daddyholes posted:Why can't we support Assad against the American government because imperialism is the larger problem, inventing a Communist player here is fantasy and supporting nobody achieves nothing and is for anarchists and Trots? Is there some sort of issue with this
how would you deliver this support in a meaningful way?
daddyholes posted:I would blow up Australia and every flying crab creature that walks on it.
With what missile delivery system? the same one that will carry your support to Damascus?
daddyholes posted:Hold on, let me just post about all the ways I'm materially assisting the Syrian government.
well if we assume you're not materially supporting them then what exactly are we talking about...rhetorical support?
daddyholes posted:Tell me a little about rhetorical support.
well broadly speaking given the social location of most rhizzoners i assume we're talking about
a) tentatively broaching the topic of Syria with friends before deciding it's a pointless endeavour
b) a pointed tweet or facebook post, perhaps highlighting america's hypocrisy
c) no fuck you dad
I mean it's interesting and spirited discussing these issues but i've never quite understood the agonies and effort involved in resolving a position for yourself. Is it some sort of throwback to the romantic days of Central Committees and adopting the Correct party line? i genuinely don't understand
This didn't ever happen to me personally.
swirlsofhistory posted:Actually, it means rhetorically owning the shit out of someone who parrots an MSM opinion IRL in a class tutorial, so much so that they want to physically escape your presence and end up complaining to the Dean's Office who in turn forward it to the university's Student Equity Office.
otherwise known in Goon-culture as 'talking to a girl'
Ironicwarcriminal posted:swirlsofhistory posted:
Actually, it means rhetorically owning the shit out of someone who parrots an MSM opinion IRL in a class tutorial, so much so that they want to physically escape your presence and end up complaining to the Dean's Office who in turn forward it to the university's Student Equity Office.
otherwise known in Goon-culture as 'talking to a girl'
goddamn, nice one
Has Assad infiltrated rebel forces inside Syria?
Hundreds of foreigners could unknowingly be fighting for President Assad following reports of a deal struck between the regime and extremist group Isis.
It is every jihadist's worst nightmare: the prospect of fighting against the Assad regime in Syria, only to discover that you have done precisely what the Syrian president wants.
Hundreds of foreign fighters are falling prey to a suspected pact between President Assad and the extremist group the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (Isis).
On the surface, the two parties are bitter enemies. On the one hand, Isis, a former affiliate of al-Qaeda, which wants to create an Islamic state which disregards the border of Iraq and Syria alike.
On the other, President Assad - a leader who tries to justify war against his own people by citing the danger posed by Isis and other extremist groups.
Yet could both now really be in some sort of unholy alliance? Yes, says the Western-backed Syrian National Coalition, which claims Isis and regime forces have become "intimately intertwined".
A recently released memo suggests that while the two sides differ in motives, they are bound by a common goal: "to destroy moderate opposition forces and establish control of as much of Syria as possible."
A Faustian pact
It cites evidence from across the country, including regions such as Raqqa, Jarablus and Al-Danna, that Isis headquarters escaped unscathed in the midst of heavy shelling from Assad's forces.
In return for this favour, the memo suggests that Isis - which already controls much of north eastern Syria - has chosen not to attempt to take areas such as Dier Ezzor, Aleppo City or Jisr Al Shughour, which are under the control of the regime.
There are also reports of trade deals on oil and gas struck between Isis and the Syrian government.
'Working hand in glove'
David Butter, a leading expert on Syria and an associate fellow at think-tank Chatham House, told Channel 4 News that the links between Isis and Syrian intelligence date back to the aftermath of the Iraq war of 2003.
"The leaders Isis have already worked hand in glove with Syrian intelligence, whether supplying them with weapons or supplying money flowing from their racketeering activities around Mosul."
He added: "Intelligence officers will have almost certainly forged links during that time and there has almost certainly been some degree of regime manipulation. To what extent one is actually controlling the other is more difficult."
And the UK government is certainly not ruling out a partnership, either. A spokeswoman for the Foreign Office told Channel 4 News that while it could not verify the claim directly, there was "anecdotal evidence that adds up".
