNP" again? I consider that to be both an insult and a very, very serious accusation. I hope you intend to back it up or apologise at some point in the future.


You are the one having problems with simple words like 'inference', so I suppose it was too much of me to expect you to cope with a few political ideas.
You haven't actually responded to my point, just given me more pointless personal abuse. I'm beginning to suspect it's because you know what I'm saying is true. The vast majority of working class people couldn't give a fuck for your party or the campaigns it engages in, and for good reason.


In that case, I expect you will be organising a march in London, or better, Washington DC, of 5+ million; or even better still, a general strike?
I'm not going to delude myself into thinking marches are going to change anything. And you can't "organise" a general strike.

We live in a time of low struggle, live with it.


Oh, you wondered what evidence there was that supported my assertion that the war in Iraq had damaged Blair's popularity; here it is (just a small sample....):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,897852,00.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FF15Aa03.html

http://www.hindu.com/2003/09/30/stories/2003093001721000.htm

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/wire/2004/...ions/index.html (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/wire/2004/06/11/blair_elections/index.html)

http://www.why-war.com/news/2003/02/18/blairspo.html

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001684.php

http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1008-03.htm

http://www.inquisitoronline.com/editorial/0306richard03.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-01-24-blair-us_x.htm

http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2003...poll030727.html (http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2003/06/27/blair_poll030727.html)
All except the last two are from at least two years ago, and the last link doesn't even work.

The second to last one is recent and does work, but the statistics only show that: Blair is unpopular with most of the UK populace
Blair is popular with most of the US populace
USA today thinks that this might be to do with the Iraq war

The papers care about the Iraq war, if you believe them, then of course you're going to assume that most people care deeply about it as well. The world of the national press is completely alienated from the everyday experience of the vast majority of people, which is why most people don't even buy a national newspaper anymore.

[Tetsuo]

And on a sidenote, it's hardly the fault of Outrage if that "Barry Kade" halfwit can't distinguish between solidarity and uncritical, one-sided support.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tetsuo:


yawn

Well done! You looked one word up.

I am impressed.


If you're going to resort to personal insults as a substitute for debate, I'm not going to bother.

I give as good as I get.


What would you like me to back up? You're not being very specific.

The names, units and biographies of all those involved in allegedly killing gays in Iraq will do for starters; otherwise withdraw the slur.


Who accused who of "lining up with the BNP" again?

Your memory seems to be about as good as your politics.


You haven't actually responded to my point, just given me more pointless personal abuse. I'm beginning to suspect it's because you know what I'm saying is true. The vast majority of working class people couldn't give a fuck for your party or the campaigns it engages in, and for good reason.

You can think what you like; you plainly do.

More from Mr 'Do Nothing':


I'm not going to delude myself into thinking marches are going to change anything. And you can't "organise" a general strike.

We live in a time of low struggle, live with it.

You mean: 'we live in a time of low struggle; let's do zippo about it.'

Fine; do even less then: post nothing on this site ever again.

We won't miss it I suspect.

So, when do you want data from?

200 years ago, 5 seconds ago?

You'll moan even if 'god' e-mailed you with the figures, ones you have decided, a priori, you do not like, since they do not match your pessimistic, let's slash our wrists, approach to the class struggle.

And the last link does work, I just checked it (content below).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Blair's party drops behind Britain's Tories

Last Updated Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:22:29 EDT

CBC News

LONDON - Domestic problems and dissent over the war in Iraq have pushed British Prime Minister Tony Blair's ruling Labour party into second place, according to a new online public opinion poll.

Britain's Opposition Conservatives have edged into the lead with 37 per cent of public support, the YouGov survey found. It suggests Blair's Labour party is at 35 per cent, and the Liberal Democrats are at 21 per cent.

'There's an increasing sense that the government isn't telling the truth' – pollster
It's only the second time in about a decade that the Tories have moved into first place in a public opinion poll. Blair's Labour government has won two landslide victories – the most recent in 2001.

"People feel that the government is not delivering on its promises," says Peter Kellner, the head of YouGov.

"There's an increasing sense that the government isn't telling the truth about all sorts of things, from the state of the public services to the reasons for the war against Iraq recently."

Governments in Britain often lose support midway through a term as voters become disenchanted, according to pollsters.

