Canadian Left are new comrades of Taliban

[Rakshas]

The Canadian Left think that negotiation and accommodation with the Taliban is far preferable to warfare:

This is the wrong mission for Canada (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060904.AFGHANLAYTON04/TPStory/)

With leftists like these, who needs reactionaries? Pls. comment

[Hooligan32]

I agree with Layton on few things, but I think that there has to be an alternative to war. What that alternative might be, I'm afraid I may not be educated enough on all the issues to suggest, but one thing is for certain, the war is not working.

[BuyOurEverything]

Firstly, the NDP is not "leftist." Second of all, what is your alternative? Imperialist occupation and warfare? Obviously the Taliban was an oppressive and reactionary government, but the reality is that the situation in Afghanistan has actually deteriorated since the war. Also, the idea that negotiating with someone is tantamount to supporting them is so ludicrous I don't even know where to begin.

[tecumseh]

All the soldiers occupying Afghanistan deserve to die. Lets get real, these soldiers will never support a revolution so who needs them. I care about the poor people of Afghanistan and not a bunch of baby killers.

Baby terrorists?

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...fghan-raid.html (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/08/24/afghan-raid.html)

[bcbm]

Fuck 'em both. What's RAWA up to these days?

[Xiao Banfa]

I second BBBG. Let's give big ups to RAWA and the marxist ALO.
I have no sympathy for the Taliban.
I would take great delight in ripping the beating heart out of one of those motherfucking mullahs chest.

[( R )evolution]

Fuck them, I am no friend of a Taliban supporter even if they calim to be a comrad. Fuck the Taliban, fuck sympathyers.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 10:40 PM
The Canadian Left think that negotiation and accommodation with the Taliban is far preferable to warfare:

This is the wrong mission for Canada (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060904.AFGHANLAYTON04/TPStory/)
Which hardly makes them "comrades" of the Taliban. That's typically the cheap demagogy of the bourgeois right against bourgeois liberals and social democrats: If you're not for the war, you must be for whoever we're fighting against.

You could more accurately say they are "comrades" of those currently in office in Ottawa. They support Canada's deployment continuing in Afghanistan for at least some time longer - calling for negotiations.

Rather than "troops out now", which is of course the only principled communist position.

[tecumseh]

^^ yes its liberal but it still should be supported. Would you rather have troops gradually withdraw within the next couple of months or would you prefer an indefinite occupation?

[Comrade Marcel]

Fuck the Kanadian soldiers, I hope the Taliban kills as many oKKKupants as possible.

Then I hope the Afghanistan people decide their own destiny.

If it's back to the Taliban, then so be it. But eventually, the Taliban will be overthrown. Nothing lasts for ever; that's basic dialectical and historical materialism.

Maaad props to RAWA!

[rebelworker]

A coworker just lost a friend in Afghanistan.

many people who are there think they are doing it for good reasons.

Your a fuckin idiot marcel.

[Xiao Banfa]

It's unfortunate your coworkers friend died in Afghatistan, nonetheless smashing Imperialism does require breaking a few eggs.

A friend of a nazi occupier of France or the USSR might have said the same thing during WW2.

That's the way of the world, man. Which sucks.

[Tekun]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:40 AM
The Canadian Left think that negotiation and accommodation with the Taliban is far preferable to warfare:

This is the wrong mission for Canada (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060904.AFGHANLAYTON04/TPStory/)

With leftists like these, who needs reactionaries? Pls. comment
Link not workin for me

[nightwatchman]

As a Canadian I see the Canadian Armed Forces as being Peacekeepers and us Canadians have a great reputation for that. However with this conflict in Afghanistan in my opinion is no longer a peacekepping mission because in other peacekeeping missions in other countries we have not lost as many soldiers as we have lost in afghanistan, something like 33 now or something. The Soldiers in Afghanistan are no longer peacekeeping as they were earlier in the mission, they are now occupying afghanistan amd ruining canada's reputation as peacekeepers.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 11:53 PM
A coworker just lost a friend in Afghanistan.

many people who are there think they are doing it for good reasons.

Your a fuckin idiot marcel.
No one forced your coworker's friend to go there to fight. Fucking imperialist country workers can do just fine with Walmart jobs, the Afghan people are actually suffering, so kiss my ass.

[Xiao Banfa]

Fucking imperialist country workers can do just fine with Walmart jobs, the Afghan people are actually suffering, so kiss my ass.

Great more anti-worker ultra-maoist rubbish.

And stop flaming.

[TupacAndChe4Eva]

Fight one battle at a time. The fight against Imperialism is one that is being fought now.

Creating more divisions in the leftist camp is not going to do us any good.

Then again, some people can not create short-term alliances, as they wish to take the moral high ground. <_<

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 11:39 PM
these soldiers will never support a revolution so who needs them.
That&#39;s subjective

a lot of them might be poor kids trying to get some cash together to get through college

I despise the military, it&#39;s a tool of the state and occupying forces are the greatest dictators the world can see

That being said - a lot of people right now wouldn&#39;t support a revolution - that&#39;s our goal to show them the true nature of communism (i.e. good)... a revolution without popular support is a revolution I would not wish to be part of.

[RedStarOverChina]

Fuck, if some dumbass decides to go to Afghanastan on his free will, then let him rot there&#33;

That&#39;ll teach you about being a shit-eating dog for the imperialists. IT DOESN&#39;T PAY&#33;

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by Kevis+Sep 7 2006, 03:52 PM--> (Kevis @ Sep 7 2006, 03:52 PM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 11:39 PM
these soldiers will never support a revolution so who needs them.
That&#39;s subjective

a lot of them might be poor kids trying to get some cash together to get through college

I despise the military, it&#39;s a tool of the state and occupying forces are the greatest dictators the world can see

That being said - a lot of people right now wouldn&#39;t support a revolution - that&#39;s our goal to show them the true nature of communism (i.e. good)... a revolution without popular support is a revolution I would not wish to be part of. [/b]
It&#39;s my own anecdotal evidence, the rightwing forums that I post on are replete with military, ex military posters. After "debating" with them I do not see any class consciousness in their posts. As far as supporting the troops, I support any and all attacks against American soldiers stationed abroad.

Rebelworker

Did your coworkers friend kill any babies?

[Emperor Ronald Reagan]

Originally posted by tecumseh
I support any and all attacks against American soldiers stationed abroad.

