Left apologists for Islamic Fundamentals [Archive]

Publius

4th August 2007, 00:36

Does that mean people like Ghandi were putting their people's interests above all others when calling for Indian Independence?

In principal, if not in practice. That's what nationalism is, that's what 'self determination' is. Sequestering your 'people' (fabricated) from different 'people'.

Certainly Gandhi (note the spelling) was correct in opposing British rule of India (which was itself a form of nationalism, mind you), but any system that divides people into arbitrary and ultimately meaningless categories like 'nationalities' is fundamentally flawed from an internationalist perspective.

Calling for a countries indepence is often called nationalism.

That's because it is. I'm not saying countries shouldn't be independent of foreign influence, because foreign influence via imperialism or colonialism is a worse form of nationalism, I'm saying nation states as a whole are divisive. India is a perfect example of this, what with all that's happening in Kashmir. Who's right and who's wrong there? Who's nationalism should win out? See how pointless it is? You throw off one oppressor and you get stuck with an intractable feud over a piece of land; all of that is nationalism.

For example here in Scotland, those that support Scottish independence are often called Nationalsits, despite the fact many have a political oprientation that is otherwise cosmopolitan and indeed internationalsit in nature.

Scottish independence might be a laudable short term goal (I really have no idea), but it's obviously no substitute for internationalism and I can't see what positive effect it would actually have for Scottish people as a whole. But I can't really speak for that particular issue, ignorant as I am of it.

Demogorgon

4th August 2007, 02:17

I agree with you in principle, but you are not taking sufficient account of practicality. Obviously the goal has to be internationalism ("no borders, no nations" after all) but in a situation where you have an unequal power structure. i.e. One group is ruling over another, that needs to be ended before there can be any true internationalism.

I mean what would your solution to the British Empire have been? It wasn't just going to reform itself into an egalitarian socirty of all the different peoples united together.

Publius

4th August 2007, 04:25

I agree with you in principle, but you are not taking sufficient account of practicality.

And I think you overstate the positive effects of nationalism and understate its risks.

I mean, it's not as if India's problems were all solved as soon as they tossed off the Brits. Some were, but India is still to this day a deeply troubled, poor nation. At least they're not controlled by an outside force, but still.

Obviously the goal has to be internationalism ("no borders, no nations" after all) but in a situation where you have an unequal power structure. i.e. One group is ruling over another, that needs to be ended before there can be any true internationalism.

Simply removing a foreign influence does not get rid of unequal power structure, it just changes it. Now the Indian government and corporations, national and international, run the country. Again, better than the British, but certainly far from the goal.

I mean what would your solution to the British Empire have been? It wasn't just going to reform itself into an egalitarian socirty of all the different peoples united together.

I can't see that nationalism has, on the whole, been a benefit to reform. If you measure the good with the bad, I'm not sure where the scale might end up. Factor in that British imperialism was nationalist in nature, as is all imperialism, and you see what I mean. Just because it can help in some situations doesn't mean it doesn't harm in others.

The-Spark

4th August 2007, 05:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 10:49 am

blowing oneself up in a shopping centre to forward a medieval theocracy involving the suppression of women and the stoning of gays is a bad thing, isnt it?

Accually it is very weird, because i saw on this documentry of this proffeser talking about whats going on in the middle east at the time. But in Islamic religion it is accually a sin to commit suicide. They believe that if you commit suicide, you will face the same fate over and over again in the next world. So those people blowing themselves up in those shopping centres, in true islamic terms will be blowings themselves up over and over again in the next world. Religion, is a nasty thing, has driven to wars, murders and oppression.

And on Gandhi, im not sure he was exactly putting "their people's interests above all others". Yet i believe he realized that his interests was not equal to the interests of people in other countries and he wish to change it, so wouldnt it be a fight for internationalism if he was fighting to gain the same rights as people outside of India, who arent oppresed and arnt occupied by the U.K. Because apart of internationalism is everybody, in every country, or every race, to have the same rights. And i believe he did not want the Indian people to have more rights than other countries, just the same.

Vargha Poralli

4th August 2007, 07:57

Originally posted by Publius
Certainly Gandhi (note the spelling) was correct in opposing British rule of India (which was itself a form of nationalism, mind you), but any system that divides people into arbitrary and ultimately meaningless categories like 'nationalities' is fundamentally flawed from an internationalist perspective.

First off thanks for using correct spelling for Gandhi ;).

Anyway there are some issues about your arguments from an "International Perspectives".

Marxists see the state/nation/country as a tool for class antagonisms and oppose them. But Marxists also recognise the reality of nations/nationalities - ethnicities as called by Non-Marxists.

Marxists support for self-determination will be based on various factors that are fundamentally unique to each cases.For example after the Russian Revolution Bolsheviks while dismantling the old society and the structure of Soviet Russia granted autonomy - in other words self determination to various nationalities within the Russian Empire - which constitute almost 57% of the population compromised by Non-Russians. Their policy actually helped them in winning the Civil War as the forces opposing them had nothing to offer in substitute for it - except for Russian Chauvinism.

Cheung Mo

4th August 2007, 13:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:40 am
Thats ridiculous though, thats taking the term "An enemy of my enemy is my friend" to its extreme literal meaning.

That would be the same as the right supporting anyone who opposes socialism..
One must remember the imperialist right's alliances with Islamists in regions of the Middle East threated by a people's revolution.

Cheung Mo

4th August 2007, 13:36

graffic

4th August 2007, 14:51

Originally posted by Cheung Mo+August 04, 2007 12:33 pm--> (Cheung Mo @ August 04, 2007 12:33 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 11:40 am
Thats ridiculous though, thats taking the term "An enemy of my enemy is my friend" to its extreme literal meaning.

That would be the same as the right supporting anyone who opposes socialism..

One must remember the imperialist right's alliances with Islamists in regions of the Middle East threated by a people's revolution. [/b]
Were not talking about that though, were talking about the Left alliance with Islam. Were also talking about terror apologists..

Vargha Poralli

4th August 2007, 15:00

Originally posted by graffic+August 04, 2007 07:21 pm--> (graffic @ August 04, 2007 07:21 pm)
Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 04, 2007 12:33 pm

[email protected] 03, 2007 11:40 am
Thats ridiculous though, thats taking the term "An enemy of my enemy is my friend" to its extreme literal meaning.

That would be the same as the right supporting anyone who opposes socialism..

One must remember the imperialist right's alliances with Islamists in regions of the Middle East threated by a people's revolution.
Were not talking about that though, were talking about the Left alliance with Islam. Were also talking about terror apologists.. [/b]

Why ? Is it because you can't justify Israeli funding of Hamas in 80's ? or CIA funding of Mujahideen in Afghanistan ?

Phalanx

4th August 2007, 16:52

Originally posted by g.ram+August 04, 2007 02:00 pm--> (g.ram @ August 04, 2007 02:00 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 07:21 pm

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 04, 2007 12:33 pm

[email protected] 03, 2007 11:40 am
Thats ridiculous though, thats taking the term "An enemy of my enemy is my friend" to its extreme literal meaning.

That would be the same as the right supporting anyone who opposes socialism..

One must remember the imperialist right's alliances with Islamists in regions of the Middle East threated by a people's revolution.
Were not talking about that though, were talking about the Left alliance with Islam. Were also talking about terror apologists..

Why ? Is it because you can't justify Israeli funding of Hamas in 80's ? or CIA funding of Mujahideen in Afghanistan ? [/b]
Mossad or the CIA can't justify what they did. They made mistakes, just like any human-run organization. At the time, Mossad needed a Palestinian organization that would weaken the PLO and its splinter groups, so they funded a fundamentalist group. But because they brought the organization to life, they can also destroy it. Same goes for the CIA and the mujahideen. If they created it, they can destroy it.

Vargha Poralli

4th August 2007, 17:06

Originally posted by Phalanx+August 04, 2007 09:22 pm--> (Phalanx @ August 04, 2007 09:22 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 02:00 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 07:21 pm

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 04, 2007 12:33 pm

[email protected] 03, 2007 11:40 am
Thats ridiculous though, thats taking the term "An enemy of my enemy is my friend" to its extreme literal meaning.

That would be the same as the right supporting anyone who opposes socialism..

One must remember the imperialist right's alliances with Islamists in regions of the Middle East threated by a people's revolution.
Were not talking about that though, were talking about the Left alliance with Islam. Were also talking about terror apologists..

Why ? Is it because you can't justify Israeli funding of Hamas in 80's ? or CIA funding of Mujahideen in Afghanistan ?
Mossad or the CIA can't justify what they did. They made mistakes, just like any human-run organization. At the time, Mossad needed a Palestinian organization that would weaken the PLO and its splinter groups, so they funded a fundamentalist group. But because they brought the organization to life, they can also destroy it. Same goes for the CIA and the mujahideen. If they created it, they can destroy it. [/b]
Yeah they can!

can';t you see the bankruptcy of your own argument ? Now Mossad's original wish was accomplished Plo turned out to be a sell out but Hamas was ready to fill its space.

And till today US can't get out of Afghanistan. I know the situation there and it is not victory for US.

And if you have not noticed not every one in the left support Islamic fundamentalist groups.

You can destroy a person or organistaion but you can't destroy a struggle. As long as the oppression continues people will sure fight against it.

graffic

4th August 2007, 20:40

Originally posted by g.ram+August 04, 2007 02:00 pm--> (g.ram @ August 04, 2007 02:00 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 07:21 pm

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 04, 2007 12:33 pm

[email protected] 03, 2007 11:40 am
Thats ridiculous though, thats taking the term "An enemy of my enemy is my friend" to its extreme literal meaning.

That would be the same as the right supporting anyone who opposes socialism..

One must remember the imperialist right's alliances with Islamists in regions of the Middle East threated by a people's revolution.
Were not talking about that though, were talking about the Left alliance with Islam. Were also talking about terror apologists..

Why ? Is it because you can't justify Israeli funding of Hamas in 80's ? or CIA funding of Mujahideen in Afghanistan ? [/b]
Not really, I was just after a logical explanation of how we have ended up with anti-war demonstrations where purportedly socialist paper-sellers mingle with thoroughly fundamentalist Hizb ut-Tahir, chatting, their stalls standing next to each other.

Devrim

4th August 2007, 21:03

Originally posted by Cheung Mo+August 04, 2007 12:33 pm--> (Cheung Mo @ August 04, 2007 12:33 pm)
Originally posted by graffic+August 03, 2007 11:40 am--> (graffic @ August 03, 2007 11:40 am) Thats ridiculous though, thats taking the term "An enemy of my enemy is my friend" to its extreme literal meaning.

That would be the same as the right supporting anyone who opposes socialism.. [/b]
One must remember the imperialist right's alliances with Islamists in regions of the Middle East threated by a people's revolution. [/b]
Really, what 'people's revolution'?

Cheung [email protected]
So you blame the refusal of the Irish people living in Ireland to sufficiently submit to English tyranny for their low quality of life. You're wading into some very murky pseudo-trot neocon waters, comrade.

What is all this talk about people? Communists talk about classes. It is very clear that the working class in Northern Ireland is divided, and this is one of the main reasons for low wages there. Even 'Republican socialists' would realise that. The reasons for this we would differ on.

Cheung Mo
You're wading into some very murky pseudo-trot neocon waters

If you think that this anaylis comes from Trotskyism you really don't have a clue at all what you are talking about.

Why don't you get your Mum to buy you a class analysis for Christmas.

The one that they sell in WalMart couldn't be much worse than the nonsense that you are going on about the people now.

Devrim

Die Neue Zeit

5th August 2007, 01:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 04:40 am
Thats ridiculous though, thats taking the term "An enemy of my enemy is my friend" to its extreme literal meaning.

That would be the same as the right supporting anyone who opposes socialism..
Wah, wah, wah. :P

While I'm thankfully away from such opportunistic crap (yes, that's the appropriate term) between so-called "leftist" groups (while I have my issues with Trotskyism, these opportunistic sectarians are Trotskyist in name only <_< ), it's also called "realpolitik." <_<

It's no different from the anti-Communist appeasement of Hitler, or from aiding the Baathist rise to power (and bringing about decades of misery and suffering for Iraqi workers) as a mere anti-Soviet measure, or from ditto with the Afghan mujahedeen.

RGacky3

5th August 2007, 01:50

I think the Left more understands the real roots behind Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism (Being Imperialism and Oppression), and because they realize that and want to end those things causing Islamic Fundamentalism and Terrorism, people see us as being apologists.

Sartre put it a good way: Terrorism is a horrible weapon, but its the only weapon the poor and oppressed have.

We understand that if you want to end Terrorism, Imperialist nations need to stop using it, and making the poor and oppressed feel the need to use it to defend themselves.

Remember Al-Quadas Goal in attacking the United States origionally? It was to get the United States Army out of the holy Land, i.e. Leave us alone, stop trying to control lands and communities that we hold sacred, now is that such a horrible goal? I'm not way justifying what they do, but I'm pointing out that Imperialism is what causes these things, and the way to stop it is to stop Imperialism.

Vargha Poralli

5th August 2007, 10:24

Originally posted by Hammer+August 05, 2007 06:02 am--> (Hammer @ August 05, 2007 06:02 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 04:40 am
Thats ridiculous though, thats taking the term "An enemy of my enemy is my friend" to its extreme literal meaning.

That would be the same as the right supporting anyone who opposes socialism..
Wah, wah, wah. :P

While I'm thankfully away from such opportunistic crap (yes, that's the appropriate term) between so-called "leftist" groups (while I have my issues with Trotskyism, these opportunistic sectarians are Trotskyist in name only <_< ), it's also called "realpolitik." <_<

[/b]
You go on with this anti-trotskyism shit but do you even understand what every party's line is before speaking ?

Which group supports Islamic fundamentalists ? Most of us including some hardcore Maoist and Stalinists support the fight of Muslim people against the imperialist oppression not that we support the Isalmic theorcarcy or some thing like that. Just because the struggling is done by Muslim people doesn't mean they are fighting for Isalmisim or some thing like that.

Not that it matters we support them or don't support them people will struggle against oppression no matter what bystander thinks otherwise.

It's no different from the anti-Communist appeasement of Hitler, or from aiding the Baathist rise to power (and bringing about decades of misery and suffering for Iraqi workers) as a mere anti-Soviet measure, or from ditto with the Afghan mujahedeen.

Se you really don't have any clue about the people's struggle in Middle East or South Asia.

RGacky3
I'm not way justifying what they do, but I'm pointing out that Imperialism is what causes these things, and the way to stop it is to stop Imperialism.

Clearly. Good post.

graffic

5th August 2007, 11:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 12:50 am
Imperialism is what causes these things, and the way to stop it is to stop Imperialism.
Its a funny sort of business when you consider that, historically, the British Left has failed even to develop a united campaign against racism. Recent decades have seen an atagonistic, left inspired anti-racist organisations - many, ironically, sporting the words "Coalition", "Unity" or "United".

Yet the difference between these various battling groups are minuscule when compared to say the Muslim Association of Britain - who are major partners in the Stop The War campaign.

Why ally with religious reactionarys? Sure you might be privately pleased when you see terroists attacking US Imperialism - some might even actively enjoy it. However does the left really need to Unite with these religous fundamentalists? A left that can ally with religous reactionarys but can't ally with itself might want to sit down for a bit of a think.

Devrim

5th August 2007, 12:26

Originally posted by RGacky3+--> (RGacky3)Remember Al-Quadas Goal in attacking the United States origionally? It was to get the United States Army out of the holy Land, i.e. Leave us alone, stop trying to control lands and communities that we hold sacred, now is that such a horrible goal?[/b]

But what does it have to do with the working class?

RGacky3
Sartre put it a good way: Terrorism is a horrible weapon, but its the only weapon the poor and oppressed have.

I would hardly number bin Laden among the poor, and oppressed. Fortunately though the working class do have different weapons.

Devrim

Vargha Poralli

5th August 2007, 17:13

I would hardly number bin Laden among the poor, and oppressed.

Well no one can. But many men who follow him certainly come from the most poor and oppressed sections of South Asia,Persia and Middle East.

RGacky3

5th August 2007, 20:31

I don't think most of the left allies themself with the Islamic fundamentalists at all, you should read the IWWs attacks on Irans crack down on workers.

But what does it have to do with the working class?

It has to do with the working class in middle eastern countires, because they are the ones that suffer the most from imperialism, and most of the working class, also religious identity is very important to many people, and I (and I believe many other leftists) understand and respect the right of people in those countires to have their holy lands free of American Military Bases, I mean thats a huge disrespect, its not ALL about class strugge all the time, their religious indentity is important as well, and their right to self-determination.

I would hardly number bin Laden among the poor, and oppressed. Fortunately though the working class do have different weapons.

Devrim

Bin Laden would'nt have any of the support he had unless it came from the poor and oppressed, and I think its reasonable to think that if the oppressed people "In those countries" Believed they had feasable and strong alternatives to blowing themselves up they'd probably consider it :P.

Phalanx

6th August 2007, 00:30

You can destroy a person or organistaion but you can't destroy a struggle. As long as the oppression continues people will sure fight against it.

That's sure a nice slogan, but utterly false. Of course you can destroy a struggle. Read up on the Roman Empire buddy.

can';t you see the bankruptcy of your own argument ? Now Mossad's original wish was accomplished Plo turned out to be a sell out but Hamas was ready to fill its space.

Exactly. Mossad made a mistake. Now they plan on correcting that mistake by sending the terrorists to their virgins.

Die Neue Zeit

6th August 2007, 04:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:24 am
You go on with this anti-trotskyism shit but do you even understand what every party's line is before speaking?
Um, the SWP isn't a proper Trotskyist party, per se. <_<

I think you know about its recent silence on certain social issues (by recent, I mean since 2001) in order to be in good standing with the Muslim Right (the Islamic Party of Britain, in particular)

Devrim

6th August 2007, 08:23

Originally posted by RGacky3+August 05, 2007 07:31 pm--> (RGacky3 @ August 05, 2007 07:31 pm)
But what does it have to do with the working class?

It has to do with the working class in middle eastern countires, because they are the ones that suffer the most from imperialism, and most of the working class, also religious identity is very important to many people, and I (and I believe many other leftists) understand and respect the right of people in those countires to have their holy lands free of American Military Bases, I mean thats a huge disrespect, its not ALL about class strugge all the time, their religious indentity is important as well, and their right to self-determination.

[/b]

Originally posted by RGacky3+--> (RGacky3)its not ALL about class strugge all the time,[/b]

It is about making a class analysis as opposed to a vague set of liberal ideas stuck together, which you seem to have.

Originally posted by RGacky3
their religious indentity is important as well,

Oh, come on. Communists stand for the interests of the working class. It may have escaped your notice somehow, but religion is actually opposed to the interests of the working class.
While many workers may feel that their religious identity is important, communists know that it is contrary to their class interests.

Originally posted by RGacky3
and their right to self-determination

Again the lack of a class analysis leads to problems. Whose 'right to self-determination'?
When one talks about 'self-determination' one must not forget that one is talking about self determination for the dominant class, the bourgeoisie.

Originally posted by RGacky3
and I (and I believe many other leftists) understand and respect the right of people in those countires to have their holy lands free of American Military Bases, I mean thats a huge disrespect,

Again all of this talk about 'people' and 'their holy land', just to remind you again society is divided into classes, and also the Islamic holy land does not belong to some amourphous people, but actually to the house of Saud.

Finally on this point:

Originally posted by RGacky3

[email protected]
I would hardly number bin Laden among the poor, and oppressed. Fortunately though the working class do have different weapons.

Devrim

Bin Laden would'nt have any of the support he had unless it came from the poor and oppressed, and I think its reasonable to think that if the oppressed people "In those countries" Believed they had feasable and strong alternatives to blowing themselves up they'd probably consider it :P.

g.ram
Well no one can. But many men who follow him certainly come from the most poor and oppressed sections of South Asia,Persia and Middle East.

There are two problems here. The first is that while radical Islam may have the support of some of the 'poor and oppressed', its support does not come traditionally from the working class. Its support is in the middle classes, and the urban poor. One place where this has been demonstrated is that on the whole the suicide bombers in Palestine tend to be the children of the middle class. This is not to say that no workers are pulled into it.

The second is that it is true that there are times when workers support factions that are against their own interests. It doesn't mean that the communists must support them too. In the recent elections in Turkey about 15% voted MHP (fascist). That must have included many workers, as well as 'members of the poor and oppressed'. It doesn't mean that communists should support fascism.

Devrim

redflag32

6th August 2007, 13:19

Originally posted by devrimankara+August 03, 2007 09:48 pm--> (devrimankara @ August 03, 2007 09:48 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 03, 2007 01:40 pm
How has Irish nationalism and republicanism been detrimental to the working class struggle?

Maybe in playing its part in dividing the working class. It is no coincidence that Northern Ireland has the lowest wage level's in the UK. Maybe in its completely anti-working class gangsterism.

Explain this on any of the RSM forums and you'll be laughed out.

I presume that means 'Republic Socialist Movement'. They are anti-working class nationalists.

Devrim[/b]

Maybe in playing its part in dividing the working class.

Irish republicanism and nationalism are two seperate things. The republican struggle in Ireland has always bein inclusive of all sections of the community,one of its founding fathers was Tone,a protestant. In the 1916 proclamation it clearly states its anti-sectarian nature also.

There are countless examples i could show you of how Irish republicanism has crossed the secterian divide which was planted by the British ruling class, but its enough to say that Irish republicanism has not played any part in dividing the working class.

If you believe those who fight for the democratic rights of a people and who aligned themselves openly on the left and with the working class of Ireland are playing a part in the secterian nature of the 6 counties i suggest you polish up on your Irish history, the sectarian divide was created by the British elite and the nationalist middle class helped to keep it there. Republicans have always faught against the nationalist middle class of Ireland for the rights of the working class,its the confusion between Irish nationalism and republicanism that leads people to believe in this myth that republicanism is the opposite side to loyalism.

I presume that means 'Republic Socialist Movement'. They are anti-working class nationalists.

Then why is the party called the Irish REPUBLICAN Socialist Party? They are the most feared movement in Ireland by the state, the state even gave guns to the NATIONALIST provisional movement in order to suppress the MARXIST IRSP.

Nationalism by its very nature is democratic so it should be supported by all leftists. The same way gay rights is democratic and it should be supported by leftists,both dont go the full way to socialism but their democratic nature should be supported atleast.There is a very big difference in the Nationalim of a small suppressed country like Ireland and that of an Imperialist country like the USA or Britian.When nationalism is part of a struggle for the democratic right of a people to the ownership of their country it is progressive,but when it is used to wage imperialist/economic war on another nation, it is not progressive. Its actually very simple to understand unless you are blinded by sectarianism yourself or are a pacifist.

Coggeh

6th August 2007, 15:59

Nationalism if anything divides workers even in an oppressed country , true it can be used as a tool for mobilizing a movement but its a reactionary ideology to begin with ,Connolly even stated that nationalism on its own changes nothing and we must turn to socialism now you might associate that with the IRSP but simply they would be better off without the irish republican part of their name.

We don't support Islamic fundamentalists . Just because you fight imperialism doesn't mean your anti-imperialist .We support workers unity in face of the extremists on both sides.

redflag32

6th August 2007, 17:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:59 pm
Nationalism if anything divides workers even in an oppressed country , true it can be used as a tool for mobilizing a movement but its a reactionary ideology to begin with ,Connolly even stated that nationalism on its own changes nothing and we must turn to socialism now you might associate that with the IRSP but simply they would be better off without the irish republican part of their name.

We don't support Islamic fundamentalists . Just because you fight imperialism doesn't mean your anti-imperialist .We support workers unity in face of the extremists on both sides.

Nationalism if anything divides workers even in an oppressed country

Its the sectarian organisations and border that was put in place by the invading capitalist that is the cause of the divide. Just because the reaction by unionists to a democratic struggle by nationalists causes them to deepen their loyality to the capitalists doesnt make the struggle for democratic rights any less progressive or counter productive to socialism in Ireland.

true it can be used as a tool for mobilizing a movement but its a reactionary ideology to begin with

I dont see how a movement that struggles for the right of a people to rule themselves is reactionary. Nationalism as i said is different from Republicanism but even traditionalist nationalism cannot be called reactionary because they want to progress democracy in the fact that they are fighting for the democratic right of the people to the ownership of their country, this includes all sections of the community,including protestants.

Connolly even stated that nationalism on its own changes nothing and we must turn to socialism now you might associate that with the IRSP but simply they would be better off without the Irish republican part of their name.

Connolly agreed that to only change the colour of the flag would do the working class no justice, in saying that he seen that it would be a step in the right direction anyway. He believed in putting no emphasis on either the national or social struggle,they have to be fought for side by side. The IRSP are the only ones who take this position so yes it would be correct to associate them with connolly's views.

You said the IRSP would be better without the Irish Republican part of their name,but this goes against what Connolly said that the two struggles must be fought side by side, he didnt say,what you said,that "we must turn to socialism now",but that the two struggles must be combined,hence the name of his party, the Irish Socialist Republican Party.

Vargha Poralli

6th August 2007, 17:43

There are two problems here. The first is that while radical Islam may have the support of some of the 'poor and oppressed', its support does not come traditionally from the working class. Its support is in the middle classes, and the urban poor. One place where this has been demonstrated is that on the whole the suicide bombers in Palestine tend to be the children of the middle class. This is not to say that no workers are pulled into it.

Well I don't know what you are arguing for, but the purpose of the starter of this thread is to slander the Communists to be in bed with Islamic Fundamentalists- not all Muslims are fundamentalists - most of them might just be religious but certainly they don't let the religion to shape their political decisions- I have met many such Muslims in India.

As I have said where there is oppression people would certainly fight against it-whether it is Muslims or Christians or Hindus or Jews. We cannot moralise on this one based upon the religious background of the oppressed. And IMO it does not matter whether the fighting people have our support or not - they will fight as long as they are oppressed.

That's sure a nice slogan, but utterly false.Of course you can destroy a struggle.

Well the struggles of Palestinians,Tamils ,Balochs and Pashtuns contradict your judgements buddy !!

Read up on the Roman Empire buddy.

What the fuck this has to do with Roman Empure buddy ? And Roman empire did get destroyed by the very people(Barbarians of the North) it oppressed isn't it ?

Devrim

6th August 2007, 17:56

Redflag,
If you want to argue about the situation in Ireland, I will argue it with you. Start it on another thread though. It does get a bit boring though when the 'Republican Socialists' drag Ireland into every topic.

If you want to discuss this topic, or even the broad theoretical background please go on.

Originally posted by redflag32+--> (redflag32)There is a very big difference in the Nationalim of a small suppressed country like Ireland and that of an Imperialist country like the USA or Britian.When nationalism is part of a struggle for the democratic right of a people to the ownership of their country it is progressive,but when it is used to wage imperialist/economic war on another nation, it is not progressive. Its actually very simple to understand unless you are blinded by sectarianism yourself or are a pacifist.[/b]

This is the heart of the disagreement. Examples from Ireland, or any other country alone colour this argument.
I think that there is no theoretical difference between nationalism in the USA, or in Ireland. The only difference is one of power. In the present epoch all states are imperialist. Imperialism is a world system, not the policy of a few nations.
Those who call for the working class to line up alongside the borzois are the enemies of the working class as they are calling upon the workers to put the interests of the bourgeoisie (i.e the national struggle against there own interests (i.e. the class struggle).
The result generally is workers getting killed on behalf of the bourgeoisie.

The reoccurring problem on this thread comes with this line:

redflag32
When nationalism is part of a struggle for the democratic right of a people to the ownership of their country it is progressive,

Once again, society is divided into classes. Those who talk of 'the democratic right of a people' are in fact talking about the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

Devrim

Devrim

Phalanx

6th August 2007, 23:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:43 pm

That's sure a nice slogan, but utterly false.Of course you can destroy a struggle.

Well the struggles of Palestinians,Tamils ,Balochs and Pashtuns contradict your judgements buddy !!
No they don't. I didn't say all struggles fail, I said it's possible to destroy a struggle. Take a look at Chechnya- even the guerrillas that made it out of Grozny are largely on the run. It's only a matter of time before they crumble.

What the fuck this has to do with Roman Empure buddy ? And Roman empire did get destroyed by the very people(Barbarians of the North) it oppressed isn't it ?

Well, we were talking about struggles, and the Roman Empire is the perfect example of an empire crushing dissent. Why were Jews expelled from Israel in the first place? Because Rome invaded and utterly destroyed any attempt to resist, scattering the inhabitants all over the empire. And that's only one example.

Vargha Poralli

7th August 2007, 09:34

No they don't. I didn't say all struggles fail, I said it's possible to destroy a struggle. Take a look at Chechnya- even the guerrillas that made it out of Grozny are largely on the run. It's only a matter of time before they crumble.

Well that proves my point too. Any struggle which don't have the support of the people whom it claims to represent cannot accomplish anything. And Checheny cannot be compared to Palestinian struggle.

Well, we were talking about struggles, and the Roman Empire is the perfect example of an empire crushing dissent. Why were Jews expelled from Israel in the first place? Because Rome invaded and utterly destroyed any attempt to resist, scattering the inhabitants all over the empire. And that's only one example.

Well Roman history is not my expertise but Roman Empire did face its demise at the Hands of Barbarians it oppressed.

RGacky3

8th August 2007, 07:37

It is about making a class analysis as opposed to a vague set of liberal ideas stuck together, which you seem to have.

