Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

And next, Syria?

Coolfonz said:
I think u r projecting.
Click to expand...
no dear, I am pointing out how you got the article wholly wrong. The Chomsky quote was accurate, and perfectly within normal journalist practise. You were 100% incorrect to deny that. Something you almost admit when you backtrack to belatedly claim you 'dont care'

Except, if you didn't care, you wouldn't have posted in the first place, would you? And that would probably have been better all round.
 
belboid said:
no dear, I am pointing out how you got the article wholly wrong. The Chomsky quote was accurate, and perfectly within normal journalist practise. You were 100% incorrect to deny that. Something you almost admit when you backtrack to belatedly claim you 'dont care'

Except, if you didn't care, you wouldn't have posted in the first place, would you? And that would probably have been better all round.
Click to expand...
the quote is not anywhere near normal journalistic practise. not close.
i think u havent understood the point ive made. whatever. it's not about whether putins bombing/s is/are `imperialism` or not (zzzzzzz). its about chomsky shrugging/apologising absurdly and pathetically for putin bombing hospitals. obvs bollocks. did you read the piece? that is its main thrust. left only care about US crimes (MSF Afghan) not Russian. Thats a load of wank. imo. Cohen/Hodges scenez.
 
Coolfonz said:
the quote is not anywhere near normal journalistic practise. not close.
Click to expand...
well, yes it is. It is perfectly normal practise top sometimes exclude words, as long as they don't fundamentally change the meaning of the quote. And the meaning of the quote is not fundamentally changed. The words 'brutal' and 'vicious' are not central. So you were wrong on that. Not that you will ever admit it.

i think u havent understood the point ive made. whatever. it's not about whether putins bombing/s is/are `imperialism` or not (zzzzzzz). its about chomsky shrugging/apologising absurdly and pathetically for putin bombing hospitals. obvs bollocks. did you read the piece? that is its main thrust. left only care about US crimes (MSF Afghan) not Russian. Thats a load of wank. imo. Cohen/Hodges scenez.
Click to expand...
Once again, you are just (deliberately??) mis-reading the piece. There is not one word that is 'made up' as you originally claimed. Now, you've backtracked appallingly, dumped all your claims about false quotes, and are simply complaining about who the author is complaining about. You are merrily ignoring the fact that many (note - 'many' does not mean 'all') leftwingers are apologists for Assad. Nowhere does it claim anything like what you claim it does, ie that Chomsky apologises for Assads bombings. Nowhere.

Now, pick up your toys and put them back in the pram.
 
belboid said:
well, yes it is. It is perfectly normal practise top sometimes exclude words, as long as they don't fundamentally change the meaning of the quote. And the meaning of the quote is not fundamentally changed. The words 'brutal' and 'vicious' are not central. So you were wrong on that. Not that you will ever admit it.


Once again, you are just (deliberately??) mis-reading the piece. There is not one word that is 'made up' as you originally claimed. Now, you've backtracked appallingly, dumped all your claims about false quotes, and are simply complaining about who the author is complaining about. You are merrily ignoring the fact that many (note - 'many' does not mean 'all') leftwingers are apologists for Assad. Nowhere does it claim anything like what you claim it does, ie that Chomsky apologises for Assads bombings. Nowhere.

Now, pick up your toys and put them back in the pram.
Click to expand...

Wotta lotta nonsense. Find me all those quotes that are in quote marks then pls ;)

Many left wingers are are apologists for Assad? Which ones? Chomsky obvs as he is one of Putin's little apologists according to you. But who else? And not posters on this thread pls.
 
Coolfonz said:
Wotta lotta nonsense. Find me all those quotes that are in quote marks then pls ;)

Many left wingers are are apologists for Assad? Which ones? Chomsky obvs as he is one of Putin's little apologists according to you. But who else? And not posters on this thread pls.
Click to expand...
I've already told you - the Communist Party, Seamus Milne, to name but two. have you forgotten so quickly? the fact that you claim I said Chomsky was one of Assad's 'little apologists' proves beyond doubt that your comprehension skills leave a vast amount to be desired. Either that or you are just a dishonest little prick.
 
Coolfonz said:
Wotta lotta nonsense. Find me all those quotes that are in quote marks then pls ;)

Many left wingers are are apologists for Assad? Which ones? Chomsky obvs as he is one of Putin's little apologists according to you. But who else? And not posters on this thread pls.
Click to expand...
Astonishing - has the last 4 years of debates entirely passed you by? How can anyone post this in 2015?
 
Belboid - Cant you debate without being abusive? Obvs no.

Who are the Communist Party? In the UK? Is there one? Is that it? Who is Seamus Milne? More chattering classes stuff?