I&#39;m with comrade tecumseh on that one.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 7 2006, 08:07 AM
Fucking imperialist country workers can do just fine with Walmart jobs, the Afghan people are actually suffering, so kiss my ass.

Did that comment catch anyone else&#39;s eye? It certainly caught mine. Though I suppose no one should be too surprised....after all, it&#39;s just another stench emitted from the proverbial leftist pond.

In this instance, this particular "comrade" has blatantly mocked the struggle of the million or so Wal-Mart workers ("[they] do just fine") whilst pledging his loyalty to "the Afghan people"....and not any particular class of "Afghan people". The struggle to survive on low wages, with little or no Healthcare, repeated attempts by Management to disrupt Union organising, including the removal of departments that Unionise and the shutting down of stores that Unionise*, is disregarded. And, in its place, we have a distinctly class collaborationist stance of loyal support of "the Afghan people"....namely the Taliban.

The idea of Independent working class politics, leading, obviously, to supporting the struggles of both the "Afghan" working class and those "just fine" Wal-Mart workers, is probably as alien to this "comrade" as a Terrace house is to Paris Hilton. But that, as they say, is leftism....and it&#39;s about as working class in orientation as the British Labour Party.
______

*For those that are interested: "When the meat-cutting department of a Texas Wal-Mart formed a union, the company announced a week later that it would phase out meat-cutting departments nationwide. When a Wal-Mart in Jonquiere, Quebec, received its union certification, the company shut the entire store down." [Source (http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=475).]

[Tommie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 01:40 AM
As a Canadian I see the Canadian Armed Forces as being Peacekeepers and us Canadians have a great reputation for that. However with this conflict in Afghanistan in my opinion is no longer a peacekepping mission because in other peacekeeping missions in other countries we have not lost as many soldiers as we have lost in afghanistan, something like 33 now or something. The Soldiers in Afghanistan are no longer peacekeeping as they were earlier in the mission, they are now occupying afghanistan amd ruining canada&#39;s reputation as peacekeepers.
As a fellow Canadian I agree completely. Jack Layton and Bob Rae are right to call for a pullout from Afghanistan. We are not building a civil society or peacekeeping; we are involved in a hostile occupation.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Amusing Scrotum+Sep 8 2006, 03:14 AM--> (Amusing Scrotum @ Sep 8 2006, 03:14 AM)
Comrade [email protected] 7 2006, 08:07 AM
Fucking imperialist country workers can do just fine with Walmart jobs, the Afghan people are actually suffering, so kiss my ass.

Did that comment catch anyone else&#39;s eye? It certainly caught mine. Though I suppose no one should be too surprised....after all, it&#39;s just another stench emitted from the proverbial leftist pond.

In this instance, this particular "comrade" has blatantly mocked the struggle of the million or so Wal-Mart workers ("[they] do just fine") whilst pledging his loyalty to "the Afghan people"....and not any particular class of "Afghan people". The struggle to survive on low wages, with little or no Healthcare, repeated attempts by Management to disrupt Union organising, including the removal of departments that Unionise and the shutting down of stores that Unionise*, is disregarded. And, in its place, we have a distinctly class collaborationist stance of loyal support of "the Afghan people"....namely the Taliban.

The idea of Independent working class politics, leading, obviously, to supporting the struggles of both the "Afghan" working class and those "just fine" Wal-Mart workers, is probably as alien to this "comrade" as a Terrace house is to Paris Hilton. But that, as they say, is leftism....and it&#39;s about as working class in orientation as the British Labour Party.
______

*For those that are interested: "When the meat-cutting department of a Texas Wal-Mart formed a union, the company announced a week later that it would phase out meat-cutting departments nationwide. When a Wal-Mart in Jonquiere, Quebec, received its union certification, the company shut the entire store down." [Source (http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=475).] [/b]
Well said.

The same applies, of course, to those who prefer the Iraqi "resistance" to the Iraqi working class......

[Comrade Marcel]

Are you suggesting the Iraqi working class are better off under imperialist rule? I guess Amusing Scrotum and Severian like imperialism better. Typical white western chauvinism that is so common on this board.

Also, it&#39;s interesting to note amusing scrotum is comparing the right to have a union taken away as being just as bad as the right to life, i.e. having to dodge bombs and bullets, wimmin getting raped, etc. which is what is happening to Afghani people.

The "Taliban" is simply brought up as an emotional word. It&#39;s the U&#036; that always says supporting resistance is supporting Taliban or al-queda or "terrorism" or whatever. I thought people on here were smarter than than.

It&#39;s about NATIONAL LIBERATION, THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION&#33; The Taliban is secondary to that.

BTW :rolleyes: rebelworker, a coworkers friend??? Like, honosetly, who cares. I might feel a bit sorry if you said "my girlfriends brother, my cousin, or etc." but why are we supposed to be sensitive to the feelings of your cooworkers friend. Makes me think of that part in Spaceballs when Darkhelmet tells Lonestar that he&#39;s his fathers brothers friends ex-roomate.

Now what if someone told you their wife is Afghani and their whole family was killed by KKKanadian &#036;&#036;&#036;oldiers? Gee, wouldn&#39;t that be a little more significant?

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Tommie+Sep 8 2006, 05:40 PM--> (Tommie &#064; Sep 8 2006, 05:40 PM)
[email protected] 7 2006, 01:40 AM
As a Canadian I see the Canadian Armed Forces as being Peacekeepers and us Canadians have a great reputation for that. However with this conflict in Afghanistan in my opinion is no longer a peacekepping mission because in other peacekeeping missions in other countries we have not lost as many soldiers as we have lost in afghanistan, something like 33 now or something. The Soldiers in Afghanistan are no longer peacekeeping as they were earlier in the mission, they are now occupying afghanistan amd ruining canada&#39;s reputation as peacekeepers.
As a fellow Canadian I agree completely. Jack Layton and Bob Rae are right to call for a pullout from Afghanistan. We are not building a civil society or peacekeeping; we are involved in a hostile occupation. [/b]
What CADPAT said is complete bullshit. KKKanada&#39;s "reputation" as "peacekeepers" is simply a guise to justify imperialism. For such a small population, this country sure can push a lot of weight around and that weight comes from eating a lot of imperialist pie.

U&#036; has a "reputation" as being "free" and "democratic", right? Well anyone here would agree that&#39;s bullshit.

Being a Kanadian and then pointing the accusing finger south is just reactionary Kanadian nationalism.