In recent months, complaints have surfaced about everything from school funding to what critics called a botched cabinet shuffle. But the biggest concern appears to be the government's decision to send troops to Iraq.

A parliamentary committee is investigating allegations that Blair and key cabinet members exaggerated the case for a military strike against Saddam Hussein. They're accused of doctoring intelligence reports on the state of Iraq's weapons.

The accusations have hurt Blair's popularity. According to the latest poll, 63 per cent of people surveyed don't trust the prime minister or his government.

But his personal approval rating remains ahead of Tory Leader Iain Duncan Smith, who, in the words of Kellner, "is simply not perceived by most people as a credible alternative."

The YouGov poll, published in the Daily Telegraph on Friday, was based on interviews over the Internet with 2,288 people between June 24 and June 26.

Emphasis added to help a struggling comrade come to terms with reality.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2003...poll030727.html (http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2003/06/27/blair_poll030727.html)

[Tetsuo]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 9 2006, 01:51 PM
The names, units and biographies of all those involved in allegedly killing gays in Iraq will do for starters; otherwise withdraw the slur.
Are you alleging that the Observer is just making things up? Why might they do that?



Who accused who of "lining up with the BNP" again?

Your memory seems to be about as good as your politics.
What I said:

How are you going to undermine the support of the people actually doing the fighting in Iraq? Why should Iraqis listen to you or me?
Your response:

Well, labelling them, and lining up with genuine fascists in the BNP, slagging muslims off, is not a good place to start.

Even doing nothing whatsoever would be better than that!
The implication that I am "lining up with fascists" and "slagging muslims off" in general (as opposed to a minority of fundamentalists) is pretty bloody obvious and I don't like it one bit.


You mean: 'we live in a time of low struggle; let's do zippo about it.'
What can we do? Other than continue conducting our struggles in the places where struggle happens? You know, the workplace, the community, you trots haven't completely forgotten about that, have you?


So, when do you want data from?

200 years ago, 5 seconds ago?
Don't be bloody childish. Something recent, to show that you're not referring to a small number of surveys that no longer have any relevance, is hardly an unreasonable request. A week is a long time in politics, as they say, never mind three fucking years.


And the last link does work, I just checked it (content below).
Didn't work before.

"People feel that the government is not delivering on its promises," says Peter Kellner, the head of YouGov.

"There's an increasing sense that the government isn't telling the truth about all sorts of things, from the state of the public services to the reasons for the war against Iraq recently."
All I see is you overemphasising the importance of the war in Iraq again.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tetsuo:


Are you alleging that the Observer is just making things up? Why might they do that?

I am alleging nothing about the Observer, merely asking you to do what you asked of me, earlier:


What would you like me to back up? You're not being very specific.

Of course, if you can't do that, just say so.

But wait -- see, you can find answers to your own questions if you look hard enough:


The implication that I am "lining up with fascists" and "slagging muslims off" in general (as opposed to a minority of fundamentalists) is pretty bloody obvious and I don't like it one bit.

Progress at last, and all because of little old Rosa.




[b]What can we do? Other than continue conducting our struggles in the places where struggle happens? You know, the workplace, the community, you trots haven't completely forgotten about that, have you?

Seeing as I am a trade union rep, harldy.

But I do not limit the class struggle to its 'pure' forms, ones that conform to an a priori idea that includes the belief people never change -- unlike you.


Don't be bloody childish. Something recent, to show that you're not referring to a small number of surveys that no longer have any relevance, is hardly an unreasonable request. A week is a long time in politics, as they say, never mind three fucking years.

You wanted evidence to support my claim that Blair's popularity took a body blow as a result of the Iraq war, a war that began 3 years ago.

Result: I provide it, you moan.

Who is being childish then, sonny?


All I see is you overemphasising the importance of the war in Iraq again.

And all I see is you ignoring the fact that I conceded there were other reasons for his decline in popularity.

Your earlier yawn suggests you do not pay attention.


Didn't work before.

It seems to me that you are in such a haste to rubbish anything that does not fit in with your 'do nothing' mentality, you probably waited only a few seconds and gave up.

This seems to be a character trait of yours; things do not work immediately and you throw your toys out of the pram -- sonny.

[Tetsuo]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 10 2006, 01:47 PM
I am alleging nothing about the Observer, merely asking you to do what you asked of me, earlier:
There's a source for this happening in the OP. Unless you happen to think that the Observer is making things up, what's the problem?