Not all the time, there are other types of oppression other than Class oppression, not everything can be attributed to Class.

Oh, come on. Communists stand for the interests of the working class. It may have escaped your notice somehow, but religion is actually opposed to the interests of the working class.
While many workers may feel that their religious identity is important, communists know that it is contrary to their class interests.

First of all thats a VERY broad statement about religion, ever hear of the Liberation Theologists? Just to name one, and also who are you, or any communist to tell workers what should and should not be be important to them, that vanguardist attitude that many Marxists have, the idea that they are enlightened and they know so much better than the ignorant masses, is horribly pompus.

[QUOTE]There are two problems here. The first is that while radical Islam may have the support of some of the 'poor and oppressed', its support does not come traditionally from the working class. Its support is in the middle classes, and the urban poor. One place where this has been demonstrated is that on the whole the suicide bombers in Palestine tend to be the children of the middle class. This is not to say that no workers are pulled into it.
[QUOTE]

There can be many explanations for that, one easy one is that middle class families do not need their young ones nessesarily for economic support, they don't rely on them for bread every day the same way poorer polestinians do.

What I'm saying here is not that Leftists should support radical islam at all, but rather look at the root cuase, and fight that, and I think most of us know what that is.

Devrim

8th August 2007, 10:02

Originally posted by RGacky3+August 08, 2007 06:37 am--> (RGacky3 @ August 08, 2007 06:37 am)
It is about making a class analysis as opposed to a vague set of liberal ideas stuck together, which you seem to have.

Not all the time, there are other types of oppression other than Class oppression, not everything can be attributed to Class.

[/b]
No, all the time. The class analysis is the basis of communist theory.

Originally posted by RGacky3+--> (RGacky3)First of all thats a VERY broad statement about religion, ever hear of the Liberation Theologists? Just to name one,[/b]

Oh dear, if you think that liberation theology has anything to do with a class movement, you might as well give up now.

[email protected]
and also who are you, or any communist to tell workers what should and should not be be important to them, that vanguardist attitude that many Marxists have, the idea that they are enlightened and they know so much better than the ignorant masses, is horribly pompus.

Me, I am a communist worker, and have been a militant for over twenty years, but that isn't the point. I also believe that we need a vanguard party, but that isn't the point here either.

You don't seem to understand what vangaurdism is. This isn't vanguardism in any way.

People hold ideas that they think are correct if they didn't think they were correct they wouldn't hold them. Often they try to convince people that these ideas are right. This is just a normal human interaction patern.

RGacky3
There can be many explanations for that, one easy one is that middle class families do not need their young ones nessesarily for economic support, they don't rely on them for bread every day the same way poorer polestinians do.

So are you suggesting that the middle class, and the working class have come to an arrangement whereby the middle class sacrifice their sons. This is pure nonsense.

Devrim

RHIZOMES

8th August 2007, 10:50

After reading this and another topic defending Zionism that the OP did, I've come to the conclusion that his logic is:

"Oppression of an entire group of people is okay if the people that are fighting for their rights are reactionary! Never mind the PFLP or anything! Let's totally dismiss Palestinian's houses being bulldozed for no good reason because Hamas exists! Kids blowing themselves up are doing so because they want an Islamic theocratic state 100% all the time, not because they might be *angry* about something or anything!"

Idola Mentis

8th August 2007, 11:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 10:50 am
After reading this and another topic defending Zionism that the OP did, I've come to the conclusion that his logic is:(...)
Good caricature, but sadly, the OP's argument appears to be not as original as that. The actual template for the argument appears to be the same shit that gets thrown at anyone who tries to understand a designated "enemy" in wartime.

Many leftists try to understand violent actions, in order to solve violent conflicts as peacefully and quickly as possible. To some people, however, this triggers the "understanding = agreement" fallacy. This enables them to slap the "apologist" label on anyone who doesn't agree with their default "they're evil and must be wanquished" solution.

Of course, the OP could be talking about some fantastically idiotic group of leftists of which I am unaware, who buy the same black/white fallacy as the warmongers, and somehow manage to convince themselves suicide bombing must be okay, because people they disagree with are against it.

RHIZOMES

8th August 2007, 11:48

Originally posted by Idola Mentis+August 08, 2007 10:41 am--> (Idola Mentis @ August 08, 2007 10:41 am)
[email protected] 08, 2007 10:50 am
After reading this and another topic defending Zionism that the OP did, I've come to the conclusion that his logic is:(...)
Good caricature, but sadly, the OP's argument appears to be not as original as that. The actual template for the argument appears to be the same shit that gets thrown at anyone who tries to understand a designated "enemy" in wartime.

Many leftists try to understand violent actions, in order to solve violent conflicts as peacefully and quickly as possible. To some people, however, this triggers the "understanding = agreement" fallacy. This enables them to slap the "apologist" label on anyone who doesn't agree with their default "they're evil and must be wanquished" solution.

Of course, the OP could be talking about some fantastically idiotic group of leftists of which I am unaware, who buy the same black/white fallacy as the warmongers, and somehow manage to convince themselves suicide bombing must be okay, because people they disagree with are against it. [/b]
I have to agree there. All because I understand Osama's reasoning does not make me sympathetic for all the people he killed, or the global Islamic caliphate he wants to create (All because I am a Muslim does not make me an Islamist, faith is a personal thing and should have no role in government). If people took the time to understand their enemies reasoning rather than being jingoistic buffoons, the world might be a little more stable right now.

Dr Mindbender

8th August 2007, 13:33

That will not happen because as long as the war against the islamic world is consistent with the pursuit of profit (Iraqi and Afghan oil) then it will never be a money spinner to 'understand' the islamists.

Marion

8th August 2007, 14:03

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 08, 2007 12:33 pm
That will not happen because as long as the war against the islamic world is consistent with the pursuit of profit (Iraqi and Afghan oil) then it will never be a money spinner to 'understand' the islamists.
Err, I'd have thought it would be precisely because of the profit in these areas that there would be attempts to 'understand' the Islamists. Do you really think that significant efforts haven't been going on in policy circles over the last 6 or years to understand Islamic fundamentalism?

Dr Mindbender

8th August 2007, 14:15

Originally posted by Marion+August 08, 2007 01:03 pm--> (Marion @ August 08, 2007 01:03 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 08, 2007 12:33 pm
That will not happen because as long as the war against the islamic world is consistent with the pursuit of profit (Iraqi and Afghan oil) then it will never be a money spinner to 'understand' the islamists.
Err, I'd have thought it would be precisely because of the profit in these areas that there would be attempts to 'understand' the Islamists. Do you really think that significant efforts haven't been going on in policy circles over the last 6 or years to understand Islamic fundamentalism? [/b]
the people in those areas dont want the west to occupy the oil lines. Coming to a mutually agreed concensus would be impossible.

Marion

8th August 2007, 14:54

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+August 08, 2007 01:15 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ August 08, 2007 01:15 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 01:03 pm

Ulster [email protected] 08, 2007 12:33 pm
That will not happen because as long as the war against the islamic world is consistent with the pursuit of profit (Iraqi and Afghan oil) then it will never be a money spinner to 'understand' the islamists.
Err, I'd have thought it would be precisely because of the profit in these areas that there would be attempts to 'understand' the Islamists. Do you really think that significant efforts haven't been going on in policy circles over the last 6 or years to understand Islamic fundamentalism?
the people in those areas dont want the west to occupy the oil lines. Coming to a mutually agreed concensus would be impossible.[/b]
Just to clarify - I wasn't saying anything about the inevitability or not of war over oil in the Middle East, simply that to suggest that the Western upper-class doesn't attempt to understand the root causes of Islamic fundamentalism doesn't make any sense. I'd say there are very good financial reasons for trying to understand it, wouldn't you?

Dr Mindbender

8th August 2007, 22:50

Originally posted by Marion+August 08, 2007 01:54 pm--> (Marion @ August 08, 2007 01:54 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 08, 2007 01:15 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 01:03 pm

Ulster [email protected] 08, 2007 12:33 pm
That will not happen because as long as the war against the islamic world is consistent with the pursuit of profit (Iraqi and Afghan oil) then it will never be a money spinner to 'understand' the islamists.
Err, I'd have thought it would be precisely because of the profit in these areas that there would be attempts to 'understand' the Islamists. Do you really think that significant efforts haven't been going on in policy circles over the last 6 or years to understand Islamic fundamentalism?
the people in those areas dont want the west to occupy the oil lines. Coming to a mutually agreed concensus would be impossible.
Just to clarify - I wasn't saying anything about the inevitability or not of war over oil in the Middle East, simply that to suggest that the Western upper-class doesn't attempt to understand the root causes of Islamic fundamentalism doesn't make any sense. I'd say there are very good financial reasons for trying to understand it, wouldn't you? [/b]
the arms dealing sponsors would never support a government that appeases the arab countries because any move to heal the animosity of the islamic world against the west would remove the market for their products.

Dont forget the U$ invests the best part of $400 billion every year in the military. Peace in the middle east would mean a lot of unhappy suits.

RNK

9th August 2007, 03:11

Yes. War is business. The taxes of citizens and corporations go to the government, who then in turn give it all back to corporations. War is, essentially, a constant cash flow. Particularly when corporations formerly headed by Vice Presidents are given sole rights to reap in billions in profit in reconstructing the shattered cities and infastructure that the Vice President had a hand in destroying.

Axel1917

9th August 2007, 05:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 10:49 am
I came across this first hand when I was debating the topic of the Middle East a while ago, and I still can't get my head round this "logic".

There are some ground rules that need establishing here: blowing oneself up in a shopping centre to forward a medieval theocracy involving the suppression of women and the stoning of gays is a bad thing, isnt it?

I would of thought the British Left is not going to have such amazing differences in opinions about racism (they'd all be against it, which is a good start) that could not be contained in a single campaign.

By some crazy twist of logic, reactionary bigots who seek to plunge the world into religous darkness can become freedom fighters - a derformed liberation movement; the ANC by other means. How is this so? It seems if your against US Imperialism then you must be okay - even if what you like is slaughtering people standing at bus stops because of their religion.

Leftists like George Galloway and Livingstone have warmly welcomed reactionary bigots like Yusuf al-Qaradawi to London - who supports the execution of all males who engage in homosexual acts and "personally supports" female circumcision. Of suicide bombers he says 'For us, Muslim martyrdom is not the end of things but the begining of the most wonderful things'.

I want to know how people who call themselves leftists can ally with religious reactionarys but can't ally with themselves..
Galloway is a right-wing hack shoddily dressed in "left" colors. There is nothing leftist about him whatsoever.

The poor living standards in the Middle East give rise to Islamic Fundamentalism, as it, in words, offers a better way of life. Imperialism has also propped up fundos like Bin Laden and the like, Frankensteins that got out of control and ended up biting the hands that fed them.

Pawn Power

9th August 2007, 07:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 11:39 pm

The poor living standards in the Middle East give rise to Islamic Fundamentalism, as it, in words, offers a better way of life. Imperialism has also propped up fundos like Bin Laden and the like, Frankensteins that got out of control and ended up biting the hands that fed them.
I don't know what Bin Laden has to do with it. He is a rich man who hasn't really been personally affected by poor economic living standards. Furthermore, may of those who actually have carried out "terrorist attacks" in the western world have not been the very poor but professionals.

This is not to say that poor living standards are not a factor but there other very poor areas of the worlds where fundamentalism is much less significant.

Labor Shall Rule

9th August 2007, 09:07

Originally posted by Pawn Power+August 09, 2007 06:31 am--> (Pawn Power @ August 09, 2007 06:31 am)
[email protected] 08, 2007 11:39 pm

The poor living standards in the Middle East give rise to Islamic Fundamentalism, as it, in words, offers a better way of life. Imperialism has also propped up fundos like Bin Laden and the like, Frankensteins that got out of control and ended up biting the hands that fed them.
I don't know what Bin Laden has to do with it. He is a rich man who hasn't really been personally affected by poor economic living standards. Furthermore, may of those who actually have carried out "terrorist attacks" in the western world have not been the very poor but professionals.

This is not to say that poor living standards are not a factor but there other very poor areas of the worlds where fundamentalism is much less significant. [/b]
This is true. Terrorism always had a petit-bourgeois tradition. It is preached in the madhab schools, which only high-income intelligista families can afford to enroll their children in.

RHIZOMES

9th August 2007, 09:08

Originally posted by Pawn Power+August 09, 2007 06:31 am--> (Pawn Power @ August 09, 2007 06:31 am)
[email protected] 08, 2007 11:39 pm

The poor living standards in the Middle East give rise to Islamic Fundamentalism, as it, in words, offers a better way of life. Imperialism has also propped up fundos like Bin Laden and the like, Frankensteins that got out of control and ended up biting the hands that fed them.
I don't know what Bin Laden has to do with it. He is a rich man who hasn't really been personally affected by poor economic living standards. Furthermore, may of those who actually have carried out "terrorist attacks" in the western world have not been the very poor but professionals.

This is not to say that poor living standards are not a factor but there other very poor areas of the worlds where fundamentalism is much less significant. [/b]
I've seen this answered elsewhere on the board. Osama isn't the result of poor living conditions, but the majority of his followers are.

Labor Shall Rule

9th August 2007, 10:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 08:08 am
I've seen this answered elsewhere on the board. Osama isn't the result of poor living conditions, but the majority of his followers are.
His 'followers' are a few thousand middle-class intelligista.

RGacky3

9th August 2007, 16:55

No, all the time. The class analysis is the basis of communist theory.

I can see definately, you are one of those who take Marx's works as the bible, it is the truth and it is the ONLY truth, well thats fine, but buts very closed minded.

Oh dear, if you think that liberation theology has anything to do with a class movement, you might as well give up now.

well ... they do :P, they have to do with liberation movements, as well as poor and working class movements, many priests were killed and put their lives on the line to help liberation and working class movements, so if your going to just throw that all away based on your Marxist Dogma thats also fine, but again very closed minded.

Me, I am a communist worker, and have been a militant for over twenty years, but that isn't the point. I also believe that we need a vanguard party, but that isn't the point here either.

You don't seem to understand what vangaurdism is. This isn't vanguardism in any way.

People hold ideas that they think are correct if they didn't think they were correct they wouldn't hold them. Often they try to convince people that these ideas are right. This is just a normal human interaction patern.

Sure, you can try and convince religious people that they are wrong if you'd like, but you should also respect, and fight for, their right to determine their own beliefs and the way they live their lives, you being a communist worker does'nt change the fact that by you disrespecting someone based on their religious beliefs makes you an asshole (I'm not saying you are one, I'm saying that if you went around disrespect Islamic people for their beliefs you would come off as one), I'm talking about the vanguardist attitude, which is the attitude that many Marxists have, the attitude that for some reason they know better and they are more enlightened than everyone else.

So are you suggesting that the middle class, and the working class have come to an arrangement whereby the middle class sacrifice their sons. This is pure nonsense.

Devrim

Not at all, did you even read my post? I'm suggesting that middle class people have more time to study jihadest thought, and they can risk their lives (or give them) with out the immediate fear of their family going hungry, thats just in general, that also might explain why many violent revolutionaries come from middle class backgrounds.

BTW, I don't believe ANY leftist should ally himself with jihadest movements, or radical islamic fundamentalism, because our goal is to fight oppression, not replace one form of oppressions (Imperialism), with another (Islamic Fundamentalism), but I also believe that we should fight for everyones right to have their own culture and religion.

Axel1917

10th August 2007, 01:16

Originally posted by Pawn Power+August 09, 2007 06:31 am--> (Pawn Power @ August 09, 2007 06:31 am)
[email protected] 08, 2007 11:39 pm

The poor living standards in the Middle East give rise to Islamic Fundamentalism, as it, in words, offers a better way of life. Imperialism has also propped up fundos like Bin Laden and the like, Frankensteins that got out of control and ended up biting the hands that fed them.
I don't know what Bin Laden has to do with it. He is a rich man who hasn't really been personally affected by poor economic living standards. Furthermore, may of those who actually have carried out "terrorist attacks" in the western world have not been the very poor but professionals.

This is not to say that poor living standards are not a factor but there other very poor areas of the worlds where fundamentalism is much less significant. [/b]
I admit I probably did not clarify things too well; I was pointing out that imperialism has also been a contributing force to Islamic fundamentalism, both by creating the poor living conditions in the Middle East and providing arms and aid to some of the most well-known terrorist leaders.

Devrim

10th August 2007, 07:14

Originally posted by RGacky3+August 09, 2007 03:55 pm--> (RGacky3 @ August 09, 2007 03:55 pm)
No, all the time. The class analysis is the basis of communist theory.

I can see definately, you are one of those who take Marx's works as the bible, it is the truth and it is the ONLY truth, well thats fine, but buts very closed minded. [/b]

Actually, I am one of those who hasn't read Marx for over twenty five years, has never referred to themselves as a Marxist, and has deep criticisms of Marx. However, if that is what you want to believe...

I do believe though that a class analysis is essential, and is at the base of all communist politics.

[i]Originally posted by RGacky3+--> (RGacky3)they have to do with liberation movements, as well as poor and working class movements, many priests were killed and put their lives on the line to help liberation and working class movements, so if your going to just throw that all away based on your Marxist Dogma thats also fine, but again very closed minded.[/b]

I am not saying that no priests have been killed. I am not saying that they haven't individually defending some poor people. I am saying that Liberation Theology has nothing to do with building an independent class movement.

Originally posted by RGacky3
Sure, you can try and convince religious people that they are wrong if you'd like, but you should also respect, and fight for, their right to determine their own beliefs and the way they live their lives,

Why on Earth should I respect, and fight for, their right to determine their own beliefs and the way they live their lives? This sounds like the worst sort of petty bourgeois nonsense.

Do you respect the idea that people put bags on the heads of their female children? Do you respect the idea that society is not divided into classes, but is divided between believers, and non believers?

[email protected]
you being a communist worker does'nt change the fact that by you disrespecting someone based on their religious beliefs makes you an asshole (I'm not saying you are one, I'm saying that if you went around disrespect Islamic people for their beliefs you would come off as one),

I am not sure what you mean here by disrespecting people. In general, I tend to be respectful to people. There are times, however, when people's beliefs should be mocked. The idea that God made the world in six days is just one example.

Basically there are Islamicists that would shoot communists, and militant workers, and reduce women to being chattel. And you want me to respect these people? This is liberalism gone crazy.

RGacky3
I'm talking about the vanguardist attitude, which is the attitude that many Marxists have, the attitude that for some reason they know better and they are more enlightened than everyone else.

I still don't think you understand what vanguardism means. People hold ideas because they think they are correct. Therefore they think they are better than other ideas. This isn't vanguardism.

Devrim

Intifada

10th August 2007, 16:41

Originally posted by RedDali+August 09, 2007 09:11 am--> (RedDali @ August 09, 2007 09:11 am)
[email protected] 09, 2007 08:08 am
I've seen this answered elsewhere on the board. Osama isn't the result of poor living conditions, but the majority of his followers are.
His 'followers' are a few thousand middle-class intelligista. [/b]
Where do you get this conclusion from?

When I was in Egypt, there were a lot of poor people who would voice their support for bin Laden. One guy who worked at a stall near the Valley of the Kings even proudly showed me his mobile phone which had a wallpaper of bin Laden's face.

graffic

13th August 2007, 10:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 09:50 am
After reading this and another topic defending Zionism that the OP did, I've come to the conclusion that his logic is:

"Oppression of an entire group of people is okay if the people that are fighting for their rights are reactionary! Never mind the PFLP or anything! Let's totally dismiss Palestinian's houses being bulldozed for no good reason because Hamas exists! Kids blowing themselves up are doing so because they want an Islamic theocratic state 100% all the time, not because they might be *angry* about something or anything!"

I could debate Israel with you if you want but to be fair I'm more interested in hearing your "logic" since this is what this thread is about.

RHIZOMES

13th August 2007, 10:36

Originally posted by graffic+August 13, 2007 09:10 am--> (graffic @ August 13, 2007 09:10 am)
[email protected] 08, 2007 09:50 am
After reading this and another topic defending Zionism that the OP did, I've come to the conclusion that his logic is:

"Oppression of an entire group of people is okay if the people that are fighting for their rights are reactionary! Never mind the PFLP or anything! Let's totally dismiss Palestinian's houses being bulldozed for no good reason because Hamas exists! Kids blowing themselves up are doing so because they want an Islamic theocratic state 100% all the time, not because they might be *angry* about something or anything!"

I could debate Israel with you if you want but to be fair I'm more interested in hearing your "logic" since this is what this thread is about. [/b]
I explained my logic by mocking yours.

And your pro-Zionist points were rather stupid if I do say so myself. In that other thread, I noticed you tended to do the classic Zionist strategy of picking apart the parts you can find fault in and ignoring the overall message.

RGacky3

14th August 2007, 06:08

I am not saying that no priests have been killed. I am not saying that they haven't individually defending some poor people. I am saying that Liberation Theology has nothing to do with building an independent class movement.

For them it does, tha same way Marxism does with Marxists

Why on Earth should I respect, and fight for, their [Islamicists] right to determine their own beliefs and the way they live their lives? This sounds like the worst sort of petty bourgeois nonsense.

Do you respect the idea that people put bags on the heads of their female children? Do you respect the idea that society is not divided into classes, but is divided between believers, and non believers?

why should your respect and fight for their rights to determine their own beliefs? I don't know, why should anyone fight for your right to determine your own beliefs and live your your life? If you have a right to it so do they.

Do you respect the right of a Father saying that his Children cannot watch a certain program because its vulger? I have no problem with Society having believers and non believers as long as both have their right to be what they want, and none have authority over the other.

If your willing to take rights away from Muslims because you don't like their beliefs, then if Capitalists take away your rights because they don't like Socialists then whats the difference? Other than YOU think Islam is a bad religion, but Capitalists thinkg Socialism is dangerous, so what.

Devrim

14th August 2007, 13:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 05:08 am

I am not saying that no priests have been killed. I am not saying that they haven't individually defending some poor people. I am saying that Liberation Theology has nothing to do with building an independent class movement.

For them it does, tha same way Marxism does with Marxists

Do you really believe that priests are trying to build an independent working class movement?

Why on Earth should I respect, and fight for, their [Islamicists] right to determine their own beliefs and the way they live their lives? This sounds like the worst sort of petty bourgeois nonsense.

Do you respect the idea that people put bags on the heads of their female children? Do you respect the idea that society is not divided into classes, but is divided between believers, and non believers?

why should your respect and fight for their rights to determine their own beliefs? I don't know, why should anyone fight for your right to determine your own beliefs and live your your life? If you have a right to it so do they.

All of this talk of rights is complete bourgeois nonsense.

Do you respect the right of a Father saying that his Children cannot watch a certain program because its vulger? I have no problem with Society having believers and non believers as long as both have their right to be what they want, and none have authority over the other.

What are you going on about?

If your willing to take rights away from Muslims because you don't like their beliefs,

Where did I suggest that I was 'willing to take rights away from Muslims'?

Seriously, your whole talk about 'rights' sounds like re-heated liberalism. The working class defends its living conditions not by calling for 'rights', but by using its power. Yes sometimes these things are formally codified as 'rights', but then can just as easily be withdrawn.

then if Capitalists take away your rights because they don't like Socialists then whats the difference?

What rights (to be a socialist) will they take away? I am a organisation whose publications are technically illegal. It is also illegal to call for the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' in this country.

Other than YOU think Islam is a bad religion, but Capitalists thinkg Socialism is dangerous, so what.

Actually, I think all religions are 'bad'. Do you think they are 'good'? Islam has been used repeatedly as a force against the working class.

A final question, do you support the 'right' of Islamicists to make all women wear bags on their heads?

Devrim

Vinny Rafarino

14th August 2007, 18:10

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 03, 2007 03:56 am
the point is the left supports all groups to their own self determination in the face of imperialism, wether they be reactionary or progressive. The American Israeli alliance is a bigger threat to socialism and progressive thought than what pitiful remnants are left of the Palestinian nation and its islamic leadership.
Geez what a sham.

It pains me to see leftist falling into this completely reactionary camp. The only thing these crack-pots want to "self determine" is when and where to saw the heads off of every "infidel" they come across.

Thanking you incessantly for all your assistance along the way of course. Perhaps they will go lightly on you and whack you out before they film your beheading.

graffic

14th August 2007, 20:21

Originally posted by mcteethinator+August 13, 2007 09:36 am--> (mcteethinator @ August 13, 2007 09:36 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 09:10 am

[email protected] 08, 2007 09:50 am
After reading this and another topic defending Zionism that the OP did, I've come to the conclusion that his logic is:

"Oppression of an entire group of people is okay if the people that are fighting for their rights are reactionary! Never mind the PFLP or anything! Let's totally dismiss Palestinian's houses being bulldozed for no good reason because Hamas exists! Kids blowing themselves up are doing so because they want an Islamic theocratic state 100% all the time, not because they might be *angry* about something or anything!"

I could debate Israel with you if you want but to be fair I'm more interested in hearing your "logic" since this is what this thread is about.
I explained my logic by mocking yours.

And your pro-Zionist points were rather stupid if I do say so myself. In that other thread, I noticed you tended to do the classic Zionist strategy of picking apart the parts you can find fault in and ignoring the overall message. [/b]
You see everything through tunnel vision. Pro Israel = Pro US Imperialism = anti socialist.

Thats complete nonsense.

Dr Mindbender

14th August 2007, 20:34

Originally posted by Vinny Raffarino
Geez what a sham.

It pains me to see leftist falling into this completely reactionary camp. The only thing these crack-pots want to "self determine" is when and where to saw the heads off of every "infidel" they come across.
Geez what a generalisation.

it might have escaped your attention, but not every Palestinian activist is a theocratic teeth grinding neck sawer. Frankly, if someone bulldozed my house and killed my family with an F-16 jet then I'd probably start to empathise with those that decide to strap bombs to themselves. If you cant see how the US/Israel axis is a vile threat to progressive change and why the Palestinian cause must be supported, then you are truly naive beyond hope.

Why the fuck are so called Leftists becoming Israel apologists anyway? Go and do some reading before you type this ignorant shite. And you wonder why you end up getting restricted to OI!

Vinny Rafarino

14th August 2007, 20:46

Originally posted by ulster
Geez what a generalisation.

You're right, it is a generalisation.

One that is generally true of course.

if someone bulldozed my house and killed my family with an F-16 jet then I'd probably start to empathise with those that decide to strap bombs to themselves.

So long as you don't blow yourself up in the local Starbucks like these Palestinian nut jobs then do feel free to do so.

Shit jack, you may even get my support!

If you cant see how the US/Israel axis is a vile threat to progressive change and why the Palestinian cause must be supported, then you are truly naive beyond hope.

So you are assuming that I support Israel and the USA because I won't support your reactionary views concerning fundamentalist religious cults?

Who's "naive beyond hope"?

I do like your use of the word "axis" here; it sounds so "presidential." :lol:

Why the fuck are so called Leftists becoming Israel apologists anyway?

What planet are you from son? Look before you leap pal, it should keep you from skinning your knees, and ego.

Go and do some reading before you type this ignorant shite.

Uh huh.

And you wonder why you end up getting restricted to OI!

Leap away! :rolleyes:

Dr Mindbender

14th August 2007, 21:10

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+--> (Vinny Rafarino)

You're right, it is a generalisation.

One that is generally true of course[/b]
Well done, more sweeping ad hominem statements without any proof or backing.
what a cop-out.

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+--> (Vinny Rafarino)So long as you don't blow yourself up in the local Starbucks like these Palestinian nut jobs then do feel free to do so.[/b]
1- Did I say i was going to do it personally?
Read my post again Sparky, I said I could empathise with those who choose to do it, that makes a huge difference.
2- Not all palestinians are nut jobs, that attitude is typical of US/Israeli right wing chauvinist 'douche bags'.

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino

Shit jack, you may even get my support!
oh dear, que toilet flush.

Vinny [email protected]

So you are assuming that I support Israel and the USA
Are you even refuting that political islam and its violent tendencies are a reaction to the 1946 occupation? Perhaps then pre-tell, youd like to inform us as to why prior to that date islamic terrorism was more or less unheard of? Also please explain why those nations who dont support Israel are seldomly bothered?

Vinny Rafarino

because I won't support your reactionary views concerning fundamentalist religious cults?
Care to explain where i said i support fundamentalist religious cults? I said that I support the Palestinian liberation cause (in its progressive context) or perhaps you dont regard the issue of the self determination of an oppressed minority as worthy to the international workers movement?
Perhaps you think 1000 years plus of imperialist domination by the British against the Irish people was also justified?

The rest of your post is just ad hominem shite, so I think everyone will agree when it comes to those who need to look before they leap, the shoe is well and truly as they say, on the other foot.

Faux Real

14th August 2007, 21:18

if someone bulldozed my house and killed my family with an F-16 jet then I'd probably start to empathise with those that decide to strap bombs to themselves.

So long as you don't blow yourself up in the local Starbucks like these Palestinian nut jobs then do feel free to do so.
I won't bother. Ulster went ahead. :rolleyes:

If you cant see how the US/Israel axis is a vile threat to progressive change and why the Palestinian cause must be supported, then you are truly naive beyond hope.

So you are assuming that I support Israel and the USA because I won't support your reactionary views concerning fundamentalist religious cults?
Who exactly are these so-called fundamentalists you're speaking of? Is it 'extreme' to want an end to a colonial occupation; is it 'fundamentalist' to not have an external authority commanding your every whim?

