No. I think I'd be hard pressed to support the bombing of anywhere by anyone.
Results 1 to 20 of 310
Do you support US bombing in Syria?
I'd just like to take a poll on how different political groups, tendencies, and individuals are viewing this. If you could post the name of your organisation or political tendency and give your answer next to it. Links would be useful too, but İ'd really like a one word answer as well.
No. I think I'd be hard pressed to support the bombing of anywhere by anyone.
No.
I am a sympathiser of the ICL-FI. The ICL position is given in the articles U.S. Out of Iraq! No Intervention in Syria! and Down With Bombing of Syria! U.S. Out of the Near East!
no, though i dont fault the kurdish fighters on the ground for welcoming the meager relief while they are getting royally screwed over by all the regional and global powerplayers alike.
The mind is its own place, and in itself Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven. What matter where, if I be still the same, And what I should be, all but less than he Whom thunder hath made greater?
Here at least We shall be free
No. Like Sasha, I sympathize with the Kurds as well as the Syrian opposition, but the U.S. airstrikes are not about liberation from their oppressors. The Syrian Civil Defense is already criticizing the civilian casualties and the US airstrikes as counterproductive, even as the US refuses to "corroborate" civilian casualties and admits that it has relaxed the standard of "near certainty" for civilian deaths, because Syria is not an area that is "outside...active hostilities." At the same time, concocted or camouflaged "imminent threats" like the Khorasan Group (Greenwald thinks it is an invention for domestic purposes, Woodward suggests it is simply a unit of Jabhat al-Nusra and that the administration was being sensitive to the perception of Syrian opposition groups by inventing a new classification). My own take is that the US was doing both, but that the real reason that JAN is being targeted is because the Saudis and the US prefer less independent Islamist opposition, and that most signs point to an attempt to isolate and diminish JAN. Admittedly they are extremists, although I don't know that the Islamic Front would end up being much different. In any event, that isn't working out: Syrians opposed to Assad are already seething at the apparent support for the regime over JAN, but as Aron Lund points out elsewhere, the Islamic Front is in many ways more extreme in its view of political Islam than the Muslim Brotherhood, making it difficult to see what exactly the US/Saudi goal is here. Of course, Islamic Front supporters and other Syrian Sunni Muslims have their own reasons for opposing ISIS, namely the organization's use of takfir to label supporters of other opposition groups "infidels."
Anyway, the point is that the bombing is playing out like previous US interventions: a humanitarian disaster that serves no clear strategic purpose beyond fattening the coffers of defense contractors.
All right, who's the jackass who voted "yes?"
Anyway, I'm affiliated with Students for a Democratic Society, which, in its current incarnation, is affiliated with Freedom Road Socialist Organization (Fight Back!). I'm a Leninist with an interest in the Juche Idea. And no, I can't think of any time in history that the U.S. bombed something with the honest intent to liberate anyone.
FORMERLY KNOWN AS "TOXIN," 2014-10-08.
Fuck no. The Syrian opposition is a US proxy. Anybody who supports that, which includes Al Quaeda, supports imperialism. The US has no right to intervene anywhere in the world, unconditionally.
For student organizing in california, join this group!
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1036
http://socialistorganizer.org/
"[I]t’s hard to keep potent historical truths bottled up forever. New data repositories are uncovered. New, less ideological, generations of historians grow up. In the late 1980s and before, Ann Druyan and I would routinely smuggle copies of Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution into the USSR—so our colleagues could know a little about their own political beginnings.”
--Carl Sagan
I support IS fighters getting blown up before they can kill innocent people, and I can sympathize with any Kurdish fighter or civilian in Kobani who celebrate ISIS tanks and positions getting hit from the sky. Yet ISIS itself is a reaction to previous American intervention and of the Salafist ideology of many of America's allies. If we understand that America has other interests in the area aside from stopping ISIS violence, we see why intervention should be opposed.
I don't have a tendency or a party, those are just my thoughts.