And my point about specificity was that you never said what it was that you wanted me to be "clearer" about.


But wait -- see, you can find answers to your own questions if you look hard enough:
It's up to you to back up your claims. Not me.


Progress at last, and all because of little old Rosa.
I take it you're not going to apologise for your serious and totally unnecessary slur then?


But I do not limit the class struggle to its 'pure' forms, ones that conform to an a priori idea that includes the belief people never change -- unlike you.
Where did I say that people can't change? I just don't think that they change because some noble vanguard has descended down from on high to enlighten them.


You wanted evidence to support my claim that Blair's popularity took a body blow as a result of the Iraq war, a war that began 3 years ago.

Result: I provide it, you moan.

Who is being childish then, sonny?
Actually, I asked for evidence that the war in Iraq had a long term effect on Blair's popularity. Hence why I said that nobody cares anymore.


And all I see is you ignoring the fact that I conceded there were other reasons for his decline in popularity.
The point is that you are acting as if the Iraq war is a major component in that decline. Until I see evidence otherwise, I think it's fairly sensible to assume that people tend to get most pissed off with politicians when there is an immediate effect to their actions.


It seems to me that you are in such a haste to rubbish anything that does not fit in with your 'do nothing' mentality, you probably waited only a few seconds and gave up.

This seems to be a character trait of yours; things do not work immediately and you throw your toys out of the pram -- sonny.
As it happens, I got a "page not found" message. Not that it actually matters to you what I say or do, only that I have this crazy idea that it's both morally and tactically wrong to publically condone fundamentalist death squads who kill people for being gay. And as for "working immediately" your lot have been doing the same thing for the last three years to no avail. Has it occurred to you that it might be because marches divorced from struggle are meaningless?

On a sidenote, for somebody who accuses me of being predjudiced against Muslims, you're awful quick to essentialise all Iraqi Muslims fighting against the occupation as one homogeneous "resistance".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tetsuo, I made a weak joke earlier about you not being able to read, but I did not expect immediate coinfirmation:


There's a source for this happening in the OP. Unless you happen to think that the Observer is making things up, what's the problem?

And my point about specificity was that you never said what it was that you wanted me to be "clearer" about.

I suggest you go back and re-read (with a little more care this time) what I posted on this.


It's up to you to back up your claims. Not me.

I am sorry, Oh Great One!

I did not know the rules were different for thee, I will immediately remove my shoes in your hallowed presence.


I take it you're not going to apologise for your serious and totally unnecessary slur then?

You are right I should apologise.

So: I am sorry -- for not putting it in bold type.

There. Happy?


I just don't think that they change because some noble vanguard has descended down from on high to enlighten them.

At last we agree on something.


Actually, I asked for evidence that the war in Iraq had a long term effect on Blair's popularity. Hence why I said that nobody cares anymore.

So, I give you evidence; you appeal to what you think.

In my benighted state, not perceivig your divine status, I merely took this to be an opinion, not an eternal verity none may question, for which no evidence is needed.


The point is that you are acting as if the Iraq war is a major component in that decline. Until I see evidence otherwise, I think it's fairly sensible to assume that people tend to get most pissed off with politicians when there is an immediate effect to their actions.

More assumptions from the deity; howsoever hard I try, I just cannot bring myself to question these pronouncements from one so great. My evidence, set against this, is mere dross.

Penetrating analysis now follows:


As it happens, I got a "page not found" message. Not that it actually matters to you what I say or do, only that I have this crazy idea that it's both morally and tactically wrong to publically condone fundamentalist death squads who kill people for being gay. And as for "working immediately" your lot have been doing the same thing for the last three years to no avail. Has it occurred to you that it might be because marches divorced from struggle are meaningless?

On a sidenote, for somebody who accuses me of being predjudiced against Muslims, you're awful quick to essentialise all Iraqi Muslims fighting against the occupation as one homogeneous "resistance".

Er..., not exactly, just more excuses for doing nothing.

As I noted earlier, if this is such a good tactic, doing even less will work even better.

So: don't post anymore 'missives' here; posting divorced from struggle, is, after all, 'meaningless'.

How do I know?

The word has just come down from off the mountain.

That's how.