I can see already there's no point to argue with someone this close-minded.

Vinny Rafarino

14th August 2007, 23:06

Originally posted by ulster+--> (ulster)Well done, more sweeping ad hominem statements without any proof or backing. what a cop-out.[/b]

Are you saying that Palestinian fundamentalists never blow themselves up in purely civilian areas?

Look bub, closing your eyes to reality in support of your reactionary beliefs is hardly "logical".

1- Did I say i was going to do it personally?

Do it, don't do it, "empathise" with them....I can care less.

I will however call out your reactionary beliefs.

Not all palestinians are nut jobs, that attitude is typical of US/Israeli right wing chauvinist 'douche bags'.

You're right.

The ones that don't believe in this Islam mumbo jumbo are most sane indeed; the very few that exist in Palestine that is.

The rest are, as you say, "douche bags" just like every other religious and capitalist nut.

Israeli and US citizens included!

Are you even refuting that political islam and its violent tendencies are a reaction to the 1946 occupation? Perhaps then pre-tell, youd like to inform us as to why prior to that date islamic terrorism was more or less unheard of? Also please explain why those nations who dont support Israel are seldomly bothered?

Are you on the goof-balls or what?

You just don't get it: no one gives a toss about what Islam produced a century ago, (you know, rampant persecution, murder and life in the middle ages) we give a toss about what it is producing now and how we can stop it.

Besides, Palestine is only the minority. Most wackos strapping bombs on themselves are coming out of countries not under the grip of another camp of nuts.

Good grief amigo.

The last sentence in this paragraph is somewhat non nonsensical and utterly meaningless to this conversation.

Care to explain where i said i support fundamentalist religious cults?

Wow. :lol:

Perhaps you think 1000 years plus of imperialist domination by the British against the Irish people was also justified?

Actually homes, I can care less about "1000 years of British rule in Ireland" because I'm not a nationalist.

I care about the 6000 years of capitalist rule over the people and how the fuck we can change it!

The rest of your post is just ad hominem shite,

Of course it is dear. :lol:

You sure like that word "shite".

So does Brad Pitt.

revolt
Who exactly are these so-called fundamentalists you're speaking of?

Oh dear, you do need to get out more.

Phalanx

15th August 2007, 00:18

1- Did I say i was going to do it personally?
Read my post again Sparky, I said I could empathise with those who choose to do it, that makes a huge difference

Oh that's good. You'll support brutal attacks on civilians, but at least you won't do it yourself. What a guy :rolleyes:

Who exactly are these so-called fundamentalists you're speaking of? Is it 'extreme' to want an end to a colonial occupation; is it 'fundamentalist' to not have an external authority commanding your every whim?

No, but it is extreme to saw someone's head off in front of a video camera, and it is fundamentalist to kill 175 people of a religious sect just because they're not Muslim.

I can see already there's no point to argue with someone this close-minded

If by close minded you mean not in favor of killing civilians when they sit down to dinner at a local restaurant, then yes, it is pointless to argue.

Never mind the PFLP or anything!

Ha, even for you guys the PFLP shouldn't be a group to be supported. Unless you're for attacks on civilians:

Suicide bombing in Netanya, killed 3 civilians (Oh, and Netanya is inside Israel proper, unless now you guys changed the party line and Jewish civilians are now fair game).

Suicide bombing of a bus station in Petah Tikva, 4 civilians died(also in Israel proper)

Suicide bombing in the Carmel market in Tel Aviv, 3 civilian deaths

The list goes on, but those were just during the intifada. Some of their more atrocious attacks were on school children. Wow, you guys must love the PFLP. Ma'alot Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27alot_massacre)

And remember, kids, these were intentional attacks on civilian targets. So please don't give me any bullshit on how great this terrorist group is.

Israel's policy is to never intentionally target civilians. This is indisputable, even look at the the facts, even though I know you love to ignore them.

link (http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/mostly.html)

While Israeli fatalities in the al-Aqsa conflict have consisted of 80 percent noncombatants (and over 80 percent before the substantial IDF casualties suffered during the Jenin incursion of April 2002), Palestinian fatalities have consisted of more combatants than noncombatants.

And this still holds true up to this point in 2007. The vast majority of Palestinian civilians killed were caught in the crossfire. The vast majority of Israeli civilians were targeted because they were Jewish.

RHIZOMES

15th August 2007, 07:36

Originally posted by graffic+August 14, 2007 07:21 pm--> (graffic @ August 14, 2007 07:21 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 09:36 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 09:10 am

[email protected] 08, 2007 09:50 am
After reading this and another topic defending Zionism that the OP did, I've come to the conclusion that his logic is:

"Oppression of an entire group of people is okay if the people that are fighting for their rights are reactionary! Never mind the PFLP or anything! Let's totally dismiss Palestinian's houses being bulldozed for no good reason because Hamas exists! Kids blowing themselves up are doing so because they want an Islamic theocratic state 100% all the time, not because they might be *angry* about something or anything!"

I could debate Israel with you if you want but to be fair I'm more interested in hearing your "logic" since this is what this thread is about.
I explained my logic by mocking yours.

And your pro-Zionist points were rather stupid if I do say so myself. In that other thread, I noticed you tended to do the classic Zionist strategy of picking apart the parts you can find fault in and ignoring the overall message.
You see everything through tunnel vision. Pro Israel = Pro US Imperialism = anti socialist.

Thats complete nonsense. [/b]
I hated Israel before I was a Muslim or a socialist.

Something about taking people's land, stripping away their livelihoods and bulldozing their houses just didn't seem quite right to me. I'm not sure why. <_<

Are you saying that Palestinian fundamentalists never blow themselves up in purely civilian areas?

Civilians that stole their land without permission.

Why is this guy not restricted?

Hiero

15th August 2007, 09:12

You see everything through tunnel vision. Pro Israel = Pro US Imperialism = anti socialist.

Thats complete nonsense.

That does make sense. Think about, Israel was set up with the backing of the USA, the USSR supported Israel. Both wanted an ally in the middle east. For the USA it meant an ally and area to work from in a region full of US hostility. Israel aids US imperialism, as long as Israel exists US imperialism has a faithfull imperialist ally in the mid east. So being pro Israel is pro US imperialism. Defeating Israel means a defeat for US imperialism. The imperialist are anti-socialist, remember the whole cold war thing? So really Pro Israel = Pro US Imperialism = anti socialist is correct.

Edelweiss

15th August 2007, 11:16

Why is this guy not restricted?

Dude, are you seriously suggesting we should restrict everyone who dares to oppose individual terrorism against innocent civilians?! I think you should be restricted for supporting it, it's a betrayal of international working class solidarity, and a fine example who wrong pseudo-communist nationalist lunatics or religious, fundamentalist wackos can go in the name of "anti-imperialism".

Fuck you and your religion!

RHIZOMES

15th August 2007, 11:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:16 am

Why is this guy not restricted?

Dude, are you seriously suggesting we should restrict everyone who dares to oppose individual terrorism against innocent civilians?! I think you should be restricted for supporting it, it's a betrayal of international working class solidarity, and a fine example who wrong pseudo-communist nationalist lunatics or religious, fundamentalist wackos can go in the name of "anti-imperialism".

Fuck you and your religion!
No, the fact he generalizes the entire religion of Islam, which is what the user "Invader Zim" tried to get Marko restricted for. Marko ended up getting restricted and I assumed it was because of the over-generalization but I could be wrong. These kinda over-generalizations annoy me because they tend to put the emphasise on their religion of Islam rather then other socio-economic conditions, etc. When people like that guy over-generalize I just can't help but think of all my friends at the Mosque, who are nothing like that at all and it seems unbecoming of a socialist to say this entire group of people is like this or that. It isn't any different in my view to WNs saying that Jews control the world because a few people of Jewish descent are in positions of power.

And before I thought that it was wrong to target civilians, but a PFLP supporter, who is not a Muslim, justified the PFLP targeting Israeli civilians in another topic, and I saw his logic. I could find the link later if you want. He isn't restricted either.

EDIT: Here it is http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...st&p=1292350708 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=68725&view=findpost&p=1292350708)

I was merely pointing out the situation that got the Palestinians resorting to such tactics, etc.

I could've phrased it better I admit.

Edelweiss

15th August 2007, 11:41

No, the fact he generalizes the entire religion of Islam.

well, blasphemy, insults, jokes or generalisations against any religion are not at all a reason for a restriction here. Most here, including myself, think that religion is totally and entirely in contradiction to any communist or anarchist ideas. Ever asked yourself why we have the religion sub-forum in OI...?

I was merely pointing out the situation that got the Palestinians resorting to such tactics, etc.

No, you was apologizing and supporting it, which is disgusting.

RHIZOMES

15th August 2007, 11:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:41 am

No, the fact he generalizes the entire religion of Islam.

well, blasphemy, insults, jokes or generalisations against any religion are not at all a reason for a restriction here. Most here, including myself, think that religion is totally and entirely in contradiction to any communist or anarchist ideas. Ever asked yourself why we have the religion sub-forum in OI...?

I was merely pointing out the situation that got the Palestinians resorting to such tactics, etc.

No, you was apologizing and supporting it, which is disgusting.
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...st&p=1292350708

I came to that conclusion from reading that, in which he made a good point. I was merely repeating what he said.

And I was not aware that religion had to be 100% diametrically opposed to socialist and anarchist ideas if it was personal, and quite a few people have lead me to believe otherwise, such as liberation theologists and the many Muslims in Central Asia who supported the Russian Revolution. Well, the admin of the site that introduced me to these ideas seems to think otherwise so now I'm not so sure. =/

YKTMX

15th August 2007, 11:50

I'm not an apologist, no, no, no.

I am an active supporter of Hezbollah, Hamas, the PFLP, the Iraqi resistance, the Afghan resistance and any other group, religious or otherwise, fighting imperialism.

Militant "atheism" is a liberal, anti-materialist pose - as self-defeating as it is narcissistic. The question of whether a person believes in a big guy in the sky doesn't and shouldn't arise when considering solidarity with any group of people struggling for national independence.

So-called Marxists who refuse to show solidarity with anti-imperialist struggles in the name of "atheism" or, god forbid, equality for women and gays (as if the questions are related!) are a disgrace.

Devrim

15th August 2007, 13:01

Originally posted by YKTMX+August 15, 2007 10:50 am--> (YKTMX @ August 15, 2007 10:50 am) I'm not an apologist, no, no, no.

I am an active supporter of Hezbollah, Hamas, the PFLP, the Iraqi resistance, the Afghan resistance and any other group, religious or otherwise, fighting imperialism.

[/b]
Really, and there was I imagining that you were someone in their teens, or early twenties sitting in the west fantasizing about these things. How wrong one can be.

YKTMX
Militant "atheism" is a liberal, anti-materialist pose - as self-defeating as it is narcissistic. The question of whether a person believes in a big guy in the sky doesn't and shouldn't arise when considering solidarity with any group of people struggling for national independence.

So-called Marxists who refuse to show solidarity with anti-imperialist struggles in the name of "atheism" or, god forbid, equality for women and gays (as if the questions are related!) are a disgrace.

Communists don't reject nationalist struggles primarily because they sometimes led by religious people, or because these people tend to have a 'middle ages' attitude towards gays, and women.

They reject them because they are anti-working class.

Devrim

Vinny Rafarino

15th August 2007, 17:55

Originally posted by muslim nut job+--> (muslim nut job)Civilians that stole their land without permission.
[/b]

June 1, 2001 - Marina Berkovizki, 17, Anya Kazachkov, 16, of Holon; Katherine Kastaniyada-Talkir, 15, of Ramat Gan; Aleksei Lupalu, 16, of the Ukraine; Mariana Medvedenko, 16, of Tel Aviv; Irina Nepomneschi, 16, of Bat Yam;Yulia Nelimov, 16, of Tel Aviv; Raisa Nimrovsky, 15, of Netanya; Liana Sakiyan, 16, of Tel Aviv; Maria Tagilchev, 14, of Netanya; and Irena Usdachi, 18, of Holon were killed when a suicide bomber blew himself outside a disco near Tel Aviv's Dolphinarium along the seafront promenade just before midnight on Friday. Yevgenia Dorfman, 15, of Bat Yam died subsequently from their injuries. 120 people were wounded in the bombing.

Are these the vile thieves you were talking about?

Do me a favour jack: when you conduct that silly archaic ritual known as "prayer", please begin bashing you forehead into the ground.

Perhaps you may knock some sense into you skull.

boring cliffite
So-called Marxists who refuse to show solidarity with anti-imperialist struggles in the name of "atheism" or, god forbid, equality for women and gays (as if the questions are related!) are a disgrace.

I agree, Marxists are indeed a disgrace.

PigmerikanMao

15th August 2007, 18:13

Pardon me for stating my opinions, seeing as how many of you want to ban each other for them, which is just childlike of you, but an internationalist organization that supports the workers movement should ally with the enemies of imperialism to defeat the imperialists, even if it is occasionally a reactionary force (i.e: Mao Tse-Tung allied with the Nationalists of China to defeat Japan in WWII), once the imperialist power is dealt with (The American Empire and its benefactors), lesser evils can be dealt with, but for now, we share a common enemy and should utilize that to gain a possible victory against imperialism.

RHIZOMES

15th August 2007, 19:19

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 15, 2007 04:55 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 15, 2007 04:55 pm)
Originally posted by muslim nut [email protected]
Civilians that stole their land without permission.

June 1, 2001 - Marina Berkovizki, 17, Anya Kazachkov, 16, of Holon; Katherine Kastaniyada-Talkir, 15, of Ramat Gan; Aleksei Lupalu, 16, of the Ukraine; Mariana Medvedenko, 16, of Tel Aviv; Irina Nepomneschi, 16, of Bat Yam;Yulia Nelimov, 16, of Tel Aviv; Raisa Nimrovsky, 15, of Netanya; Liana Sakiyan, 16, of Tel Aviv; Maria Tagilchev, 14, of Netanya; and Irena Usdachi, 18, of Holon were killed when a suicide bomber blew himself outside a disco near Tel Aviv's Dolphinarium along the seafront promenade just before midnight on Friday. Yevgenia Dorfman, 15, of Bat Yam died subsequently from their injuries. 120 people were wounded in the bombing.

Are these the vile thieves you were talking about?

Do me a favour jack: when you conduct that silly archaic ritual known as "prayer", please begin bashing you forehead into the ground.

Perhaps you may knock some sense into you skull.

boring cliffite
So-called Marxists who refuse to show solidarity with anti-imperialist struggles in the name of "atheism" or, god forbid, equality for women and gays (as if the questions are related!) are a disgrace.

I agree, Marxists are indeed a disgrace. [/b]
Yes I do in fact agree. That's nothing compared to the harm inflicted on the Palestinians. Maybe if they didn't want to be blown up, they shouldn't stolen their land in the first place?

I'm not saying this as a Muslim, I am saying this as a Leftist. I didn't even agree with suicide bombing when I first converted to Islam, as it says in this verse: "And spend of your substance in the cause of Allah, and make not your own hands contribute to (your) destruction; but do good; for Allah loveth those who do good" and i remember seeing a few hadiths with Muhammad getting pissed because he saw an unarmed women killed in battle and was all "What did this women do?" etc. Suicide bombers are definitely going to hell by at least my interpretation. May be wrong (Or maybe there's no such thing as a hell =P), but I've realized that attacks on the colonizers themselves is neccessary to a certain extent, as to many Palestinians that's the only weapon they have.

I do not support forcing women to wear hijab (Rather then it being a choice out of modesty etc), forced conversions to Islam, 9/11 or anything similiar at this moment, unless someone can provide me good evidence why I should which they most likely won't.

Very nice with the comment on the prayer thing. Very mature of you.

Malte - If you read this again, I had seen some members who chastised people for stereotyping all Muslims and they interpreted it as anti-working class. Being a noob I probably interpreted the restriction system wrong as I also saw someone campaigning for Marko's restriction for calling me "Muslim scum" and then he did get restricted (Although this could be his pro-Israel stance). He should not be restricted just because he's being blasphemous, people on this forum do it all the time, I just thought so because of his rash generalizations which I've always iseen as being self-defeating if you want to get the support of Muslims in a socialist revolution. Hell, Lenin donated the Muslims in Central Asia the original Qur'an so he knew he needed their support.

Vinny Rafarino

15th August 2007, 19:37

Originally posted by fuckhead
Yes I do in fact agree. (with murdering children)

Hey boys and girls, this is what you are supporting when you praise these assholes.

Can you believe this jerk off actually admitted he thinks killing kids is okay?

Maybe if they didn't want to be blown up, they shouldn't stolen their land in the first place?

You're a fucking nut dude; I doubt you'll last long here.

RHIZOMES

15th August 2007, 19:38

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 15, 2007 06:37 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 15, 2007 06:37 pm)
fuckhead
Yes I do in fact agree. (with murdering children)

Hey boys and girls, this is what you are supporting when you praise these assholes.

Can you believe this jerk off actually admitted he thinks killing kids is okay?

Maybe if they didn't want to be blown up, they shouldn't stolen their land in the first place?

You're a fucking nut dude; I doubt you'll last long here. [/b]
:rolleyes:

Okay I doubt you're going to change your opinion, I've said all I need to say and there doesn't seem to be anything here that's worth arguing with. I'm off to do one of my five daily archaic prayers now. =D

Jazzratt

15th August 2007, 20:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 06:19 pm
Yes I do in fact agree. That's nothing compared to the harm inflicted on the Palestinians. Maybe if they didn't want to be blown up, they shouldn't stolen their land in the first place?
While I oppose the zionist occupation of palestine I'm going to interject here and say "woah, back the fuck up wankhose". The vast majority of Israeli citizenry are not responsible for the atrocities committed against Palestinians and are in fact just everyday proles like you and me - I thus find supporting blowing them up utterly reprehensible.

I'm not saying this as a Muslim, I am saying this as a Leftist.

No, you're saying this a psychotic fucknut.

I didn't even agree with suicide bombing when I first converted to Islam, as it says in this verse: "And spend of your substance in the cause of Allah, and make not your own hands contribute to (your) destruction; but do good; for Allah loveth those who do good" and i remember seeing a few hadiths with Muhammad getting pissed because he saw an unarmed women killed in battle and
was all "What did this women do?" etc.

Odd, isn't it, how a lot of the muslim scholars and theologians that believe that the actions of these nutters are completely justifiable have been reading the same book as you then? Do you know what that suggests to me? The Qu'ran is a fallible text written by men (by dint of its ambiguity).

Suicide bombers are definitely going to hell by at least my interpretation.

Wrongo moron. Suicide bombers aren't going anywhere much, although I daresay bits of them go for quite a distance, as "hell" doesn't exist.

May be wrong (Or maybe there's no such thing as a hell =P), but I've realized that attacks on the colonizers themselves is neccessary to a certain extent, as to many Palestinians that's the only weapon they have.

Why is it necessary to support the attacking of proletarians in one nation in the interests of the bourgeois and clerics of another?

I do not support forcing women to wear hijab (Rather then it being a choice out of modesty etc), forced conversions to Islam, 9/11 or anything similiar at this moment, unless someone can provide me good evidence why I should which they most likely won't.

That's as maybe, you're still a superstitious weirdo. Although you've somehow managed to be more progressive than a lot of the theocracy-supporting "atheists" of the SWP.

RHIZOMES

15th August 2007, 20:59

While I oppose the zionist occupation of palestine I'm going to interject here and say "woah, back the fuck up wankhose". The vast majority of Israeli citizenry are not responsible for the atrocities committed against Palestinians and are in fact just everyday proles like you and me - I thus find supporting blowing them up utterly reprehensible.

That is a good point. I only started developing this opinion 3 days ago so maybe I didn't quite articulate it as well as I could have. Now, explaining to my why I'm wrong is much more productive/reasonable then whatever the hell Vinny was doing.

No, you're saying this a psychotic fucknut.

Okay.

Odd, isn't it, how a lot of the muslim scholars and theologians that believe that the actions of these nutters are completely justifiable have been reading the same book as you then? Do you know what that suggests to me? The Qu'ran is a fallible text written by men (by dint of its ambiguity).

I usually interpret the Qur'an with help from http://www.islamonline.net which is a rather moderate site owned by Muslim scholars and theologians.

Wrongo moron. Suicide bombers aren't going anywhere much, although I daresay bits of them go for quite a distance, as "hell" doesn't exist.

I said by my interpretation (And I later said "Maybe hell doesn't exist" as you may notice), as I was pointing out how I didn't actually support them because of my religion. You missed the point.

Why is it necessary to support the attacking of proletarians in one nation in the interests of the bourgeois and clerics of another?

That is also a very good point.

That's as maybe, you're still a superstitious weirdo. Although you've somehow managed to be more progressive than a lot of the theocracy-supporting "atheists" of the SWP.

heh that's rather ironic.

Vinny Rafarino

15th August 2007, 21:04

Originally posted by Islamic fuck-wad
Now, explaining to my why I'm wrong is much more productive/reasonable then whatever the hell Vinny was doing.

What I "did" was definitely tame compared to what I would like to do to you.

Sentinel

15th August 2007, 21:48

That is a good point. I only started developing this opinion 3 days ago so maybe I didn't quite articulate it as well as I could have. Now, explaining to my why I'm wrong is much more productive/reasonable then whatever the hell Vinny was doing.

You are saying that you need someone to explain to you why those children didn't have shit to do with the fact that Palestine was occupied, or even far more recent atrocities committed by Israel -- and thus even by your 'logic' haven't deserved to be killed?

Does 'not being born' ring any bells? :rolleyes:

You just stated that you support the killing of children. Could you please do the world a favor sir: next time your so called brain starts showing tendencies towards 'developing an opinion', seek help from a shrink -- not those 'moderate muslim scholars and theologians'. Thanks. :angry:

Dimentio

15th August 2007, 22:24

I have an idea!

We could import some Orcs and recreate Mordor on Palestine.

Phalanx

16th August 2007, 00:06

Yes I do in fact agree. That's nothing compared to the harm inflicted on the Palestinians. Maybe if they didn't want to be blown up, they shouldn't stolen their land in the first place?

HOLY SHIT!

What the fuck do 16 year olds have to do with colonizing a place?

Vinny Rafarino

16th August 2007, 00:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 04:06 pm

Yes I do in fact agree. That's nothing compared to the harm inflicted on the Palestinians. Maybe if they didn't want to be blown up, they shouldn't stolen their land in the first place?

HOLY SHIT!

What the fuck do 16 year olds have to do with colonizing a place?
Pretty sick stuff indeed.

RHIZOMES

16th August 2007, 04:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 11:06 pm

Yes I do in fact agree. That's nothing compared to the harm inflicted on the Palestinians. Maybe if they didn't want to be blown up, they shouldn't stolen their land in the first place?

HOLY SHIT!

What the fuck do 16 year olds have to do with colonizing a place?
That is a good point.

Sorry everyone. I didn't quite think this through. =/

You are saying that you need someone to explain to you why those children didn't have shit to do with the fact that Palestine was occupied, or even far more recent atrocities committed by Israel -- and thus even by your 'logic' haven't deserved to be killed?

I saw that as a necessity of warfare. However, he pointed out that it's more of a tool used by the bourgeousie to divide the working class, which is true.

You just stated that you support the killing of children. Could you please do the world a favor sir: next time your so called brain starts showing tendencies towards 'developing an opinion', seek help from a shrink -- not those 'moderate muslim scholars and theologians'. Thanks. :angry:

Uh no that site condemns suicide bombing. Most of my Muslim friends do too. If you actually read my post, I stated I starting developing the "suicide bombing is okay" idea from something someone else said (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=68725&view=findpost&p=1292350708) on this site. The one you are currently using. not Islamonline.net. But, now I realize he was referring specifically to PFLP operations and not suicide bombing upon closer reading, something you might need to do with my posts.

I'm gonna stop posting before I dig myself into any deeper of a hole. I'm glad that this happened though since it took me an oppurtunity to actually *listen* to what I was saying. I honestly felt terrible about it all day (Consider the fact that lying is a sin in Islam).

Phalanx

16th August 2007, 05:18

That is a good point.

Sorry everyone. I didn't quite think this through. =/

As long as you realize it now, it's fine. People place too much emphasis on what someone says nowadays. One little slip up and you've got a black mark on you until the end.

bloody_capitalist_sham

16th August 2007, 05:27

Attacks on civilians are intended to cause strain. The Zionist terrorist gangs in used to hang the wives and children of the British military. So, that really has set a president that such awful actions can help bring about real political victory. And, when you get systematically destroyed and your houses are lived in by Brits and Americans, its going to be a viable option. After all, they didnt even start it.

graffic

16th August 2007, 18:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 08:12 am

You see everything through tunnel vision. Pro Israel = Pro US Imperialism = anti socialist.

Thats complete nonsense.

That does make sense. Think about, Israel was set up with the backing of the USA, the USSR supported Israel. Both wanted an ally in the middle east. For the USA it meant an ally and area to work from in a region full of US hostility. Israel aids US imperialism, as long as Israel exists US imperialism has a faithfull imperialist ally in the mid east. So being pro Israel is pro US imperialism. Defeating Israel means a defeat for US imperialism. The imperialist are anti-socialist, remember the whole cold war thing? So really Pro Israel = Pro US Imperialism = anti socialist is correct.
Did it not occur to you that Israel is actually a Jewish state? Funnily enough Israel wasnt created solely as an ally for Western powers, if you look in to a bit of history you might find out about the rich Jewish history and culture which lies there.

I take it you would be happy to see the U.K destroyed aswell then since they are an ally to the US.

Idola Mentis

16th August 2007, 19:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 06:56 pm
Did it not occur to you that Israel is actually a Jewish state? Funnily enough Israel wasnt created solely as an ally for Western powers, if you look in to a bit of history you might find out about the rich Jewish history and culture which lies there.

I take it you would be happy to see the U.K destroyed aswell then since they are an ally to the US.
Your argument is only relevant to radical nationalists. Good luck convincing people here of that premise.

Phalanx

16th August 2007, 19:39

Your argument is only relevant to radical nationalists. Good luck convincing people here of that premise.

Why do you guys have complete disregard for other cultures? (Unless, of course, if that culture is based around Islam).

Faux Real

16th August 2007, 20:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 11:39 am

Your argument is only relevant to radical nationalists. Good luck convincing people here of that premise.

Why do you guys have complete disregard for other cultures? (Unless, of course, if that culture is based around Islam).
Has anyone on this thread supported the idea of an Islamic State? No. Religion makes a horrible excuse for nationality.

By the way, my question of "who are these so called fundamentalists" was referring to the resistance in Palestine. Of course there's plenty in Iraq, Iran, etc. Should have been more specific.

Idola Mentis

16th August 2007, 21:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 07:39 pm
Why do you guys have complete disregard for other cultures? (Unless, of course, if that culture is based around Islam).
Do "we"? You're still thinking nationalist, friend. I can see that you think a nation needs a state to exist, and that a nation is the same as a culture. I'm sure you have good reasons to believe so. I would enjoy reading them. Maybe they would convince me?

However, until you do so, all I know is: Nation-state does not equal nation. Nation does not equal culture. In fact, culture is a process emerging from communities of people who are dependent on each other. Such a commune does not need a state to exist.

I disregard no culture; in fact, I think understanding these fascinating processes are among the most useful things we can do right now. It seems to me your are more in danger of disregarding cultures, by subjecting them to the twisted caricatures and abuses of nationalism.

RHIZOMES

17th August 2007, 00:02

Originally posted by graffic+August 16, 2007 05:56 pm--> (graffic @ August 16, 2007 05:56 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 08:12 am

You see everything through tunnel vision. Pro Israel = Pro US Imperialism = anti socialist.

Thats complete nonsense.

That does make sense. Think about, Israel was set up with the backing of the USA, the USSR supported Israel. Both wanted an ally in the middle east. For the USA it meant an ally and area to work from in a region full of US hostility. Israel aids US imperialism, as long as Israel exists US imperialism has a faithfull imperialist ally in the mid east. So being pro Israel is pro US imperialism. Defeating Israel means a defeat for US imperialism. The imperialist are anti-socialist, remember the whole cold war thing? So really Pro Israel = Pro US Imperialism = anti socialist is correct.
Did it not occur to you that Israel is actually a Jewish state? Funnily enough Israel wasnt created solely as an ally for Western powers, if you look in to a bit of history you might find out about the rich Jewish history and culture which lies there.

I take it you would be happy to see the U.K destroyed aswell then since they are an ally to the US. [/b]
Uh no because the UK isn't stolen land.

Phalanx

17th August 2007, 06:38

I can see that you think a nation needs a state to exist, and that a nation is the same as a culture. I'm sure you have good reasons to believe so. I would enjoy reading them. Maybe they would convince me?

I think the state is a far better option to hold a nation together than a Monarchy or a confederation of communities. To some extent each community should decide it's own affairs, but it ceases to be an effective economic power when it isn't joined with the rest of the nation in such a way that a state provides.

However, until you do so, all I know is: Nation-state does not equal nation. Nation does not equal culture. In fact, culture is a process emerging from communities of people who are dependent on each other. Such a commune does not need a state to exist.

A nation isn't necessarily a culture, but a religion is, such as Judaism.

Uh no because the UK isn't stolen land.

