Please don't attack me for things I haven't said. The fact is we supported Militant against Kinnocks witchhunts. Some of us paid for that by losing our labour party membership too (including me) But now you mention it perhaps you could enlighten us on Derek Hattons career path. I recall him whoring himself to the Sun newspaper after Liverpool. Do tell.
You'll notice,
if you read what I wrote, that I haven't attacked you for things you haven't said, what I did was
explicitly (making it obvious to anyone with an ounce of nous) speculate (hence the word "if" and the use of the future tense) on what you
might say.
As for Hatton, I really couldn't give a mouthful of cold piss for him.
As for the "how much more attention do I want" comment. The last time I looked this was an open forum. I will write what I want, and I'm sorry if that interrupts your little mili circle jerk.
Well, I suppose it would be a Militant circle jerk
if I was or ever had been a member or "fellow-traveller" of Militant, but I'm not and have never been.
You're not doing too well so far, are you?
You don't have to argue with me, press the ignore button if it bothers you that much, but if you choose to argue with me I am going to reply. Don't then cry about it.
Who's crying?
I'm glad you choose to reply, if only because with each paragraph of self-righteous bullshit you make yourself look more of a fool.
On the falklands. If you fail to see the irony of a British socialist organisation cheering on Thatchers war for ratings...
A bit of honesty from you wouldn't go amiss.
Militant didn't "cheer on" the conflict, and you know it. You're representing their refusal to adopt an anti-imperialist line as them doing so, but that's just sectarian bollocks, and you know it.
...over an irrelevant island that most people had never heard of then it isn't for me to point it out.
You're an idiot.
From the 1960s on, when deep-water geology was done in the South Atlantic, both Argentina
and Britain had very definite plans for the Falklands/Malvinas. The war happened because two powers with imperial designs wanted the same thing, and one of those powers (the UK) fucked up the diplomacy.
"Ownership" of the Falklands is the key to access to a vst amount of mineral reserves, as you'd know if you'd actually read in the last fortnight the newspaper you're so found of posting links to.
That "irrelevant" island has been relevant to the power elites here and in Argentina for a very long time.
But it makes me sick. Yes the Argentine Junta stank, as Saddam stank. But it is not for British troops to "liberate" the Argentine people from fascism any more than it is for George Bush to "save" the Iraqi people from Saddam.
More self-righteous bollocks.
1) It wasn't the expressed aim of the British government for its' military to liberate the Argentinian people from fascism, just to liberate a British dependency from invasion (for whatever ulterior motive). Militant mentioning that the Falklands conflict might have the effect of helping liberate the Argentine people from "fascism" (as it did) was rational comment which anyone with an interest in conflict studies or colonialism could have foreseen.
2) It
was the US governments' expressed aim to "save" the Iraqi people.
Can you note the oh-so-subtle differences between your two examples?
This is a task for the people of those countries.
Says you.
Frankly, the sight of British socialists supporting Thatchers armada was disgusting.
I'm really not that interested in what nauseates you.
Have you ever been to Argentina? I have. I spent over 8 months there in the early 90s.
Bully for you.
You will not find a single person who supported the British fleet and you will not find a single person who doesn't believe in Argentina's historic right to the Malvenas.
And you know why?
Jingoism. The appropriation of history by hum-buggerers to serve their own purposes.
Frankly I find it hard to believe that your Argentine comrades supported the task force. That British socialists did was opportunism in the face of jingoistic war hysteria, nothing less.
You still appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that I'm an adherent of a particular brand of socialist ideology.
I'm not.
Likewise on Ireland, the sight of a British socialist organisation supporting British troops against national resistance fighters is fucking shameful. This was a war. It was black and white.
Nothing is ever black and white, as you'd know if you weren't such a tediously boring sloganeer and actually bothered to indulge in any political analysis worthy of the name.
Are we with the British state or with those in arms fighting the British state.
I've been both. At the same time.
You know how?
Because I don't treat every situation as having only two sides. I assess issues on their merits.
But you? With you it's "follow the party line". You have the gall to accuse others of being sheep, yet you bleat the loudest of all.
You supported the occupiers and the oppressors and condemned those who were facing British bullets.
Of course I did.
I used to oppress Catholics as a matter of course, you know; call them "croppies", stole their potatoes and shot the pigs in their backyards.
Twat.
Instead of supporting a legitimate national liberation movement fighting to unify Ireland and kick out the British, you called them terrorists and offered abstract calls for "unity." You ignored the national question and simply hoped it would go away. All this while people were in arms against the British state. While that war was on British socialists had a duty to be for the IRA against the British army.
Duty?
What does a person like you know about duty, except as a word to oppress others you try to force your views on?
Don't give me this " we don't like their politics" shit. I don't like the politics of many national liberation movements. British and US socialists didn't particularly like the politics of the Vietcong but they supported them against the US. Why? because in that war, at that time, it was black and white. Criticise the politics and leadership of national liberation movements all you like but in an imperialist war we should stand with them unconditionally. Refusing to support the republican movement and the IRA against the British army was like refusing to support Ho Chi Minh against the US. Exactly the same. Cowardly populism in difficult times, nothing less.
Given your history of bending the knee to British chauvinism, your position on the Luton anti war demonstrators makes perfect sense. More cowardice in the face of patriotism.
It's all in your head, isn't it?
You sit at your keyboard pontificating, and if someone disagrees with you, you aren't equipped to deal with their arguments rationally, so you ascribe to them a position, whether it fits them or not, and then sloganeer accordingly.
You're a fool, and an ahistoric blinkered one at that.
the mask slips - I am exposed (ohh, uhh misses...)
