Sympo
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:
"So yes we can say that there was deep discontent with the Assad regime but it is quite a different matter determining how many were prepared to take part in an armed rising."I don't believe that most people were willing to take part in an armed uprising against the Syrian dictatorship."I know your opinion is as equally as valid as my own view"The same to you"my interpretation was that only when the protests became militarised and the formation of the Syrian Free Army presented the opening for foreign powers to intervene."Well I don't know if that's an intepretation that I disagree with. It's more the idea that the Free Syrian Army would not have come to existence had it not been for the West (I'm not saying that you necessarily believe this to be true)."If it hadn't been US/UK/France then it would have been the Saudis and the Gulf States who financed, supplied and provided the mercenaries – the Jihadists – would simply upped their game. Turkey was permitting the free movement of the Jihadists."If I've understood you correctly, you are saying that the Syrian Civil War would still have happened even if no Western states gave financial aid to rebels?Also, how much does Saudi Arabia and Qatar give in aid to the rebel side compared with the West?I haven't found any statistics but wouldn't it be reasonable to think that Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two incredibly rich islamist arabic states, would give more money to jihadist and islamist groups than the West would?
alanjjohnstone wrote:I hope you did read those three links, crucial to understanding the evolution of the Syrian Civil WarThe articles that you link say that "tens of thousands of people" were taking part in "the uprising against Bashar al-Assad’s regime".This implies that you (like me) believe that there was a good chunk of discontent in Syria.What do you believe would have happened if Western countries had not given aid to rebels? (Take note that when I say "Western countries", I'm referring to the United States, Britain etc, not Qatar or Saudi Arabia.)Here is another quote: "violent resistance and militarising of it entails even larger casualties and has even less prospects of success"Does this mean that the WSM is a pacifist organisation, even when it comes to a dictatorship that shoots protesters?
Marcos wrote:"Wars are not done the way that you have presented here"I am not trying to be a jerk but where have I written anything about what I believe the causes of war are? Please quote me where I have stated that wars aren't caused by the system of Capitalism.As far as I know, you will unable to find such a quote written by me. "It doesn't make any difference if the laboratories were located in the backyard of Assad, or in the desert, the Western Powers cannot take the liberty of bombarding others countries and destroy their infrastructure and kill peoples"I haven't argued that Western powers should be able to invade or bomb countries.
alanjjohnstone wrote:This militarisation of resistance created the opportunity for the intervention of foreign powers who indeed did incite a military-solution to remove Assad and regime-change.Does this mean that you believe that this statement is correct: "If it wasn't for the West, Syria would have no civil war or armed uprising"?
Marcos wrote:"September 11 did not take place in Iraq but it was used an excuse in order to launch an invasion against Iraq"If the United States wants to invade Syria, why haven't they already? Why did they launch some strikes that might not have even killed anyone?"Nobody knows if they killed any civilian, but the question is: If they try to destroy a chemical weapon laboratory why peoples were walking around he destroyed buildings and the fumes did not spread in the atmosphere?"Was the chemical facility located in the city or outside in some wasteland? Was it only alleged chemical facilities that were bombed? Did the United States claim that the facilities actually contained chemical weapons, or that the facilities did research?"It would be also dumb for the Syrian government to attack the Syrian population with Chemical weapons when they know that Western powers just need any small excuse in order to attack them"The regime of Assad has already proven to have done stuff like throwing barrel bombs and torturing people. Aren't these excuses for an American attack?"This is a struggle between gangsters and terrorists"I agree but we can't act as if there's no way that Assad isn't responsible.
I believe that it's quite likely that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons against civilians.I've seen people compare the accusation against the Assad regime with the accusations that were thrown at Saddam Hussein after 9/11 (i.e. that Iraq was behind 9/11). But 9/11 didn't happen in Iraq, and certainly not in an area which was controlled by anti-Saddam rebels.But I also think it's dumb that the US attacked Syria even before it has been proven that they are responsible.Did anyone actually die in the US attack against Syria?
alanjjohnstone wrote:I hope this latest blog post goes some way to explaining our position, Marcoshttp://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2018/04/in-response-to-syrian-air-attacks.htmlI think personally (as a WSM sympathizer) that it's a decent post, but I think it implies a bit that the West is responsible for the Syrian civil war ("The Western capitalist bloc stirred up a civil war in Syria and now they are reaping the whirlwind"). A view that I disagree with.Syria as I have understood it was a vulcano waiting to erupt, with or without Western aid to rebels. It has happened before that there has been unrest in Syria (under Hafez al-Assad, there was the Hama uprising in 1981).Also, it wasn't just the West that financed rebel groups. Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two Arab nations, did the same thing. I don't actually know if they gave more money to the rebels than any Western nation, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did (but I'm not sure).