Yes, my friend, it is. The United Kingdom was once populated solely by Celtic peoples until the Saxon invasion and subsequent 'apartheid' era, when the Celts lived like second class citizens. And the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, North Africa, Eastern China, and South America are all built on stolen land. And none of these but Israel can claim some historical ties to the land where their nations now lie.

Unfortunately warfare is part of human nature, just like it is with chimpanzees, ants, lions, and hyenas, etc.

Idola Mentis

17th August 2007, 11:29

I think the state is a far better option to hold a nation together than a Monarchy or a confederation of communities. To some extent each community should decide it's own affairs, but it ceases to be an effective economic power when it isn't joined with the rest of the nation in such a way that a state provides

Now you are assuming that we want to "hold a nation together" in the first place. Effective economic power has nothing to do with the 19th century's romantic notions of a nation. The nation is a superfluous fiction, constructed to serve the interests of the powerful.

For example: Troll dolls, national costumes and an enforced writing standard does not make Norway prosperous; billions of barrels of oil and a completely ruthless state-owned petroleum company does. The most effective economic powers today are global, multinational corporations, not nation-states. Even the states which pull the most punch can't pass as nation-states. Norway can't, no matter how much the nationalist whine. There's three indigenous cultures, and hundreds of languages are spoken by its citizens.

A nation isn't necessarily a culture, but a religion is, such as Judaism.

Really. Then I suppose, say, mongolian christians belong to the same culture as american and european christians? There's an international christian nation? Should that nation strive for its own territory? Where would that territory be? Antarctica?

YKTMX

17th August 2007, 17:57

Originally posted by devrimankara+August 15, 2007 12:01 pm--> (devrimankara @ August 15, 2007 12:01 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:50 am
I'm not an apologist, no, no, no.

I am an active supporter of Hezbollah, Hamas, the PFLP, the Iraqi resistance, the Afghan resistance and any other group, religious or otherwise, fighting imperialism.

Really, and there was I imagining that you were someone in their teens, or early twenties sitting in the west fantasizing about these things. How wrong one can be.

YKTMX
Militant "atheism" is a liberal, anti-materialist pose - as self-defeating as it is narcissistic. The question of whether a person believes in a big guy in the sky doesn't and shouldn't arise when considering solidarity with any group of people struggling for national independence.

So-called Marxists who refuse to show solidarity with anti-imperialist struggles in the name of "atheism" or, god forbid, equality for women and gays (as if the questions are related!) are a disgrace.

Communists don't reject nationalist struggles primarily because they sometimes led by religious people, or because these people tend to have a 'middle ages' attitude towards gays, and women.

They reject them because they are anti-working class.

Devrim [/b]
And there I was thinking that you knew nothing about me or what I do or not do - oh yeah, you don't!

Nationalist struggles are not anti-working class, they're primarily, in oppressed nations, movements of the working class.

Whereas ultra-leftists, like you, are elitist, middle class pseudo-intellectual types with connections to nobody.

Forward Union

17th August 2007, 17:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 04:57 pm
Whereas ultra-leftists, like you, are elitist, middle class pseudo-intellectual types with connections to nobody.
Shouldn't you be off raising money to pay off the SWPs £60k debt to various printers or something?

Vinny Rafarino

17th August 2007, 18:14

Originally posted by cliffite
Nationalist struggles are not anti-working class, they're primarily, in oppressed nations, movements of the working class.

Every "movement" is a movement of the working class.

Non working class individuals don't bother with "movements"; they are too busy doing blow off the tits of hookers to be bothered with that kind of crap.

Good luck with all that head sawing off business -- I heard it really sucked.

spartan

17th August 2007, 18:28

nationalism is a bourgeoisie concept invented to split and divide working men and women.

Devrim

17th August 2007, 18:35

Originally posted by YKTMX+August 17, 2007 04:57 pm--> (YKTMX @ August 17, 2007 04:57 pm) And there I was thinking that you knew nothing about me or what I do or not do - oh yeah, you don't!
[/b]
Actually, all you need to do is to look at your profile; kid in his early twenties living in the West. Just as I said:

Devrim
Really, and there was I imagining that you were someone in their teens, or early twenties sitting in the west fantasizing about these things. How wrong one can be.

Considering that you are a member of the SWP, I would also guess that you are a student, or have just finished university.

Actually, in my opinion these things are better than being ' an active supporter of Hezbollah, Hamas, the PFLP, the Iraqi resistance, the Afghan resistance and any other group, religious or otherwise, fighting imperialism.' Of course if you want to continue with this pretense, please tell us how you 'support' them.

Nationalist struggles are not anti-working class, they're primarily, in oppressed nations, movements of the working class.

It is quite strange to see the phrases 'oppressed nation', and working class together in the same sentence today. Usually those who talk of 'oppressed nations' tend to talk of 'people'. As for this assertion though, it unfortunately has nothing to do with reality. 'National' movements are cross class movements by definition, and the interests that they fight for are invariably those of the dominant class in society, the bourgeoisie.

Whereas ultra-leftists, like you, are elitist, middle class pseudo-intellectual types with connections to nobody.

Actually, you know nothing about me at all. On a personal level, I am a worker though, and have been for the past two and a half decades since leaving school at sixteen.

Devrim

graffic

17th August 2007, 19:17

Originally posted by rev0lt+August 16, 2007 07:36 pm--> (rev0lt @ August 16, 2007 07:36 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 11:39 am

Your argument is only relevant to radical nationalists. Good luck convincing people here of that premise.

Why do you guys have complete disregard for other cultures? (Unless, of course, if that culture is based around Islam).

Has anyone on this thread supported the idea of an Islamic State? No. Religion makes a horrible excuse for nationality.
[/b]
Hamas, Fatah, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah or even Lashkar-e-Toiba..

90% of theses so called "freedom fighters" call for Islamic states. If you don't show support for these various groups then why arguing with my orginal point?

Phalanx

17th August 2007, 23:08

Really. Then I suppose, say, mongolian christians belong to the same culture as american and european christians? There's an international christian nation? Should that nation strive for its own territory? Where would that territory be? Antarctica?

Judaism has its roots in the land of Israel and always will. That is a fact. This world-Christianity and Antarctica comparison is completely pointless, and you know it.

graffic

18th August 2007, 13:38

Originally posted by The Red Ghost+August 15, 2007 06:36 am--> (The Red Ghost @ August 15, 2007 06:36 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 07:21 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 09:36 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 09:10 am

[email protected] 08, 2007 09:50 am
After reading this and another topic defending Zionism that the OP did, I've come to the conclusion that his logic is:

"Oppression of an entire group of people is okay if the people that are fighting for their rights are reactionary! Never mind the PFLP or anything! Let's totally dismiss Palestinian's houses being bulldozed for no good reason because Hamas exists! Kids blowing themselves up are doing so because they want an Islamic theocratic state 100% all the time, not because they might be *angry* about something or anything!"

I could debate Israel with you if you want but to be fair I'm more interested in hearing your "logic" since this is what this thread is about.
I explained my logic by mocking yours.

And your pro-Zionist points were rather stupid if I do say so myself. In that other thread, I noticed you tended to do the classic Zionist strategy of picking apart the parts you can find fault in and ignoring the overall message.
You see everything through tunnel vision. Pro Israel = Pro US Imperialism = anti socialist.

Thats complete nonsense.
I hated Israel before I was a Muslim or a socialist.

Something about taking people's land, stripping away their livelihoods and bulldozing their houses just didn't seem quite right to me. I'm not sure why. <_<

[/b]
None of those atrocities you describe seem "right" to me either (although on reflection if I did support the bulldozing of someones house, It still wouldnt be quite as extreme as supporting the slaughter of innocent civilians standing at a bus stop).

I'm a big critic of Israels foreign policy, just as many American and European Jews are. This doesnt mean I "hate" Israel though, it doesnt mean I want the nation destroyed either.

Idola Mentis

18th August 2007, 14:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 11:08 pm

Really. Then I suppose, say, mongolian christians belong to the same culture as american and european christians? There's an international christian nation? Should that nation strive for its own territory? Where would that territory be? Antarctica?

Judaism has its roots in the land of Israel and always will. That is a fact. This world-Christianity and Antarctica comparison is completely pointless, and you know it.
If I did, why would I have made the comparision? I don't accept facts just because someone tells me they are facts. You shouldn't either. It's a dangerous habit.

Judaism has its roots in the people who used to live in the territory called Israel. I seriously doubt that the rocks and trees know they're supposed to be holy. How do you get from the jewish belief that this patch of land is special to the belief that there should be a theocratic apartheid state there?

graffic

18th August 2007, 18:34

You don't accept facts because someone tells you they are fact? Thats a good point.

Tell me using your legit facts how Israel is practising Apartheid then?

Dr Mindbender

18th August 2007, 23:14

Apologies for late reply

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+--> (Vinny Rafarino)Are you saying that Palestinian fundamentalists never blow themselves up in purely civilian areas?
[/b]
No, i was countering your insinuation that 'all palestinian militants' per se are mindless suicide bombers .
They should not be ostracised from the general socialist concesus simply because they have some objectives consitent with those of political islamists.

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+--> (Vinny Rafarino)
Look bub, closing your eyes to reality in support of your reactionary beliefs is hardly "logical".[/b]
Care to explain, and back up how my beliefs are 'reactionary'?

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino

Do it, don't do it, "empathise" with them....I can care less.

If you regard yourself as a left winger then you should care.

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino

I will however call out your reactionary beliefs.
That we have already established unfortunately you have still failed to explain why this is the case.

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino

You just don't get it: no one gives a toss about what Islam produced a century ago, (you know, rampant persecution, murder and life in the middle ages) we give a toss about what it is producing now and how we can stop it.
Its precisely that brand of ignorance which is producing all the animosity fuelling the terrorism today. The conception of Israel is a gross historical injustice and until that is rectified that region of the world will continue to manufacture terrorism and propogate their ideas. Supporting the neo-con assholes in Washington and Jerusalem is going to acheive nothing.

Vinny [email protected]

Besides, Palestine is only the minority. Most wackos strapping bombs on themselves are coming out of countries not under the grip of another camp of nuts. If you knew anything about Islam (which im assuming you dont judging by the ignorance of your posts) then you would know that the sense of siblingship extends to all other members of the religion, regardless of nationality of relationship. You and I may disagree with that, but its a moot point and we have to deal with it.Every Palestinian that dies as a result of Israeli actions creates another billion angry people.

Vinny Rafarino

I care about the 6000 years of capitalist rule over the people and how the fuck we can change it!
Yep, and going around blabbing your mouth against every group (in this case the islamic world) that is a victim of capitalist rule is going to change a lot, isnt it? :angry:

I suggest you need to read more.

Dr Mindbender

18th August 2007, 23:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 05:34 pm
You don't accept facts because someone tells you they are fact? Thats a good point.

Tell me using your legit facts how Israel is practising Apartheid then?
what, aparting from sealing them in with a big wall, with machine towers etc and removing the right of return to any Palestinian who leaves the coutry?

hmmmm :blink:

RHIZOMES

18th August 2007, 23:34

You just don't get it: no one gives a toss about what Islam produced a century ago, (you know, rampant persecution, murder and life in the middle ages) we give a toss about what it is producing now and how we can stop it.

Whoa! You sure are ignorant. During the Middle Ages, Islamic civilization were the most progressive. Sure, Dhimmis didn't have as many rights as Muslims, but compared to the Spanish Inquisition it was a teaparty. In fact, during the Jewish golden age in the Muslim Iberian peninsula, Jews held positions of government and it was a breeding ground for Muslim-Jewish-Christian cooperation. When the Christians took Jerusalem, they kicked all non-Christians out. When Saladin took it back, he let the minorities be.

Then the Enlightenment came, and then the Wahabbis came, who have hijacked the religion with their extremist point of view by funding Mosques, etc with their newly-found oil wealth.

Hope that enlightens you a bit, although knowing you, you'll just call me names.

Faux Real

18th August 2007, 23:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:08 pm

Really. Then I suppose, say, mongolian christians belong to the same culture as american and european christians? There's an international christian nation? Should that nation strive for its own territory? Where would that territory be? Antarctica?

Judaism has its roots in the land of Israel and always will. That is a fact. This world-Christianity and Antarctica comparison is completely pointless, and you know it.
Actually, all Abrahamic religions have had their roots in the "Land of Israel".

Dr Mindbender

19th August 2007, 00:21

and what phalanx ignores is that the region was under de facto arab control for the best part of 1500 years, if not more.
What the zionists did can never be justified.

RHIZOMES

19th August 2007, 01:10

Originally posted by rev0lt+August 18, 2007 10:41 pm--> (rev0lt @ August 18, 2007 10:41 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 03:08 pm

Really. Then I suppose, say, mongolian christians belong to the same culture as american and european christians? There's an international christian nation? Should that nation strive for its own territory? Where would that territory be? Antarctica?

Judaism has its roots in the land of Israel and always will. That is a fact. This world-Christianity and Antarctica comparison is completely pointless, and you know it.
Actually, all Abrahamic religions have had their roots in the "Land of Israel". [/b]
Islam was founded in modern-day Saudi Arabia though.

Or do you mean, the original Jewish religion which has it's roots in Israel which Christianity and Islam were inspired from?

Okay yeah.

Vinny Rafarino

20th August 2007, 18:44

Originally posted by The Red Ghost+August 18, 2007 05:10 pm--> (The Red Ghost @ August 18, 2007 05:10 pm)
Islam was founded in modern-day Saudi Arabia though.

Or do you mean, the original Jewish religion which has it's roots in Israel which Christianity and Islam were inspired from?

Okay yeah.

[/b]
And all three were "inspired" by Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV) in Egypt.

Who really cares where and when these fantasies were transliterated into text; it does not change the fact that they are still fantasies.

Very dangerous ones at that.

Originally posted by [email protected]
No, i was countering your insinuation that 'all palestinian militants' per se are mindless suicide bombers .
They should not be ostracised from the general socialist concesus simply because they have some objectives consitent with those of political islamists.

If you are going to quote me, please quote me accurately. Making up statements and attributing them to me is rather silly since we can simply scroll back a few pages and get the truth.

Regardless, I will continue to ostracise them until the cows come home. I don't care if you like it or not!

Luckily for me I don't have the "general Socialist concesus" (code for parliament seat filling votes) to keep me from addressing the truth.

If you regard yourself as a left winger then you should care.

Only if you have confused leftism with being a hippy like John Lennon. I have no time for bleeding-heart liberals I believe Terence Mann said it best in the 1989 sleeper hit "Field of Dreams":

"Peace, love, dope! Now get the hell out of here!"

That we have already established unfortunately you have still failed to explain why this is the case.

The fact that you need someone to explain to you why supporting fanatical religious movements is reactionary is beyond me.

Its precisely that brand of ignorance which is producing all the animosity fuelling the terrorism today.

Yes, denying zealots the "god given right" to blow kids to pieces is "fueling terrorism".

:lol:

The conception of Israel is a gross historical injustice and until that is rectified that region of the world will continue to manufacture terrorism and propogate their ideas. .

Yet the concept of "Palestine" is somehow easier for you stomach. That's rich.

You shouldn't be supporting the concept of either!

Supporting the neo-con assholes in Washington and Jerusalem is going to acheive nothing

You're barking up the wrong tree homes. Unlike you, I don't participate in the capitalist electoral sham or with its politicians.

If you knew anything about Islam (which im assuming you dont judging by the ignorance of your posts) then you would know that the sense of siblingship extends to all other members of the religion, regardless of nationality of relationship. You and I may disagree with that, but its a moot point and we have to deal with it..

Actually I took Theology classes through both undergrad and graduate school. What a marvelous waste of time it was!

Every Palestinian that dies as a result of Israeli actions creates another billion angry people

The problem here is getting them "angry" with the right things.

Who supposedly was personally given some dirt by "god" ain't it!

Yep, and going around blabbing your mouth against every group (in this case the islamic world) that is a victim of capitalist rule is going to change a lot, isnt it?

Not if you have anything to say about it.

You've already got that "friend of Capitalism" rope neatly tied around your neck; I'm merely here pointing it out to you.

I suggest you need to read more.

I'll keep that in mind though guy.

nutty religious guy again
During the Middle Ages, Islamic civilization were the most progressive

So you're saying that life in the "progressive Islamic middle ages" (5th to 15th century) was still "progressive" only one hundred years ago?

I'd hate to see what you considered not to be "progressive". :lol:

YKTMX

20th August 2007, 19:04

Actually, all you need to do is to look at your profile; kid in his early twenties living in the West.

Haha.

I live in Scotland and I'm in twenties - how perceptive.

Considering that you are a member of the SWP, I would also guess that you are a student, or have just finished university.

I'm not a member of the SWP but I am a student, aye. Once again, not exactly something I've tried to "hide".

Of course if you want to continue with this pretense, please tell us how you 'support' them.

I've been involved with the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign for years. I was involved in building the resistance to Israel's war in Lebanon, much of which was carried out alongside Lebanese migrants to Glasgow. And I've been involved in the STWC since its conception. All of these have involved offering "support" to anti-imperialism, and it's something I'm proud of.

Actually, you know nothing about me at all. On a personal level, I am a worker though, and have been for the past two and a half decades since leaving school at sixteen.

Fantastic.

Dr Mindbender

21st August 2007, 00:53

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+--> (Vinny Rafarino)If you are going to quote me, please quote me accurately. Making up statements and attributing them to me is rather silly since we can simply scroll back a few pages and get the truth.

Regardless, I will continue to ostracise them until the cows come home. I don't care if you like it or not! [/b]
I dont care if you dont care.

If you wouldnt rather spend your energy 'ostracising' the real enemy in Washington and the bell ringers in time square then its you that looks like the silly ass. You and graffic should set up your own islamophobia forum. You would get on like a house on fire.

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+--> (Vinny Rafarino)
Luckily for me I don't have the "general Socialist concesus" (code for parliament seat filling votes) to keep me from addressing the truth.[/b]
I was referring to socialism in the revolutionary context. Socialism in its true non-reformist form does not exist within capitalist parliamentaryism.

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino

Only if you have confused leftism with being a hippy like John Lennon. I have no time for bleeding-heart liberals I believe Terence Mann said it best in the 1989 sleeper hit "Field of Dreams":

"Peace, love, dope! Now get the hell out of here!"
1- John Lennon was grossly over-rated
2- I was never a fan of the hippy movement. I always regarded them as a bunch of priveleged workshy middle class mummys boys that would rather drop out of college and smoke weed rather than get involved in workplace politics and grass-roots trade unionism.

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino

The fact that you need someone to explain to you why supporting fanatical religious movements is reactionary is beyond me.
Again, quote me once where is said that i support 'fanatical religious movements'. I said that i support the palestinian liberation movement in its socialist context. Their is nothing reactionary about supporting the self determination of a group whose existence is threatened by imperialism. The only reason youre calling me reactionary is that by in large, the Pal lib movement as a rule of thumb has been tarred by the same brush as the theists.

Vinny [email protected]

Yes, denying zealots the "god given right" to blow kids to pieces is "fueling terrorism".
Fuck off. :angry:
Read about the Sabra and Shatila massacres in 82 or the incident at Genin and then come back to me.

Vinny Rafarino

Yet the concept of "Palestine" is somehow easier for you stomach. That's rich.

Jeez. Your ignorance knows no bounds. To be honest ive had enough. Please go and do some reading about the Middle East (from an unbiased perspective) because quite frankly i would rather get bum-raped by a cactus than continue this debate with you.

Vinny Rafarino

21st August 2007, 17:18

Originally posted by Ulster
You and graffic should set up your own islamophobia forum.

Excellent idea!

I only wish I had the nerdiness to pull it off. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction.

I'm looking for a nerd that enjoys long walks on the beach, poetry readings, summer sunsets and of course rampant islamaphobia.

Check it out for me jack.

I was referring to socialism in the revolutionary context. Socialism in its true non-reformist form does not exist within capitalist parliamentaryism.

With any luck that decrepit old theory will stay where it belongs: among the other historical disappointments.

1- John Lennon was grossly over-rated
2- I was never a fan of the hippy movement. I always regarded them as a bunch of priveleged workshy middle class mummys boys that would rather drop out of college and smoke weed rather than get involved in workplace politics and grass-roots trade unionism.

You're on the right track!

Now if we can get rid of all that reactionary business we would be solid gold.

Fuck off. mad.gif
Read about the Sabra and Shatila massacres in 82 or the incident at Genin and then come back to me.

:o

Struck a nerve did we? It's okay son, just let it out.

To be honest ive had enough

What did the republican say to the fly in his pint?

Spit it out!!

Spit it out!!

Don't worry, it was a fair fight; they were nearly the same size.

Rhino Thunder Pants

21st August 2007, 17:26

Vinny rafarino the fact most people think communism is a facist dictatorship is bad enough but if anyone hears you talking like you are a facist dictator it wouldn't really help so i guess hat i am saying is with your replies please stop with the hitler impressions and who really do you think your critizing john lennon like that you big bloody turd burger. so know that we have established that talking isn't good for you i relaly think you should stop. Thank you

Vinny Rafarino

21st August 2007, 17:30

Originally posted by Rhino Thunder [email protected] 21, 2007 09:26 am
Vinny rafarino the fact most people think communism is a facist dictatorship is bad enough but if anyone hears you talking like you are a facist dictator it wouldn't really help so i guess hat i am saying is with your replies please stop with the hitler impressions and who really do you think your critizing john lennon like that you big bloody turd burger. so know that we have established that talking isn't good for you i relaly think you should stop. Thank you
Go get your fucking shine box Tommy.

Newflash:

Paragraphs and punctuation are the new "black" for this year's fashion events.

Phalanx

22nd August 2007, 00:58

Originally posted by Idola [email protected] 18, 2007 01:56 pm
I don't accept facts just because someone tells me they are facts. You shouldn't either. It's a dangerous habit.
Then don't. Just read up on any ancient history book and it will tell you the same thing.

Judaism has its roots in the people who used to live in the territory called Israel. I seriously doubt that the rocks and trees know they're supposed to be holy. How do you get from the jewish belief that this patch of land is special to the belief that there should be a theocratic apartheid state there?

Jews have a tie to Israel just like the Sioux have a tie to South Dakota and the Black Hills. It is their homeland. As an early Zionist wrote, "A people without a country is as unnatural as a man without a shadow."

Arabs have control over their holiest sites, not to mention dozens of countries of their own. Jews have control over their holiest sites, but at the cost of endless conflict with their neighbors.

and what phalanx ignores is that the region was under de facto arab control for the best part of 1500 years, if not more.

On the contrary, I know full well that various groups have been inhabiting the Land of Israel since Jews were expelled from the area 2,000 years ago. But now the rightful caretakers of the land have returned.

RHIZOMES

22nd August 2007, 11:19

Jews have a tie to Israel just like the Sioux have a tie to South Dakota and the Black Hills. It is their homeland. As an early Zionist wrote, "A people without a country is as unnatural as a man without a shadow."

Arabs have control over their holiest sites, not to mention dozens of countries of their own. Jews have control over their holiest sites, but at the cost of endless conflict with their neighbors.

On the contrary, I know full well that various groups have been inhabiting the Land of Israel since Jews were expelled from the area 2,000 years ago. But now the rightful caretakers of the land have returned.

The funny thing is, noone is saying the Jews can't live there. The Jews could've founded a state of Israel/Palestine without bulldozing the houses of Palestinian children, kicking out Palestinian farmers with no compensation for the land lost and creating an apartheid state. I do not support that. I have no problem with Jews returning to their homeland. That is not the issue.

Phalanx

22nd August 2007, 17:24

Originally posted by The Red [email protected] 22, 2007 10:19 am
The funny thing is, noone is saying the Jews can't live there. The Jews could've founded a state of Israel/Palestine without bulldozing the houses of Palestinian children, kicking out Palestinian farmers with no compensation for the land lost and creating an apartheid state. I do not support that. I have no problem with Jews returning to their homeland. That is not the issue.
Then we see eye to eye. I do not support the occupation of Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip. If Israel were guaranteed peace in withdrawing from the occupied territories, I would be wholeheartedly for it. I haven't seen such an agreement yet but hopefully when all factions are tired of the endless blood feud one will come along.

PRC-UTE

22nd August 2007, 18:25

funny in that 1984ish way that the same Islamic mujhadeen were "freedom fighters" when they were against the soviets, and now theyre condemned as terrorists by the very same capitalists that supported them...

Vinny Rafarino

22nd August 2007, 18:30

Jews have a tie to Israel just like the Sioux have a tie to South Dakota and the Black Hills. It is their homeland. As an early Zionist wrote, "A people without a country is as unnatural as a man without a shadow."

Not exaclty.

Jews have a biblical tie with Isreal. The Judaic religion really got its start among the Hebrew tribes in the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt after their conversion by Akhenaten's missionaries.

If there were such a thing as a Judaic "homeland" then it would actually be there.

On the contrary, I know full well that various groups have been inhabiting the Land of Israel since Jews were expelled from the area 2,000 years ago. But now the rightful caretakers of the land have returned.

"Rightful caretakers of the land"?

This kind of nationalist drivel has no place among the revolutionary left.

Phalanx

22nd August 2007, 20:50

Not exaclty.

Jews have a biblical tie with Isreal. The Judaic religion really got its start among the Hebrew tribes in the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt after their conversion by Akhenaten's missionaries.

If there were such a thing as a Judaic "homeland" then it would actually be there.

Look at it this way, the Sioux weren't the first nation to occupy what is now the Dakotas, but noone would dispute the fact that the area is their homeland.

This kind of nationalist drivel has no place among the revolutionary left.

In case you haven't noticed, buddy, I'm restricted.

Vinny Rafarino

22nd August 2007, 21:12

Originally posted by Phallic
Look at it this way, the Sioux weren't the first nation to occupy what is now the Dakotas, but noone would dispute the fact that the area is their homeland.

We weren't simply talking about where someone considered their home to be, we were talking about you're "rightful caretakers" comment.

Since you're obviously living under a rock, let me be the first to "dispute" it:

What's left of the Sioux Nation have no immediate right to Oklahoma; whether to be considered "caretakers" of the area or otherwise.

Neither do you, neither do I, neither does anyone.

Back to the subject:

So now you're saying that people of the judaic religion are the "original caretakers" of the land even though you agree that they are not the original inhabitants of the area?

Spooky logic jack.

In case you haven't noticed, buddy, I'm restricted.

Nope, didn't notice bucko.

Phalanx

22nd August 2007, 22:03

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 22, 2007 08:12 pm
We weren't simply talking about where someone considered their home to be, we were talking about you're "rightful caretakers" comment.
When I say 'rightful caretakers' I mean that the area is home. I'm not going to get into a petty battle over semantics.

What's left of the Sioux Nation have no immediate right to Oklahoma; whether to be considered "caretakers" of the area or otherwise.

Sure they do; the land belongs to the Sioux Nation and not to the United States. Just like Australia doesn't belong to the whites, nor does Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, etc. What matters is the means in which they try to get their land back. Just stealing it back, example: Israel, is definately not the way to go about things. But I don't see another alternative.

So now you're saying that people of the judaic religion are the "original caretakers" of the land even though you agree that they are not the original inhabitants of the area?

Well, in case you haven't noticed, the Philistines aren't exactly around anymore.

Vinny Rafarino

22nd August 2007, 23:41

Originally posted by Phallic
When I say 'rightful caretakers' I mean that the area is home. I'm not going to get into a petty battle over semantics.

If you don't then try to stay semantically accurate. Back pedal...back pedal... :lol:

Sure they do; the land belongs to the Sioux Nation and not to the United States.

I beg to differ.

In any case, using your own logic you could just as easily say that the land "belongs" to any number of species of self aware man that existed there prior to the Sioux Nation.

"Tending land in the Dakotas: so easy even a caveman can do it!"

But I don't see another alternative.

I do.

Toss out your nationalism for something with longer lasting minty freshness.

Well, in case you haven't noticed, the Philistines aren't exactly around anymore.

Spoken like a true Imperialist.

And you wonder why you're a dying breed.

Dr Mindbender

22nd August 2007, 23:45

Originally posted by Phalanx

On the contrary, I know full well that various groups have been inhabiting the Land of Israel since Jews were expelled from the area 2,000 years ago. But now the rightful caretakers of the land have returned.
You call enforced ethnic disparity/cleansing and pre-emptive military actions against civillian centres 'caretaking'?
Fuck me, i would'nt like to see your idea of immoral policy.

By the way, i said the arabs were for the best part of the last 2 millenia the rulers of the region, they werent just inhabiting it.

RHIZOMES

23rd August 2007, 04:53

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+August 22, 2007 10:45 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ August 22, 2007 10:45 pm)
Phalanx

On the contrary, I know full well that various groups have been inhabiting the Land of Israel since Jews were expelled from the area 2,000 years ago. But now the rightful caretakers of the land have returned.
You call enforced ethnic disparity/cleansing and pre-emptive military actions against civillian centres 'caretaking'?
Fuck me, i would'nt like to see your idea of immoral policy.

By the way, i said the arabs were for the best part of the last 2 millenia the rulers of the region, they werent just inhabiting it. [/b]
Exactly, does this poster even know about the people that lived there *before* the Jews?

Revolution Until Victory

23rd August 2007, 06:33

what the hell is wrong with this Phalanx dipshit? weren't he a couple of months ago anti-Israel and shit?