"Assad has a long history of supporting terrorist groups and activity in the region. There have been pictures of Isis flags on buildings that have escaped shelling and reports of supposed collusion on oil and gas deals. It is not definitive - but certainly lends credibility to the suggestion."
Destination unknown
But could there be an even darker motivation to the alliance? It was reported this week that Isis is funneling foreign volunteers from Syria through Turkey and into Iraq. It is a move aimed at bringing the Iraq to the brink of civil war.
This raises the even more heartbreaking possibility of foreigners in Syria believing they are there to overthrow Assad, only to find themselves embroiled in something far darker.
British security services are increasingly desperate to find ways of dissuading a wave of Britons from going to fight in Syria.
"Go to Syria and end up helping Assad," could be their most powerful message.
Crow posted:RedKahina posted:
Lessons posted:
If you look at Soviet policy or whatever they didn't actually support everyone who thumbed their nose at the US, they tended to support leaders and movements they felt advanced the cause of communism. The stuff aerdil/RedKahina/eccentricdeathmongrel etc. are advancing is more like Mao's Three Worlds Theory which is what he picked up after he declared the GPCR over, killed Lin Biao, invited Deng back and invited Nixon to visit. It's pretty shite.
Actually no, the Soviet Union was allied with the US and Britain - sworn enemies of communism - against Nazism.
it's useful to point out that the USSR was aware of US and British prewar support of Germany, and was aware of US and British were dragging their heels on invasion to prolong the enormous strain that the Nazi onslaught had put on the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, they treated the US and Britain as principal allies during the war effort, even attempting to retain good relations after the war. That's because there was a more nuanced understanding of US and British state power than some mythical figure of the Forever Tyrant
I think what you are missing is that the US is now since 1990 the rapacious empire carrying out the Nazi agenda to the letter (smash Eastern Europe into "as many splinters as possible" for example) with some superficial adjustments on the level of spectacle. Since the fall of the USSR the US policy is ruthless reconquest and subjection of the whole globe; accomplished by the systematic destruction of regional powers (capable of lending in lieu of Wall St among other things), the destabilization of redistributors, exemplary terror against the uppity (Haiti, Honduras, Venezuela, Libya), and the only obstacles to speak of now are China and to a lesser degree Russia.
RedKahina posted:Crow posted:
RedKahina posted:
Lessons posted:
If you look at Soviet policy or whatever they didn't actually support everyone who thumbed their nose at the US, they tended to support leaders and movements they felt advanced the cause of communism. The stuff aerdil/RedKahina/eccentricdeathmongrel etc. are advancing is more like Mao's Three Worlds Theory which is what he picked up after he declared the GPCR over, killed Lin Biao, invited Deng back and invited Nixon to visit. It's pretty shite.
Actually no, the Soviet Union was allied with the US and Britain - sworn enemies of communism - against Nazism.
it's useful to point out that the USSR was aware of US and British prewar support of Germany, and was aware of US and British were dragging their heels on invasion to prolong the enormous strain that the Nazi onslaught had put on the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, they treated the US and Britain as principal allies during the war effort, even attempting to retain good relations after the war. That's because there was a more nuanced understanding of US and British state power than some mythical figure of the Forever Tyrant
I think what you are missing is that the US is now since 1990 the rapacious empire carrying out the Nazi agenda to the letter (smash Eastern Europe into "as many splinters as possible" for example) with some superficial adjustments on the level of spectacle. Since the fall of the USSR the US policy is ruthless reconquest and subjection of the whole globe; accomplished by the systematic destruction of regional powers (capable of lending in lieu of Wall St among other things), the destabilization of redistributors, exemplary terror against the uppity (Haiti, Honduras, Venezuela, Libya), and the only obstacles to speak of now are China and to a lesser degree Russia.
