getfiscal posted:

if i were american i would vote for the democrats. they are the lesser evil, and often plainly the good. the tactical alliance with the democrats is the communist policy.

Uh yeah, duh? that's called Revolutionary Pragmatism.

discipline posted:

it's whether or not I need to preclude my emphatic denouncement of US foreign policy with a disclaimer that I actually agree with the propagandized reasons for it. it's a red herring.

so you don't have a problem with someone saying they dont support assad?

discipline posted:

I don't know are you OK with John Kerry saying it?

you don't know whether or not you have a problem with someone saying they dont support assad?

c_man posted:

you don't know whether or not you have a problem with someone saying they dont support assad?

like, why does that matter more than the rest of someone's stance on imperialism etc?

c_man posted:

ilmdge posted:

it's about, in a nutshell, whether you can oppose US intervention against assad without being denounced by lessons for supporting a dictator, and whether you can then defend your position against lesion's claims that as long as the US's policy is limited (at least openly) to the funding and arming of proxies it's not an 'invasion' so you really should stop positioning yourself on the side of th regime, which is guilty of brutal war crimes reported by human rights watch, since assad has inarguably killed his own peopl (at least those that took up arms against him anyway) along with terrorists and other foreign fighters

i thought lessons' stance is that you SHOULD oppose us intervention against assad

right, it is, except with the caveat of all the stuff above.

c_man posted:

RedKahina posted:
RedKahina posted:
Lessons posted:
I exposed the CIA plot to kidnap and gas babies to my graduate seminar, not one of them even tried to dispute my flawless logic and superior ideology. Now tell me, "comrade", what have YOU done to fight imperialism lately?
You do realize also when you descend to this - just a kind of sarcastic tic reaction where you hope the letters "CIA" alone wrapped in snark will make you sound wise and confident, as if you are aware of the real power of the empire and CNN supporting you, the signs of what Freud called repression are very obvious, like "oh right sure respectable gentlemen like Dora's father and his friends were molesting their daughters! rrrright!" followed soon by "you should be locked up and lobotomized for even suggesting such a thing about these fine citizens!" What you are repressing is not only the knowledge that the CIA as well as the US military and US contra paramilitaries do torture children to death but that the reason you want to deny it is cowardice, sadism and self interest.

do you have any more reason to believe that the CIA kidnapped and gassed babies for the newsreels...

Are you denying that any children were gassed - are those dolls or actor children playing dead or cgi? - or do you just reject the identifications that some parents have made of the children in the published photos? What are the names of those children according to you (if you do not deny those are pictures of real corpses)?

RedKahina posted:

Are you denying that any children were gassed - are those dolls or actor children playing dead or cgi? - or do you just reject the identifications that some parents have made of the children in the published photos? What are the names of those children according to you (if you do not deny those are pictures of real corpses)?

0.0 did you not read my post?

discipline posted:

Do you think the massive state bureaucracy of the Syrian government is currently made up of foreign agents? It will be if certain parties get their way. And then tell me about feeling bad for the people, who have just been raped by war and now get to enjoy a life of swift and brutal privatization, austerity and neoliberal restructuring.

i thought the idea was that their actions provoked "authentic" public (or something) outrage which was then used a pretext by the USA to go and do whatever. idk thats how i read it but maybe im wrong

c_man posted:

RedKahina posted:
RedKahina posted:
Lessons posted:
I exposed the CIA plot to kidnap and gas babies to my graduate seminar, not one of them even tried to dispute my flawless logic and superior ideology. Now tell me, "comrade", what have YOU done to fight imperialism lately?
You do realize also when you descend to this - just a kind of sarcastic tic reaction where you hope the letters "CIA" alone wrapped in snark will make you sound wise and confident, as if you are aware of the real power of the empire and CNN supporting you, the signs of what Freud called repression are very obvious, like "oh right sure respectable gentlemen like Dora's father and his friends were molesting their daughters! rrrright!" followed soon by "you should be locked up and lobotomized for even suggesting such a thing about these fine citizens!" What you are repressing is not only the knowledge that the CIA as well as the US military and US contra paramilitaries do torture children to death but that the reason you want to deny it is cowardice, sadism and self interest.

do you have any more reason to believe that the CIA kidnapped and gassed babies for the newsreels than that the boston bombing was a false flag attack designed to retarget american fears towards russia? i think it's more likely that the US media and state apparatuses simply capitalized on something that wasn't pre-planned, or worked to produce an environment in which bad shit is almost certainly going to happen. people talk about the iowa writer's workshop as a CIA project.



that doesn't mean that the writers there had CIA handlers or even that they would necessarily have written anything differently from what they would have otherwise, but rather that it promoted a certain style and approach that was preferred. another example, the US is one of the major arms dealers in the world so they have a way of inserting themselves into groups that want weapons and never have to do anything themselves. is there a difference? i guess that depends on your priorities. does it make a difference whether or not the boston bombing was hatched in an FBI boardroom and then a stooge was found versus the story that you hear in the media? maybe not to you but i think it's an important difference to keep in mind.