Phalanx, no, the Jews are not the "caretakers" (!!?) of the land. The Hebrews were just another invaders who invaded the land of the Cannanites. They were later expelled. Now how on earth could they return after 2000 years claiming "oh, that's my homeland, I'm the rightful caretaker, forgot about those people that lived here before and after me". According to your stupid logic, the Arabs/Muslims could be considered the rightful owners of Spain, since they one conqured it, not a long 2000 years ago, but a mere 500.
Get it into your thick skull, the Hebrews are neither the original inhabitants nor the rightful owners of the land. They are colonizers.

Vinny Rafarino

23rd August 2007, 17:17

Originally posted by The Red [email protected] 22, 2007 08:53 pm

Exactly, does this poster even know about the people that lived there *before* the Jews?
Does that mean that you now believe that even your precious Muslim loonies no longer have a "devine right" to the land? After all, even the Hebrews came before the Muslims.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander son! :lol:

Phalanx

23rd August 2007, 23:45

You call enforced ethnic disparity/cleansing and pre-emptive military actions against civillian centres 'caretaking'?
Fuck me, i would'nt like to see your idea of immoral policy.

If the Arabs hadn't attacked in 48, maybe the Palestine would constitute more than just 22 percent of the land.

Attacking civilian centers has never been IDF policy, either.

Phalanx, no, the Jews are not the "caretakers" (!!?) of the land. The Hebrews were just another invaders who invaded the land of the Cannanites. They were later expelled. Now how on earth could they return after 2000 years claiming "oh, that's my homeland, I'm the rightful caretaker, forgot about those people that lived here before and after me". According to your stupid logic, the Arabs/Muslims could be considered the rightful owners of Spain, since they one conqured it, not a long 2000 years ago, but a mere 500.
Get it into your thick skull, the Hebrews are neither the original inhabitants nor the rightful owners of the land. They are colonizers.

Well, if the Canaanites were still around, maybe they'd get a piece of the pie. But I don't see any around, do you? Arabs don't have a right to Spain because Spaniards still inhabit the land, before and after the Arab conquest of Iberia.

what the hell is wrong with this Phalanx dipshit? weren't he a couple of months ago anti-Israel and shit?

Yeah, personal attacks will get you far in life. And no, I wasn't anti-Israel, I'm just against the occupation.

RHIZOMES

24th August 2007, 00:09

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 23, 2007 04:17 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 23, 2007 04:17 pm)
The Red [email protected] 22, 2007 08:53 pm

Exactly, does this poster even know about the people that lived there *before* the Jews?
Does that mean that you now believe that even your precious Muslim loonies no longer have a "devine right" to the land? After all, even the Hebrews came before the Muslims.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander son! :lol: [/b]
:blink:

Where did I ever say they had a "devine right" to the land? I just said that Israelis are dicks to the Palestinians. I support Palestinians whether they're Muslims or not. Way to put words in my mouth asshole.

Vinny Rafarino

24th August 2007, 17:27

Originally posted by The Red [email protected] 23, 2007 04:09 pm

Where did I ever say they had a "devine right" to the land? I just said that Israelis are dicks to the Palestinians. I support Palestinians whether they're Muslims or not. Way to put words in my mouth asshole.
Like right dude, those guys are like totally dicks to them...like totally. :lol:

Don't let your masters find out what a shitty Muslim you are...you may just lose your head...

graffic

24th August 2007, 19:12

You and graffic should set up your own islamophobia forum.

Followers of this abject moral intellectual collapse deserve their own fucking forum - joined with the facists.

What you don't seem to get is that this isnt about Islam per se. What we are talking about is Islamic Fundamentalism - a fantatical politico - religious ideology that would outlaw homosexuality, kill trade unionists, institute medieval, religious feudalism... sort of like facism only less modern.

RNK

24th August 2007, 19:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 06:12 pm

You and graffic should set up your own islamophobia forum.

Followers of this abject moral intellectual collapse deserve their own fucking forum - joined with the facists.

What you don't seem to get is that this isnt about Islam per se. What we are talking about is Islamic Fundamentalism - a fantatical politico - religious ideology that would outlaw homosexuality, kill trade unionists, institute medieval, religious feudalism... sort of like facism only less modern.
And that is not something that any Leftist I know, or any person I would even call a leftist, supports or promotes. The majority of Muslim practitioners are not fundamentalist; even in Iraq, many of the resistence fighters are not fundamentalists, they do not force their women to wear veils and do not even follow basic Islamic guidelines for appearance and dress. Most are no more religious than the average European. It is they we support, those who pick up arms in their Reebok shoes and sweatpants and GAP sweaters and fight against American imperialism.

graffic

24th August 2007, 19:47

Thats very good for you then RNK. The left would be much better off if everyone shared your view.

Dr Mindbender

24th August 2007, 19:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 06:12 pm

You and graffic should set up your own islamophobia forum.

Followers of this abject moral intellectual collapse deserve their own fucking forum - joined with the facists.

What you don't seem to get is that this isnt about Islam per se. What we are talking about is Islamic Fundamentalism - a fantatical politico - religious ideology that would outlaw homosexuality, kill trade unionists, institute medieval, religious feudalism... sort of like facism only less modern.
the political islamists will never be the biggest threat to progressive change for 2 reasons-
1- They are by definition, extremists, and as a fringe movement have by in large alienated themselves from their own moderate muslim 'brothers and sisters'
2-The onus of the political islamists, unlike the american neo-cons is not wealth accumulation so the US/israeli neo conservatives will always be the most effective reactionaries, therefore they require more of our criticism. As long as socialism and the islamic world have a common objective ie the liberation of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan then the progressive elements within those movements must have our solidarity.
Note that i put an emphasis on progressive. Not all elements within the arab anti american movements are theocrats.

RHIZOMES

24th August 2007, 21:48

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 24, 2007 04:27 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 24, 2007 04:27 pm)
The Red [email protected] 23, 2007 04:09 pm

Where did I ever say they had a "devine right" to the land? I just said that Israelis are dicks to the Palestinians. I support Palestinians whether they're Muslims or not. Way to put words in my mouth asshole.
Like right dude, those guys are like totally dicks to them...like totally. :lol:

Don't let your masters find out what a shitty Muslim you are...you may just lose your head... [/b]
What a shitty Muslim I am?

Please elaborate, I want to utterly destroy this argument. Unless you can't elaborate, since you seem to be so fond of ad hominem attacks.

Vinny Rafarino

24th August 2007, 22:08

Originally posted by Shitty Muslim
What a shitty Muslim I am?

Didn't you get the memo from Allah that says it's his will that the "holy land" be given to his nutty disciples?

Every other Muslim in the world got it.

Oh yeah, that's right....you didn't get it because you're a shitty Muslim.

RHIZOMES

24th August 2007, 22:59

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 24, 2007 09:08 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 24, 2007 09:08 pm)
Shitty Muslim
What a shitty Muslim I am?

Didn't you get the memo from Allah that says it's his will that the "holy land" be given to his nutty disciples?

Every other Muslim in the world got it.

Oh yeah, that's right....you didn't get it because you're a shitty Muslim. [/b]
:huh: I have never ever heard any Muslim ever say that was the reason they don't like Israel. They don't like their Muslim brothers and sisters being persecuted and killed. So no I didn't get that memo. I have never heard any organization in the PLO ever say that they had a "divine right". If anything, you're a shitty Jew if you say Jews don't have a "divine right" to the land. And I don't just support the Muslim Palestinians either. There are Christian Palestinians too who I support just as much.

Kay I've just quickly messaged a few of my Muslim friends about this. They must be shitty Muslims too! I think by shitty Muslim you mean someone who isn't 100% in-line with the most extreme Muslim's views on Israel. Every Muslim must have the same views on every issue! By your logic, A Catholic must have the same views as a Baptist because they're all Christians. A Maoist must have the same views as a Trotskyite since they're all Communists. An anarcho-communist must have the same views as an anarcho-capitalist since they're all anarchists.

Vinny Rafarino

24th August 2007, 23:10

Originally posted by shitty muslim
They must be shitty Muslims too!

Right on target sonny boy.

RHIZOMES

24th August 2007, 23:15

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 24, 2007 10:10 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 24, 2007 10:10 pm)
shitty muslim
They must be shitty Muslims too!

Right on target sonny boy. [/b]
:blink: wow you just totally missed by point!

Vinny Rafarino

24th August 2007, 23:21

Originally posted by The Red [email protected] 24, 2007 03:15 pm
:blink: wow you just totally missed by point!
Sorry son, you haven't the IQ to make any points that I would miss.

Here's some information to add to your list of what you don't know about Islam:

Contacts from "The Galilee Experience", in Tiberias, on the west shore of the Sea of Galilee note the following as to who has the "right" to Palestine. A core aspect of the teaching of Mohammed in the Koran is that God initially chose and made promises to the Jews. The Jews blew it, and all divine promises then defaulted over to the Christians who also blew it. So, Mohammed taught that the chosen-ness, promises, and favor are now, therefore, upon the followers of Islam. Mohammed taught that the promise of the Land of Canaan (LoC) transferred, thereby, to the Islamics. As noted elsewhere, that land went by God to the Jews (who is Mohammed to over-rule God?); then the Roman empire threw the Jews out before 100AD. Then the Eastern Roman Empire (which included LoC) became "Christian" under Constantine in 312AD, becoming the Christian Byzantine Empire (the LoC continuing Christian for 300 years). The area was conquered by Muslims in 632AD and held pretty much continually until Israel was declared a state there in 1948

Now since your a bit slow on the uptake, we'll try this again:

You and your friends are shitty Muslims.

Spirit of Spartacus

24th August 2007, 23:25

Look, Red Ghost, please don't feel obliged to respond to Vinny's bullshit.

Contacts from "The Galilee Experience", in Tiberias, on the west shore of the Sea of Galilee note the following as to who has the "right" to Palestine. A core aspect of the teaching of Mohammed in the Koran is that God initially chose and made promises to the Jews. The Jews blew it, and all divine promises then defaulted over to the Christians who also blew it. So, Mohammed taught that the chosen-ness, promises, and favor are now, therefore, upon the followers of Islam. Mohammed taught that the promise of the Land of Canaan (LoC) transferred, thereby, to the Islamics. As noted elsewhere, that land went by God to the Jews (who is Mohammed to over-rule God?); then the Roman empire threw the Jews out before 100AD. Then the Eastern Roman Empire (which included LoC) became "Christian" under Constantine in 312AD, becoming the Christian Byzantine Empire (the LoC continuing Christian for 300 years). The area was conquered by Muslims in 632AD and held pretty much continually until Israel was declared a state there in 1948

I was raised as a Muslim, in a Muslim-majority country. I was a Muslim at least until age 18. I never heard such Islamic teachings about the "Land of Canaan" or whatever.

Perhaps Vinny knows more about Muslim beliefs than they themselves. Because you see, the Muslims I grew up among, they never taught me anything of this sort (or any other kids who grew up with me).

Vinny Rafarino

24th August 2007, 23:33

Originally posted by SOS
was raised as a Muslim, in a Muslim-majority country. I was a Muslim at least until age 18. I never heard such Islamic teachings about the "Land of Canaan" or whatever.

You were a so called Muslim and you are not familiar with Canaan?

Canaan is an early name for what is often called Israel or Palestine. It extends along the coast of the eastern Mediterranean. Lebanon lies to the north and Egypt is to the south. The eastern border is the Jordan River.

Canaan was the land that God promised to Abraham (Gen 12:1-3), who resided at different places in the country, mainly in the south. Abraham's descendants migrated to Egypt during a period of famine and were enslaved there. After their exodus from Egypt, they traveled to Canaan under Moses and reentered the country under Joshua. The books of Joshua and Judges recount the efforts of Israel to occupy the land. When the kingdom was divided, the northern part of Canaan was called Israel and the southern part was called Judah. Later, the territory was divided into three sections: Galilee in the north, Samaria in the center, and Judea in the south.

You cats are just too much. :lol:

RHIZOMES

24th August 2007, 23:38

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 24, 2007 10:33 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 24, 2007 10:33 pm)
SOS
was raised as a Muslim, in a Muslim-majority country. I was a Muslim at least until age 18. I never heard such Islamic teachings about the "Land of Canaan" or whatever.

You were a so called Muslim and you are not familiar with Canaan?

Canaan is an early name for what is often called Israel or Palestine. It extends along the coast of the eastern Mediterranean. Lebanon lies to the north and Egypt is to the south. The eastern border is the Jordan River.

Canaan was the land that God promised to Abraham (Gen 12:1-3), who resided at different places in the country, mainly in the south. Abraham's descendants migrated to Egypt during a period of famine and were enslaved there. After their exodus from Egypt, they traveled to Canaan under Moses and reentered the country under Joshua. The books of Joshua and Judges recount the efforts of Israel to occupy the land. When the kingdom was divided, the northern part of Canaan was called Israel and the southern part was called Judah. Later, the territory was divided into three sections: Galilee in the north, Samaria in the center, and Judea in the south.

You cats are just too much. :lol: [/b]
:blink: I knew Canaan was the name of of the area now known as Israel/Palestine. That is not the point. We as Muslims/former Muslims, have never ever heard of the doctrine that Muslims having a divine right to the land now known as Israel.

And that isn't the point, because as I said before, I support non-Muslim Palestinians as well. I've been anti-Israel longer then I've been a Muslim.

Spirit of Spartacus

24th August 2007, 23:53

You were a so called Muslim and you are not familiar with Canaan?

Err no. I knew about Canaan, but never heard any theological arguments that I had a divine right to it.

Canaan is an early name for what is often called Israel or Palestine. It extends along the coast of the eastern Mediterranean. Lebanon lies to the north and Egypt is to the south. The eastern border is the Jordan River.

Canaan was the land that God promised to Abraham (Gen 12:1-3), who resided at different places in the country, mainly in the south. Abraham's descendants migrated to Egypt during a period of famine and were enslaved there. After their exodus from Egypt, they traveled to Canaan under Moses and reentered the country under Joshua. The books of Joshua and Judges recount the efforts of Israel to occupy the land. When the kingdom was divided, the northern part of Canaan was called Israel and the southern part was called Judah. Later, the territory was divided into three sections: Galilee in the north, Samaria in the center, and Judea in the south.

You cats are just too much. :lol:

Apparently, you intend to become an advanced Muslim theologian. Only that can explain why you're digging up pathetic obscure religious references to demonize the average Muslim.

Furthermore, the references you provided are NOT from the Quran, they're from the Genesis (which is sacred to Christians, not Muslims).

Look, Vinny, admit it. You're going to be the David Horowitz or Christopher Hitchens of tomorrow.

You seem to believe that leftism is a convenient excuse to bash Muslims.
When we on the Revolutionary Left will fail to satisfy your bigotry against the Muslim people, where will you turn?

To the Right, eh?

I expect one of these days you'll have a sudden realization that Western civilization is superior to all others, that we Leftists are just Muslim-tolerating, hippie fools. ;)

Invader Zim

25th August 2007, 20:33

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+August 03, 2007 02:40 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ August 03, 2007 02:40 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 01:34 pm

Ulster [email protected] 03, 2007 01:26 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_nationalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republi...Socialist_Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Socialist_Party)
Exactly.
Devrim
How has Irish nationalism and republicanism been detrimental to the working class struggle?

Explain this on any of the RSM forums and you'll be laughed out. [/b]

How has Irish nationalism and republicanism been detrimental to the working class struggle?

What you mean other than killing workers?

No one who supports reactionary anti-working class groups is a friend of mine, and shouldn't be of yours if you claim to be a socialist.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't to say that NI shouldn't be independent if that is indeed what the majority want, but maiming and killing workers on both sides of the Irish sea is utterly unworthy of support.

Vinny Rafarino

27th August 2007, 17:57

Originally posted by Shitty Muslim+--> (Shitty Muslim)I knew Canaan was the name of of the area now known as Israel/Palestine. That is not the point. We as Muslims/former Muslims, have never ever heard of the doctrine that Muslims having a divine right to the land now known as Israel.[/b]

I wasn't talking to you; hence the name SOS in the quote title.

Pay attention Einstein.

And that isn't the point, because as I said before, I support non-Muslim Palestinians as well. I've been anti-Israel longer then I've been a Muslim.

There's nothing wrong with being anti Zionist; I myself am one.

That does not mean you have to support a different reactionary and oppressive regime just because it's chic.

SOS
Apparently, you intend to become an advanced Muslim theologian. Only that can explain why you're digging up pathetic obscure religious references to demonize the average Muslim.

Nope, wasted enough time on that crap in undergrad back in the 80's. :lol:

In any case, these references are hardly obscure; I first learned about them in 101 classes.

You just don't know any better.

You seem to believe that leftism is a convenient excuse to bash Muslims.

The actions of Muslims are convenient enough an excuse to bash Muslims.

When we on the Revolutionary Left will fail to satisfy your bigotry against the Muslim people, where will you turn?

There is no such thing as a "the Muslim people".

I expect one of these days you'll have a sudden realization that Western civilization is superior to all others, that we Leftists are just Muslim-tolerating, hippie fools.

Sorry son, I've been associated with the far left since probably before you were in diapers. Besides, I have suffered worse at the hands far more intelligent folks than yourself and am still around.

I will be here long after you move on to the "next big fad". ;)

RNK

27th August 2007, 18:05

Now Vinny's resorted to elitist "I'm old, therefore better!" arguements to support his prejudism :rolleyes:

Old dogs apparently can learn new tricks.

Vinny Rafarino

27th August 2007, 18:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 10:05 am
Now Vinny's resorted to elitist "I'm old, therefore better!" arguements to support his prejudism :rolleyes:

Old dogs apparently can learn new tricks.
No.

It's "more educated on the issues therefore more accurate".

If that pisses you off then go to college!

RHIZOMES

27th August 2007, 23:40

There's nothing wrong with being anti Zionist; I myself am one.

That does not mean you have to support a different reactionary and oppressive regime just because it's chic.

I'm not. I'm supporting Palestinians who get their houses bulldozed for no good reason. Palestinians in the West Bank terrorized out of the last homes they have left. Palestinians, Muslim or not (Non-Muslim Palestinians don't exist in your mind apparently). I support the Palestinian girl who doesn't have any arms anymore because of the Israeli terrorist state. That does not equate me with supporting Islamic theocracy or sharia law (something I don't even think was "divinely inspired" like some Muslims do).

EDIT: Oh wait, misread that. You said you were an ANTI-Zionist. Whoops.

Nope, wasted enough time on that crap in undergrad back in the 80's.

In any case, these references are hardly obscure; I first learned about them in 101 classes.

You just don't know any better.

And I have never heard that in any of the dozens of books I have read about Islam. I have never heard any Muslim say that.

The actions of Muslims are convenient enough an excuse to bash Muslims.

No. The actions of some Muslims are convenient enough an excuse to bash everyone who's Muslim, from Osama to some Muslim girl at school who gets bullied for wearing hijab, from Hamas to your average Mr. and Mrs. Habib who have never done a shred of harm to anyone. It's an excuse to support the terrorist Israeli state in it's fight against the average Palestinian who ISN'T blowing up children and may not even be a Muslim. That is your logic. You think of individuals actions as being their group actions, using over-generalizations to divide people among racial and religious lines. Something I see Sean Hannity do quite a lot on TV.

No.

It's "more educated on the issues therefore more accurate".

If that pisses you off then go to college!

Ad hominem, ageism, arrogance, etc.

Vinny Rafarino

28th August 2007, 17:43

Originally posted by shitty muslim
I support the Palestinian girl who doesn't have any arms anymore because of the Israeli terrorist state

But you don't support the Jewish girl that lost her arms in a suicide bombing?

Why? Just because she's Jewish?

Come on son, you can admit it. You wouldn't be the first one to admit irrational antisemitism around here.

I have never heard any Muslim say that.

Hence my previous assertion that you and your friends are shitty Muslims.

No. The actions of some Muslims are convenient enough an excuse to bash everyone who's Muslim

Agreed! :lol:

ageism

Guilty as charged!

Something I see Sean Hannity do quite a lot on TV.

Yeah, we have lot's in common.

Except for that whole anti-capitalism, anti-religion, anti-state thing were like two peas in a pod. :blink:

RHIZOMES

29th August 2007, 01:24

Hence my previous assertion that you and your friends are shitty Muslims.

And every Muslim who's written a book about Islam that I've read, every Muslim I've ever met on the internet friend or not and every Muslim I've seen on TV.

Agreed!

Well at least you admitted it.

Yeah, we have lot's in common.

Except for that whole anti-capitalism, anti-religion, anti-state thing were like two peas in a pod.

Yes you are. I notice right-wingers take the actions of a few members of a group to stereotype the entire group, such as blacks, Muslims, immigrants, etc.

But you don't support the Jewish girl that lost her arms in a suicide bombing?

Why? Just because she's Jewish?

Come on son, you can admit it. You wouldn't be the first one to admit irrational antisemitism around here.

That just gave me an interesting thought. Do you hate all Jews because of the actions of Israel and Zionists, if you hate all Muslims because of the actions of Islamists? No? What's this? a double standard? :P

Vinny Rafarino

29th August 2007, 17:38

Originally posted by Terrible Muslim :lol:
Yes you are. I notice right-wingers take the actions of a few members of a group to stereotype the entire group, such as blacks, Muslims, immigrants, etc.

Sorry bub, life is unfair.

Everybody is guilty of stereotyping. Perhaps it would help your cause if the majority Muslims actually condemned the actions of these scum bags.

Even you yourself admitted to agreeing with blowing up children in the name of Jihad!

And you want to talk about me stereotyping? :lol:

Do you hate all Jews because of the actions of Israel and Zionists, if you hate all Muslims because of the actions of Islamists? No? What's this? a double standard

Since you still have not got it I will reiterate for you one last time:

I hate all religions equally!

RHIZOMES

30th August 2007, 01:01

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 29, 2007 04:38 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 29, 2007 04:38 pm)
Terrible Muslim :lol:
Yes you are. I notice right-wingers take the actions of a few members of a group to stereotype the entire group, such as blacks, Muslims, immigrants, etc.

Sorry bub, life is unfair.

Everybody is guilty of stereotyping. Perhaps it would help your cause if the majority Muslims actually condemned the actions of these scum bags.

Even you yourself admitted to agreeing with blowing up children in the name of Jihad!

And you want to talk about me stereotyping? :lol:

Do you hate all Jews because of the actions of Israel and Zionists, if you hate all Muslims because of the actions of Islamists? No? What's this? a double standard

Since you still have not got it I will reiterate for you one last time:

I hate all religions equally! [/b]

Sorry bub, life is unfair.

Everybody is guilty of stereotyping. Perhaps it would help your cause if the majority Muslims actually condemned the actions of these scum bags.

Even you yourself admitted to agreeing with blowing up children in the name of Jihad!

And you want to talk about me stereotyping?

Yes they do. The media does not pay attention. "EVIL MUSLIMS WANNA KILL YOU" sells more papers. Just a while ago there were protests by a group of Muslim women saying "Not in our name!". Also, have you ever been to http://www.freemuslims.org ? It's Muslims against terror and Sharia law. And if you think that's some crazy fringe website, http://www.islamonline.net which has a collection of fatwas (One of the most frequented Islamic sites on the web), uses religious sources and arguments against targetting civilians, etc. Every Muslim I've met has condemned targetting innocent civilians when I brought the subject up. You're stereotyping EVERY Muslim, including the ones I just mentioned.

And I did not say "in the name of Jihad". Basically my logic was that other liberation movements had used civilian targets in the past such as the ANC, etc. I saw it as an ugly neccessity (And I only started developing that opinion after reading some other rationalizations for this from OTHER LEFTISTS. I never got that from any Muslims). I never said "in the name of Jihad". Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I revised that position since as Malte said, it divides the working class between Palestinian and Israeli when there should be solidarity against imperialism.

Hiero

30th August 2007, 12:19

Look, Vinny, admit it. You're going to be the David Horowitz or Christopher Hitchens of tomorrow.

He is already there theoritical. Look in the other thread, the member Spartan who argued for imperialism in the middle east even supported him.

Vinny Rafarino

30th August 2007, 17:26

Originally posted by very horribly bad muslim
Yes they do.[condemn terrorism]

Not enough!

And I did not say "in the name of Jihad".

What the fuck do you think blowing yourself up in a supermarket is if not jihad?

A regular Sunday afternoon out shopping?

"Oh gee, let's see...I need eggs, bread, milk...whoops, almost forgot this...

Boom!

:lol:

I revised that position since as Malte said, it divides the working class between Palestinian and Israeli when there should be solidarity against imperialism.

Get real.

You "revised" your position because you got told to fuck off by the owner of the board and nothing more.

You were simply scared of being banned.

RHIZOMES

31st August 2007, 07:36

Not enough!

What do you want them to do?

Oh wait, that's right Muslims are a hive mind. They all think the same. They should just all stop killing right? Those ones that aren't doing that be damned.

http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/saying_100101.asp

What the fuck do you think blowing yourself up in a supermarket is if not jihad?

A regular Sunday afternoon out shopping?

"Oh gee, let's see...I need eggs, bread, milk...whoops, almost forgot this...

Boom!

yes, but that is not what I said. I did not say "It's jihad so it's okay". I saw it as a sad neccessity to liberate themselves like the ANC and such did in the past.

What you're trying to do is say I agree with it religiously which I never did and never said I did.

Get real.

You "revised" your position because you got told to fuck off by the owner of the board and nothing more.

You were simply scared of being banned.

Well if that's want you want to think. :P It makes sense though, it's just feeds the Israeli-Palestinian hatred when they should be united against the Israeli government. As I said I hadn't quite thought it through. It's also used to justify America's support for the Israeli state, they can be all "THOSE PALESTINIANS ARE SUB-HUMAN. THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT IS JUST RETALIATING ON THOSE INNOCENT CHILDREN".

Hiero

31st August 2007, 09:51

The divide between Palestinian and Israeli is structural/materialist one. It is a divide between colonialist and colonialised, or oppressor and the oppressed.

But you don't support the Jewish girl that lost her arms in a suicide bombing?

Why? Just because she's Jewish?

That's the reality of colonialism. The colonialist are very irresponisble, they put families in occupied land, which is basically a warzones. What do they expect?

The Palestinians are often criticised for having their children in warzones. Thoose warzones are forced upon them by Zionists, thoose warzones would normally be the children's schools and playgrounds.

However the Israeli's choose to occupy land. So they are forced to live the reality that colonialist face when the colonised nation fights back.

Forward Union

31st August 2007, 10:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 08:51 am
The divide between Palestinian and Israeli is structural/materialist one. It is a divide between colonialist and colonialised, or oppressor and the oppressed.

You seem to be ignoring this (http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0006439.html)

I mean, you seem to make literally no distinction between The Israeli working class, and the Israeli ruling class. Or Palestinian workers/Rulers for that matter. Perhaps you do, and have simply neglected to mention it. :rolleyes:

Which is interesting, considering you are a communist. Surely your alliances to the working class override your alliances to the Bourgeoisie of an oppressed nation such as palestine?

I would sooner show support for the Israeli workers who fight capitalism and the state, than the priests and politicians of a wanna-be theocracy.

Of course, it's not as black and white as that. And I would say I support both the Palestinian workers, and the Israeli workers. But not the national liberation which seeks to replace one form of anti-working class government with another indigenous one, simply because it's in opposition to Israeli imperialism. That, to me, is the weakness of the 'maoist' anti-imperialist analysis. It has no interest in the established ends of the struggle. Even if the national liberation movement seeks to set up a genocidal anti-semitic dictatorship with forced slavery (im not saying the Palestinian movement wants that, but its an example) - the maoists are compelled to support it to an extent. If there is no genuine working class resistance, we should set about creating it.

I think this quotation sums it up quite well;

Even so, anarchists do not elevate the idea of national liberation into a mindless article of faith, as much of the Leninist-influenced left has done this century, calling for support for the oppressed nation without first inquiring into "what kind of society a given 'national liberation' movement would likely produce."

Dean

31st August 2007, 13:58

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 31, 2007 09:41 am
I would sooner show support for the Israeli workers who fight capitalism and the state, than the priests and politicians of a wanna-be theocracy.
Israel started out as a socialist empire interested in Jewish Nationalism and expansionism; it's initial supporters in this war were the working class of Israel. The major parties that have controlled Israel's politics since then have been widely supported amongst the working class.

So fuck them. I don't wish them dead, but if they support imperialism they are hardly some great revolutionary class. I'd rather support the REAL lower class in the region; the oppressed Palestinians and the Israelis that actually do support the Palestinian cause.

spartan

31st August 2007, 14:12

yeah because hamas is the most socialist palestinian party ever right dean. if the majority of palestinians want a theocratic islamic shithole then fuck them they are not worth our effort.

BobKKKindle$

31st August 2007, 14:24

if the majority of palestinians want a theocratic islamic shithole then fuck them they are not worth our effort.

Excuse me? What do you mean by the comment 'they are not worth our effort'? Are you suggesting that we should only support, or even interact with, movements that fully follow what could be considered 'socialist' principles? Even if we assume that Hamas is a 'bad' party and that some other alternative such as Fatah or the PFLP would be a better option from a proletarian perspective, it is absurd to say that, because Hamas commands popular support, we should 'forget' the Palestinian cause.

What we should do is offer Hamas general support, because Socialists and Hamas both have the objective of a Palestinian state, but when issues of contention arise, such as the socio-economic structure of a future Palestinian state, we should criticise Hamas, and engage with those within the Organisation and those who offer support, and show them how our analysis or perspective is 'correct' so that they change their views.

