Does the Socialist Party support the attacks on ISIS?
- This topic has 17 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I started a new thread cos – and I may be way off the mark – but there seems to sympathy for those opposing ISIS for some un explained reason. Perhaps if someone can enlighten me
As an individual I take sides but I thought as a party we didn't. Have we developed 'a better of two evils' here?
Has bombing ISIS anything to do with workers interests?
Is this about freeing workers from oppression? Cos I had a silly notion that western (and eastern) parasites don't like the fact that ISIS is nicking the oil
Do the socialist party take sides with any army or militia slaughtering workers so they can run capitalism? No.
Even if we did, what difference would it make? If you 'support' one side or the other, then you should be prepared to take up arms as appropriate.
Many members had sympathy for the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War and there was conflicting members views during it. When it was moreorless over, there was a reassessment that you cannot use war to defend democracy. The way i read the party history, our 1937 statement was deliberately dreafted to try and stop too much acrimonious debate within the Party. http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1930s/1937/no-393-may-1937/spgb-and-spainThe other article taking a more jaundiced view is not online AFAIK but i think it was PatD who once directed my attention to it during a debate on Spopen or maybe somebody else…This article makes good readinghttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1940s/1940/no-426-february-1940/how-can-hitlerism-be-destroyed
Perhaps the way to answer this to any enquiring worker, is to say:'Yes, we support the bombing of all enemies of the working class, and since we don't discriminate, we're all for the airborne assault upon the ISIS-Blair-Bush Axis.'That is, we're all for one RAF squadron bombing ISIS, as long as another one RAF squadron is bombing the Houses of Parliament and the White House.I'd add that, personally, I'd leave the bombing of ISIS until after the War Criminal Tony Blair is targetted with one of those miraculous bombs that avoid 'collateral damage' and only hit him on the head, but simultaneous bombing will do.Then, we can't be accused of favouring ISIS. Or, indeed, favouring their mirror-image. Or, being pacifists!If nothing else, it will stimulate a wider debate with the 'enquiring worker'.
A stupid question with an even more stupid answer from LBird. What was that thing about "you can't blow up a social relationship"?
DJP wrote:A stupid question with an even more stupid answer from LBird. What was that thing about "you can't blow up a social relationship"?And a 'material response' from a stupid physicalist who can't 'feel' a joke.Grow up.
LBird wrote:If nothing else, it will stimulate a wider debate with the 'enquiring worker'.The trouble is that irony never works as people tend to take you literally (which would be counter-productive in the example you propose).
ALB wrote:Of course not. What a silly question.That should satisfy interested sympathisers. Stop asking us silly questions. Sorry cde but that is a dumb response
DJP wrote:A stupid question with an even more stupid answer from LBird. What was that thing about "you can't blow up a social relationship"?What an intellegent response. I wont bother answering that one, I will just call it 'stupid' What a dumb response.
Any worker looking at this thread will know who is being stupid and silly and who is asking an intelligent relevant question.
Vin wrote:DJP wrote:A stupid question with an even more stupid answer from LBird. What was that thing about "you can't blow up a social relationship"?What an intellegent response. I wont bother answering that one, I will just call it 'stupid' What a dumb response.
The ironic thing is that DJP, whilst pretending to be concerned about 'social relationships', thinks that the mind is not a 'social relationship', but is inside the 'brain'!'Materialists/Physicalists', eh?I can now bet that 'irony' will go over the heads not just of workers, as ALB claims in his elitist materialist mode, but over the heads of the party members who subscribe to 'materialism'.Irony abounds, today!Who'd've thought today's axis would be Vin-LBird! Welcome, comrade, to the dark side!
Vin wrote:ALB wrote:Of course not. What a silly question.That should satisfy interested sympathisers. Stop asking us silly questions. Sorry cde but that is a dumb response
But it's clearly not a genuine question from an interested sympathiser. The question on its own could be if it came from somebody who had "never heard of us". But not this:
Quote:there seems to sympathy for those opposing ISIS for some un explained reason. Perhaps if someone can enlighten meThat reads more like something from someone opposed to us who's trying to stir things up.
ALB wrote:That reads more like something from someone opposed to us who's trying to stir things up.disgusting
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.