What about George Galloway he must be one right?

eta: Seamus Milne, oh yeah that weirdo Guardian bloke. Don't read the Guardian it's fucking shit.
 
Last edited:
Coolfonz said:
Belboid - Cant you debate without being abusive? Obvs no.

Who are the Communist Party? In the UK? Is there one? Is that it? Who is Seamus Milne? More chattering classes stuff?

What about George Galloway he must be one right?
Click to expand...
I am more than so capable when a post isn't filled with drivel and made up rubbish. Your post was, at best, a blatant misrepresentation of mine, as a simple re-read would tell you.

If you don't know who Seamus Milne is, you've been living under a brick for the last ten days, at least. And, yes, there still is a significant (if vastly diminished) british CP, which still has plenty of fellow travellers.

Stop digging, you're only making this worse for yourself. Especially with the smileys, they dont make you look clever, quite the opposite.
 
The Communist Party, (all nine of them) Seamus Milne, George Galloway and maybe Noam Chomsky but you aren't sure.

Fine. Putin's little apologists. Or as the author puts it "blah blah Nick Cohen where's my cheque." It's in quotes as you can put anything in quotes because it's on the internet. :D :D :D
 
Coolfonz said:
The Communist Party, (all nine of them) Seamus Milne, George Galloway and maybe Noam Chomsky but you aren't sure.

Fine. Putin's little apologists. Or as the author puts it "blah blah Nick Cohen where's my cheque." It's in quotes as you can put anything in quotes because it's on the internet. :D :D :D
Click to expand...
Dont wave your own ignorance about. And don't make up things I'm meant to have said. You are either irrevocably stupid, or similarly dishonest. Eiter way, a waste of time trying to have an honest discussion with.
 
redsquirrel said:
Bit fucking rich to complain about invented quotes when you come out with this shit.
Click to expand...
Why do you suppose, if you do at all, does the author of the piece put Chomsky in - with added insults about the supposedly absurd and pathetic nature of what he said - with a title of the work called "Putin's little apologists"? You can read it all there.
Because presumably he - the author - thinks Chomsky is a little apologist for Putin. So Belboid posts this up and says what a good article it is, even though it is full of unattributed quotes - are they even quotes at all, you know man it's on the internet so it can go in quotes - and quotes which have had their meaning dramatically changed. Notably by Chomsky where he says Assad is brutal/vicious and should not be helped by Russia. Proper Daily Mail shit imo, making up/distorting/omitting meaning to support your case. Cheap shit.
Then when challenged about the supposed quotes Belboid starts having a tantrum and swearing. On the internet. In my lunch. I can't help but take the piss after that.

I'm sure as Belboid points out there are commies or whoever who support Assad. They are all cunts and madmen obviously. But who are they? Does anyone care? The communist party of the UK? Are they even real people to anyone but a few students? You can add anyone else who supports Assad as similar, mad cunts etc. The author could have actually done some more work and found them.

But afaics the broad left are not a major part of the problem in Syria. In fact the only bit of the country which has any hope (Rojava/YPG held areas etc) are coming from a left which is being relentlessly attacked by real power, Assad, Islamic fascism, the US, Turkey, Russia, Iranian death squads, the KRG and all the rest of the assorted wankers. But the author has chosen to have a pop at some leftys. Yeah great. Good article.
 
This really is pretty risible stuff. For you to complain about journalistic standards when you've:

misidentified who posted the piece

claimed the piece contains multiple fake quotes despite being unable to point to a single one - in fact providing only quote which turns out to be accurate, yet you repeat the claim, too intellectually lazy or unconcerned to actually watch the video for a further 10 seconds. That would clear up your confusion btw as you're looking at the wrong quote

posted entirely inaccurate factual claims (i,e The US is attacking rojava and the YPG - and god knows where you got iranian death squads from)

are entirely unaware of the background of any forces other than the kurdish ones (bearing in mind the previous mistakes you've made about them as well)

ignored posted evidence that the author comes from within the left, from within the international socialist tradition and has been writing extremely detailed articles on syria since the start - favouring instead and jumping to a false conclusion by not ebing bothered to do a little bit of basic research. A conclusion that then led to a whole series of other false conclusions by colouring your entire reading of the piece, the authors intentions and what they actually argue.

misread what the author actually says about chomsky's comments (and invented something they didn't do in the process)

openly lied about what belboid has said in his responses

had a pop at him for swearing whilst yourself making posts full of swearing - and not even swearing designed to make or emphasise a point or argument - just teenage style swearing.

demonstrated that you are unaware of the debates throughout the last 4 years that this piece is part of - esp important now given russian intervention

...and frankly, just posted confused incoherent ill-informed...rubbish.