It seems to me what you are saying is you object to the notion of liability generally. Like it doesn't matter who made the car whose rear window button was faulty so your child was decapitated. It could have been anybody so let bygones be bygones. Right? Doesn't matter if the NYPD shot your kid, it could have been anyone so who cares. Doesn't matter that BP spilled all this oil into the gulf it could have been someone else instead so why even mention it. Can't blame those others it could have been because hey they didnt do it. Right? We dont want to play blame game or change anything, Everything's great. If its not great for you youre doing something wrong. To bring us back to the original post in a nice loop. Why should the US military have to pay even $5 bucks for killing someone's kid? Do people think they have some right not to be blown up? As for the CIA funding magazines that pretend to be critics of US imperialism, well just because they are on the CIA payroll doesn't mean they're not revolutionary. Who says the CIA itself isn't its own nemesis? Just because people work for the CIA doesn;t mean they do anything. Just because people drop bombs from drones doesn't mean they are responsible for those bombs falling. I mean, they didn't invent gravity did they? People should just stop talking about things other people do and become self reliant, right? Just because someone shoots you in the head doesnt mean they're responsible for your death. I mean they didn't make your brain that soft did they?

Peace.

Edited by RedKahina (April 30, 2014 20:59:44)

RedKahina posted:

c_man posted:
RedKahina posted:
RedKahina posted:
Lessons posted:
I exposed the CIA plot to kidnap and gas babies to my graduate seminar, not one of them even tried to dispute my flawless logic and superior ideology. Now tell me, "comrade", what have YOU done to fight imperialism lately?
You do realize also when you descend to this - just a kind of sarcastic tic reaction where you hope the letters "CIA" alone wrapped in snark will make you sound wise and confident, as if you are aware of the real power of the empire and CNN supporting you, the signs of what Freud called repression are very obvious, like "oh right sure respectable gentlemen like Dora's father and his friends were molesting their daughters! rrrright!" followed soon by "you should be locked up and lobotomized for even suggesting such a thing about these fine citizens!" What you are repressing is not only the knowledge that the CIA as well as the US military and US contra paramilitaries do torture children to death but that the reason you want to deny it is cowardice, sadism and self interest.

do you have any more reason to believe that the CIA kidnapped and gassed babies for the newsreels than that the boston bombing was a false flag attack designed to retarget american fears towards russia? i think it's more likely that the US media and state apparatuses simply capitalized on something that wasn't pre-planned, or worked to produce an environment in which bad shit is almost certainly going to happen. people talk about the iowa writer's workshop as a CIA project.



that doesn't mean that the writers there had CIA handlers or even that they would necessarily have written anything differently from what they would have otherwise, but rather that it promoted a certain style and approach that was preferred. another example, the US is one of the major arms dealers in the world so they have a way of inserting themselves into groups that want weapons and never have to do anything themselves. is there a difference? i guess that depends on your priorities. does it make a difference whether or not the boston bombing was hatched in an FBI boardroom and then a stooge was found versus the story that you hear in the media? maybe not to you but i think it's an important difference to keep in mind.


It seems to me what you are saying is you object to the notion of liability generally. Like it doesn't matter who made the car whose rear window button was faulty so your child was decapitated. It could have been anybody so let bygones be bygones. Right? Doesn't matter if the NYPD shot your kid, it could have been anyone so who cares. Doesn't matter that BP spilled all this oil into the gulf it could have been someone else instead so why even mention it. Can't blame those others it could have been because hey they didnt do it. Right? We dont want to play blame game or change anything, Everything's great. If its not great for you youre doing something wrong. To bring us back to the original post in a nice loop. Why should the US military have to pay even $5 bucks for killing someone's kid? Do people think they have some right not to be blown up? As for the CIA funding magazines that pretend to be critics of US imperialism, well just because they are on the CIA payroll doesn't mean they're not revolutionary. Who says the CIA itself isn't its own nemesis? Just because people work for the CIA doesn;t mean they do anything. Just because people drop bombs from drones doesn't mean they are responsible for those bombs falling. I mean, they didn't invent gravity did they? People should just stop talking about things other people do and become self reliant, right? Just because someone shoots you in the head doesnt mean they're responsible for your death. I mean they didn't make your brain that soft did they?