[Tetsuo]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 10 2006, 03:49 PM
I suggest you go back and re-read (with a little more care this time) what I posted on this.
You asked for "the names, units and biographies of all those involved in allegedly killing gays in Iraq." How is this comparable to anything I have asked for from you?


I am sorry, Oh Great One!

I did not know the rules were different for thee, I will immediately remove my shoes in your hallowed presence.
All I'm saying is that if you make a claim, it is your responsibility to provide evidence for it, not mine. Similarly, if I make a claim, it is my responsibility to provide evidence for it.

No double standards, just standard trot hysteria on your part.


You are right I should apologise.

So: I am sorry -- for not putting it in bold type.

There. Happy?
For somebody who deigns to call me "sonny" you're awfully childish.

In any case, I don't appreciate being accused of being a fascist sympathiser, you wanky little Trotskyite troll


So, I give you evidence; you appeal to what you think.
You didn't provide evidence of anything of the kind. You showed that there was a short term dent to his popularity which may have had some connection to the Iraq war.

Which considering your initial, rather grandiose claims about the "achievements" of the so-called anti-war movement is pretty weak, dontcha think?

Blair is now a dead duck in the UK, all down to our opposition
:lol: :lol: :lol:


In my benighted state, not perceivig your divine status, I merely took this to be an opinion, not an eternal verity none may question, for which no evidence is needed.
It is an opinion, but it's one based on a long, long history of people caring more about their immediate environment than distant wars that have no direct effect on them.


Er..., not exactly, just more excuses for doing nothing.
I don't do nothing, I just don't regard marching as a form of political action in and of itself.


So: don't post anymore 'missives' here; posting divorced from struggle, is, after all, 'meaningless'.
It might be meaningless, but I enjoy it.

And at least I don't pretend to myself that my hobbies are singlehandedly bringing down the Blair government.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tetsuo:


You asked for "the names, units and biographies of all those involved in allegedly killing gays in Iraq." How is this comparable to anything I have asked for from you?

It's not, but you, being a deity, should find it no hassle.


All I'm saying is that if you make a claim, it is your responsibility to provide evidence for it, not mine. Similarly, if I make a claim, it is my responsibility to provide evidence for it.

I have done so, but you just moan and post excuses if asked to back up anything you say.

And you are no good at abuse either:


For somebody who deigns to call me "sonny" you're awfully childish.

In any case, I don't appreciate being accused of being a fascist sympathiser, you wanky little Trotskyite troll

4/10,

Now come on! You can do better than that, surely?


You didn't provide evidence of anything of the kind. You showed that there was a short term dent to his popularity which may have had some connection to the Iraq war.

Even if this were correct, it is far more than you have produced; you just think something is so, and we are all supposed to accept it.


It is an opinion, but it's one based on a long, long history of people caring more about their immediate environment than distant wars that have no direct effect on them.

Well, that settles things.


I don't do nothing, I just don't regard marching as a form of political action in and of itself.

Ture, you just post negative comments on discussion boards.

That, I must say, will have the ruling class quaking in its boots.

Nice one.


It might be meaningless, but I enjoy it.

And at least I don't pretend to myself that my hobbies are singlehandedly bringing down the Blair government.

We can end on another point of agreement then.

[Tetsuo]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 10 2006, 04:38 PM
Even if this were correct, it is far more than you have produced; you just think something is so, and we are all supposed to accept it.
Again, why do you think that the BNP (who campaign on local issues and work to form a base of working class support within communities) are growing, while the SWP (who campaign mostly on national and international issues and work to form a base of student support within campuses) languish in the deepest pits of the activist ghetto?

The clue is in the question, by the way :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tetsuo:


Again, why do you think that the BNP (who campaign on local issues and work to form a base of working class support within communities) are growing, while the SWP (who campaign mostly on national and international issues and work to form a base of student support within campuses) languish in the deepest pits of the activist ghetto?

Apart from the fact that the capitalist press (The Sun, The Express, The Mail, The News of the World, etc etc) and the media (long interviews with Griffin, etc., none with Respect candidates), scapegoats immigrants and muslims, presenting the BNP with a propaganda gift they could not have designed themselves, their unremitting hostilility to socialism has not helped.

The BNP have been around for decades; Respect has been around for less than 3 years. Given those facts, we did rather well.