Jack Layton and the NDP supported the invasion of Afghanistan in the first place. Where was he when the anti-war movement was protesting this? Not until the opposition to the Iraq war was popular did he show his face. A great way to scoop young people from the left a bit to the right to become card carrying supporters of his party, leadership and bourgeois politics.

Bob Rae, there&#39;s another piece of work. Some of the shit that guy did in Ontario not even conservatives would be able to get away with, it was so reactionary and racist. In fact, Ontario&#39;s most militant organization, OCAP, started under his government in response to his shit.

And please get rid of that PET avatar. Don&#39;t even get me started on him.

These people were, are not, and never will be; on our side.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Comrade Marcel+--> (Comrade Marcel)I guess Amusing Scrotum and Severian like imperialism better.[/b]

From my last post in this thread: The idea of Independent working class politics, leading, obviously, to supporting the struggles of both the "Afghan" working class and those "just fine" Wal-Mart workers, is probably as alien to this "comrade" as a Terrace house is to Paris Hilton. But that, as they say, is leftism....and it&#39;s about as working class in orientation as the British Labour Party.

That comment seem remarkably perceptive, given your reply. Or, maybe, it is so blatantly obvious that you would produce the banal response that you did, that a mentally challenged chimpanzee could have predicted it? The latter is probably more accurate; but my ego certainly favours the former.

Either way, you made my point for me....and you made it in a manner that is far better than any description I could offer. Independent working class politics, really is alien to you -- it generally is alien to the purveyors of bourgeois ideology. But, I suppose, if you want to use the framework provided by capitalist politicians, then that&#39;s your choice; personally, I just don&#39;t see why you don&#39;t have the honesty to call it what it is.

Maybe you don&#39;t call it what it is because you&#39;re deluding yourself? Seems likely to me. After all, you probably do think you are a partisan of the International working class. But ones self-perception, rarely depicts oneself in an accurate manner. So, in your case, whilst you perceive yourself as being a partisan of the working class, you&#39;re little more than a purveyor of bourgeois ideology and a scab -- with, it seems, an internet stutter; "KKK", "&#036;&#036;&#036;", and so on.


Comrade Marcel
Also, it&#39;s interesting to note amusing scrotum is comparing the right to have a union taken away as being just as bad as the right to life....

I made no such comparison; I simply pointed out that you blatantly mocked the struggle of the million or so Wal-Mart workers. Though, to be honest, I doubt I needed to do even that. Most people will realise fairly easily what side of the barricades you&#39;re on....and given the record of your MIMite comrades during the Detroit newspaper strike in the mid-1990s, it isn&#39;t the side of the working class.

[Comrade Marcel]

Well, all that chatter might make you think you sound intelligent, you waisted your time spouting rhetoric that means fuck all. The reality still is that national liberation struggle requires killing imperialist soldiers, and that imperialist soldiers chose to take on killing oppressed people rather than work at Walmart (or whatever other lower-end 1st world job). That was my point in the first place, but obviously you are not really concerned about the real issue, but rather some abstract concept of "bourgeois" politics you say you are trying to expose me spouting. What bourgeois politics am I spouting, those of the bourgeois of the oppressed nations? If that&#39;s the case then I regress, it is a n ecessary step to mobilize even the bourgeois, the national bourgeosie against the imperialists. The was seen successful in China and is working in other places as well, such as the Philippines. This is a step in the direction of proletarian revolution.

On the other hand, the only bourgeois politics I see are the ones that seem to support Kanadian soldiers and oppressor nation workers. These are basically the politics of Layton, Council of Canadians, etc. all 1st world bourgeois politicians. That&#39;s certainly not my position but seems to be closer to yours. This is not a step forward for the international proletarian, but simply biting for more pie out of the mouths of the real proletarians by an already stuffed labour aristocracy.

BTW, I never "mocked" Walmart workers, who are just fine so long as they have their jobs, as compared with those under imperialist occupation and facing war. This should be, as you so-well put it, obvious to "a mentally challenged chimpanzee". Though I&#39;m curious how you distinguish these from regular chimpanzees, are these your political allies?

As for the barricades, I&#39;m the type of persyn always up front, so guess again. I&#39;m not in MIM either, so guess yet again. Now please STFU and crawl back into whatever dark hole of individualist brand politics you poked out from.

[Tommie]

And please get rid of that PET avatar. Don&#39;t even get me started on him.

No. He was one of history&#39;s greatest leaders.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 12:11 AM

And please get rid of that PET avatar. Don&#39;t even get me started on him.

No. He was one of history&#39;s greatest leaders.
Oh, bullshit. Have you heard his FLQ speech? He was a reformist pig.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 12:11 AM

And please get rid of that PET avatar. Don&#39;t even get me started on him.

No. He was one of history&#39;s greatest leaders.
Yeah, if you like reactionary running dogs of the Anglo bourgeoisie and imperialist pig dogs... :rolleyes:

[Dzerzhinsky]

Canada should bring all its troops home and place them on the borders.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 02:57 AM
Canada should bring all its troops home and place them on the borders.
errrmm, nationalist much? :huh:

I think abolishing the borders all together and giving youth better things to do would be a more communist idea.

[Morag]

The reality is that Canadian soldiers are in Afghanistan. No amount of wishing and shouting, "We were right, nyah nyah nyah&#33;" is going to change that. Either all the soldiers die at the hands of the Taliban (or more likely from American friendly fire), or we have a timetable to bring them back. So, I&#39;d rather bring them back- I guess that makes me a KKKanadian, does it?

Wth new recruitment goals of almost 1/3 the existing forces, the Conservatives are not just increasing the size of the military, their beginning the largest military build-up since WWII. So, I&#39;d like us all to join hands and get our troops the hell out of Afghanistan before the mission expands into neighbouring countries.

[Tommie]

Oh, bullshit. Have you heard his FLQ speech? He was a reformist pig.

A moving speech. The FLQ were anti-Canadian terrorists. The War Measures Act was justified because the unity of the country was at stake; nobody knew the extent of the FLQ&#39;s power and many believed that armed madmen would spill out onto the street.

Yes, I am a "nationalist." There is no shame in that. I&#39;m proud to be Canadian and Canada has been and can become again an example for the world to follow. Our nationalized healthcare, multiculturalism and (at one point) dedication to peace and compromise around the world were all clear indications that Canada was a progressive country.