Imagining the US as some unchanging avatar in a video game where they are the eternal other of Nazis will lead you astray into Zizekian nonsense like "the US isn't always the bad guy." What we have here is the fascist hegemonic clique of the global ruling class having dedemocratized the US state, defeated the Soviet Union, fostered capitalist revanchism in China, abolished capital controls globally, immiserated humanity, strengnthened bourgeoois despotisms, reconfigured the global financial system as an (their) arsenal, on a rampage of reconquest. They are the anticommie despotic legatees of Nazis and Nazism not the Bumpkin Badass of Bungling Benevolence of wonky pseudo dissident pseudo left cartoon commentary.
RedKahina posted:Crow posted:
RedKahina posted:
Lessons posted:
If you look at Soviet policy or whatever they didn't actually support everyone who thumbed their nose at the US, they tended to support leaders and movements they felt advanced the cause of communism. The stuff aerdil/RedKahina/eccentricdeathmongrel etc. are advancing is more like Mao's Three Worlds Theory which is what he picked up after he declared the GPCR over, killed Lin Biao, invited Deng back and invited Nixon to visit. It's pretty shite.
Actually no, the Soviet Union was allied with the US and Britain - sworn enemies of communism - against Nazism.
it's useful to point out that the USSR was aware of US and British prewar support of Germany, and was aware of US and British were dragging their heels on invasion to prolong the enormous strain that the Nazi onslaught had put on the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, they treated the US and Britain as principal allies during the war effort, even attempting to retain good relations after the war. That's because there was a more nuanced understanding of US and British state power than some mythical figure of the Forever Tyrant
I think what you are missing is that the US is now since 1990 the rapacious empire carrying out the Nazi agenda to the letter (smash Eastern Europe into "as many splinters as possible" for example) with some superficial adjustments on the level of spectacle.
If the US is now the Nazi New Order, what the heck is the EU
isn't the most reasonable course of action to just say "i don't know a damn thing about the merits of the syrian gov't. all i know are the merits of the american government and those merits are bad. i will use whatever tiny bit of influence i have as an american to try and hold the monster a little more in check because that's more than most people can do, and i won't get myself get bogged down in bullshit wherein i lack even that tiny amount of influence"
i guess i'm with IWC? & discipline, maybe? the need to define an opinion on someone elses government just reminds me of the idiot i was sophomore year
thirdplace posted:is there anything wrong with just flat out refusing to have an opinion on assad? i'm not syrian, i'm not even lebonese/turkish/iraqi or (~looks at google maps~) jordanian. i live in an empire seeped in propaganda on the other side of the world--even if i had any particular right to form an opinion, sifting through the misinformation and counter-misinformation would be a herculean task (specifically, the one where he has to clean up a bunch of bullshit)
isn't the most reasonable course of action to just say "i don't know a damn thing about the merits of the syrian gov't. all i know are the merits of the american government and those merits are bad. i will use whatever tiny bit of influence i have as an american to try and hold the monster a little more in check because that's more than most people can do, and i won't get myself get bogged down in bullshit wherein i lack even that tiny amount of influence"
i guess i'm with IWC? & discipline, maybe? the need to define an opinion on someone elses government just reminds me of the idiot i was sophomore year
this is in fact the only opinion to have. trying to figure out whats going on in syria is useful for trying to understand the current economic and political goals of the USA, the new imperialist strategies that are being used, and the future targets of imperialism. but these are not necessary, all anti-imperialism starts with what is basically the golden rule: change what you have the power to change, give people the right to determine their own lives.
e: saying "i dont know and probably can't know" takes immense courage, something a weenie like thug lessons will never be able to do
Ironicwarcriminal posted:RedKahina posted:Crow posted:
RedKahina posted:
Lessons posted:
If you look at Soviet policy or whatever they didn't actually support everyone who thumbed their nose at the US, they tended to support leaders and movements they felt advanced the cause of communism. The stuff aerdil/RedKahina/eccentricdeathmongrel etc. are advancing is more like Mao's Three Worlds Theory which is what he picked up after he declared the GPCR over, killed Lin Biao, invited Deng back and invited Nixon to visit. It's pretty shite.