Your attitude is simplistic and utterly sectarian It is sometimes necessary to make temporary alliances to groups that may differ politically because forming a 'united front' is required to deal with an urgent and pressing threat or issue - another example, in addition to the Palestinian struggle, is the rise of the National Front in the 1970s, in the UK - The SWP formed the Anti-Nazi leauge with other parties, such as Labour and even several liberal organisations, because we recognized how important the threat of fascism was and so were able to put aside our socialist radicalism in order to deal with an immidiete issue.

Vinny Rafarino

31st August 2007, 17:38

Originally posted by horribly-viciously bad-bad-bad muslim+--> (horribly-viciously bad-bad-bad muslim)They should just all stop killing right?[/b]

Are you nuts?

Of course they should all stop killing and so should the Israelis!

You have one warped sense of leftism, homes.

What you're trying to do is say I agree with it religiously which I never did and never said I did.

No, you merely said you agreed with human bombs blowing up kids in front of the movie theatre in the name of "Palestine".

For everyone interested in cryptology: what he said was code for "I believe in Jihad".

It makes sense though, it's just feeds the Israeli-Palestinian hatred when they should be united against the Israeli government.

I'll stick with the non reactionary form of that statement: "when they should be united against the Israeli government and the Political Islamic fundamentalists."

Thanks.

hiero
That's the reality of colonialism. The colonialist are very irresponisble, they put families in occupied land, which is basically a warzones. What do they expect?

Of course, how could I have been so blind!

It most definitely wasn't the fault of the loony Islamic fundamentalist that strapped a bunch of C4 to his belly and blew himself;f up in the supermarket.

Dude, whatever you have to tell yourself to go to sleep at night is fine with me but at least keep your insane remarks to yourself.

RHIZOMES

1st September 2007, 07:15

Are you nuts?

Of course they should all stop killing and so should the Israelis!

You have one warped sense of leftism, homes.

No. my point was, you seem to think that the actions of individuals vindicate the entire group they belong to since every single person in the group thinks the same.

You're very good at missing points and ad hominem attacks I must admit.

No, you merely said you agreed with human bombs blowing up kids in front of the movie theatre in the name of "Palestine".

For everyone interested in cryptology: what he said was code for "I believe in Jihad".

No.

I do not agree with killing civilians is very orthodox jihad. That has no basis in Islam, I remember a hadith about Muhammad seeing an unarmed combatant lying dead on a battlefield and getting REALLY pissed at the fact one of his men killed her when she wasn't involved in fighting them directly at all. I've seen numerous fatwas proclaiming that Jihad is only meant against people that are actually fighting against you such as soldiers, etc.

As I said, I saw it as a sad neccessity like such groups as the ANC had done in the past to liberate themselves from another apartheid state called "South Africa". And as I said before, I revised that position because it divides the Israeli-Palestinian working class. I feel I have to repeat myself a lot when I'm arguing with you, since you don't seem to get the point.

NorthStarRepublicML

1st September 2007, 07:38

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 30, 2007 04:26 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 30, 2007 04:26 pm)
very horribly bad muslim
Yes they do.[condemn terrorism]

Not enough!

And I did not say "in the name of Jihad".

What the fuck do you think blowing yourself up in a supermarket is if not jihad?

A regular Sunday afternoon out shopping?

"Oh gee, let's see...I need eggs, bread, milk...whoops, almost forgot this...

Boom!

:lol:

I revised that position since as Malte said, it divides the working class between Palestinian and Israeli when there should be solidarity against imperialism.

Get real.

You "revised" your position because you got told to fuck off by the owner of the board and nothing more.

You were simply scared of being banned.[/b]
(quote train)

vinny i think its obvious that you never went to college as you are not even slightly educated on Islam or Christianity or any other religions .... more then likely you are a friendless twelve year old jerking off into socks between writing piss poor rants here on rev left,

you have shown yourself to be unable to define Imperialism or Jihad, have no understanding of Marxism, engage in nonsense on a regular basis, are endlessly boring ("i hate Muslims, I hate Muslims, Wahh!"), and most importantly ...

you are an idiot ....

NorthStarRepublicML

1st September 2007, 07:43

Originally posted by NorthStarRepublicML+September 01, 2007 06:38 am--> (NorthStarRepublicML @ September 01, 2007 06:38 am)
Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 30, 2007 04:26 pm

very horribly bad muslim
Yes they do.[condemn terrorism]

Not enough!

And I did not say "in the name of Jihad".

What the fuck do you think blowing yourself up in a supermarket is if not jihad?

A regular Sunday afternoon out shopping?

"Oh gee, let's see...I need eggs, bread, milk...whoops, almost forgot this...

Boom!

:lol:

I revised that position since as Malte said, it divides the working class between Palestinian and Israeli when there should be solidarity against imperialism.

Get real.

You "revised" your position because you got told to fuck off by the owner of the board and nothing more.

You were simply scared of being banned.
(quote train)

vinny i think its obvious that you never went to college as you are not even slightly educated on Islam or Christianity or any other religions .... more then likely you are a friendless twelve year old jerking off into socks between writing piss poor rants here on rev left,

you have shown yourself to be unable to define Imperialism or Jihad, have no understanding of Marxism, engage in nonsense on a regular basis, are endlessly boring ("i hate Muslims, I hate Muslims, Wahh!"), and most importantly ...

you are an idiot ....[/b]
oh btw ... Jihad means "struggle" ....

there is no clear definition, only interpretations put forth by various persons ... some positive (such as personal reflection and study) others negative (such as "death to all americans")

from wikipedia:
Jihad literally means to "struggle", notably to "struggle in the way of God" or "to struggle to improve one's self and/or society. It is sometimes referred to as the sixth pillar of Islam, although it occupies no official status as such.

RHIZOMES

1st September 2007, 09:43

Originally posted by NorthStarRepublicML+September 01, 2007 06:43 am--> (NorthStarRepublicML @ September 01, 2007 06:43 am)
Originally posted by NorthStarRepublicML+September 01, 2007 06:38 am--> (NorthStarRepublicML @ September 01, 2007 06:38 am)
Vinny [email protected] 30, 2007 04:26 pm

very horribly bad muslim
Yes they do.[condemn terrorism]

Not enough!

And I did not say "in the name of Jihad".

What the fuck do you think blowing yourself up in a supermarket is if not jihad?

A regular Sunday afternoon out shopping?

"Oh gee, let's see...I need eggs, bread, milk...whoops, almost forgot this...

Boom!

:lol:

I revised that position since as Malte said, it divides the working class between Palestinian and Israeli when there should be solidarity against imperialism.

Get real.

You "revised" your position because you got told to fuck off by the owner of the board and nothing more.

You were simply scared of being banned.
(quote train)

vinny i think its obvious that you never went to college as you are not even slightly educated on Islam or Christianity or any other religions .... more then likely you are a friendless twelve year old jerking off into socks between writing piss poor rants here on rev left,

you have shown yourself to be unable to define Imperialism or Jihad, have no understanding of Marxism, engage in nonsense on a regular basis, are endlessly boring ("i hate Muslims, I hate Muslims, Wahh!"), and most importantly ...

you are an idiot ....[/b]
oh btw ... Jihad means "struggle" ....

there is no clear definition, only interpretations put forth by various persons ... some positive (such as personal reflection and study) others negative (such as "death to all americans")

from wikipedia:
Jihad literally means to "struggle", notably to "struggle in the way of God" or "to struggle to improve one's self and/or society. It is sometimes referred to as the sixth pillar of Islam, although it occupies no official status as such. [/b]
yes. There's the inner jihad/struggle such as being a good Muslim on a day to day basis and not letting your bad side take over, and the outer jihad/struggle when you fight against oppressors. My interpretation of the outer jihad doesn't involved targetting civilians, since they aren't the people oppressing you.

Dean

1st September 2007, 16:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 01:12 pm
yeah because hamas is the most socialist palestinian party ever right dean. if the majority of palestinians want a theocratic islamic shithole then fuck them they are not worth our effort.
Guess what? they don't. They voted for Hamas because it's social programs have helped them and they wanted a change from the corruption of Fatah.

I can't believe I'm hearing this. I guess you'd just as soon support the nuking of The U.S., UK, France, Canada because people there vote for shitty things (you already suggested nuking Jerusalem in another post)? Well, I'm not going to embrance such xenophobic ideas. Both the Israeli people and the palestinian people should be listened to; they want peace. Bigots like you have no place calling yourself communist.

spartan

1st September 2007, 17:08

BIGOT!!! well excuse me but how many palestinians voted for this shit group? they are the fucking bigots! do you think that supporting groups like these who happen to be homophobic, sexist (they dont believe in equal rights for women and believe in the "traditional" family role), racist (they have an extreme hatred not just to the nation of israel but to jews as an ethnic group. they also hate non muslims), etc is good for the left? because if you do then you so called leftists are really fucked up. and oh yeah nice try but i do not support fatah or israel every side in this fucked up conflict that is not left wing is shit in my book. they just dont offer anything to the proletariat and if they do it is only to get there support for their plan of wiping out or controling other peoples mainly working people.

RNK

2nd September 2007, 09:18

It most definitely wasn't the fault of the loony Islamic fundamentalist that strapped a bunch of C4 to his belly and blew himself;f up in the supermarket.

Please tell us how you differentiate between a "loony Islamic fundamentalist" and a "desperate Arab trying to protect his family and his people"; between a "callous attack on innocent civilians" to a "justified act of self-defense". Do you even believe there are any justified acts of self-defense on the part of the Arab population? Or is every instance of resistance against Israel an act of jihad?

Hiero

2nd September 2007, 09:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 12:12 am
yeah because hamas is the most socialist palestinian party ever right dean. if the majority of palestinians want a theocratic islamic shithole then fuck them they are not worth our effort.
I am sure they wont be too disappointed to find out that you don't support their struggle. You have a strange idea that communist in the 3rd world and oppressed people in general need the support of 1st world communists. In reality it has always been the other way round.

Excactly what is it that you do? Are you an activist? Or do you just like telling 1st world communists that they should not support any 3rd world struggle, and actually believe that it would mean something.

Phalanx

2nd September 2007, 23:05

That's the reality of colonialism. The colonialist are very irresponisble, they put families in occupied land, which is basically a warzones. What do they expect?

Your logic is more fucked than Ron Jeremy.

Please tell us how you differentiate between a "loony Islamic fundamentalist" and a "desperate Arab trying to protect his family and his people"; between a "callous attack on innocent civilians" to a "justified act of self-defense". Do you even believe there are any justified acts of self-defense on the part of the Arab population? Or is every instance of resistance against Israel an act of jihad?

Oh, that's easy. A desperate Arab trying to protect his family wouldn't ruin another by killing their children at a club.

There isn't any major terrorist group that doesn't use suicide bombings on the Palestinian side. Not one of the groups use legitimate means in the conflict.

spartan

2nd September 2007, 23:24

hiero how exactly are groups like hamas and hezbollah remotely communist? i have said loads of times already but no one seems to want to understand so i will say it again. JUST BECAUSE A CERTAIN GROUP IS FIGHTING OPPRESSION THAT DOES NOT MAKE THEM LEFT WING OR EVEN SYMPATHISERS WITH THE LEFT WING. THEY MAY ADVOCATE PROGRESSIVE EVEN SOCIALISTIC ALLIANCES AND POLICIES BUT THIS IS ULTIMATELY TO GAIN THE SUPPORT OF THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE SO THEY CAN ENACT THERE VERY UNSOCIALIST WAY OF LIFE ON PEOPLE WHO MIGHT NOT WANT IT. PEOPLE WHO DONT SUPPORT THESE GROUPS ARE HARDLY HELPING IMPERIALISM NOR ARE THEY SUPPORTERS OF IT.BECAUSE FOR THE MOST PART ONCE IN POWER THESE GROUPS WILL HAVE IMPERIALIST AMBITIONS. and to answer hiero's question of who am i? well i am a working class young man who through years of trying to find the best system for humanity to live by which will destroy this shit world we live in today which is unequal and unfair has finally decided on anarchism. how i go about my support of anarchism is none of anybody elses buissness unless i decide it to be. i wish we on the left would instead of supporting any old group would stick with our own but i guess with people like hiero, who wishes us to ally with un proletarian groups, this is i guess impossible.

Dean

3rd September 2007, 04:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 04:08 pm
BIGOT!!! well excuse me but how many palestinians voted for this shit group? they are the fucking bigots! do you think that supporting groups like these who happen to be homophobic, sexist (they dont believe in equal rights for women and believe in the "traditional" family role), racist (they have an extreme hatred not just to the nation of israel but to jews as an ethnic group. they also hate non muslims), etc is good for the left? because if you do then you so called leftists are really fucked up. and oh yeah nice try but i do not support fatah or israel every side in this fucked up conflict that is not left wing is shit in my book. they just dont offer anything to the proletariat and if they do it is only to get there support for their plan of wiping out or controling other peoples mainly working people.
Nice try where? When did I say you supported Fatah or Hamas? All I ever implied was that you blame the Palestinians for their own oppression, and that you suggested nuking the whole region (that one was a gem).

You know, since there never has been - and probably never will be - a purist communist organization that has no kind of religion, racism, or other foolishness tied up in it, I don't see who you can ally yourself to. You pretty much seem to hate everyone, and particularly muslims. I mean, yeah, Muslims are wrong, so are Jews and Christians, but so what? It's just superstition except for some groups which genuinely do need to be fought.

In regards to Hamas in particular, it should be noted that their oppressive nature doesn't extend beyond some suicide bombings, which are not condoned by the Hamas leaders or most of the organization. In fact, between the Israeli state and the Palestinian groups, the Israelis have been the ones to constantly break truces and treaties. And yet you blame all the violence on Islam, which is random and bullshit. It's about being oppressed; the same shit went on in South Africa, and still does to some degree today. You're more interested in blaming Muslims who are responding to oppression than those oppressors who incite these situations. You go so far as to say that all religious people should be killed. That's most of my friends, and my father. My mom would be among those but she recently died. I guess that's what you would call progress. I saw tragedy, just like I see in Palestine / Israel today. I don't see targets, I don't think "who should die for this?". Too bad you can't get beyond that destructive mentality.

Seriously, take your fucking bigotry and leave. You sicken me.

RNK

3rd September 2007, 04:28

Not one of the groups use legitimate means in the conflict.

That's a pretty stupid statement to make. All Arab forces involved attack legitimate Israeli military and occupational forces. Some more than others. The PFLP for instance is the most consistent in its attacks against Israeli military targets and settlements.

Your logic is more fucked than Ron Jeremy.

If during the occupation of Poland and France, the German army supplanted entire villages to move German families in, families who, under Germany army supervision, attacked and sometimes killed Polish and French people, would you denounce any sort of defense against this? What the hell are Palestinians supposed to do when a mob of zionists come cruising down the street looking to beat any Arab they see to death? Or send little militias to kidnap and murder Palestinian farmers so they can take their land? They could fight back the same way -- then the IDF would move in and eliminate them all mercilessly, bulldoze entire neighbourhoods to the ground and ship everyone off to refugee camps. There is little alternative Palestinians have when it comes to defending themselves. Even organized attacks against the IDF are near impossible; IDF soldiers have a well-known itchy trigger finger and most won't think twice about firing on crowds of Palestinians who just happen to be nearby.

RHIZOMES

3rd September 2007, 04:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 10:24 pm
hiero how exactly are groups like hamas and hezbollah remotely communist? i have said loads of times already but no one seems to want to understand so i will say it again. JUST BECAUSE A CERTAIN GROUP IS FIGHTING OPPRESSION THAT DOES NOT MAKE THEM LEFT WING OR EVEN SYMPATHISERS WITH THE LEFT WING. THEY MAY ADVOCATE PROGRESSIVE EVEN SOCIALISTIC ALLIANCES AND POLICIES BUT THIS IS ULTIMATELY TO GAIN THE SUPPORT OF THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE SO THEY CAN ENACT THERE VERY UNSOCIALIST WAY OF LIFE ON PEOPLE WHO MIGHT NOT WANT IT. PEOPLE WHO DONT SUPPORT THESE GROUPS ARE HARDLY HELPING IMPERIALISM NOR ARE THEY SUPPORTERS OF IT.BECAUSE FOR THE MOST PART ONCE IN POWER THESE GROUPS WILL HAVE IMPERIALIST AMBITIONS. and to answer hiero's question of who am i? well i am a working class young man who through years of trying to find the best system for humanity to live by which will destroy this shit world we live in today which is unequal and unfair has finally decided on anarchism. how i go about my support of anarchism is none of anybody elses buissness unless i decide it to be. i wish we on the left would instead of supporting any old group would stick with our own but i guess with people like hiero, who wishes us to ally with un proletarian groups, this is i guess impossible.
Four letters - PFLP.

Phalanx

3rd September 2007, 06:21

That's a pretty stupid statement to make. All Arab forces involved attack legitimate Israeli military and occupational forces. Some more than others. The PFLP for instance is the most consistent in its attacks against Israeli military targets and settlements.

Why don't you search the last few pages of this thread, that way I don't have to keep repeating myself. I've provided quite a list of PFLP attacks against innocent civilians in this thread and others.

If during the occupation of Poland and France, the German army supplanted entire villages to move German families in, families who, under Germany army supervision, attacked and sometimes killed Polish and French people, would you denounce any sort of defense against this? What the hell are Palestinians supposed to do when a mob of zionists come cruising down the street looking to beat any Arab they see to death? Or send little militias to kidnap and murder Palestinian farmers so they can take their land? They could fight back the same way -- then the IDF would move in and eliminate them all mercilessly, bulldoze entire neighbourhoods to the ground and ship everyone off to refugee camps. There is little alternative Palestinians have when it comes to defending themselves. Even organized attacks against the IDF are near impossible; IDF soldiers have a well-known itchy trigger finger and most won't think twice about firing on crowds of Palestinians who just happen to be nearby.

You are oversimplifying things. "Mobs of Zionists" don't go around unprovoked. Many times their friends and family have been killed by terrorists, and when people are overcome with emotion they do stupid things.

Bulldozing houses actually have proved quite effective. Terrorists have to think twice about massacring passangers on buses, because their home may be destroyed afterward. If parents of terrorists support their children's "jihad" against Israel, then they should know of the consequences.

Attacks on civilians inside Israel is completely unjustifiable. I don't care if you think the Palestinians "have no other choice", intentionally killing children and others completely detached from the conflict constitute war crimes.

Labor Shall Rule

3rd September 2007, 07:07

Who cares about 'war crimes' on either side? This is a war, and war is a crime itself that will remain with us until capitalism is thrown off our shoulders.

We do not support Israel because their occupation of Palestine resembles the preservation of the social system of imperialism. None of us are apologists - we are merely recognizing that strategically speaking, we can not pursue anything even slightly progressive until the armed element of the occupation is chased out of the country. I would politically oppose any acts of individual terror that takes the lives of men, women, and children, but strategically speaking, if the organization responsible for such an act is the most potent force in the armed resistance against imperialism, I don't think we should have a moral tear-jerk and cast them off from their struggle against foreign capital. At the same time, I think it should be the task of progressives and communists to create a truly revolutionary organization that will join with the local bourgeoisie and landed class in achieving their objectives of kicking out the Israelis, while at the sametime preserving their independence in order to further the class struggle as soon as it becomes visible as a result of them protecting their national interests.

Revolution Until Victory

3rd September 2007, 07:48

Attacks on civilians inside Israel is completely unjustifiable. I don't care if you think the Palestinians "have no other choice", intentionally killing children and others completely detached from the conflict constitute war crimes.

lol, this is just laughable!

do you even believe yourself?

"completely detached from the conflict"

hmmm...how on earth is a colonizer (wether armed or not) "completely detached from the conflict"?

what kind of bullshit is that?

If anything, the colonizer is the MAIN player in the colonization experience. Whitout him/her, the whole colonial entity wouldn't exist. The army is infact a minor player in the conflict, compared to the role the colonizer plays. The army doesn't exist for no reason, rather, to protect and maintain the colonizers whom without the entire colonization would collapse. So if you think about it and accoring to the logic of whom is more attached to the conflict, it's in fact more immoral to attack the army, sense they are not the major side, and more moral to attack the colonizer, like what happned before in almost all other colonial experiences around the world. I just don't get it, how could the colonizer, the one who is colonizing, occupying, and stealing the confesicated homes, lands, farms and properties of the natives, be "completely detached from the conflict"! This is lunatic. (of course, with out saying, children of colonizers is a different issue).

Then tell me, Phalanx, where the European colonizers who colonized North America also "detached from the conflict"? then why were they constantly targeted by the native anti-colonial resistance, like that in Palestine? And what about the French, Belgique, British, Portugese, and other European colonizers around the "third world"? Why were they also targeted around the world from Algeria, to South Africa, to Rhodesia, to Mouzambique, to almost all other former colonies?

Destroy the PFLP!

oh wait, Israel pretty much did just that.

before you bark and annoy us with your utter ignorance and stupidity, why don't you check out this thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=68725) and then maybe you can continue barking.
The PFLP will remain fighting capitalism, imperialism, and Zionism until victory, and no terrorist, imperialist, shithole settler-colony like Israel will be able to destroy it or its fighters.

Revolution Until Victory

RNK

3rd September 2007, 09:04

"Mobs of Zionists" don't go around unprovoked.

:lol: :lol:

Silly Zionist. Lies are for kids.

At the same time, I think it should be the task of progressives and communists to create a truly revolutionary organization that will join with the local bourgeoisie and landed class in achieving their objectives of kicking out the Israelis, while at the sametime preserving their independence in order to further the class struggle as soon as it becomes visible as a result of them protecting their national interests.

Well said. Very well said. This is exactly what needs to occur, and everyone who thinks otherwise is no Marxist.

Dean

3rd September 2007, 09:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 05:21 am
You are oversimplifying things. "Mobs of Zionists" don't go around unprovoked. Many times their friends and family have been killed by terrorists, and when people are overcome with emotion they do stupid things.
Yes they do. Both via the Israeli state and as settlers.

Bulldozing houses actually have proved quite effective. Terrorists have to think twice about massacring passangers on buses, because their home may be destroyed afterward. If parents of terrorists support their children's "jihad" against Israel, then they should know of the consequences.

It's good to know that you support random people losing their houses to "teach them a lesson." What lesson is that? that the next Israeli settlement has more right to exist than a house that's been there for decades? You do know that they don't target suspected terrorists' houses, but the houses of people who are in the way of roads and settlements, right? And how does that help to alleviate the conflict?

Attacks on civilians inside Israel is completely unjustifiable. I don't care if you think the Palestinians "have no other choice", intentionally killing children and others completely detached from the conflict constitute war crimes.
...while attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure don't? How do you justify one side and not the other, when the morality of their acts are equally wrong?

Phalanx

3rd September 2007, 15:39

"completely detached from the conflict"

hmmm...how on earth is a colonizer (wether armed or not) "completely detached from the conflict"?

what kind of bullshit is that?

So are you saying you support attacks against Israeli children?

before you bark and annoy us with your utter ignorance and stupidity, why don't you check out this thread and then maybe you can continue barking.
The PFLP will remain fighting capitalism, imperialism, and Zionism until victory, and no terrorist, imperialist, shithole settler-colony like Israel will be able to destroy it or its fighters.

I have checked the thread out. And it conveniently skips over the fact that they've bombed civilian market places and massacred children at a middle school. I'm not ignorant, you guys are just blinded by propaganda.

Silly Zionist. Lies are for kids.

Disprove it.

It's good to know that you support random people losing their houses to "teach them a lesson." What lesson is that? that the next Israeli settlement has more right to exist than a house that's been there for decades? You do know that they don't target suspected terrorists' houses, but the houses of people who are in the way of roads and settlements, right? And how does that help to alleviate the conflict?

Demolishing houses for the sake of highways and settlements is wrong, but as long as they have fair compensation I don't think it's a war crime. The United States and many other nations frequently demolish citizens' houses to make way for roads or strip malls.

...while attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure don't? How do you justify one side and not the other, when the morality of their acts are equally wrong?

I've never said I supported attacks against Arab civilians. Knocking down families of terrorists' houses is a completely different matter.

Dean

3rd September 2007, 16:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 02:39 pm

It's good to know that you support random people losing their houses to "teach them a lesson." What lesson is that? that the next Israeli settlement has more right to exist than a house that's been there for decades? You do know that they don't target suspected terrorists' houses, but the houses of people who are in the way of roads and settlements, right? And how does that help to alleviate the conflict?

Demolishing houses for the sake of highways and settlements is wrong, but as long as they have fair compensation I don't think it's a war crime. The United States and many other nations frequently demolish citizens' houses to make way for roads or strip malls.
This isn't something that happens occassionally; this happens on a weekly basis. And there is no compensation. Often the people are given less than 60 seconds to get what they own out before they either destroy the house, or, if they are making a 'temporary path' for military, they take holes out of the walls of entire blocks. Besides, the destruction of civilian infrastructure - Israel is well known for this - is a war crime. Demolishing houses probably is to in this context.

...while attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure don't? How do you justify one side and not the other, when the morality of their acts are equally wrong?

I've never said I supported attacks against Arab civilians. Knocking down families of terrorists' houses is a completely different matter.
Actually, they don't knock down terrorists' houses. They bomb them, killing slews of civilians at a time. The systematic demolitions are always directed at people they do not view as a threat; when they think someone has terror ties, they just blow the whole thing up.

Hmm, sounds a bit like terrorism to me. I wonder why Palestinians strap bombs to themselves?

Revolution Until Victory

3rd September 2007, 17:33

I have checked the thread out. And it conveniently skips over the fact that they've bombed civilian market places and massacred children at a middle school. I'm not ignorant, you guys are just blinded by propaganda.

no, you are not ignorant, you are an idiot. That thread starts at July 14, 2007. In other words, this thread will contain PFLP operations from that date and beyond. This is not a thread to document PFLP operations from the begning of the PFLP. From July 14, 2007 till today, there have been no PFLP, or any other Palestinian group, human bomb inside Israel.

spartan

3rd September 2007, 17:47

dean you said "actually, they don't knock down terrorists' houses. they bomb them, killing slews of civilians at a time" so dean you finally admit that groups like hamas and hezbollah are terrorists thank you!

Phalanx

3rd September 2007, 17:56

This isn't something that happens occassionally; this happens on a weekly basis. And there is no compensation. Often the people are given less than 60 seconds to get what they own out before they either destroy the house, or, if they are making a 'temporary path' for military, they take holes out of the walls of entire blocks. Besides, the destruction of civilian infrastructure - Israel is well known for this - is a war crime. Demolishing houses probably is to in this context.

And that is regrettable.

Actually, they don't knock down terrorists' houses. They bomb them, killing slews of civilians at a time. The systematic demolitions are always directed at people they do not view as a threat; when they think someone has terror ties, they just blow the whole thing up.

Yes they do. After a suicide bomber has struck Israel the IDF demolishes the house, they don't blow it up. They take precautions against killing civilians.

no, you are not ignorant, you are an idiot. That thread starts at July 14, 2007. In other words, this thread will contain PFLP operations from that date and beyond. This is not a thread to document PFLP operations from the begning of the PFLP. From July 14, 2007 till today, there have been no PFLP, or any other Palestinian group, human bomb inside Israel.

So they've gone less than 3 months without killing civilians. How honorable of them

Dean

3rd September 2007, 18:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 04:56 pm
And that is regrettable.
It's wrong and can be changed.

Actually, they don't knock down terrorists' houses. They bomb them, killing slews of civilians at a time. The systematic demolitions are always directed at people they do not view as a threat; when they think someone has terror ties, they just blow the whole thing up.

Yes they do. After a suicide bomber has struck Israel the IDF demolishes the house, they don't blow it up. They take precautions against killing civilians.

Not from the stories I've read. It is generally that a car is bombed if a terrorist is suspected of having been in it, regardless of civilians nearby (the most recent one killed 5 civilians and missed the target apparently) and when they bomb houses, they may give a short (<5 minutes) warning to the family inside before they bomb it. It is usually very targetted, only destroys the house and damages nearby buildings or apartments, but that is still reckless and targetting civilians.

I've seen this in documantaries and read of it on numerous occassions.

REGARDLESS, The concept of blaming the family for a terrorist action is sick and barbaric, and only leads to more blood anyways. I don't care if they just say somethign agaisnt the family name or actually destroy the house; it's unfair and only serves to perpetuate violence. Anyone can see this.

spartan

3rd September 2007, 18:17

cant we stop this shit! there is no right side to take in this conflict because no matter who started what both sides have lots of blood on there hands. argueing over who is right or wrong is splitting us but more importantly it is unimportant for how does this conflict affect the left? sure israel is imperialist and is supported by america but palestines mainstream oppositions are above everything else nationalist including the pflp. both sides in this conflict have brought all the suffering on themselves and both sides just wont stop the killing because both sides are ultimately anti proletarian.

Dean

3rd September 2007, 18:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 05:17 pm
cant we stop this shit! there is no right side to take in this conflict because no matter who started what both sides have lots of blood on there hands. argueing over who is right or wrong is splitting us but more importantly it is unimportant for how does this conflict affect the left? sure israel is imperialist and is supported by america but palestines mainstream oppositions are above everything else nationalist including the pflp. both sides in this conflict have brought all the suffering on themselves and both sides just wont stop the killing because both sides are ultimately anti proletarian.
It's not a two - sided issue. It's involvement of Syria, Iran, U.S., Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. in a conflict that was started as a Jewish Nationalist movement against th elocal population, and has done nothing but hurt the local population and the settlers sucked into the nation by Zionist organizations, usually as an escape from poverty.