Canada&#39;s very existence has always been a source of irritation to the US Empire. From the War of 1812 to Manifest Destiny the Americans have tried to crush the Canadian nation and the Canadian identity. The signing of the Canada-US FTA (that eventually turned into NAFTA) was a crushing blow to Canada&#39;s sovereignty.

Despite our economic independence being handicapped by NAFTA and our foreign policy being reduced to the role of a lapdog to the US Empire, Canada still bothers our imperialist neighbours. California&#39;s legislature recently passed a bill calling for "Canadian style" healthcare. Canadians are granting amnesty to war resisters fleeing from duty in Iraq.

Canada is a nation and a concept worth fighting for. That is why I&#39;m a "nationalist."

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

"It was in that context that I stated in the House of Commons a year ago that there was no need anywhere in Canada for misguided or misinformed zealots to resort to acts of violence in the belief that only in this fashion could they accomplish change. There may be some places in the world where the law is so inflexible and so insensitive as to prompt such beliefs. But Canada is not such a place. I said then, and I repeat now, that those who would defy the law and ignore the opportunities available to them to right their wrongs and satisfy their claims will receive no hearing from this government."

No only is he reformist - he is anti-revolution.

[Tommie]

He was against violence. Is that a problem?

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 05:24 PM

Oh, bullshit. Have you heard his FLQ speech? He was a reformist pig.

A moving speech.
Sure, if you support the KKKanadian bourgeoisie.


The FLQ were anti-Canadian terrorists.

They certainly were anti-KKKanadian, and so am I. FUCK Kanada. Kanada is stolen native land. KKKanada is an oppressor state, denying sovereignty to the Quebecois people, who are an independent nation of people. Kanada is white bourgeosie making money on none white proletarians.

The FLQ were fighting for national liberation for the Quebecois people. Calling them terrorists is ridiculous. "Terrorists/terrorism" is a word brought out by demogogues whenever they simply want to cast a bad impression on their enemies.


The War Measures Act was justified because the unity of the country was at stake;

Jusitifiable to who? not the 1,000 plus leftists who were arrested, and some who lost jobs/housing because of it.


nobody knew the extent of the FLQ&#39;s power and many believed that armed madmen would spill out onto the street.

So instead the PET spilled his "armed madman" into the streets of Quebec.


Yes, I am a "nationalist." There is no shame in that.

Being a KKKanadian nationalist is supporting white supremacy, imperialism and colonialism. Yeah, you&#39;ve got nothing to be ashamed of&#33; :rolleyes:


I&#39;m proud to be Canadian

Well, I gathered that since you are a jingoist.


and Canada has been and can become again an example for the world to follow.

The world meaning what? The U&#036;? Who exactly is going to follow the Kanadian example?


Our nationalized healthcare,

Crippled, crumbling, falling apart and half privatised. Doesn&#39;t even cover all circumstances. No Optical, Pharmaceudical or dental coverage either. So, in other words, just enough to keep you healthy enough to work with rotting teeth, poor eyesight and exspensive perscriptions. Great healthcare.


multiculturalism

Multicultralism is just a cheap, competitive and reserved labour market for the bourgeois. It&#39;s also complete bullshit when the original inhabintants of the land are treated like shit and you have a whole nation (Quebec) denied sovereignty.


and (at one point) dedication to peace and compromise around the world

Why? Because Kanada did not send soldiers to war, just big corporations to scoop out the goods?


were all clear indications that Canada was a progressive country.

Compared to what? Nazi Germany?


Canada&#39;s very existence has always been a source of irritation to the US Empire. From the War of 1812 to Manifest Destiny the Americans have tried to crush the Canadian nation and the Canadian identity.

Well, this is a nice conspiracy theory, but most early Kanadians were infact Americans. Most early Kanadians have a U&#036; background. In fact I think at the time of the ameriKKKan revolution, Kanadians of AmeriKKKan origin outnumbered those of Briti&#036;h origin 4-1.

This is not to say that Kanada doesn&#39;t have a unique culture and identity. But to say this is under attack and that it is helpful to the international working class to defend Kanadian imperialism in the name of some white Kanadian culture is nothing but reactionary.


The signing of the Canada-US FTA (that eventually turned into NAFTA) was a crushing blow to Canada&#39;s sovereignty.

I&#39;m sure the bourgeois whiped away all their tears with the money the made from it. But how exactly has this made us the next U&#036; state? I don&#39;t see any green money and no one has looked at me funny for asking for poutine yet. Wow, I&#39;m so scared to lose that though, eh? :rolleyes:


Despite our economic independence being handicapped by NAFTA

Kanada actually benefits quite a bit from NAFTA. Get this through your head: KANADA IS AN IMPERIALIST COUNTRY&#33; Why not take a look around and see were all the goods you use were made. Start with the clothes you are wearing.

And you might want to see the book Conflicts of Interest: Canada and the Third World by Swift/Tomlinson (editors), 1991 Between The Lines - Toronto


and our foreign policy being reduced to the role of a lapdog to the US Empire,

That&#39;s bullshit. Kanada does what it wants when it wants and the states may not like some of it, but their are rarely detrimental consequences for the Kanadian bourgeoisie.


Canada still bothers our imperialist neighbours.

I&#39;m sure Kanada bothers a lot of Iraqis, Afghanis, Haitians and others to as well.


California&#39;s legislature recently passed a bill calling for "Canadian style" healthcare.

You mean the healthcare Anglo-Kanadians copied from New France (Quebec)?


Canadians are granting amnesty to war resisters fleeing from duty in Iraq.

No they are not. There are some "conscious objectors" here but my understanding is whether or not they will be given refugee status is before the supreme courts.


Canada is a nation and a concept worth fighting for.

Against and for who?


That is why I&#39;m a "nationalist."

You&#39;re a nationalist because you enjoy benefitting from cheap labour of the third world.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 07:56 PM
He was against violence. Is that a problem?
He was not against violence at all. He would use violence just fine when it suited within his regimes interests.

And yes, non-violence is an obstacle to communist revolution. This is a basic tenant of any revolutionary movement, anarchist, communist, Marxist.

Anyways, I think it&#39;s obvious you don&#39;t belong here. You are a Kanadian nationalist and pro-capitalist who is borderline racist and fascist.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 12:56 PM
He was against violence. Is that a problem?
Clearly the quote reveals that he is fundamentally against revolutionary activity. He says we have the means to achieve what we want through the state. It is anti-revolutionary and reformist. It&#39;s not just anti-violence.

[Tommie]

As a First-World reformist, I have no problem with Trudeau&#39;s "reformism."