Out of your depth.
 
Last edited:
coolfonz clearly has a thing for Chomsky, and so when he misreads something criticising Him, he loses the ability to read and/or think. Which is a bit ironic really, and would make Chomsky shudder
 
butchersapron said:
This really is pretty risible stuff. For you to complain about journalistic standards when you've:

misidentified who posted the piece

claimed the piece contains multiple fake quotes despite being unable to point to a single one - in fact providing only quote which turns out to be accurate, yet you repeat the claim, too intellectually lazy or unconcerned to actually watch the video for a further 10 seconds. That would clear up your confusion btw as you're looking at the wrong quote

posted entirely inaccurate factual claims (i,e The US is attacking rojava and the YPG - and god knows where you got iranian death squads from)

are entirely unaware of the background of any forces other than the kurdish ones (bearing in mind the previous mistakes you've made about them as well)

ignored posted evidence that the author comes from within the left, from within the international socialist tradition and has been writing extremely detailed articles on syria since the start - favouring instead and jumping to a false conclusion by not ebing bothered to do a little bit of basic research. A conclusion that then led to a whole series of other false conclusions by colouring your entire reading of the piece, the authors intentions and what they actually argue.

misread what the author actually says about chomsky's comments (and invented something they didn't do in the process)

openly lied about what belboid has said in his responses

had a pop at him for swearing whilst yourself making posts full of swearing - and not even swearing designed to make or emphasise a point or argument - just teenage style swearing.

demonstrated that you are unaware of the debates throughout the last 4 years that this piece is part of - esp important now given russian intervention

...and frankly, just posted confused incoherent ill-informed...rubbish.

Out of your depth.
Click to expand...
to be fair it's one of Coolfonz's better posts.
 
butchersapron said:
This really is pretty risible stuff. For you to complain about journalistic standards when you've:

misidentified who posted the piece

claimed the piece contains multiple fake quotes despite being unable to point to a single one - in fact providing only quote which turns out to be accurate, yet you repeat the claim, too intellectually lazy or unconcerned to actually watch the video for a further 10 seconds. That would clear up your confusion btw as you're looking at the wrong quote

posted entirely inaccurate factual claims (i,e The US is attacking rojava and the YPG - and god knows where you got iranian death squads from)

are entirely unaware of the background of any forces other than the kurdish ones (bearing in mind the previous mistakes you've made about them as well)

ignored posted evidence that the author comes from within the left, from within the international socialist tradition and has been writing extremely detailed articles on syria since the start - favouring instead and jumping to a false conclusion by not ebing bothered to do a little bit of basic research. A conclusion that then led to a whole series of other false conclusions by colouring your entire reading of the piece, the authors intentions and what they actually argue.

misread what the author actually says about chomsky's comments (and invented something they didn't do in the process)

openly lied about what belboid has said in his responses

had a pop at him for swearing whilst yourself making posts full of swearing - and not even swearing designed to make or emphasise a point or argument - just teenage style swearing.

demonstrated that you are unaware of the debates throughout the last 4 years that this piece is part of - esp important now given russian intervention

...and frankly, just posted confused incoherent ill-informed...rubbish.

Out of your depth.
Click to expand...

what does that even mean? pseudo intellectual waffle mate.
 
butchersapron said:
This really is pretty risible stuff. For you to complain about journalistic standards when you've:

misidentified who posted the piece

claimed the piece contains multiple fake quotes despite being unable to point to a single one - in fact providing only quote which turns out to be accurate, yet you repeat the claim, too intellectually lazy or unconcerned to actually watch the video for a further 10 seconds. That would clear up your confusion btw as you're looking at the wrong quote

posted entirely inaccurate factual claims (i,e The US is attacking rojava and the YPG - and god knows where you got iranian death squads from)

are entirely unaware of the background of any forces other than the kurdish ones (bearing in mind the previous mistakes you've made about them as well)

ignored posted evidence that the author comes from within the left, from within the international socialist tradition and has been writing extremely detailed articles on syria since the start - favouring instead and jumping to a false conclusion by not ebing bothered to do a little bit of basic research. A conclusion that then led to a whole series of other false conclusions by colouring your entire reading of the piece, the authors intentions and what they actually argue.

misread what the author actually says about chomsky's comments (and invented something they didn't do in the process)

openly lied about what belboid has said in his responses

had a pop at him for swearing whilst yourself making posts full of swearing - and not even swearing designed to make or emphasise a point or argument - just teenage style swearing.

demonstrated that you are unaware of the debates throughout the last 4 years that this piece is part of - esp important now given russian intervention

...and frankly, just posted confused incoherent ill-informed...rubbish.