Peace.

yeah the writers didn't write apologies for empire cause the CIA paid them, and the CIA didn't pay them cause they wrote those apologies. It's not like the evil Assad who might insist on something or other from the media based on his own selfish needs. I mean that's just unAmerican. The CIA is really generous and nice that's all. And Americans are individuals and are each really special, at least the white ones. I mean come on. They're not Orientals.

RedKahina posted:

It seems to me what you are saying is you object to the notion of liability generally. Like it doesn't matter who made the car whose rear window button was faulty so your child was decapitated. It could have been anybody so let bygones be bygones. Right? Doesn't matter if the NYPD shot your kid, it could have been anyone so who cares. Doesn't matter that BP spilled all this oil into the gulf it could have been someone else instead so why even mention it. Can't blame those others it could have been because hey they didnt do it. Right? We dont want to play blame game or change anything, Everything's great. If its not great for you youre doing something wrong. To bring us back to the original post in a nice loop. Why should the US military have to pay even $5 bucks for killing someone's kid? Do people think they have some right not to be blown up? As for the CIA funding magazines that pretend to be critics of US imperialism, well just because they are on the CIA payroll doesn't mean they're not revolutionary. Who says the CIA itself isn't its own nemesis? Just because people work for the CIA doesn;t mean they do anything. Just because people drop bombs from drones doesn't mean they are responsible for those bombs falling. I mean, they didn't invent gravity did they? People should just stop talking about things other people do and become self reliant, right? Just because someone shoots you in the head doesnt mean they're responsible for your death. I mean they didn't make your brain that soft did they?

Peace.

if you actually read my post i didn't say anything about responsibility and i'm not sure how you got anything about it from my post. obviously if someone is funneling arms to a group they bear some responsibility for what that group does. in my mind at least they're different situations though, and how you try and understand what's going on is different. maybe (probably) not that different but i think that's something that depends on what you're in a position to do at the very least.

discipline posted:

c_man posted:

discipline posted:
Did you read the Trotsky quote Henry Krinkle posted? About nuance????

yeah? i don't think anyone here hopes that the US wins because it's democratic

Let's read it again

Trotsky posted:

I will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!

so i guess people are interested in what i think about this for some reason. maybe i'm misunderstanding but the impression i get from this is that gist of the quote is that is the (local) fascists win then this is a better situation than if the imperialists win because (i mean, lots of reasons im sure, but just for the sake of argument and restricting to the quote here) it will raise national and democratic awareness in the people and they will overthrow the dictator. so in the interim i guess the dictator is supposed to be in power and that the people have a new national and democratic awareness and some radical (of whatever politics) group decides to take matters into their own hands and begins planning some sort of revolutionary action in the context of political disturbance. i think part of the current US MO (as seen in syria and ukraine) is to use it's position as an organization that controls a vast supply of weapons (or logistics experts, etc) and can funnel these resources wherever it wants them (especially since the sequester caused the military to start up arms sales again i would imagine), to insert itself (i imagine almost always by proxy but idk really) into these radical groups and begin the process of integrating the revolt into its larger geopolitical framework. am i being crazy with this?

c_man posted:

ilmdge posted:

He might be, I don't know, but the point I'm making is that despite ostensibly agreeing with the majority opinion in this thread, he's throwing up repeated cautions and hedges and taking an antagonistic approach toward that position. some of his caveats are probably correct, but even in those instances, he was arguing against strawmen, while other admonitions bordered on western propaganda or technical objections. in all, i can only assume he's trying to take some kind of nuanced position up to a moral high ground but interjecting all these nuances can end up being self-defeating and furthering the goals of empire.

okay. i guess i'm mostly sympathetic then because i think nuance is important or at least important to consider.

of course nuance exists but it's like cammy's example from early in the thread about the trot at the protest against the iraq war protest handing out leaflets about how iraqi unions oppose saddam. don't you see how counterproductive that is, offering up evidence that supports the very action you're protesting against? and likewise lessons came in here initially saying how could you believe it that he'd had leftists irl confess to him that they supported the murderous dictator assad! if you oppose US intervention against the regime isnt that an odd thing to open with & take exception to?

ilmdge posted:

of course nuance exists but it's like cammy's example from early in the thread about the trot at the protest against the iraq war protest handing out leaflets about how iraqi unions oppose saddam. don't you see how counterproductive that is, offering up evidence that supports the very action you're protesting against? and likewise lessons came in here initially saying how could you believe it that he'd had leftists irl confess to him that they supported the murderous dictator assad! if you oppose US intervention against the regime isnt that an odd thing to open with & take exception to?

i have to confess here that i'm sort of shaky on what "support" means in this context.