[There are other structural reasons why fascist parties can appeal to sections of the working class (check out 'Never Again', by Colin Sparks), but as happened in the 1970's and 1980's the ANL will counter this effectively.]

So, you can keep your head in the sand, and continue to do nothing.

We won't be copying you.

[Tetsuo]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 10 2006, 08:53 PM
Apart from the fact that the capitalist press (The Sun, The Express, The Mail, The News of the World, etc etc) and the media (long interviews with Griffin, etc., none with Respect candidates), scapegoats immigrants and muslims, presenting the BNP with a propaganda gift they could not have designed themselves, their unremitting hostilility to socialism has not helped.
Yep all the media's fault, fooling the poor stupid proles into voting for the bad, bad BNP.

Thankfully, most people are blessed with considerably more capacity for critical thinking than the average SWP recruit.


The BNP have been around for decades; Respect has been around for less than 3 years. Given those facts, we did rather well.
The BNP was a tiny, insignificant party in electoral politics until recent years, when they abandonned street tactics and started trying to cultivate this new "respectable" image. They haven't been around much longer than Respect in their current form, which is the one which has seen them grow massively.


There are other structural reasons why fascist parties can appeal to sections of the working class (check out 'Never Again', by Colin Sparks), but as happened in the 1970's and 1980's the ANL will counter this effectively.
Perhaps you could provide a precis of the argument, or do you let party fulltimers do all your thinking for you?


So, you can keep your head in the sand
Considering that the SWP gives every impression of describing absolutely everything they are involved in as brilliant, historic, massive, a great opportunity, etc., etc., I think that you are the last one who should be accusing anybody of keeping their head in the sand.


and continue to do nothing.
I find it interesting that you assume I do nothing because I don't involve myself with your anti-war hobby. Bloody obsessed, you lot.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tetsuo:


Yep all the media's fault, fooling the poor stupid proles into voting for the bad, bad BNP.

And where did I say that?


Thankfully, most people are blessed with considerably more capacity for critical thinking than the average SWP recruit.

Your evidence for this?

I hope you have surveyed 'most' people to find this out. I'd be interested to see the data.

[Surely, one so careful as you are would not assert stuff without the evidence to back it up? Oh, I forgot, you do not need to prove anything, since the rest of humanity should recognise you for the deity you are, and just take your word.]


The BNP was a tiny, insignificant party in electoral politics until recent years, when they abandonned street tactics and started trying to cultivate this new "respectable" image. They haven't been around much longer than Respect in their current form, which is the one which has seen them grow massively.

I seem to recall they got in in the Isle of Dogs a few years back (Derek Beackon in 1993), and they did rather well in Blackburn and Burnley in 2002.

Oh dear, more awkward facts that don't fit your a priori schema.


Perhaps you could provide a precis of the argument, or do you let party fulltimers do all your thinking for you?

No need to, as a deity, you will already know all this.


Considering that the SWP gives every impression of describing absolutely everything they are involved in as brilliant, historic, massive, a great opportunity, etc., etc., I think that you are the last one who should be accusing anybody of keeping their head in the sand.

Evidence?

Sorry, you do not do evidence; just assertion.


I find it interesting that you assume I do nothing because I don't involve myself with your anti-war hobby. Bloody obsessed, you lot.

My apoloigies, you do do something: you moan.

And you should, in my opinion, moan for your country.

You are a natural.

[Tetsuo]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 10 2006, 10:13 PM
And where did I say that?
People's concerns about immigration come form a lack of social housing, rising unemployment and increasingly crap public services. To attribute people's genuine conerns about these issues to "media hysteria" is tatamount to saying exactly that.



The BNP was a tiny, insignificant party in electoral politics until recent years, when they abandonned street tactics and started trying to cultivate this new "respectable" image. They haven't been around much longer than Respect in their current form, which is the one which has seen them grow massively.

I seem to recall they got in in the Isle of Dogs a few years back (Derek Beackon in 1993), and they did rather well in Blackburn and Burnley in 2002.
Would it be churlish of me to mention Barking and Dagenham?



Perhaps you could provide a precis of the argument, or do you let party fulltimers do all your thinking for you?

No need to, as a deity, you will already know all this.
Is that a "No, I can't, because I have the critical capacity of a cactus and the political sophistication of a wombat"?