Out of your depth.
Click to expand...

That's... that's... SOO UNFAIR.

Someone's decided what they want to think and you go and beat them round the head with.... FACTS!

It's... it's... that's what it is, it's CENSORSHIP!!! You're trying to CENSOR what they think.

It's epistemological correctness gone mad!!!
 
Someone's had a look at the thing i linked to here and then compared with what's happened recently and come up with:

A quiet comeback for the Free Syrian Army?

Despite repeated defeats and write-offs, Syria’s moderate rebels were never fully eliminated, and have recently been on the front foot.

Yet, as the killing last week of a member of Jabhat al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda’s official Syrian subsidiary, by a non-jihadist brigade in Daraa underscored, the notion that the remaining FSA factions today are all happily subservient comrades of the Bin Ladenists is clearly simplistic. Indeed, the FSA’s Southern Front coalition, which controls important territory along Syria’s southern border, including crossings with Jordan (whence it receives military and financial aid from both Gulf and Western nations), officially repudiated Nusra in April 2015, saying “neither [Nusra] [n]or anything else with this ideology represents us […] We can’t go from the rule of Assad to [Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-]Zawahiri and Nusra.”

Equally, a string of recent FSA accomplishments on the battlefield — most notably the well-publicized destruction of dozens of regime tanks by rebels wielding CIA-supplied anti-tank missiles, leading to territorial gains in Hama and Aleppo — suggests the doctors, farmers, and pharmacists are not as martially feckless as President Obama would have New York Times readers think.

In short, reports of the FSA’s death have been greatly exaggerated. Or, as Brookings Doha Center Visiting Fellow Charles Lister, who has recently completed a book on the Syrian insurgency, put it in a column last week, “Although it is often overlooked, Syria does have a powerful and socially entrenched moderate opposition on the ground.”



 
Sorry for being rude Butchers, Belboid, Pickmans, anyone else. No excuses. Especially on the internet!!

A. Ok unattributed quotes:
Par 3: "whose news site The Intercept has become the go-to place for so-called “anti-imperialists”"

Par 12: "It claims to oppose Islamophobia, yet you can read a wide range of leftist writers invoking visceral appeals to Islamophobia and orientalism by essentializing the Syrian rebels as “jihadis,” with deliberate obscurity. It claims to oppose the “war on terror,” yet the Manichean logic of the Bush era is reproduced in support of Russia’s intervention. It claims to be “anti-imperialist,”"

Par 13: "The Assad regime is brutal, they often concede, but its opponents are worse—Islamofascist stooges of U.S. imperialism or, even more worryingly, “Zionism,”"

Par 14: "Proponents of this view justify their lack of care or activity over Russian crimes in Syria by saying that “the main enemy is at home,” meaning that it’s someone who lives in America’s responsibility to hold its own government to account."

These are opinions of the author and should not be in quotes. Even easier I presume - since the author is saying left wingers are saying these things - would be to find some examples where left wingers are absolving Russia of its crimes by saying things like this. Otherwise it looks like the author lending his/her self credibility by using quote marks. It is widely done. It isn't good practise. If you are doing analysis and you believe something to be true say it and don't use quotes. If it is a quote then quote it.

B. On Chomsky: two things.
1. Is Russia being imperialist in Syria? To me the answer to this is secondary, my or anyone else's opinion is a bit academic, hence me dismissing it earlier. For what it is worth (fuck all) I think Russia is and Chomsky is not right here. But more importantly...
2. Is Chomsky apologising for Russian crimes? Is he saying US crimes are worse? (This is after all the point of the piece, it is subtitled "Putin's little apologists.") I don't see that. He says Assad is vicious/brutal and Russia should not be involved. I do not think he is shrugging/apologising for Putin's/Russia's crimes. That is my opinion and folks might disagree, ok fair enough.

C. Do the left see US crimes as worse than Russian ones? This is the general point of the piece.
I think generally this is pretty insulting. It is the right, Islamic, nationalist, neo-liberal that has destroyed Syria.
Leftys slagging leftys is tedious.

Ok I'll leave it at that. Sorry again for being rude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Can US Supreme Court be reformed next time Democrats are in power?
Replies
8
Views
295
Yossarian
Yossarian
teqniq
Huge earthquake in Turkey and Northern Syria 05-06/02/23
2 3
Replies
83
Views
3K
JimW
JimW
P
The next American Civil War
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
328
Views
17K
frogwoman
frogwoman
tim
Bizarre acts of terrorism - statue of Lenin and Mao blown up in Texas.
Replies
3
Views
386
belboid
belboid
Bingoman
Slovak PM shot and injured - 15th May 2024
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Monte
Monte
Back
Top Bottom