I disagree, the US wishes the Syrian opposition were its proxy. Its opposed to ISIS and JAN, it doesn't trust much of the FSA (though it seems happy to give them arms anyways) and it seems uninterested in the fate of the PYD.
Socialist Party of Outer Space
This explains a lot.
Al Qaida affiliated groups in Syria are being and have been targeted by US airstrikes.
pew pew pew
Voted no. Devrim, not to derail your thread but have you encountered anyone with pro-Isis sentiments in your day to day life there?
Man is but a goat in the hands of butchers
No. Why would anybody vote yes? Bombs are inprecise tools of genocide. Especially the ones these NATO war criminals have access to. I am unaffiliated.
"Maybe some day... I'll find a way... without you.."
What I imagine it explaining is why I'm a member of two Juche-groups, have an album of north Korean posters, and describe my interest in Juche in my political profile, my forum profile, and in my introductory thread.
I'm glad I could help clear it up for you.
FORMERLY KNOWN AS "TOXIN," 2014-10-08.
So, who posted yes and why?
I posted no and although we as a group have not taken a position on this yet, I very much doubt we'd go in favor...
I think, thus I disagree. | Chairperson of a Socialist Party branchMarxist Internet Archive | Communistisch Platform
Working class independence - Internationalism - Democracy
Educate - Agitate - Organise
Well two people have. To be honest I suspected it would be more. Here in Turkey the Kurdish nationalists, and much of the left are calling for intervention. People are dying on the streets for it. As far as I can see most of the foreign left has lined up with the PKK. I was just wondering how far they had taken it.
Actually openly pro-ISIS sentiments, no not personally. I'm sure that lots of people have them though although not so much in my social circles. Their are reports that up to 10% of ISIS fıghters are Turks. People I know have said they know of people from Ankara who went to join them.
I think it helps if you think of them as just another nationalist/sectarian militia, and not the demon they have become in the media. There has been horrific violence committed against Arab Sunni Muslims, in Iraq by the Shia militias and in Syria by the state. I think that there are a significant number of Sunnis who see ISIS as protecting them against sectarian attacks.
Devrim
Are they actually calling for intervention? I ask because I saw a statement on my facebook (I think from a Kurdish group in Turkey, I can't remember) that was pretty adamant that what they were calling for was 1. Turkey to stop support ISIS and 2. Turkey to open the border so that Kurds can cross over and join the fighting against ISIS. But that they didn't want Turkish intervention as that would just be lead to a military takeover of the area. Maybe their line is different on US/EU intervention.
I'm bound to stay
Where you sleep all day
Where they hung the jerk
That invented work
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains.
I stand in solidarity with the revolutionary Kurdish movements in Rojava and everyone else fighting for their self-determination against the islamo-fascists of ISIS
I do not support un-earnest intervention by NATO, foolishly trying to feign concern over terrorism while clearly only to protect its own interests.
If it's anything the 20th century taught us about western foreign policy, it's the fact that the US and her allies care as much about human rights and suffering as Pol Pot did.
I voted no because bombing as a military doctrine is a complete failure, but I believe the U.S. has a responsibility to clean up the mess they left in Iraq which I am not sure if they can. The Kurds especially do not deserve to be the victims and janitors of the current situation.
Fiat justitia ruat caelum!
Let justice be done though the Heavens fall!
And on that note, I think that a lot of the pro-intervention sentiment, on the American left at least (and my impression is that this is also the case elsewhere), is couched in the language of humanitarianism. So with that in mind, it seems unlikely to me - when asked point-blank "do you support the US bombing of Syria?" - that a lot of these people would respond affirmatively, even when that is the logical conclusion of the arguments and analysis they are putting forward.
I could be wrong, but I suspect if you had framed the poll question differently (say, "do you support US military efforts aimed at stamping out ISIS in Syria?"), you'd have ended up with significantly different results.
That is, in practice, what bending to the pressure of your own national bourgeoisie looks like.
Yes, I think you are very right. If I'd added something about protecting female Kurdish libertarian revolutionaries, it probably would have got even more votes.
Devrim