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 07:38 PM
As a First-World reformist, I have no problem with Trudeau&#39;s "reformism."
What are you doing here then? Shouldn&#39;t you be at a Liberal BBQ or something? I bet Gerrard Kennedy could be your new hero&#33;

Your the next generation of our oppressors&#33; Congratulations&#33; :rolleyes:

[Tommie]

Gerard kicked me off his campaign. ;)

[grove street]

The Taliban must be stopped. Afhganistan can not afford to be ignored by the world and left suffering through years of civil war yet again. We have already made the mistake once, and out of the mist of all the suffering and chaos of war came the Taliban. Sure they might of ended the civil war and restored law and order, but this time they want to arouse another civil war and reclaim their power from a people who just want the opportunity to rule themselves.

Afghanistan has been handled poorly by both the Soviets and the U.S before, lets not let the same thing happen again.

[red team]

As a First-World reformist, I have no problem with Trudeau&#39;s "reformism."

reformism is dead. International Capital flight would punish the market of any government willing to flirt with reformism.

[Cheung Mo]

Anybody not affiliated with a socialist or a feminist organisation should be excluded from the political process everywhere in the Middle East. If you are pro-American, pro-Islamist, or pro-Zionist your opinions are fucking worthless and do not deserve to be heard by anyone.

[Comrade Marcel]

Pro-Islamist? CheungMo, how do you think that you are going to organize anything at all in the Middle East then?

What about the Islamic liberationists with Marxian economic theory?

Besides, your opinion is basically a socialist version of the "white man&#39;s burden". Who are you to tell a nation what kind of liberation they need? Let them determine that themselves.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 17 2006, 09:56 PM
Pro-Islamist? CheungMo, how do you think that you are going to organize anything at all in the Middle East then?

What about the Islamic liberationists with Marxian economic theory?

Besides, your opinion is basically a socialist version of the "white man&#39;s burden". Who are you to tell a nation what kind of liberation they need? Let them determine that themselves.
Islamic Liberations?

You mean like those bastards in Iran who crushed the secular left as soon as they came to power?

No thank you.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 18 2006, 02:42 AM
Anybody not affiliated with a socialist or a feminist organisation should be excluded from the political process everywhere in the Middle East. If you are pro-American, pro-Islamist, or pro-Zionist your opinions are fucking worthless and do not deserve to be heard by anyone.
what about islamic feminist organisations?

[-=Viva La Revolution&#33;=-]

this is not right
the last thing we want is for any part of the leftist movement to be related to said radicals

i hate to say this but it&#39;s true....
they blow themselves up, we come here and other places to organize

by the way are you sure they are not trying to bring the movement to the middle east
because that&#39;s also a bad idea

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Cheung Mo+Sep 20 2006, 01:58 PM--> (Cheung Mo @ Sep 20 2006, 01:58 PM)
Comrade [email protected] 17 2006, 09:56 PM
Pro-Islamist? CheungMo, how do you think that you are going to organize anything at all in the Middle East then?

What about the Islamic liberationists with Marxian economic theory?

Besides, your opinion is basically a socialist version of the "white man&#39;s burden". Who are you to tell a nation what kind of liberation they need? Let them determine that themselves.
Islamic Liberations?

You mean like those bastards in Iran who crushed the secular left as soon as they came to power?

No thank you. [/b]
No, I mean like Malcolm X.

Those who follow Islam but are economically Marxist for example. That would be ideal.

But even if they are reactionary Marxists should support them, so long as they are anti-imperialist.

What are you suggesting otherwise? That occupation and imperialist domination is better because we in the west might not like their religion and/or ideology, it&#39;s ok for imperialist countries to control them?

I would think it would be better for our comrades to atleast be able to face their own oppressors.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by &#045;=Viva La Revolution&#33;=&#045;@Sep 20 2006, 09:22 PM
this is not right
the last thing we want is for any part of the leftist movement to be related to said radicals

i hate to say this but it&#39;s true....
they blow themselves up, we come here and other places to organize

by the way are you sure they are not trying to bring the movement to the middle east
because that&#39;s also a bad idea
I don&#39;t really follow you here, but are you saying that just because someone chooses suicide bombing as a means of resistance we shouldn&#39;t support their national self-determination? That&#39;s seems rather like bourgeois morals and some sort of cheap justification for imperialism.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by &#045;=Viva La Revolution&#33;=&#045;@Sep 20 2006, 09:22 PM
this is not right
the last thing we want is for any part of the leftist movement to be related to said radicals

i hate to say this but it&#39;s true....
they blow themselves up, we come here and other places to organize

by the way are you sure they are not trying to bring the movement to the middle east
because that&#39;s also a bad idea
Who are you to say what "we" want, and to speak for "the leftist movement"? Are you part of "us" or "the leftist movement"? What have you done for it?

[Severian]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 17 2006, 10:42 AM
Anybody not affiliated with a socialist or a feminist organisation should be excluded from the political process everywhere in the Middle East.
Since those organizations are not large, 90% or more of the population "should be excluded from the political process".

So who is going to disenfranchise and silence all those millions? Who has the power? Nobody, not even U.S. imperialism in the long run.

Your approach was tried by the People&#39;s Democratic Party of Afghanistan, and failed miserably. They tried to carry out some radical anti-feudal reforms - without having a mass base, without consulting the masses and winning them over. The result was pushing most of the population into the arms of ultraright fanatics.

Liberation can only be the work of millions of people. Communist proposals can only be carried out by those millions you want "excluded from the political process." So most of them are wrong today - they&#39;ll learn, mostly from experience.

Why do you call yourself a "Left Civil Libertarian", Cheung Mo, when all you do is advocate mass executions - it seems to be your answer to most things - or in this case, the political silencing of millions.

Fortunately, those are totally unrealistic proposals - you have no force to carry out this totalitarian repression.

So why do you keep making them? Are you just trolling, or can you explain yourself?

[Edelweiss]

Originally posted by "Marcel"
But even if they are reactionary Marxists should support them, so long as they are anti-imperialist.