I don't see why you are trying to stop discourse on the issue. You would rather see the region blown up; I guess I apologise for looking or a solution that doesn't kill all involved.

How can you blame the mostly peaceful population for their oppression? This goes for both the Israelis and Palestinians.

Consider this: Israeli forces blew up my friend's artwork and laptop late last month because it had anti-apartheid rhetoric in it - she's a Jewish Israeli living in Palestine.

spartan

3rd September 2007, 20:23

dean i am sorry to hear about your friend but its not just the israelis doing things like this. rival palestinian groups do it to each other as well. so why dont you highlight their horrible actions as well? for me this killing by both sides is beyond excuses and is unjustifiable. the israelis say the palestinians are terrorists the palestinians say the israelis are the terrorists because they whatever. the fact is no side truely cares anymore about their own peoples they instead just use their suffering to justify their silly attacks such as palestinian suicide bombers and kidnappings or israeli bulldozers and aerial attacks. neither side in this conflict deserve anyones support. the only side i would support is a left wing organization that could bring together both palestinian and israeli proletarians to fight for the common good. a better world for the proletarian. but does one exist? history is just that history. it is time for all sides to move on no matter how hard that is and leave these events in the past where they belong. all sides will be much better off for it. and please dont say it is not as simple as that for nothing constructive in life was ever meant to be simple.

Faux Real

3rd September 2007, 20:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:23 pm
dean i am sorry to hear about your friend but its not just the israelis doing things like this. rival palestinian groups do it to each other as well.
These "rivals" don't kill each other. Rather, they have been collaborating quite well since the takeover by Fatah a few months ago in the Gaza strip.

spartan

3rd September 2007, 20:37

rev0lt answer the whole post instead of nit picking because it is a fucking good post!

Faux Real

3rd September 2007, 20:58

so why dont you highlight their horrible actions as well?
Disproved that in my previous post.

for me this killing by both sides is beyond excuses and is unjustifiable.
It's unfortunate that the killings happen but look at the root causes and who is to blame.

the israelis say the palestinians are terrorists the palestinians say the israelis are the terrorists because they whatever.
Hm? Again, look at the causes of the agression and retaliation on both ends and you will know who are the "terrorists".

the fact is no side truely cares anymore about their own peoples
If either side didn't care about their people they would have given up the invading/resistance.

they instead just use their suffering to justify their silly attacks such as palestinian suicide bombers and kidnappings or israeli bulldozers and aerial attacks.
It's a war. Can you really expect either side to play fair?

neither side in this conflict deserve anyones support. the only side i would support is a left wing organization that could bring together both palestinian and israeli proletarians to fight for the common good.
There needs to be a Palestinian nation and an end to the checkpoints, walls, barbed fences, and bulldozing for there to be a Palestinian people who can recieve better jobs, homes, welfare, etc. through international aid. Otherwise it's just another third world nation that can't support itself it it "happened" to become communist.

Otherwise, yes I agree but there needs to be pressure from the Israeli workers to end the occupation, which seems very unlikely as they are quite racist and hold hatred against Arabs.

a better world for the proletarian. but does one exist?
The conditions aren't there.

history is just that history.
What does that mean?

it is time for all sides to move on no matter how hard that is and leave these events in the past where they belong. all sides will be much better off for it.
If only it was that simple! :lol:

and please dont say it is not as simple as that for nothing constructive in life was ever meant to be simple.
¿Sorry?

There, I tried making out what you wrote.

Dean

4th September 2007, 00:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 07:23 pm
dean i am sorry to hear about your friend but its not just the israelis doing things like this. rival palestinian groups do it to each other as well. so why dont you highlight their horrible actions as well? for me this killing by both sides is beyond excuses and is unjustifiable. the israelis say the palestinians are terrorists the palestinians say the israelis are the terrorists because they whatever. the fact is no side truely cares anymore about their own peoples they instead just use their suffering to justify their silly attacks such as palestinian suicide bombers and kidnappings or israeli bulldozers and aerial attacks. neither side in this conflict deserve anyones support. the only side i would support is a left wing organization that could bring together both palestinian and israeli proletarians to fight for the common good. a better world for the proletarian. but does one exist? history is just that history. it is time for all sides to move on no matter how hard that is and leave these events in the past where they belong. all sides will be much better off for it. and please dont say it is not as simple as that for nothing constructive in life was ever meant to be simple.
In regards to "highlighting their horrible actions as well," that is not an option. I'm not even going to talk about an oppressed peopel fighting their oppressors; the point is that it's not an intrinsically Palestinian phenomenon. The organization most at fault for the continuation of the conflict is clearly Israel; obviously, suicide bombers don't help, but they are not very easy to control, nor are their actions the result of a void. They do this in response to oppression they see every day.

I think you need to start following the news about that region more closely. As I pointed out, there are not two sides - it is a false dichotomy. There are many countries screwing around with the people in the region.

I was just pissed that you came here telling us to stop discussing an issue to which you had suggested the only answer was to nuke the region. That is just sick.

It's not about the proletariat in Palestine or Israel; it's about other countries coming in to test their weapons, take land, fund the conflict, etc. - of course an organization interested in leftist liberation would be optimal. But besides the ISM, that's not the reality there at all, and we need to look at the groups objectively without saying "all Israelis are bad" or "all Palestinians are bad." The posts here show a complete lack of knowledge in regards to what Fatah and Hamas are, for instance.

If you don't want to hear what I have to say, then don't read my posts, but don't tell people not to talk about an issue. That's defeatist.

Hiero

4th September 2007, 08:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 09:24 am
hiero how exactly are groups like hamas and hezbollah remotely communist?
Never said they were.

and to answer hiero's question of who am i? well i am a working class young man who through years of trying to find the best system for humanity to live by which will destroy this shit world we live in today which is unequal and unfair has finally decided on anarchism.

So you do nothing?

how i go about my support of anarchism is none of anybody elses buissness unless i decide it to be.

Politics is a public affair.

Phalanx

4th September 2007, 16:25

REGARDLESS, The concept of blaming the family for a terrorist action is sick and barbaric, and only leads to more blood anyways. I don't care if they just say somethign agaisnt the family name or actually destroy the house; it's unfair and only serves to perpetuate violence. Anyone can see this.

It's a great deterrant for terrorists; they don't want their family to be homeless, so maybe they won't kill a bunch of Israeli children.

It's wrong and can be changed.

Agreed.

Not from the stories I've read. It is generally that a car is bombed if a terrorist is suspected of having been in it, regardless of civilians nearby (the most recent one killed 5 civilians and missed the target apparently) and when they bomb houses, they may give a short (<5 minutes) warning to the family inside before they bomb it. It is usually very targetted, only destroys the house and damages nearby buildings or apartments, but that is still reckless and targetting civilians.

The Israeli military is one of the most moral the world has ever seen. Palestinian fatalities are around 55% armed combatants, and in an age where the civilian populace sees the brunt of the fighting, it's quite impressive that they've avoided so many civilian casualties. In modern conflicts, 80% of deaths are usually civilian. In a situation where the IDF might lose men or they could just send an Apache in, of course they'd send missiles.

While over half of Palestinians dead were combatants, almost three fourths of Israeli deaths were civilians.

Jazzratt

4th September 2007, 16:28

Originally posted by Hiero+September 04, 2007 07:35 am--> (Hiero @ September 04, 2007 07:35 am)
[email protected] 03, 2007 09:24 am
hiero how exactly are groups like hamas and hezbollah remotely communist?
Never said they were. [/b]
So what reason do you have for supporting them? They do not represent progress from neo-liberal imperialism but regress into theocracy.

EDIT: Just noticed the other part of his post.

So you do nothing?

He works for a living, something I strongly suspect you don't do.

Dean

4th September 2007, 16:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 04:47 pm
dean you said "actually, they don't knock down terrorists' houses. they bomb them, killing slews of civilians at a time" so dean you finally admit that groups like hamas and hezbollah are terrorists thank you!
SO? I haven't explicitly stated that Israel is terrorist but in one post. I am aware of the facts, and I don't condone the murdering of civilians, which in almost any context is terrorism.

Dean

4th September 2007, 16:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 03:25 pm
It's a great deterrant for terrorists; they don't want their family to be homeless, so maybe they won't kill a bunch of Israeli children.
That's part of your moral IDF, huh? I hope your brother/sisther/father/mother does something evil so I can take everything away from you.

It's wrong and can be changed.

Agreed.

...

The Israeli military is one of the most moral the world has ever seen. Palestinian fatalities are around 55% armed combatants, and in an age where the civilian populace sees the brunt of the fighting, it's quite impressive that they've avoided so many civilian casualties. In modern conflicts, 80% of deaths are usually civilian. In a situation where the IDF might lose men or they could just send an Apache in, of course they'd send missiles.

While over half of Palestinians dead were combatants, almost three fourths of Israeli deaths were civilians.
This is bullshit. For one thing, the IDF defends an indenfisible occupation which is wrong; why do you think the Israeli Refuseniks won't go into occupied terriritory? Those statistics are also widely different anything I've seen. Try the lebanese war, for instance. A vast majority of Lebanese dead were civilians. But Israel can say whomever they want is a militant, just like the U.S., maybe that's how your statistics were gathered.

Face it, the conflict there is the fault of Israeli expansionism. All you have been doing is giving half-hearted justifications for Israeli military occupations. "Yeah they kill civilians egregiously but..." I'm glad I don't try to defend such sick nonsense.

spartan

4th September 2007, 17:28

first off no one area of land belongs to certain people except the proletariat who for centuries have been forced to defend it for the owner/ruling class. so palestine/israel/the holy land dont belong to anyone except human fucking beings! not palestinians/muslims or israelis/jews. secondly seeing how you are a palestinian nationalist Dean lets look at this whole silly situation from a nationalist/racialist view shall we. first off there is no such thing as palestinians or jordanians or iraqis or syrians. they are all arabs living in nations which were created by the british and french to separate areas of economic zones they wanted from the otoman empire. they had promised the arabs during the war that if they rebelled against the turks then when they won the british and french would allow an arab state comprising the whole of what is now iraq, syria, palestine, and jordan as well as the arabian peninsula. of course the allies never did this as this would have created an all powerful arabian state which would have controled a shit load of the worlds oil and instead took most of the important oil rich lands for themselves splitting it into seperate nations and digging up old extinct ethnicities like palestinian or syrian or jordanian etc to keep the arab population under their control and to prevent them from rebelling to realise their dream of an all arab nation which was shattered by the allies.

Vinny Rafarino

4th September 2007, 19:28

Originally posted by piss poor excuse for a muslim+--> (piss poor excuse for a muslim)No. my point was, you seem to think that the actions of individuals vindicate the entire group they belong to since every single person in the group thinks the same.[/b]

No I don't.

That's just what you want to believe. I've been overtly clear about my views on this subject.

The only problem is that you're to obtuse to catch them.

I feel I have to repeat myself a lot when I'm arguing with you, since you don't seem to get the point.

Don't worry, I got your "point"; I simply think you're a liar!

Four letters - PFLP.

I didn't know Communists were into blowing up civilians with suicide bombers.

Oh yeah, I forgot...

They're not!

Originally posted by religious nut ball+--> (religious nut ball)vinny i think its obvious that you never went to college as you are not even slightly educated on Islam or Christianity or any other religions .... more then likely you are a friendless twelve year old jerking off into socks between writing piss poor rants here on rev left, you have shown yourself to be unable to define Imperialism or Jihad, have no understanding of Marxism, engage in nonsense on a regular basis, are endlessly boring ("i hate Muslims, I hate Muslims, Wahh!"), and most importantly ...

you are an idiot .... [/b]

Sure thing buddy boy.

How's that restriction working out for you?

Mini [email protected]
Please tell us how you differentiate between a "loony Islamic fundamentalist" and a "desperate Arab trying to protect his family and his people"

Anyone who straps a bomb on themselves and blows them self and several other people out to buy some lettuce is a loony Islamic fundamentalist
!

Do you support this sort of crap RNK?

Do you even believe there are any justified acts of self-defense on the part of the Arab population?

Of course.

I support every "act of self defense" that is not inspired by religious and/or reactionary motives.

This is the position any real leftist would take.

Or is every instance of resistance against Israel an act of jihad?

What planet are you from son?

That's a pretty stupid statement to make.

I trust your judgment on this matter; after all you are an expert on making "stupid statements".

"revolution" until victory
hmmm...how on earth is a colonizer (wether armed or not) "completely detached from the conflict"?

When they're 6 years old genius.

spartan

4th September 2007, 19:46

:lol: you just got owned by vinny :lol:

Phalanx

4th September 2007, 23:38

That's part of your moral IDF, huh? I hope your brother/sisther/father/mother does something evil so I can take everything away from you.

If a terrorist commits an act of mass murder, it's the parents fault for encouraging their child and feeding them propaganda. Which, if you look at the parents' statement after their son/daughter has just carried out 'jihad', you'll find the overwhelming response is satisfaction in what their kid did.

Just imagine what kind of outrage would emerge if the Virginia Tech killers' parents went on the air praising what their son did.

This is bullshit. For one thing, the IDF defends an indenfisible occupation which is wrong; why do you think the Israeli Refuseniks won't go into occupied terriritory? Those statistics are also widely different anything I've seen. Try the lebanese war, for instance. A vast majority of Lebanese dead were civilians. But Israel can say whomever they want is a militant, just like the U.S., maybe that's how your statistics were gathered.

The Lebanese war was different; they couldn't invade far enough into Lebanon so the IDF had to eliminate Hizbullah positions with artillery and bombs, which of course causes alot more collateral damage. In the territories, the IDF can find the very building where the terrorist is hiding and arrest or kill them with precision.

War is an ugly thing, and innocents will get killed. Evilness, though, is the intentional killing of civilians, like what the terrorists practice.

You denounce Israel but many here applaud actions by the Red Army in Afghanistan, when 1 million Afghans were killed and 2 million were forced from their homes. That's almost three times as many people than the Palestinian flight from Israel.

Face it, the conflict there is the fault of Israeli expansionism. All you have been doing is giving half-hearted justifications for Israeli military occupations. "Yeah they kill civilians egregiously but..." I'm glad I don't try to defend such sick nonsense.

The PLO only has themselves to blame for the Oslo war. If Arafat would've accepted the terms, this whole conflict would've been avoided. But you liberals pin everything on Israel because you're so knee-jerk for what you see as the downtrodden Palestinians.

Palestinian reluctance to negotiate and their nostalgic dream of having all of Eretz Israel is the source of the conflict now. Even Israel would've stopped building settlements if the Palestinians would've accepted the deal, which would've gave them 94 percent of Palestine.

no, you are not ignorant, you are an idiot. That thread starts at July 14, 2007. In other words, this thread will contain PFLP operations from that date and beyond. This is not a thread to document PFLP operations from the begning of the PFLP. From July 14, 2007 till today, there have been no PFLP, or any other Palestinian group, human bomb inside Israel.

And why is that? Oh, that's right, because Israel constructed a wall that has sharply prevented any terrorist attack in Israel. And the rocket attacks would've been prevented as well if Gaza hadn't been handed back. Israel gives land, but the Palestinians don't give peace.

Revolution Until Victory

5th September 2007, 00:06

If a terrorist commits an act of mass murder, it's the parents fault for encouraging their child and feeding them propaganda. Which, if you look at the parents' statement after their son/daughter has just carried out 'jihad', you'll find the overwhelming response is satisfaction in what their kid did.

same excuse Aparthied South Africa used to justify murdering Native South African children "it's the parent fault, why let the children into the streets? why encourage them"??

utterly pathetic.

And according to this imperialist terrorist logic, Iraqese and Afghanese got the right to go over to the US, hunt down the families of the the US soldiers, and bulldoze their homes. I mean, they can always say "It's a great deterrant for terrorists; they don't want their family to be homeless, so maybe they won't kill a bunch of Iraqi/Afghani children."

Just imagine what kind of outrage would emerge if the Virginia Tech killers' parents went on the air praising what their son did.

this got nothing to do whatsoever with the issue at hand. Just shows your true stupidity and hoplessnes.

Evilness, though, is the intentional killing of civilians, like what the terrorists practice.

totally agree with you. Evilness is the intentional killing of innocents, like what the terroist Zionists practice.

The PLO only has themselves to blame for the Oslo war

Zionist imperialism and colonialism is all to blame for all this violence. European colonialism was all to blame for the violence in South Africa, not the fact that the South African people refused the Bantustan solutions. The colonizers are to blame for this boold spell, not the rejection by the Palestinian of the Bantustan solution (aka, "2 state solution").

Palestinian reluctance to negotiate

1- no negotiations with terroists (Zionists imperialists)

2- no negotiations with colonizers

3- no compromise with colonialism

4- STILL, the Zionists were the ones to miss all the opportunties for "peace"

and their nostalgic dream of having all of Eretz Israel

nostalgic dream????

and what do you call the Zionist lunatic, imperialist nighmare??

fucker, it's their land, almost all of so-called "Eretz Israshit" is Palestine.
The Native and true owners of the land got every right to demand their homeland back, complete. (of course, I'm not speaking of the communist view of land owenrship etc)

Even Israel would've stopped building settlements if the Palestinians would've accepted the deal, which would've gave them 94 percent of Palestine.

aren't you even sick of your lies?? your barking so much shit, not even right-wing racist Zionists would dare spew!

listen to this one: "which would've gave them 94 perecent of Palestine".

how old are you? seriously.

And why is that? Oh, that's right, because Israel constructed a wall that has sharply prevented any terrorist attack in Israel.

don't try to justifiy the Apartheid wall. Over 80% of it runs into Palestinian lands.

And the rocket attacks would've been prevented as well if Gaza hadn't been handed back. Israel gives land, but the Palestinians don't give peace.

again, spare us your disgusting attempts of justifying the unjustifable. the Zionist settler-colony simply HAD to GIVE BACK (did you hear this? GIVE BAAAACK), no matter what the cercumstances. A theife returns with the stuff he stole, he would be thrown in jail, not given credit.
There will be no peace until the total eradiction of colonialism.

Dean

5th September 2007, 01:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 10:38 pm

That's part of your moral IDF, huh? I hope your brother/sisther/father/mother does something evil so I can take everything away from you.

If a terrorist commits an act of mass murder, it's the parents fault for encouraging their child and feeding them propaganda. Which, if you look at the parents' statement after their son/daughter has just carried out 'jihad', you'll find the overwhelming response is satisfaction in what their kid did.

Just imagine what kind of outrage would emerge if the Virginia Tech killers' parents went on the air praising what their son did.
Well I'm happy to know I'd also be outraged if people were made homeless because they excercised their freedom of speech. And I'm sad to know that you wouldn't.

The Lebanese war was different; they couldn't invade far enough into Lebanon so the IDF had to eliminate Hizbullah positions with artillery and bombs, which of course causes alot more collateral damage. In the territories, the IDF can find the very building where the terrorist is hiding and arrest or kill them with precision.

War is an ugly thing, and innocents will get killed. Evilness, though, is the intentional killing of civilians, like what the terrorists practice.

You denounce Israel but many here applaud actions by the Red Army in Afghanistan, when 1 million Afghans were killed and 2 million were forced from their homes. That's almost three times as many people than the Palestinian flight from Israel.
I support the Taliban in their fight against Russia at the time. I am in no way chained by the apologism givne here by many, including you, for egregious human rights abuses. I'm sorry, but if my brother, who is a bipolar communist, were to commit a violent act, I would see no right for the U.S. to tak emy home just because I either agreed with the act or his ideology. And I am sicked to see your defense of war in general, espcially when it results in human death.

I am just as much an enemy of so - called soviet / socialist states like the USSR as I am to any imperialist power. Israel is clearly imperialist, just look at what it's supreme court just said about the apartheid wall and Bi'lin. And no, a civilian death rate of fifty percent is not in any way a characterization of morality; if anything, it is a disgusting figure which should be exponentially lower, regardless of comparative statistics. You should note that in the Lebanon war, the Israeli Defence Forces intentionally bombed civilian infrastructure which was not relevant to an Hizb Allah attack. Bridges and roads were destroyed, forcing more civilians in Lebanon to stay in the south, furthering the likeliness that they would be victims of Israeli attacks. But war is ugly, so I guess ugliness is permissable.

Tell me, why are the Israeli citizens so more liberal than you in this regard? Maybe they can see those being killed more closely than you.

Face it, the conflict there is the fault of Israeli expansionism. All you have been doing is giving half-hearted justifications for Israeli military occupations. "Yeah they kill civilians egregiously but..." I'm glad I don't try to defend such sick nonsense.

The PLO only has themselves to blame for the Oslo war. If Arafat would've accepted the terms, this whole conflict would've been avoided. But you liberals pin everything on Israel because you're so knee-jerk for what you see as the downtrodden Palestinians.

Palestinian reluctance to negotiate and their nostalgic dream of having all of Eretz Israel is the source of the conflict now. Even Israel would've stopped building settlements if the Palestinians would've accepted the deal, which would've gave them 94 percent of Palestine.
The Oslo Accords were bullshit for both sides. All it offered was power to organizations in Palestine and Israel. It offered nothing in the way of security for Israelis or rights for Palestinians. In other words, it was bad for the commoners in both territories but good for those who had a numerical, political or monetary stake in the issue. It meant nothing for freedom, security, or peace in Israel or Palestine.

no, you are not ignorant, you are an idiot. That thread starts at July 14, 2007. In other words, this thread will contain PFLP operations from that date and beyond. This is not a thread to document PFLP operations from the begning of the PFLP. From July 14, 2007 till today, there have been no PFLP, or any other Palestinian group, human bomb inside Israel.

And why is that? Oh, that's right, because Israel constructed a wall that has sharply prevented any terrorist attack in Israel. And the rocket attacks would've been prevented as well if Gaza hadn't been handed back. Israel gives land, but the Palestinians don't give peace.
Are you kidding? by simply finding a light - skinned driver and hiding bombs (or arabs or potential terrorists) in the back of vehicles as easy to see through and as potentially hazardous for bombing as buses, peopel can easily cross into Israel. I know a person who has done just that: at one checkpoint, she was stopped when she had an arab in the passenger seat of the bus. So at the next checkpoint, she decided that those who looked Jewish would be in the front seat beside her. They just waved her by.

Real secure. Too bad the U.N. Human Rights council is against this type of "security."

Phalanx

5th September 2007, 02:06

fucker, it's their land

When you're not so high-strung on hormones, let me know so we can actually debate.

Well I'm happy to know I'd also be outraged if people were made homeless because they excercised their freedom of speech. And I'm sad to know that you wouldn't.

They're not exercising freedom of speech by massacreing civilians. That's committing mass murder.

And no, a civilian death rate of fifty percent is not in any way a characterization of morality; if anything, it is a disgusting figure which should be exponentially lower, regardless of comparative statistics.

Of course civilian death is deplorable, but in some cases it is unavoidable. Accidents happen, and faulty intelligence leads to bungled raids. That doesn't make civilian deaths alright, it's just unavoidable sometimes.

Tell me, why are the Israeli citizens so more liberal than you in this regard? Maybe they can see those being killed more closely than you.

Have you ever been to Israel?

The Oslo Accords were bullshit for both sides. All it offered was power to organizations in Palestine and Israel. It offered nothing in the way of security for Israelis or rights for Palestinians. In other words, it was bad for the commoners in both territories but good for those who had a numerical, political or monetary stake in the issue. It meant nothing for freedom, security, or peace in Israel or Palestine.

And why was that?

Are you kidding? by simply finding a light - skinned driver and hiding bombs (or arabs or potential terrorists) in the back of vehicles as easy to see through and as potentially hazardous for bombing as buses, peopel can easily cross into Israel. I know a person who has done just that: at one checkpoint, she was stopped when she had an arab in the passenger seat of the bus. So at the next checkpoint, she decided that those who looked Jewish would be in the front seat beside her. They just waved her by.

Actually, the IDF switched from racial profiling to looking for suspicious behavior. They don't automatically look at the color of the suspects skin; they look nervousness and short tempers. Terrorists have dressed up many times looking like Orthodox Jews or secular Israelis, so the IDF changed its policy.

Revolution Until Victory

5th September 2007, 02:48

When you're not so high-strung on hormones, let me know so we can actually debate.

look who's talking about "debate"!!!

Am I mistaken, or were you the guy who said "The Israeli military is one of the most moral the world has ever seen"?? :lol:

Fuck you.

Dr Mindbender

5th September 2007, 02:59

if it wasnt for the fact that Israel was acting in common interests with America, it would be recieving much the same flack globally that the USSR recieved over Afghanistan.
Just to keep the zionist apologists off their moral high horse, let us not forget this little doozy from 1982-
http://www.indictsharon.net/massacres.shtml

Dean

5th September 2007, 03:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 01:06 am

Well I'm happy to know I'd also be outraged if people were made homeless because they excercised their freedom of speech. And I'm sad to know that you wouldn't.

They're not exercising freedom of speech by massacreing civilians. That's committing mass murder.
Oh? Living with a suspected terrorist is mass murder? (actually, for your sake, let's just assume that we know it's a terrorist) Let's go find Kissinger's family and demolish their houses. Same logic / bullshit.

And no, a civilian death rate of fifty percent is not in any way a characterization of morality; if anything, it is a disgusting figure which should be exponentially lower, regardless of comparative statistics.

Of course civilian death is deplorable, but in some cases it is unavoidable. Accidents happen, and faulty intelligence leads to bungled raids. That doesn't make civilian deaths alright, it's just unavoidable sometimes.
For the IDF, it's not just unavoidable, it's necessary. And it is not the fault of faulty intelligence; known militants are bombed while in close proximity to civilians, and the IDF knows that. It's an us and them mentality, and you are the kind of person who helps foster that bigotry.

Tell me, why are the Israeli citizens so more liberal than you in this regard? Maybe they can see those being killed more closely than you.

Have you ever been to Israel?
No. Have you ever been to every nation you've criticised? I've read polls, articles and reports from various sources and they all tend to agree that the majority of Israeli citizens want peace with the Palestinians and want an end to the occupation. The fact that there are so many Refuseniks shows how unpopular the illegal occupation is.

The Oslo Accords were bullshit for both sides. All it offered was power to organizations in Palestine and Israel. It offered nothing in the way of security for Israelis or rights for Palestinians. In other words, it was bad for the commoners in both territories but good for those who had a numerical, political or monetary stake in the issue. It meant nothing for freedom, security, or peace in Israel or Palestine.

And why was that?
Because it was about giving land and power to some people. It had no guarantees of human rights, aid, freedom, autonomy or security for either Israelis or Palestinians. It refused to recognize borders or the right of return for displaced Palestinians, leaving Israeli racism and expansionism open and acceptable.

Are you kidding? by simply finding a light - skinned driver and hiding bombs (or arabs or potential terrorists) in the back of vehicles as easy to see through and as potentially hazardous for bombing as buses, peopel can easily cross into Israel. I know a person who has done just that: at one checkpoint, she was stopped when she had an arab in the passenger seat of the bus. So at the next checkpoint, she decided that those who looked Jewish would be in the front seat beside her. They just waved her by.

Actually, the IDF switched from racial profiling to looking for suspicious behavior. They don't automatically look at the color of the suspects skin; they look nervousness and short tempers. Terrorists have dressed up many times looking like Orthodox Jews or secular Israelis, so the IDF changed its policy.
When was this? My story happened about a week ago.

I love this: "Terrorists have dressed up many times looking like Orthodox Jews or secular Israelis, so the IDF changed its policy"

Yeah, they've also BEEN orthodox Jews and secular Israelis. You talk about terrorism as if it's exclusive to Israelis or Jews, while the Arabs / Palestinians must actually answer for the actions of a dangerous minority.

Your apologism for things that are clearly wrong is sick. When I point out that it's wrong to blame others for terrorist acts, you say "they sometimes support it too / it deters terrorism." Well, let's hope that all deterrants to negative actions are actuated. You know, like in the game theory. Too bad that kind of thinking is xenophobic, dangerous and cannot result in a humanist solution.

Phalanx

5th September 2007, 04:18

Oh? Living with a suspected terrorist is mass murder? (actually, for your sake, let's just assume that we know it's a terrorist) Let's go find Kissinger's family and demolish their houses. Same logic / bullshit.

I've already said I don't support the demolition of houses of suspected terrorists. Ones that already committed the act of mass murder is a completely different story.

For the IDF, it's not just unavoidable, it's necessary. And it is not the fault of faulty intelligence; known militants are bombed while in close proximity to civilians, and the IDF knows that. It's an us and them mentality, and you are the kind of person who helps foster that bigotry.

This is the point where I stop taking you seriously. The IDF doesn't hunt down civilians, and it's completely idiotic to say so.

No. Have you ever been to every nation you've criticised? I've read polls, articles and reports from various sources and they all tend to agree that the majority of Israeli citizens want peace with the Palestinians and want an end to the occupation. The fact that there are so many Refuseniks shows how unpopular the illegal occupation is.

I agree, the settlements must be dismantled. But only when the terrorists groups actually lay down their arms. That's why disengaging from Gaza was a mistake, because Israel left at the wrong time.