"Again and again, Jeremy Corbyn has sided with anti-Semites rather than Jews. At best, this derives from the far left's obsessive hatred of Zionism, Zionists and Israel"I don't know what it means to be against Zionism. Does it mean that you want to deport Jews from Israel or does it mean that you believe that the idea of creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine was a mistake?They also write:"When Jews complain about an obviously anti-Semitic mural in Tower Hamlets, Corbyn of course supports the artist."But a BBC article states that:"He later called the mural 'deeply disturbing' and backed its removal."https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-politics-43531575You might argue that Corbyn secretely likes the mural but it would be nice to bring up the fact that he changed his mind.They also say that he likes Hezbollah.From a Guardian article:"Asked whether he still regarded Hamas and Hezbollah as 'friends', the Labour leader said: 'No. It was inclusive language I used which with hindsight I would rather not have used. I regret using those words, of course.'https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/jeremy-corbyn-says-he-regrets-calling-hamas-and-hezbollah-friendsI guess it's possible that Corbyn is an antisemite, but I don't personally believe that he is.
Matt wrote:I can think of a few atheist fundamentalists also.This is a sidenote but I've read that the term "atheist fundamentalism" doesn't make sense because atheism is just a lack of belief in a higher deity. There are no positive intrinsic beliefes in atheismPerhaps "anti-religious extremist" would be better
Matt wrote:All the time.The 'problems' so-called, cited against socialism are trivial and insignificantI don't think I've read any Socialist Standard article that talks about how Socialism doesn't have to be perfect in order for it to be something that we should strive for.This is just a thought, but maybe it would be good to have an article that talks about this issue?Not that all critics are going to read it (The responses on Twitter are really awful, it's like people don't even go to Wikipedia before they start calling the SPGB pro-Soviet)
Wergittep Eki wrote:I've heard that lots of young white women are being raped by the immigrant pets that idiots like you, Vin and Alan want to keep bringing into the West.Alan said almost the same thing as what I'm about to write but using your logic we should deport all newborn male babies because most rapes are committed by people of the male gender.This whole idea that the "invading Muslim rapist" type of person makes up the vast majority of refugees doesn't seem very likely.Sure, Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan etc have bigger problems with misogyny than Western Europe, but that doesn't mean that most of the people coming in represent the most reactionary side of the countries they're from. Syria doesn't mostly consist of a bunch of bearded hooligans with hard erections for Aryans
Ike Pettigrew wrote:If I am denied immigration to, say, the United States, that doesn't hurt me or harm my interests.Unless you come from a country that's in a civil war or a country where there are no well-paid jobs or human rights lol
Ike Pettigrew wrote:Supporting this left-liberal agenda of mass migration and imposed diversity is like supporting, say, cooperatives because you think 'they lead to socialism'I don't think the article is saying "Hungary should be forced to take in refugees even if most people in Hungary don't want to". The article is saying "nationalism does not benefit the working class, and voting on people who demonize and keep immigrants out isn't going to make Capitalism work".Also, Orban and his party doesn't have the support of the majority of Hungarians. 61% of the population that were allowed to vote voted, and he got 44,87% of the votes. 2,264,780 people who voted for Fidesz out of 8,176,515 eligble voters is about 28% of the population.I am always irritated when people and newspapers don't talk about voter turnout.
Vin wrote:Is this one of 'interest' ?In a way it is of interest as it is about something important, but I think it's more interesting when relatively well-known people that have no connection to the SPGB make videos that say some stuff that SPGB-members and sympathizers can agree with.Have you ever considered doing any "personal" videos about Socialism without the SPGB logo and interviews etc? Sure, your party may have rejected your video to be officially approved, but you can still potentially influence people on Youtube by talking about your own views on issues (which, I assume, have very much in common with the SPGB in general).