Wow, that sums up all Maoist idiocy about "national self-determination" and suppossed good "nationalism of the oppressed" and your simplified anti-imperialism quiet nicely. What a load of bullshit. So we should support a group that we can be 100% sure of that they are folllowers of one of a the most anti-emancipatory, most reactionary, most anti-communist and most oppressive ideologies on the planet, just in the name of "anti-imperialism" and for the sake of fucking "national self-determination". I think you Maoist fanatics really should learn to see where your priorities are, it seems it&#39;s purely about "national self-determination", no matter what the actual consequences for the people and for the working class is. National liberate my ass, buddy&#33;

On the other side, I&#39;m quiet surpised about the illusions of some Canadian comrades here about the nature of the Canadian "peacekeeping campaign" in Afganishan, and about the plain Canadian nationalism which is openly advocated here by supposed communists. That&#39;s just bullshit as well, you really should be ashamed about yourselfs. To speak with Rosa Luxemburg: "the enemy is within your own country"&#33; Instead of feelling yourself comfortable within your simplistic anti-Americanism, you should clean in front of your own house door, and realize that Canada is just another imperialist nation. I know it is a bit ambivalent, but there can&#39;t be any "good imperialism" as it is advocated by some Canadians here, just like there can&#39;t be any "good nationalism" as advocated by the Maoist lunatics.

[Comrade Marcel]

Malte: What position are you going to take then? Let me guess, none? And so here is where you "purist" types try to whipe your hands clean of any responsibility to the proletarians of the third world. Have your moral high ground and, I&#39;ll support anti-imperialism.

And don&#39;t say shit about this being a "Maoist" position, this was Lenin&#39;s and is generally the position of most Leninists, with the exception of neo-Trotskyites who really support social-democracy anyways&#33; What does that tell you? Even the Sparticist/IBT types would support the Taliban over U&#036;/Kanadian imperialism, so don&#39;t call this a Maoist position, it&#39;s a LENINIST position.

As for your 2nd set of commments, I agree with you 100% obviously.

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by Severian+Sep 6 2006, 05:00 AM--> (Severian @ Sep 6 2006, 05:00 AM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 10:40 PM
The Canadian Left think that negotiation and accommodation with the Taliban is far preferable to warfare:

This is the wrong mission for Canada (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060904.AFGHANLAYTON04/TPStory/)
Which hardly makes them "comrades" of the Taliban. That&#39;s typically the cheap demagogy of the bourgeois right against bourgeois liberals and social democrats: If you&#39;re not for the war, you must be for whoever we&#39;re fighting against.

You could more accurately say they are "comrades" of those currently in office in Ottawa. They support Canada&#39;s deployment continuing in Afghanistan for at least some time longer - calling for negotiations.

Rather than "troops out now", which is of course the only principled communist position. [/b]
Severian - You continue to make excellent posts&#33; Keep it up, comrade&#33; :hammer:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Your approach was tried by the People&#39;s Democratic Party of Afghanistan, and failed miserably. They tried to carry out some radical anti-feudal reforms - without having a mass base, without consulting the masses and winning them over. The result was pushing most of the population into the arms of ultraright fanatics.

Um.. so you&#39;re saying that the Saur Revolution didn&#39;t have widespread support, and that workers didn&#39;t gain under it?

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 6 2006, 06:23 AM
Fuck the Kanadian soldiers, I hope the Taliban kills as many oKKKupants as possible.


Comrade Marcel - You scare me. :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:

[AlwaysAnarchy]

What we really need here is to show the people of Canada and America that the Left REALLY supports the troops&#33; Why? Because we want them to come HOME, away from the violence, away from getting KILLED&#33;

The real Left wants to SAVE lives and END war&#33;&#33;

That&#39;s the real patriotic message&#33; Let&#39;s not hand over patriotism to the right, let&#39;s tell the people our side of the story and give them the true patriotism of Bring the Troops Home Now&#33; And give them healthcare, raise the minimum wage, educatoin for so on. In other words, spend the money building the country and not going to war.

Comrade Marcel - How do you hope to win over American and Canadian workers with that kind of attitude?

This is why Maoism-Stalinism does not work&#33;

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:49 PM
What we really need here is to show the people of Canada and America that the Left REALLY supports the troops&#33; Why? Because we want them to come HOME, away from the violence, away from getting KILLED&#33;


You mean after they&#39;ve already bombed the place to the stone age? :rolleyes:


The real Left wants to SAVE lives and END war&#33;&#33;

I don&#39;t know what you think the "real left" is, but I know the realistic left realises the way to do this is not bowing to imperialism, playing to nationalist emotions, begging a colonialist bourgeoisie and trying to appeal to the hearts of imperial soldiers of a labour aristocracy.


That&#39;s the real patriotic message&#33;

Maybe so, but I don&#39;t give a fuck about KKKanadian patriotism.


Let&#39;s not hand over patriotism to the right, let&#39;s tell the people our side of the story and give them the true patriotism of Bring the Troops Home Now&#33;

How about "bring the war home" instead? Give us a taste of our own medicine.


And give them healthcare,

Kanadians already have this.


raise the minimum wage,

Where do you think this piece of the pie is going to come from? Do you think that the bourgeois is just going to hand over profit, when instead they can send people to war at the workers exspense?


educatoin for so on.

Kanadian and even ameriKKKans are already pretty literate compared to most of the 3rd world, so I don&#39;t see how this is an excuse for supporting war.


In other words, spend the money building the country and not going to war.

Building the counry was and is built on imperialism and war. I&#39;m not interested in building this country at the cost of others self-determination.


Comrade Marcel - How do you hope to win over American and Canadian workers with that kind of attitude?

I&#39;m not interested in winning them over at the cost of the majority of the rest of the world.


This is why Maoism-Stalinism does not work&#33;

What is why? :huh:

And Stalin came before Mao.

[Comrade Marcel]

BTW, since you like Chomsky the Trots actually have a good article exposing his nationalism:

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/874/chomsky.html

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 27 2006, 05:50 AM
BTW, since you like Chomsky the Trots actually have a good article exposing his nationalism:

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/874/chomsky.html
Lol.

The Trotskyists are more of the same authoritarian socialism that has FAILED all over the world. Often with rather disastrous results.

And don&#39;t give me that "life expectancy has doubled" crap cause that is meaningless to me. Many liberal democracies have increased their life expectancy and you guys don&#39;t all support them.

Try Anarchism&#33;&#33; ;)

In any event, they describe China in that article as being "Deformed workers state" Come on&#33; China is very clearly a capitalist sweatshop, no workers state at all&#33;

Comrade Marcel - Try looking into my NON violent Manifesto and let me know what you think.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56561

[YSR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 07:01 PM
Comrade Marcel - Try looking into my NON violent Manifesto and let me know what you think.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56561
I&#39;m gonna hazard a guess that he&#39;ll think it&#39;s just as idiotic as the rest of us do.