Actually no, the Soviet Union was allied with the US and Britain - sworn enemies of communism - against Nazism.
it's useful to point out that the USSR was aware of US and British prewar support of Germany, and was aware of US and British were dragging their heels on invasion to prolong the enormous strain that the Nazi onslaught had put on the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, they treated the US and Britain as principal allies during the war effort, even attempting to retain good relations after the war. That's because there was a more nuanced understanding of US and British state power than some mythical figure of the Forever Tyrant
I think what you are missing is that the US is now since 1990 the rapacious empire carrying out the Nazi agenda to the letter (smash Eastern Europe into "as many splinters as possible" for example) with some superficial adjustments on the level of spectacle.If the US is now the Nazi New Order, what the heck is the EU
The present is not a remake of the past like in a cinema. Fascists and Liberals of the 1930s didnt have iphones or derivatives and they do today. Berlusconi's Italy isn't a replica of either Mussolini's or Giolitti's. It's not useful to try to "read" the present as an allegory or fanfiction of the past. The US ruling class is concretely pursuing the fascist agenda; now they have destroyed the USSR they are accelerating destruction and subjugation, plunder and dispossession, not repeating the past having simply changed costumes. The EU is largely a client of the US although there remain within the EU obviously some cliques of capital that rival or compete with US leading capital and imperial policy at times (eg Rwanda, Lebanon). In the past decade and a half the US ruling bloc have clearly disciplined those competitiors and rivals to a large degree
daddyholes posted:in propaganda terms i don't see why the "difference" between opposing America and supporting Assad should even be rhetorically enforced, over and above the "difference" between supporting Assad against America and supporting Assad in crushing communists with barrels or whatever. in eihter case you're still supporting Assad and then cutting it with rhetoric and just to repeat that you're still supporting Assad. as far as pretty much everyone in any audience is concerned. and it's very obvious to everyone so lying about it will probably just make you look bad imo
Of course this isn't true at all. The rhetoricians of empire will always say "you're either with us or with the terrorists" and so forth but this doesn't really gain a wide credence, and regardless you're still only making it worse by confirming those suspicions.
Also people have correctly noted the importance of keeping the focus on US imperialism rather than Assad, but pro-Assad rhetoric is as much of a distraction here as anti-Assad rhetoric.
thirdplace posted:is there anything wrong with just flat out refusing to have an opinion on assad? i'm not syrian, i'm not even lebonese/turkish/iraqi or (~looks at google maps~) jordanian. i live in an empire seeped in propaganda on the other side of the world--even if i had any particular right to form an opinion, sifting through the misinformation and counter-misinformation would be a herculean task (specifically, the one where he has to clean up a bunch of bullshit)
isn't the most reasonable course of action to just say "i don't know a damn thing about the merits of the syrian gov't. all i know are the merits of the american government and those merits are bad. i will use whatever tiny bit of influence i have as an american to try and hold the monster a little more in check because that's more than most people can do, and i won't get myself get bogged down in bullshit wherein i lack even that tiny amount of influence"
i guess i'm with IWC? & discipline, maybe? the need to define an opinion on someone elses government just reminds me of the idiot i was sophomore year
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3390388 <--Educate yourself my man man
RedKahina posted:Imagining the US as some unchanging avatar in a video game where they are the eternal other of Nazis will lead you astray into Zizekian nonsense like "the US isn't always the bad guy." What we have here is the fascist hegemonic clique of the global ruling class having dedemocratized the US state, defeated the Soviet Union, fostered capitalist revanchism in China, abolished capital controls globally, immiserated humanity, strengnthened bourgeoois despotisms, reconfigured the global financial system as an (their) arsenal, on a rampage of reconquest. They are the anticommie despotic legatees of Nazis and Nazism not the Bumpkin Badass of Bungling Benevolence of wonky pseudo dissident pseudo left cartoon commentary.
Honestly all I see here is a lot of overblown rhetoric. The Nazi project was a program of annexation and racial extermination for the purposes of settler colonialism which doesn't really have anything to do with what you're describing. In any case of course the crimes of the US are worth opposing on a sort of moral/humanitarian basis, but what makes their opponents worth supporting, for me, rather than declaring a pox on both their houses, is that there's actual socialist or liberatory potential in that opposing project. This was definitely the case in WWII where you had the Soviet Union and their allies, but not the case in WWI even though by any measure despite the fact the British Empire was just as much a project of domination and a source of untold human misery as much as the US or for that matter the Third Reich. If the choice is between the US and Assad, or the US and China, then the only option is to actually build a left alternative.
