Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

And next, Syria?

Reuters piece today 'shipping traffic to Syria surges as Russia steps up offensive'

Also was thinking Russia producing close to record level of post soviet oil. V cheap time to have a war, produce jet fuel, gasoil low cost time to run a lot of bombing sorties etc
 
Last edited:
Not read this yet: but the front page of the Financial Times Weekend Life & Arts section is all about Rojava and Bookchin:

Power to the people: a Syrian experiment in democracy - FT.com

Power to the people: a Syrian experiment in democracy
Carne Ross

The Kurds in Rojava are testing a democratic model shaped by the political philosophy of an American eco-anarchist

a03ce658-978a-42b0-a740-2f4184e37e09.img

©Carne Ross
A YPJ fighter at a shelter in Rojava, Syria

Perhaps the last place you would expect to find a thriving experiment in direct democracy is Syria. But something radical is happening, little noticed, in the eastern reaches of that fractured country, in the isolated region known to the Kurds as Rojava.

(In the print edition the underlined words are "obscure New York radical" :D )
 
Not the air strikes on hospitals, that's kosher. I mean that leftists `shrug`.

Where are all these following words in quotes from?

"It claims to oppose Islamophobia, yet you can read a wide range of leftist writers invoking visceral appeals to Islamophobia and orientalsm 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,” yet you have no less a figure as Noam Chomsky so absurdly and pathetically claim that Russia’s intervention in Syria is not “imperialist” since “it’s supporting a government,” while he endorses the conservative “realism” of Patrick Cockburn, whose writing has often come down on the side of the Assad regime.

The brutal array of crimes committed by the Assad regime, Iran and Russia against the Syrian people are swept aside in some imagined geopolitical game that leftists think is unfolding. The Assad regime is brutal, they often concede, but its opponents are worse—Islamofascist stooges of U.S. imperialism or, even more worryingly, “Zionism,” that are working towards various nefarious ends."

Let's pick one quote.

Chomsky says "it's supporting a government." In fact that isn't a quote. It is made up.

He said "Russia is supporting a brutal vicious government, it shouldn't" but as it's supporting a government then technically it is not 'imperialism' in his eyes.

Amazing the guy missed out those other words from the quote, or rather the stuff he made up. That in any decent journalistic outlet is a sackable offence. Not many of them about.
 
Chomsky does say that russia is 'supporting a govt' and that is why he thinks their actions don't constitute imperialism. That's exactly what the author outlines as his position.
 
if it is in quote marks it's a quote.

otherwise the guy should have left the quote marks out. if he wants to make some two bob point about what constitutes imperialism in this case. chattering class marxists yawn.

but when you start of the sentence with "absurdly and pathetically" (note that is in quote marks, as he actually wrote it) it doesn't fit does it to say "yet you have no less a figure as Noam Chomsky so absurdly and pathetically claim that Russia’s intervention in Syria is not “imperialist” since “it’s supporting a brutal and vicious government, which it shouldn't.”

Cheap shit.

Another wanker after the Nick Cohen/Dan Hodges dough train.
 
Not the air strikes on hospitals, that's kosher. I mean that leftists `shrug`.

Where are all these following words in quotes from?

"It claims to oppose Islamophobia, yet you can read a wide range of leftist writers invoking visceral appeals to Islamophobia and orientalsm 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,” yet you have no less a figure as Noam Chomsky so absurdly and pathetically claim that Russia’s intervention in Syria is not “imperialist” since “it’s supporting a government,” while he endorses the conservative “realism” of Patrick Cockburn, whose writing has often come down on the side of the Assad regime.

The brutal array of crimes committed by the Assad regime, Iran and Russia against the Syrian people are swept aside in some imagined geopolitical game that leftists think is unfolding. The Assad regime is brutal, they often concede, but its opponents are worse—Islamofascist stooges of U.S. imperialism or, even more worryingly, “Zionism,” that are working towards various nefarious ends."

Let's pick one quote.

Chomsky says "it's supporting a government." In fact that isn't a quote. It is made up.

He said "Russia is supporting a brutal vicious government, it shouldn't" but as it's supporting a government then technically it is not 'imperialism' in his eyes.

Amazing the guy missed out those other words from the quote, or rather the stuff he made up. That in any decent journalistic outlet is a sackable offence. Not many of them about.
so, the one that you try to look at..says what the author says it did. The fact that Chomsky added the words 'brutal' and 'vicious' are completely and uterly irrelevant. Chomsky was saying that Russia was not acting in an imperialist manner, because it was acting on the invitatin of a government.