Seriously, comrade, as an anarchist, I implore you not to interject this kind of absurd advertising into an unrelated thread. It&#39;s unneccesary, everyone here knows what anarchism is and why they do or don&#39;t support it.

Also, Marcel is the last person I know who would suddenly turn anarcho on us. :lol:

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 07:01 PM
Comrade Marcel - Try looking into my NON violent Manifesto and let me know what you think.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56561
I bet that he eats class collaborationists like you for breakfast. Raw.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by PacifistAnarchist+Sep 27 2006, 07:01 PM--> (PacifistAnarchist &#064; Sep 27 2006, 07:01 PM)
Comrade [email protected] 27 2006, 05:50 AM
BTW, since you like Chomsky the Trots actually have a good article exposing his nationalism:

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/874/chomsky.html
Lol.
[/b]
Funny? So in other words you didn&#39;t even bother to read it.



The Trotskyists are more of the same authoritarian socialism that has FAILED all over the world.

To my knowledge there is and has never been any Trotkskyite states; at least not on earth. The Trot Posadas used to talk about UFOs though&#33; :lol:


Often with rather disastrous results.

Compared to what?


And don&#39;t give me that "life expectancy has doubled" crap cause that is meaningless to me.

I&#39;m sure it is meaningless to you, but I&#39;m sure the people&#39;s whose lives undoubtedly improved under socialism have a different prospective.


Many liberal democracies have increased their life expectancy and you guys don&#39;t all support them.

That&#39;s because they increased living standards by robbing the rest of the world. Of course we don&#39;t support imperialism.


Try Anarchism&#33;&#33; ;)

Sorry, I don&#39;t "try" ideologies. I&#39;m pretty sure this is what CombatLiberalism meant by "channel flippers".


In any event, they describe China in that article as being "Deformed workers state" Come on&#33; China is very clearly a capitalist sweatshop, no workers state at all&#33;

Calling China one big sweatshop is very ignorant, when in fact sweatshops probably make up less than 1% of China&#39;s industry. The workers in China have way more rights than in many other countries, and it would take me a milisecond to pick China as a place to live if I had to choose between Asian countries.


Comrade Marcel - Try looking into my NON violent Manifesto and let me know what you think.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56561

That&#39;s a MANIFESTO, or something you wrote in five minutes between heating up a microwaveable vegetarian burrito?

[Gold Against The Soul]

Originally posted by Malte+Sep 25 2006, 09:44 PM--> (Malte @ Sep 25 2006, 09:44 PM)
"Marcel"
But even if they are reactionary Marxists should support them, so long as they are anti-imperialist.

Wow, that sums up all Maoist idiocy about "national self-determination" and suppossed good "nationalism of the oppressed" and your simplified anti-imperialism quiet nicely. What a load of bullshit. So we should support a group that we can be 100% sure of that they are folllowers of one of a the most anti-emancipatory, most reactionary, most anti-communist and most oppressive ideologies on the planet, just in the name of "anti-imperialism" and for the sake of fucking "national self-determination". [/b]
Absolutely. Let us remember for a moment, what Marx on this issue :

"The Koran and the Mussulman legislation emanating from it reduce the geography and ethnography of the various people to the simple and convenient distinction of two nations and of two countries; those of the Faithful and of the Infidels. The Infidel is the enemy. Islamism proscribes the nation of the Infidels, constituting a state of permanent hostility between the Mussulman and the unbeliever. In that sense the corsair ships of the Berber States were the holy fleet of Islam."

(&#39;On the History of the Eastern Question&#39;, in New York Daily Tribune, April 15, 1854.)

Pertinent views given the situation currently.

[EwokUtopia]

The right wing media up here has been making claims like "Layton supports the taliban" for some time now. The Toronto Sun is particularly bad as they target the least educaded elements of Canadian society and fill their minds with Harper praising propaganda written at a second grade level. I staunchly oppose the war in afghanistan, and I oppose the Taliban, along with the vast majority of the Afghan people. The solution? arm the resistance, and imf there is to be a civil war, let it be so, it is better than foriegn occupation that fuels hatred of all things secular. We would do better to arm leftist groups in Afghanistan, and perhaps if it comes to it form international brigades than to send soldiers under the maple leaf flag in. Canada&#39;s involvement in Afghanistan has been trumped up in the past year by PM Steven Hitler to kiss ass to his american chums and apologize for the fact that he cant jump into Iraq. It is not a peacekeeping mission, it is an act of war which see&#39;s many innocent Afghani&#39;s killed by Canadian bullets. We need to pull right the fuck out of the war on terror. Does this mean I like the Taliban? fuck no, but its not my bloody problem. We should deal with the fundamentalists in power of Kanada, not Khandaher. The Afghani people are capable of solving their own problems, any other view is Paternalistic national chauvanism. Fuck the White Mans Burden.

[tecumseh]

A few articles from 2001 about the Taliban make interesting reading. These were written after the destruction of the Buddhas, but before 9/11.

First from NY Times - an interview of the Taliban envoy who visited the US in 2001 and met with the US goverment and spoke at universities etc. Interesting facts about the destruction of the Buddhas - they were initially protected by the Taliban and people were punished for seeking to destroy them... read for full story - note particularly the last sentences.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/19/world/19...f60adde&ei=5070 (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/19/world/19TALI.html?ex=1157428800&en=040513261f60adde&ei=5070)

Another insight is from a Jason Burke, an extract copied below.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v23/n06/burk01_.html

The key point is that, for many in Afghanistan, the Taliban are a great improvement on what went before. An Amnesty Report covering the (pre-Taliban) period from 1992 to 1994 was entitled &#39;Women in Afghanistan: A Human Rights Catastrophe&#39;. For those who find it difficult to understand why there should be any sympathy for the Taliban the report makes challenging reading. Over that period, it says,

armed groups massacred defenceless women in their homes, or have brutally beaten and raped them. Scores of young women have been abducted and raped, taken as wives by commanders or sold into prostitution . . . Scores of women have . . . &#39;disappeared&#39; and several have been stoned to death . . . The perpetrators are the main Mujahideen groups . . . As territory changes hands after long battles, an entire local population can be subjected to violent retaliatory punishments. The conquerors often celebrate by killing and raping women and looting property.