RedKahina posted:The present is not a remake of the past like in a cinema. The US ruling class is concretely pursuing the fascist agenda;
Lmao.
Lessons posted:RedKahina posted:Imagining the US as some unchanging avatar in a video game where they are the eternal other of Nazis will lead you astray into Zizekian nonsense like "the US isn't always the bad guy." What we have here is the fascist hegemonic clique of the global ruling class having dedemocratized the US state, defeated the Soviet Union, fostered capitalist revanchism in China, abolished capital controls globally, immiserated humanity, strengnthened bourgeoois despotisms, reconfigured the global financial system as an (their) arsenal, on a rampage of reconquest. They are the anticommie despotic legatees of Nazis and Nazism not the Bumpkin Badass of Bungling Benevolence of wonky pseudo dissident pseudo left cartoon commentary.
Honestly all I see here is a lot of overblown rhetoric. The Nazi project was a program of annexation and racial extermination for the purposes of settler colonialism which doesn't really have anything to do with what you're describing. In any case of course the crimes of the US are worth opposing on a sort of moral/humanitarian basis, but what makes their opponents worth supporting, for me, rather than declaring a pox on both their houses, is that there's actual socialist or liberatory potential in that opposing project. This was definitely the case in WWII where you had the Soviet Union and their allies, but not the case in WWI even though by any measure despite the fact the British Empire was just as much a project of domination and a source of untold human misery as much as the US or for that matter the Third Reich. If the choice is between the US and Assad, or the US and China, then the only option is to actually build a left alternative.
The Nazi project was the permanent obliteration of communism and the subjugatiion of humanity to the imperial ruling class.
RedKahina posted:Lessons posted:If the choice is between the US and Assad, or the US and China, then the only option is to actually build a left alternative.
That is the lamest cliché; just babble effectively to veil your actual concrete choice which is to sustain the status quo: What you mean is you will give what cover you can to the US imperial aggression against Syrians, and you certainlly won't lift a finger to help the victims of US brutality and rapacity defend themselves: You're too busy °building your left alternative° to US power, like an alternative brand which I guess you mean to roll out when you're good and ready, to remember that "a left alternative" to US power must and would be constituted by its abiility to check US power. In other words the only way to build a "left alternative" to US power is by opposing US power. Instead, spending your time here ranting on about the moral turpitude of the government of (and Hizbullosevichly propaganda action figure of) the US' latest victim population, you're really marketing a kind of artifiicial left-flavored syrup to pour over US power.
thirdplace posted:i would support assad if he were literally a lion, and the rebels were hyenas, and freedom house and HRW were a herd of stampeding wildebests
the fucked up thing... is that all of this is true, and real.
RedKahina posted:RedKahina posted:
Lessons posted:
If the choice is between the US and Assad, or the US and China, then the only option is to actually build a left alternative.
That is the lamest cliché; just babble effectively to veil your actual concrete choice which is to sustain the status quo: What you mean is you will give what cover you can to the US imperial aggression against Syrians, and you certainlly won't lift a finger to help the victims of US brutality and rapacity defend themselves: You're too busy °building your left alternative° to US power, like an alternative brand which I guess you mean to roll out when you're good and ready, to remember that "a left alternative" to US power must and would be constituted by its abiility to check US power. In other words the only way to build a "left alternative" to US power is by opposing US power. Instead, spending your time here ranting on about the moral turpitude of the government of (and Hizbullosevichly propaganda action figure of) the US' latest victim population, you're really marketing a kind of artifiicial left-flavored syrup to pour over US power.
Seriously are you building your left alternative in your basement and you'll bring it out when it's done? What is the act of "building a left alternative" to empire but the concrete relentless thwarting of imperial projects, the prevention of imperial violence, expansion, plunder?
