h0m0revolutionary

It is if you do not call for the withdrawal of Chinese forces from Tibet. Which you don't.
So do you call for the Chinese occupying forces to leave Tibet?
1) Neither do I- but the difference is I do not conveniently pick and choose who I support.
2) Neither do I. I have all along said I support a secular one state solution and nowhere have defended the idea of state built on Jewish religious law.
3) Neither do I. I condemned the occupation of Afghanistan and called for the withdrawal of the occupying forces- but in a sensible manner not a hysterical knee jerk manner that sounds great for the cause but actuall cares nothing for the human cost on the ground.
4) Of fuck off!!! And please show me where there is an official leftist stance on the UN. Since when has supporting UN humanitarian missions and peacekeeping been reactionary. The UN is not one monolith either. Not nice to have your words twisted all the time is it? But that is exactly what you and others have done to me.

Stop insulting and using attacks ad hominem. You are being an apologist for Chinese imperialism and attacking Western imperialism. Surely a dedicated leftist must oppose all forms of imperialist expansionism?

No, you are a misguided fool with a hypocritical stance on this issue. You support Chinese imperialism in Tibet in order to save the Tibetans from themselves yet you condemnt the international coalition for the same thing- the Chinese situation could be seen as worse as it is full on colonisation. Sorry, but you are not revolutionary but a red reactionary and there is a difference.

Dude, how is your position on Tibet any different from mine on Afghanistan, if not more severe, yet I got restricted? Now, I don't believe I should have been restricted for Afghanistan nor do I believe you should be restricted for Tibet but it does kind of stick in my throat too that you said what you did that could be viewed as highly reactionary and nothing happens. It's nothing personal, just on the theoretical/intellectual level if you follow me.

The trouble with anarchist principles is that we do not live in an anarchist world. In the Afghan situation none of the players are anarchists so there is little to choose from. If the people of Kabul set up a Commune on genuine anarchist principles of course I would support them, but that isn't likely. Read your Marx too. Certain prerequisites are required to build socialism and many developing/non-developing countries do not meet those and that is why socialist revolution "immediately" will never succeed in those areas- as has been demonstrated by history. The road to socialism and a free and egalitarian society with no distinctions of class is a long process and cannot be achieved overnight. You have to think long term- looking at the situation as it is now the immediate withdrawal of troops would spell nothing but disaster, tribal/ethnic conflict and the rise of warlords in a situation that would make Yugoslavia look like a debating society squabble in Lichtenstein!!!

I've come to be very supportive of the BashBack! movement. I'm not gay or bi, myself, but I find them to be a great asset against the capitalist forces.