These days, rape - at least by strangers and soldiers - is relatively rare in Taliban-controlled areas. So is the widespread theft and abduction referred to in the report. The Taliban soldiers are on the whole well-behaved. Wrong-doers in the ranks are punished, often savagely, which wasn&#39;t the case among the Mujahideen groups who preceded them. In much of the country the dismal security situation has been turned round. There is a system of justice and rudimentary policing which, whatever its manifest flaws, does function. I once asked the owner of a roadside tea stall near the eastern town of Ghazni what he felt about the Taliban. &#39;Now you could leave a bar of gold in the street overnight and it would be safe,&#39; he said.

The idea that the Taliban are a universally hated military regime ruling through fear and violence simply doesn&#39;t hold up. The occasional revolts are mostly to do with conscription, which is very unpopular. The repressive edicts that so outrage the West have long been the practice in most of rural Afghanistan, where 80 per cent of the population live. In the rural regions around the western city of Herat a year before the Taliban took control, there were, according to Save the Children UK, nearly 75,000 boys at school and fewer than 2000 girls. In the Afghan countryside women have never gone to school, left the village unaccompanied or chosen their husbands. There is no need to ban television - there aren&#39;t any sets. The 1994 Amnesty Report also says that &#39;women have been prevented from exercising several of their fundamental rights . . . to association, of expression and employment - by Mujahideen groups who consider such activities to be un-Islamic.&#39; So you couldn&#39;t really say that the Taliban are innovators.



And finally a page which links to many stories about the destruction of the Buddhas:
http://www.asiasource.org/news/at_mp_02.cfm?newsid=46971

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:40 AM
The Canadian Left think that negotiation and accommodation with the Taliban is far preferable to warfare:

This is the wrong mission for Canada (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060904.AFGHANLAYTON04/TPStory/)


Your not a true Leftist if you side, and work with spectral fascists, I.e. the taliban and other islamist/terrorist groups&#33;

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by Scarlet Hammer+Oct 1 2006, 07:43 PM--> (Scarlet Hammer @ Oct 1 2006, 07:43 PM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 04:40 AM
The Canadian Left think that negotiation and accommodation with the Taliban is far preferable to warfare:

This is the wrong mission for Canada (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060904.AFGHANLAYTON04/TPStory/)


Your not a true Leftist if you side, and work with spectral fascists, I.e. the taliban and other islamist/terrorist groups&#33; [/b]
No one is suggesting to work with the Taliban. What I&#39;m saying is that attacks against occupation soldiers is justified. The US army is far worse than the Taliban, (Afghanistan has a very conservative culture with or without the Taliban) which is why I support attacks that kill and maim the imperialists.

Everyday Afghans are being killed from soldiers and the resistance. The insurgents/terrorists that kill civilians are of course guilty of their actions. But it was the invasion that gave the insurgents an oppurtunity to kill. Therefore the occupation forces are ultimately responsible for the chaos in Afghanistan.

[Circle A]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 14 2006, 09:51 PM


They certainly were anti-KKKanadian, and so am I. FUCK Kanada.
Kanada is stolen native land.
KKKanada is an oppressor state, denying sovereignty to the Quebecois people, who are an independent nation of people.
The FLQ were fighting for national liberation for the Quebecois people.



Comrade marcel, a clarification please: Kanada is stolen native land, yet can we not say the same about &#39;New France", as you called it, also known as Quebec?

Bob Rae does not want the troops home as Layton does.
Rae is on the "stay the course" bandwagon

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Circle [email protected] 1 2006, 10:18 PM
Comrade marcel, a clarification please: Kanada is stolen native land, yet can we not say the same about &#39;New France", as you called it, also known as Quebec?

Absolutely. That&#39;s why First Nations liberation comes first, and Quebecois second. It is the job of Quebecois socialists to make sure their national liberation isn&#39;t a continuation of colonialism and isn&#39;t chauvisnistic and xenophobic.

Anglo-Kanadians should really just keep their filthy noses out of First Nations and Quebec sovereignty all-together IMO.

[tecumseh]

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan war against Taliban guerrillas can never be won militarily and urged support for efforts to bring "people who call themselves Taliban" and their allies into the government.

The Tennessee Republican said he learned from briefings that Taliban fighters were too numerous and had too much popular support to be defeated on the battlefield.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061002/ap_on_...ghanistan_frist (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061002/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan_frist)

Things heating up in Afghanistan?

Two U.S. Soldiers and an Afghan soldier were killed and three U.S. Soldiers were wounded during fighting with enemy combatants in the Pech District of Kunar Province on the evening of Oct. 2.
http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Li...0Reports%2Easpx (http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Lists/Casualty%20Reports%201/DispForm.aspx?ID=1414&Source=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ecentcom%2Emil%2Fsites%2F uscentcom1%2FLists%2FCasualty%2520Reports%25201%2F Current%2520Reports%2Easpx)

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Comrade Marcel+--> (Comrade Marcel)That&#39;s certainly not my position but seems to be closer to yours.[/b]

Fella&#39;, you lack the fundamental political sense to be able to understand my -- and every other partisan of the working classes -- position, as your posts in this thread amply demonstrate. As it happens, I&#39;ve already stated my position twice and I see no reason to type it out for a third time in order to try and make up for your political inadequacies.


Comrade Marcel
As for the barricades, I&#39;m the type of persyn always up front, so guess again. I&#39;m not in MIM either, so guess yet again.

You support their position on the working class in Imperialist Nations, right? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55429&view=findpost&p=1292165289) And the logical end-point of that position, as shown by the example I gave, is to act as scabs.

So, either you lack the logical abilities to follow through on your theoretical positions, or you&#39;re lying in the quote directly above. The formers probably more accurate....as I said earlier, you lack any fundamental political sense. The fundamental political sense of a working class communist, that is.

[TupacAndChe4Eva]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:49 PM
What we really need here is to show the people of Canada and America that the Left REALLY supports the troops&#33; Why? Because we want them to come HOME, away from the violence, away from getting KILLED&#33;

The real Left wants to SAVE lives and END war&#33;&#33;

That&#39;s the real patriotic message&#33; Let&#39;s not hand over patriotism to the right, let&#39;s tell the people our side of the story and give them the true patriotism of Bring the Troops Home Now&#33; And give them healthcare, raise the minimum wage, educatoin for so on. In other words, spend the money building the country and not going to war.

Comrade Marcel - How do you hope to win over American and Canadian workers with that kind of attitude?

This is why Maoism-Stalinism does not work&#33;
What the fuck is this shit? <_<