Evidence?
It's just a matter of fact. You never see Socialist Worker saying that the SWP (or one of it's recent front groups) made a mistake, you never see them talking about anything other than how fantastic things are going.



I find it interesting that you assume I do nothing because I don't involve myself with your anti-war hobby. Bloody obsessed, you lot.

My apoloigies, you do do something: you moan.

And you should, in my opinion, moan for your country.

You are a natural.
Why thank you :)

It's at least as useful as anything the STWC has ever done, anyway.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ah, your usual trick, read into my words what you would like to see:


People's concerns about immigration come form a lack of social housing, rising unemployment and increasingly crap public services. To attribute people's genuine conerns about these issues to "media hysteria" is tatamount to saying exactly that.

So, where exactly do I blame everything on the Capitalist press, or even suggest so much?


Would it be churlish of me to mention Barking and Dagenham?

You can mention anything you like -- especially if it supports my case, as here.


Is that a "No, I can't, because I have the critical capacity of a cactus and the political sophistication of a wombat"?

No, it is because, as a deity, you must know all such things before even I mention them.



It's just a matter of fact. You never see Socialist Worker saying that the SWP (or one of it's recent front groups) made a mistake, you never see them talking about anything other than how fantastic things are going.

So, no evidence then....


It's at least as useful as anything the STWC has ever done, anyway.

No, not at all, your moaning for your country is far more useful.

Please do not stop.

[Tetsuo]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 11 2006, 04:39 AM
So, where exactly do I blame everything on the Capitalist press, or even suggest so much?
Well, you said:

Apart from the fact that the capitalist press (The Sun, The Express, The Mail, The News of the World, etc etc) and the media (long interviews with Griffin, etc., none with Respect candidates), scapegoats immigrants and muslims, presenting the BNP with a propaganda gift they could not have designed themselves, their unremitting hostilility to socialism has not helped.
And since you've signally failed to back up any of your other reasons why the BNP is growing while everybody points at Respect and laughs, it would rather indicate that you can't come up with anything else.

Again, what makes you think that working class people are so stupid that they can't tell some media generated moral panic from reality? If voting for Respect is in the interests of working class people, why don't more of them do it?



Would it be churlish of me to mention Barking and Dagenham?

You can mention anything you like -- especially if it supports my case, as here.
The BNP, with 11 council seats, have taken much of Labour's support base in a traditionally safe Labour seat, effectively becoming the opposition in this borough. Do you consider this insignificant?


No, it is because, as a deity, you must know all such things before even I mention them.
Look, if you refuse to explain what these "structural reasons" are, then how do you expect anybody to believe that they exist in the first place? And why do these structures discriminate against one non-mainstream party (Respect) but not another (the BNP)?


So, no evidence then....
Show me a Socialist Worker article where the SWP admits that it made a serious error then.

[Tetsuo]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 10 2006, 08:53 PM
long interviews with Griffin, etc., none with Respect candidates
On a sidenote, this is just idiotic.

What strange world do you live in where Galloway can keep his ugly mug off the news for five minutes at a time?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tetsuo:


And since you've signally failed to back up any of your other reasons why the BNP is growing while everybody points at Respect and laughs, it would rather indicate that you can't come up with anything else.

So, all you have is this weak 'inference', beefed-up with more invention?

[I note you missed out the other factors I also mentioned, which, being a deity, I would have thought you'd know about.]


Again, what makes you think that working class people are so stupid that they can't tell some media generated moral panic from reality? If voting for Respect is in the interests of working class people, why don't more of them do it?

And what makes you think I think this?


The BNP, with 11 council seats, have taken much of Labour's support base in a traditionally safe Labour seat, effectively becoming the opposition in this borough. Do you consider this insignificant?

When did I say I did?

Now, I shall have to revise my judgement of your divine status if you keep posting this sort of stuff:


Look, if you refuse to explain what these "structural reasons" are, then how do you expect anybody to believe that they exist in the first place? And why do these structures discriminate against one non-mainstream party (Respect) but not another (the BNP)?

I gave you the reference, if you can't be bothered to look it up, stay ignorant for all I care.


Show me a Socialist Worker article where the SWP admits that it made a serious error then.

What has this got to do with anything?


On a sidenote, this is just idiotic.

What strange world do you live in where Galloway can keep his ugly mug off the news for five minutes at a time?

Eh?