As for your other complaints, just look around the internet, at posts from the likes of our own Assad apologist Casually Red, at the output of the CP, Seamus Milne, or any of the other Stalinist apologists. It's all there.
 
Seriously who gives a fuck about whether it's imperialism or the fucking bake off? Students or someone? Syria is cunt soup.

Quotes are quotes. You don't cut them up to suit, especially if you remove words like brutal and vicious.

The author is trying to make a point that leftists as defined by him don't care about Putin bombing hospitals.

So he uses some bullshit made up quote - he made that up as it isn't what was said - to make some chattering class bullshit about whether or not Russia is being imperialist.

It's being cunt-ist we know that. If people including Chomsky want to debate whether it's imperialist or not well, up to them, who cares? Not me.

But its not part of the left - as defined by the author - not caring about Putin/Russia's actions. Get it?
 
Last edited:
if it is in quote marks it's a quote.

otherwise the guy should have left the quote marks out. if he wants to make some two bob point about what constitutes imperialism in this case. chattering class marxists yawn.

but when you start of the sentence with "absurdly and pathetically" (note that is in quote marks, as he actually wrote it) it doesn't fit does it to say "yet you have no less a figure as Noam Chomsky so absurdly and pathetically claim that Russia’s intervention in Syria is not “imperialist” since “it’s supporting a brutal and vicious government, which it shouldn't.”

Cheap shit.

Another wanker after the Nick Cohen/Dan Hodges dough train.
You are very wrong about this author, his politics and his motivation. It's in quotes because chomsky actually said that - i just sat through the video and heard him say it. And it's not a two-bob point, it's a direct response to the question put to him from the audience as to whether russia's actions constitute imperialism. Listen to what he says after your quote the "to support a govt..."
 
Last edited:
Seriously who gives a fuck about whether it's imperialism or the fucking bake off? Students or someone? Syria is cunt soup.

Quotes are quotes. You don't cut them up to suit, especially if you remove words like brutal and vicious.

The author is trying to make a point that leftists as defined by him don't care about Putin bombing hospitals.

So he uses some bullshit made up quote - he made that up as it isn't what was said - to make some chattering class bullshit about whether or not Russia is being imperialist.

It's being cunt-ist we know that. If people including Chomsky want to debate whether it's imperialist or not well, up to them, who cares? Not me.

But its not part of the left - as defined by the author - not caring about Putin/Russia's actions. Get it?
and you're complaining about lack of journalistic standards! Ohh the hypocrisy.

There are no made up quotes in there, and just because you don't care to analyse the situation beyond the, oh so insightful, 'is cunt soup' it doens't mean no one else should.

If you don't care, do everyone a favour - fuck off and shut up.
 
An argument over the definition of imperialism? Okay, I'm not bothered about that. Isms schmisms.

The guy wrote a piece headed "Putin's little apologists."

In that piece he used Chomsky - presumably one of them - as an `absurd and pathetic` (note only in semi quotes) figure or a man who was "absurdly and pathetically" denying the severity of the actions of Russia etc etc. Being one of Putin's little apologists.

Which Chomsky obvs isnt.

But good clicks, slag Chomsky, get another piece, slag off `leftists`...ker ching! Maybe a Daily Mail ed will see it :D
 
An argument over the definition of imperialism? Okay, I'm not bothered about that. Isms schmisms.

The guy wrote a piece headed "Putin's little apologists."

In that piece he used Chomsky - presumably one of them - as an `absurd and pathetic` (note only in semi quotes) figure or a man who was "absurdly and pathetically" denying the severity of the actions of Russia etc etc. Being one of Putin's little apologists.

Which Chomsky obvs isnt.

But good clicks, slag Chomsky, get another piece, slag off `leftists`...ker ching!
You have no idea who the author is or their record. This is ridiculous under-researched stuff.
 
An argument over the definition of imperialism? Okay, I'm not bothered about that. Isms schmisms.

The guy wrote a piece headed "Putin's little apologists."

In that piece he used Chomsky - presumably one of them - as an `absurd and pathetic` (note only in semi quotes) figure or a man who was "absurdly and pathetically" denying the severity of the actions of Russia etc etc. Being one of Putin's little apologists.

Which Chomsky obvs isnt.

But good clicks, slag Chomsky, get another piece, slag off `leftists`...ker ching!
jesus christ, you really can't read, can you? You got the entire piece wrong, and now you're desperately trying to cover up for your ignorance.
 
Back
Top Bottom