Comrade Hector

5th September 2007, 05:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 10:49 am
I came across this first hand when I was debating the topic of the Middle East a while ago, and I still can't get my head round this "logic".

There are some ground rules that need establishing here: blowing oneself up in a shopping centre to forward a medieval theocracy involving the suppression of women and the stoning of gays is a bad thing, isnt it?

I would of thought the British Left is not going to have such amazing differences in opinions about racism (they'd all be against it, which is a good start) that could not be contained in a single campaign.

By some crazy twist of logic, reactionary bigots who seek to plunge the world into religous darkness can become freedom fighters - a derformed liberation movement; the ANC by other means. How is this so? It seems if your against US Imperialism then you must be okay - even if what you like is slaughtering people standing at bus stops because of their religion.

Leftists like George Galloway and Livingstone have warmly welcomed reactionary bigots like Yusuf al-Qaradawi to London - who supports the execution of all males who engage in homosexual acts and "personally supports" female circumcision. Of suicide bombers he says 'For us, Muslim martyrdom is not the end of things but the begining of the most wonderful things'.

I want to know how people who call themselves leftists can ally with religious reactionarys but can't ally with themselves..
LOL! This is truly amusing! Remember that war in the 1980s in a country called Afghanistan? Remember how little con Reagan and little "human rights" scout Carter supported those guys from Rambo III called "Freedom Fighters"? The left didn't prop up Islamic fundamentalists, the USA did. So don't come here with this crap!

Hiero

5th September 2007, 08:14

LOL! This is truly amusing! Remember that war in the 1980s in a country called Afghanistan? Remember how little con Reagan and little "human rights" scout Carter supported those guys from Rambo III called "Freedom Fighters"? The left didn't prop up Islamic fundamentalists, the USA did. So don't come here with this crap!

That's excactly right. Communist everywhere in the Muslim world were setting up secular socialist societies, and Amerikkka put an end to that. So I am not going to shed a tear when they turn around and bite Amerikkka.

Forward Union

5th September 2007, 10:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 12:58 pm
Israel started out as a socialist empire interested in Jewish Nationalism and expansionism;
Uh oh, you've set off the paradox alarm.

it's initial supporters in this war were the working class of Israel.

That doesn't mean it was a working class-movement. The nazis biggest support base was also the german proletariat, but it was still a fascist movement with working class support. The ends that the working class supported in this instance were in opposition to their class interests. Much like you supporting religious nutters.

So fuck them.

Well, fuck you to. I was going to sort out getting you restricted for that comment, but thankfully it's already been done.

I don't wish them dead, but if they support imperialism they are hardly some great revolutionary class.

So because a few members of the Israeli working class supported the creation of an authoritarian state, they obviously don't have revolutionary potential as a class? Aren't a lot of the Palestinian workers arguing for an equally authoritarian state? Do you support them?

The major parties that have controlled Israel's politics since then have been widely supported amongst the working class.

With exception, almost every political party (in power) has had the wide support of the working class, that almost a necessity of rule. The ones that didn't got overthrown. But if the Israeli working class have failed to recognise their oppression, and still submit to the state and capitalism, then it shows a failure on our part.

And I would say that failure is in not working with them to a greater extent, not showing them the same solidarity as other workers, and instead supporting religious fanaticism and dogmatic nationalism. As a Libertarian communist you should appreciate that there can be no peace in an Israel or a Palestine, as long as there are workers and parasites. The solution isn't two state, it's no state.

You are simply supporting the continued oppression of the working class under a different flag.

:angry:

Dean

5th September 2007, 12:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 03:18 am

Oh? Living with a suspected terrorist is mass murder? (actually, for your sake, let's just assume that we know it's a terrorist) Let's go find Kissinger's family and demolish their houses. Same logic / bullshit.

I've already said I don't support the demolition of houses of suspected terrorists. Ones that already committed the act of mass murder is a completely different story.
...and that's why I said "let's assume that we know it's a terrorist." It's still bullshit, becaus eyou're punishing people that aren't responsible.

For the IDF, it's not just unavoidable, it's necessary. And it is not the fault of faulty intelligence; known militants are bombed while in close proximity to civilians, and the IDF knows that. It's an us and them mentality, and you are the kind of person who helps foster that bigotry.

This is the point where I stop taking you seriously. The IDF doesn't hunt down civilians, and it's completely idiotic to say so.
It's completely idiotic to ignore the facts you see every day, but you do THAT pretty well.

No. Have you ever been to every nation you've criticised? I've read polls, articles and reports from various sources and they all tend to agree that the majority of Israeli citizens want peace with the Palestinians and want an end to the occupation. The fact that there are so many Refuseniks shows how unpopular the illegal occupation is.

I agree, the settlements must be dismantled. But only when the terrorists groups actually lay down their arms. That's why disengaging from Gaza was a mistake, because Israel left at the wrong time.
Right, the oppressed Palestinian people must magically force the radical elements of society out before you will support any kind of freedom for them. Well I guess the bmonbing of Afghani civilians to "get them to hand over Bin Ladin" was justifiable under the same logic. Torure a civilian population for the murder of select individuals.

Dean

5th September 2007, 13:00

Originally posted by Urban Spirit+September 05, 2007 09:03 am--> (Urban Spirit @ September 05, 2007 09:03 am)
[email protected] 31, 2007 12:58 pm
Israel started out as a socialist empire interested in Jewish Nationalism and expansionism;
Uh oh, you've set off the paradox alarm.

it's initial supporters in this war were the working class of Israel.

That doesn't mean it was a working class-movement. The nazis biggest support base was also the german proletariat, but it was still a fascist movement with working class support. The ends that the working class supported in this instance were in opposition to their class interests. Much like you supporting religious nutters. [/b]
Yes, nothing immoral can be socialist and Israel wasn't really Jewish because they weren't acting in the Jewish spirirt. Or, you know, I can take things for what they mean.

You know nothing of Israeli history.

So fuck them.

Well, fuck you to. I was going to sort out getting you restricted for that comment, but thankfully it's already been done.
I'm so sad I can't come and debate with a prick who ignores human history.

I don't wish them dead, but if they support imperialism they are hardly some great revolutionary class.

So because a few members of the Israeli working class supported the creation of an authoritarian state, they obviously don't have revolutionary potential as a class? Aren't a lot of the Palestinian workers arguing for an equally authoritarian state? Do you support them?
No, they're not real Muslims. Because I like to pick and choose who I call what, regardless of their own terminology.

The major parties that have controlled Israel's politics since then have been widely supported amongst the working class.

With exception, almost every political party (in power) has had the wide support of the working class, that almost a necessity of rule. The ones that didn't got overthrown. But if the Israeli working class have failed to recognise their oppression, and still submit to the state and capitalism, then it shows a failure on our part.

Our part? as in "we have to force them to be free"? Nope, I don't ascribe to such paradoxical claims on freedom. If a population are unfree, it is their fault for being submissive.

In reference to Israel in particular, the workign class has been instrumental in seizing other people's land and creating a state under the banner of socialism. You can defend this heroic working class all you want, but the fact is that revolutionary tendancies are not it's nature.

And I would say that failure is in not working with them to a greater extent, not showing them the same solidarity as other workers, and instead supporting religi]ous fanaticism and dogmatic nationalism. As a Libertarian communist you should appreciate that there can be no peace in an Israel or a Palestine, as long as there are workers and parasites. The solution isn't two state, it's no state.
Correct. But the Israeli working class has little stake in such interests.

You are simply supporting the continued oppression of the working class under a different flag.

:angry:
Boo hoo retard. The working class is not some magical, noble fucking organization of people. It's a group of humans, oppressed, but just like the Palestinians who bomb buses, they have plenty of capacity for bad deeds. Go tell them of your noble plan for them, maybe they'll listen to you. But I don't see judgement of the upper classes as any better than judgement of the working class, when both have the same result.

Forward Union

5th September 2007, 17:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 12:00 pm
Yes, nothing immoral can be socialist and Israel wasn't really Jewish because they weren't acting in the Jewish spirirt. Or, you know, I can take things for what they mean.

You know nothing of Israeli history.

Who mentioned morality? I simply said that for a movement to be "working class" it has to have the economic interests of the working class at it's centre. And so, despite the fact that at numerous times in history, the workers have helped prop up tyrannies, it does not undermine their revolutionary potential. Nor does it mean that the nazi movement in 1920s germany was "working class" or any other Fascist coup.

As for Israeli history, I didn't make any claims about it, nor did I contend your statements about it.

Our part? as in "we have to force them to be free"? Nope, I don't ascribe to such paradoxical claims on freedom. If a population are unfree, it is their fault for being submissive.

It's partly their own fault, but they are up against the capitalist class itself, a class which does all it can to subdue the working class and prevent civil unrest or a threat to its rule over property and the means of production. So we can cut them some slack. Furthermore, many do fight, all the time, in tiny, isolated, disorganised enclaves, which need direction to be revolutionary.

As class conscious workers, we need to establish revolutionary bodies that can direct and facilitate the growth of working class' self-organisation and resistance. If that isn't happening we're not doing our jobs, and that failure is ours.

In reference to Israel in particular, the workign class has been instrumental in seizing other people's land and creating a state under the banner of socialism. You can defend this heroic working class all you want, but the fact is that revolutionary tendancies are not it's nature.

So do you not believe the working class to be revolutionary? which class then, is might I ask? or is it not a question of class for you?

Correct. But the Israeli working class has little stake in such interests.

In what? self emancipation from a tyrannical state? I know a few who would disagree. I can see a lot of incentive, and this is illustrated through the various class struggle Anarchist and Communist organisations that have both Palestinian and Israeli workers involved...

I don't see judgement of the upper classes as any better than judgement of the working class, when both have the same result.

So you're not in favour of working class control?

Phalanx

5th September 2007, 17:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 11:49 am
...and that's why I said "let's assume that we know it's a terrorist." It's still bullshit, becaus eyou're punishing people that aren't responsible.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: parents bear some of the guilt if their kid becomes a mass murderer. It's also a good deterrent as well.

It's completely idiotic to ignore the facts you see every day, but you do THAT pretty well.

So your image of the IDF is a force that hunts down and kills children for fun? If that's what you believe, you're completely detached from reality.

Right, the oppressed Palestinian people must magically force the radical elements of society out before you will support any kind of freedom for them.

If Palestinians refuse to allow the terrorists shelter in their areas, then by all means they should have their land back. But because the terrorist groups have such widespread support among Palestinians (and that you can't deny), Israel must rely on its military for defense.

Well I guess the bmonbing of Afghani civilians to "get them to hand over Bin Ladin" was justifiable under the same logic. Torure a civilian population for the murder of select individuals.

Bombing of civilians is never justified, and I never said it was. But in war civilians will undoubtedly suffer. The war in Afghanistan was completely justified and most Afghani civilians were supportive of the war, until troop shortages became a problem and the Taliban re-emerged.

Would you deny that Sherman's march to the sea was crucial in destroying much of the South's infrastructure, thereby accelerating the end of the war? Civilians suffered during his march, but in the end the war was cut short.

Now please, I want to hear a response that isn't spittle-ridden rhetoric.

Vinny Rafarino

5th September 2007, 18:53

Originally posted by lean and mean [email protected] savior of the masses
If a population are unfree, it is their fault for being submissive.

What a crock of shit.

Just so you're don't get confused, I will only give one example:

Haiti.

When the Arawaks fell under Spanish colonial control in the late 1490s they were far from submissive; they fought against a force that had modern technology enormous wealth.

They like many other populations eventually fell to the might of the Spanish empire.

Why exactly do you think the Spanish were able to conquer so many areas? It most certainly wasn't because the indigenous populations were "submissive".

Dean

5th September 2007, 21:34

Originally posted by Urban Spirit+September 05, 2007 04:18 pm--> (Urban Spirit @ September 05, 2007 04:18 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2007 12:00 pm
Yes, nothing immoral can be socialist and Israel wasn't really Jewish because they weren't acting in the Jewish spirirt. Or, you know, I can take things for what they mean.

You know nothing of Israeli history.

Who mentioned morality? I simply said that for a movement to be "working class" it has to have the economic interests of the working class at it's centre. And so, despite the fact that at numerous times in history, the workers have helped prop up tyrannies, it does not undermine their revolutionary potential. Nor does it mean that the nazi movement in 1920s germany was "working class" or any other Fascist coup.

As for Israeli history, I didn't make any claims about it, nor did I contend your statements about it. [/b]
How is it in any way against the ruling classes interests to have a communist state? If about material possession, then you are sorely misunderstanding Marx (or you disagreee with him where I agree). If it is in reference to humans and alienation, it is most definitely trure that it is not a class interest, but a human interest, that compels us towards communism, despite the role that classes may have. As for morals, they are a very human thing describing how we act, and I think they are far more important to communism than you seem to.

Our part? as in "we have to force them to be free"? Nope, I don't ascribe to such paradoxical claims on freedom. If a population are unfree, it is their fault for being submissive.

It's partly their own fault, but they are up against the capitalist class itself, a class which does all it can to subdue the working class and prevent civil unrest or a threat to its rule over property and the means of production. So we can cut them some slack. Furthermore, many do fight, all the time, in tiny, isolated, disorganised enclaves, which need direction to be revolutionary.

As class conscious workers, we need to establish revolutionary bodies that can direct and facilitate the growth of working class' self-organisation and resistance. If that isn't happening we're not doing our jobs, and that failure is ours.
It seems to me like you're talking about a vanguard. Even if you're not, I still don't think that we, as atomized communists in a capitalist age, are the central bodies necessary for change; I think it is the responsibility of all people.

In reference to Israel in particular, the workign class has been instrumental in seizing other people's land and creating a state under the banner of socialism. You can defend this heroic working class all you want, but the fact is that revolutionary tendancies are not it's nature.

So do you not believe the working class to be revolutionary? which class then, is might I ask? or is it not a question of class for you?
I can see where a class can be revolutionary. And I easily see how Marx felt that the Proletariat of his time was a revolutionary class. But I don't think that the traditional concept of class, that is, bourgeoisie, petit - bourgeoisie, and proletariat are very applicable in a society with a "petit - bourgeoisie" laboring class and a destitute class of refugees. In other words, there are more than just 2 or three classes. I don't see the working population in the U.S. specifically promoting very progressive ideas, at least not as demands.

Correct. But the Israeli working class has little stake in such interests.

In what? self emancipation from a tyrannical state? I know a few who would disagree. I can see a lot of incentive, and this is illustrated through the various class struggle Anarchist and Communist organisations that have both Palestinian and Israeli workers involved...
Obviously my statements conflict with this one. The point was that the claimed interest of Israeli workers, much liek U.S. workers, is hardly revolutionary, and is in fact often very oppressive and xenophobic.

I don't see judgement of the upper classes as any better than judgement of the working class, when both have the same result.

So you're not in favour of working class control?

I am in favor of individual autonomy, which economically must be in some way control by workers.

I think it's childish that you would try to restrict me because I said I oppose the claimed interest of a certain working group. But I do apologise for insulting you in response.

Dean

5th September 2007, 21:38

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+September 05, 2007 05:53 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ September 05, 2007 05:53 pm)
lean and mean [email protected] savior of the masses
If a population are unfree, it is their fault for being submissive.

What a crock of shit. [/b]
I was pissed when I said that; the point was to show that a population is also to blame when they are submissive. In other words, society as a whole is at fault for an organization which even in part is oppressive. Marx said he despised submissiveness as the greatest vice of man, and I agree.

Dean

5th September 2007, 21:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 04:19 pm
Now please, I want to hear a response that isn't spittle-ridden rhetoric.
I'd like to see a response that doesn't twist my words or ignore the facts. I haven't seen that from you; in fact I've seen only xenophobic rhetoric. Perhaps it's better to have spittle than bigotry in your rhetoric.

Phalanx

5th September 2007, 23:14

I'd like to see a response that doesn't twist my words or ignore the facts. I haven't seen that from you; in fact I've seen only xenophobic rhetoric. Perhaps it's better to have spittle than bigotry in your rhetoric.

Once you actually supply facts we can have an honest debate.

Dean

6th September 2007, 01:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:14 pm

I'd like to see a response that doesn't twist my words or ignore the facts. I haven't seen that from you; in fact I've seen only xenophobic rhetoric. Perhaps it's better to have spittle than bigotry in your rhetoric.

Once you actually supply facts we can have an honest debate.
One last thing: why do you blame the Palestinians as a whole for the actions of some? Would you support retaliation on the general Israeli population for the various war crimes and human rights abuses Israel is (or if you don't think they exist, 'could be') responsible for? Do I as a U.S. citizen deserve to lose my house, freedom or life because my government has killed many people abroad?

I just can't comprehend such statements. They are inhuman and xenophobic, and I don't see how someone can support a claim like that.

spartan

6th September 2007, 13:19

One last thing: why do you blame the Palestinians as a whole for the actions of some? Would you support retaliation on the general Israeli population for the various war crimes and human rights abuses Israel is (or if you don't think they exist, 'could be') responsible for? Do I as a U.S. citizen deserve to lose my house, freedom or life because my government has killed many people abroad?

I just can't comprehend such statements. They are inhuman and xenophobic, and I don't see how someone can support a claim like that.
Dean you blame the israelis as a whole for the actons of some! (army,politicians,etc). you know not everyone in this region is part of a reactionary group! believe it or not some people just want peace and a safe enviroment for their kids, a good job and a comfortable house but because of the extremist israelis and palestinians they cant have this! if their is one group of people i support in this conflict then it is them. the sufferers who have to live with all these extremist idiots all around them dictating how they should live (and the conditions).

Intifada

6th September 2007, 14:52

Dean you blame the israelis as a whole for the actons of some! (army,politicians,etc). you know not everyone in this region is part of a reactionary group! believe it or not some people just want peace and a safe enviroment for their kids, a good job and a comfortable house

You cannot ignore the fact that Israel is a settler nation which has been created in the land of people who were already living there. Therefore, whether you like it or not, the Jewish settlers of the Israeli state are the cause of the problem.

These settlers are mostly motivated by religion, or they could be motivated by trying to live a better life in a country which will allow their entry simply because they are Jewish. This same country simultaneously forbids millions of Palestinian refugees their right to return to their homeland.

Moreover, we have the fact that the Israeli state is forcing the Palestinians (who are human beings too), who as of yet have not fled or been forced out by Israel, to live in misery which you could not even begin to imagine while you sit in front of your computer in the relative luxury of your own home.

If Israelis want peace, the first thing they must realise is that the illegal occupation of Palestinian land is the biggest obstacle to peace. There are brave Israelis who do stand up for the rights of their fellow human beings in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, but these "self-hating Jews" are not going to bring about true change on their own.

The misery and despair of life in the Occupied Palestinian Territories provides the fertile ground for extremism (which you have been blaming for the present situation) to grow and prosper.

Peace cannot come until there is justice for Palestine.

spartan

6th September 2007, 15:28

Peace cannot come until there is justice for Palestine.
how will justice come about though? this is a sensitive issue for those directly involved (as all sides in this conflict think that they are ultimately right) and it will be hard to bring them together to settle on something (which this time cant be broken by either side). also there will have to be alot of concessions from both sides like the palestinians should stop saying all israel is palestine and should be destroyed and the israelis doing the same but vice versa. there should also be promises against either side using retaliatory attacks especially against civilians who might not be apart of anything but just happen to be in the area at the time. there should also be a rule like promises cannot be broken. i know that will be hard for politicians but the people on all sides of the conflict should force it on them.

Phalanx

6th September 2007, 15:34

spartan

6th September 2007, 15:42

Of course not. However, the Palestinian people have a responsibility to end their support of terrorist groups; that's the only way peace talks can get started again.
israelis should also have a responsibility to end their support of the politicians and military men who advocate attacks against palestinian civilians for "revenge". this should work both ways Phalanx for any sort of peace to become a reality!

Intifada

6th September 2007, 16:13

how will justice come about though?

Firstly, Israel must end the illegal occupation.

That is the only way, no matter how hard it may be, to start the process towards real peace.

also there will have to be alot of concessions from both sides like the palestinians should stop saying all israel is palestine and should be destroyed and the israelis doing the same but vice versa.

As far back as 1988, the Palestinians accepted the possibility of a Palestinian state based upon the pre-1967 borders, that is upon Gaza and the West Bank (22% of historic Palestine).

Even Hamas has shown a willingness to talk to Israel about peace, though their calls fell on deaf ears.

The recent rejections of the Arab League Peace Offer in 2002 and earlier this year are indicative of the the fact that Israel does not want peace. This peace offer is based upon the international consensus for a solution to the conflict, embodied by the 1967 UN Security Council Resolution 242 formula of land for peace and on a just resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem.

What Does Israel Want? (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13114)

Meanwhile, illegal settlements continue to swallow up the West Bank, while the construction of the illegal separation wall on Palestinian land continues unabated.

The role of the West in plunging Gaza into further darkness serves to extinguish any hope for peace, while the old-age imperial tactic of "divide and conquer" has seen the Palestinians fighting each other instead of the occupation.

As the party with the most power, the choice for peace is Israel's.

Phalanx

6th September 2007, 17:36

The role of the West in plunging Gaza into further darkness serves to extinguish any hope for peace, while the old-age imperial tactic of "divide and conquer" has seen the Palestinians fighting each other instead of the occupation.

You cannot blame the Hamas-Fatah conflict on outsiders. A secular-religious split was bound to happen within the Arab resistence movement.

Firstly, Israel must end the illegal occupation.

That is the only way, no matter how hard it may be, to start the process towards real peace.

Israel should only give land back when there's a promise of no terror attacks. Gaza was given back to the Arabs, but terrorist groups just used the space to launch rocket attacks inside Israel.

Meanwhile, illegal settlements continue to swallow up the West Bank, while the construction of the illegal separation wall on Palestinian land continues unabated.

That wall has prevented the deaths of countless civilians from terror attacks. Just look at how sharply attacks fell before and after construction of the wall began.

Intifada

6th September 2007, 18:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:36 pm
You cannot blame the Hamas-Fatah conflict on outsiders. A secular-religious split was bound to happen within the Arab resistence movement.
Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.

The fighting between Fateh and Hamas is the result of the long-lasting seige, by Israel and the West, on the Palestinian people. Such a tragedy was near enough inevitable once it became clear that the US and Israel would never accept a Palestinian government led by Hamas, who had been elected by the Palestinian people in democratic elections.

Indeed, the recent fighting between the Fateh and Hamas has the fingerprints of Washington and Israel all over it.

Most Western commentators have been banging on about how Hamas have somehow stolen power of the Gaza Strip from the hands of Fateh. Anybody who has the slightest knowledge of current events in the Occupied Palestinian Territories would dismiss such commentary as Zionist propaganda.

Hamas were democratically elected into political power by the Palestinian people, to even their own surprise, in the 2006 Palestinian elections that the West had urged.

Of course, the "international community" (which simply consists of the US and their fellow allies) could never except such a situation and decided, as they have done frequently in the past, to fix the "problem" as they saw it.

In fact, after the elections, Hamas had wished to form a broad coalition government with Fateh, one run by Abbas. But, as Alvaro de Soto, the former UN Middle East envoy, stated in a recently published article in the Guardian newpaper, the US actively discouraged other Palestinian politicians from joining such a government.

De Soto states: "We were told that the US was against any 'blurring' of the line dividing Hamas from those Palestinian political forces committed to the two-state solution".

It took a year before a coalition government was formed, but there was an ongoing seige imposed on the Palestinian people by the so-called international community, while Israel (backed, as ever, by Washington) withheld Palestinian tax revenues.

So, while the Palestinians were starved and their economy was destroyed, the US pushed for the inevitable confrontation between Hamas and Fateh. De Soto even quotes an unnamed US diplomat who said: "I like this violence".

Palestinian Foreign Minister Ziad Abu Amr, an independent, said: "We really live in a cage... If you have two brothers, put them in a cage and deprive them of basic and essential needs for life, they will fight."

(I refer you back to the Euripides quote I used earlier.)

Abbas has long become the puppet of the US and Israel, and never ceded control of security to Hamas. Instead, Washington began arming several Palestinian militias, particularly those controlled by the warlord Mohammad Dahlan (whose home has since been looted), the leader of Fateh in Gaza, who has in the past been accused of being an Israeli agent and of corruption.

The person behind this arming of Fateh, was of all people, one Elliot Abrams, who was convicted (albeit without imprisonment) for lying to Congress during the Iran-Contra scandal.

Indeed, Fateh even asked Israel for weapons and equipment to help crush Hamas.

So, there was an attempted coup d'etat, but it was Fateh (backed by the US and Israel) who were trying to overthrow Hamas, the elected leaders of the Occupied Territories.

I recently posted an article from the Electronic Intifada website which details the shameless actions of Abbas. You can read it here (http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article8969.shtml).

What happened in Gaza was merely another example of the colonial tactic of divide and conquer, and the only winners of the split in Palestinian politics were Israel.

Israel should only give land back when there's a promise of no terror attacks. Gaza was given back to the Arabs, but terrorist groups just used the space to launch rocket attacks inside Israel.

Two years after the "disengagement", Gaza is "under the effective control of Israel" as a "sealed-off, imprisoned, and occupied territory", according to the UN's Special Rapporteur on human rights in Palestine.

Israel controls Gaza's air and sea space, movement between Gaza and the West Bank (also via neighboring countries), the population registry, family unification, and the crossing of goods to and from Gaza. Gazans rely on Israel for the supply of fuel, electricity and gas.

Things have changed in Gaza, however.

The fact is the humanitarian situation there is worse than ever, due to Israel's withholding of tax revenues to the PA, the boycott of the same institution by international governments, and the imposition of increased movement restrictions in the occupied territories.

Amnesty International states: "The extent of the blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip for most of 2006 has been unprecedented... the long blockade of [Karni commercial crossing] halted the export of Palestinian goods, causing waste of perishable agricultural exports and a loss of markets for these and other exports. The blockade resulted in the closure of 920 small factories, which in December 2005 employed 25,500 workers, as they were no longer able to export their products."

UNRWA describes Gaza as being "locked down and imprisoned", and that the "conditions of siege imposed on Gaza and the ongoing fragmentation of the West Bank are destroying the fabric of Palestinian society". As a result, "living conditions in Palestinian areas are now deplorable, slumping to levels unseen since 1967. Every aspect of life has been affected; the entire Palestinian population is suffering. The majority are now dependent on food and cash handouts."

I could go on, but hopefully you get the picture.

Ephraim Sneh, a member of the Israeli Labor Party who has held several senior posts in the Israeli military and government, has summed up the purpose of the "disengagement" plan: "The goal is to perpetuate Israeli control in most of the West Bank, and to repel any internal or external pressure for a different political solution."

Indeed, you say that Israel should only give land back once Palestinians stop fighting occupation, yet you fail to address the issue of illegal settlement expansion in the West Bank, which is leaving Palestinians with little enclaves.

As long as occupation continues, terrorism/resistance (whatever one wishes to call it) will continue too.

In fact, according to the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, Israel killed 660 Palestinians, and Palestinians killed 23 Israelis, in 2006.

That wall has prevented the deaths of countless civilians from terror attacks. Just look at how sharply attacks fell before and after construction of the wall began.

Great.

But let's look at the situation on the ground.

The wall is being built inside Palestinian territory, which is frankly illegal, as the International Court of Justice ruled. Indeed, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the construction of the wall on land in the Palestinian village of Bilin was not necessary and has ordered a change of route.

The wall snakes through the West Bank on Palestinian land, leaving Palestinians on the wrong side isolated from their land, extended families, and way of life. It is essentially a way of expropriating more Palestinian land, as well as protecting the illegal settlements.

If it was about security, Israel could have built the wall on the pre-1967 borders, or inside internationally recognised Israel.

Dean

6th September 2007, 22:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:34 pm

One last thing: why do you blame the Palestinians as a whole for the actions of some? Would you support retaliation on the general Israeli population for the various war crimes and human rights abuses Israel is (or if you don't think they exist, 'could be') responsible for? Do I as a U.S. citizen deserve to lose my house, freedom or life because my government has killed many people abroad?

Of course not. However, the Palestinian people have a responsibility to end their support of terrorist groups; that's the only way peace talks can get started again.
The comment on Palestinians is an affirmation of what I'm saying. "They must end their support" - but do they all support the groups? IS there a reason why (checkpoints where pregnant mothers' newborns die, bombing of cars which leave civilians nearby dead, anti-Palestian or racist ideas amongst the Israeli population which influence the government)?

Consider the following:

There are 2 communitieis A & B, each with 100 people. Both sides have tensions, have had off and on truces, but currently have a peace treaty and since its ratification they have not attacked each other. Community B had been taking land and blocking off roads into A.

A single individual from A goes into B and blows up a bus, killing men, women, and children. Before the attack, the individual may have said to his family that he wanted to become a martyr, but we have no way of knowing whether this is true or not once he is dead.

What should the community of B do in response?
1. Bomb / bulldoze the house of the terrorist, leavign a family which could have a dozen people, pro - militant or not, homeless?
2. Attack power sorces of community A?
3. Start negotiations with the authorities in A, seeing that there is still a problem?
4. Work with A to find if there are any organizations who are directing these attacks, and find them?

You must recognize that the Israeli people don't need to change, the Palestinian people don't need to change; the policies of organizations which attack people on either side need to change. You can't blame the entire population of either side for the actions of the powerful forces in their given "state."