Pro-Islamist Left Exposed

[Tom A]

i dont give a fuck, Iran has not attacked any other sovereign states . It has not done anything to deserve to be militarily attacked by western imperialists.

So bombing them is bad. Okay, fine, I think so too. So the oppression of people in their own borders is not worth a mention?

 

[Casually Red]

Where do you think the reports of all the innocents victims come from?
The drones are effective and the Taliban fear them and have no counter other than propaganda.

are you serious ??
apart from all the independent confirmation of civilian casualties i think youll find as regards effectiveness its the NATO forces wholl be legging it out of Afghanistan and not the Taleban. Theyre no more than a means of terrorising an entire civilian population whose streets and villages can be engulfed in explosions at any time without warning. Which, people being people, will lead to a desire for revenge . Which of course will benefit certain groups.

 

[dylanredefined]

On what basis do you reject independent claims of drone strikes on innocent parties. The US accepts that they happen. What is your evidence that they don't?

I'm not claiming the drones strikes are any more acceptable than an IED which blows up a civilian instead of the patrol its aimed at.
Just one gets a lot of press and comment and the other is barely acknowledged.

 

[Casually Red]

So bombing them is bad. Okay, fine, I think so too. So the oppression of people in their own borders is not worth a mention?

nobody said it wasnt worth a mention, the fact it took an argument to establish western imperialists have no right to attack sovereign states underlines were the priority in this one is .

 

[Casually Red]

I'm not claiming the drones strikes are any more acceptable than an IED which blows up a civilian instead of the patrol its aimed at.
Just one gets a lot of press and comment and the other is barely acknowledged.

generally speaking the ied isnt being planted in the name of western democratic values or paid for by our taxes .

I'm not claiming the drones strikes are any more acceptable than ...

no offence but i dont think im being paranoid when i thought you were sounding quite enthusiastic about them there, emphasising their supposed effectiveness, and castigating anyone who was highlighting their role in deliberately massacring civilians

 

[sihhi]

Iran are representatives of another pole of imperialism - which doesn't respect 'sovereignty' either - its thrust into Iraq during the war, Pasdaran murders of dissidents in France and Europe, the AMIA bombing, the 1990s chain murders.
Obviously no one here apart from maybe dylanredefined would support one imperialism's war against another.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm not claiming the drones strikes are any more acceptable than an IED which blows up a civilian instead of the patrol its aimed at.
Just one gets a lot of press and comment and the other is barely acknowledged.

What did i ask you? Did i ask you what you consider acceptable? Or did i ask you to back up your own claims about invented drone strikes and innocent victims? It was the latter - can you do that? If not, stop making ridiculous claims.

 

[Tom A]

nobody said it wasnt worth a mention, the fact it took an argument to establish western imperialists have no right to attack sovereign states underlines were the priority in this one is .

Your comment:

Like it or not Iran is a sovereign state which isnt attacking anyone.

Not attacking anyone. Not outside their jurisdiction at least. Oh and condemning theocracy ≠ pro-war.

 

[dylanredefined]

are you serious ??
apart from all the independent confirmation of civilian casualties i think youll find as regards effectiveness its the NATO forces wholl be legging it out of Afghanistan and not the Taleban. Theyre no more than a means of terrorising an entire civilian population whose streets and villages can be engulfed in explosions at any time without warning. Which, people being people, will lead to a desire for revenge . Which of course will benefit certain groups.

Drones aren't used like that. Taliban ieds on the other hand.

 

[J Ed]

Drones aren't used like that. Taliban ieds on the other hand.

Did you read the article I linked to? They are specifically used like that, they target paramedics coming to rescue victims FFS.

 

[sihhi]

Twenty posts on and dylanredefined can't defend the claim. Oh well.

 

[Tom A]

Drones aren't used like that. Taliban ieds on the other hand.

You sound like the kind of person who justified the invasion of Iraq because they used "surgical strikes" and went out of the way to minimise civilian casualties (although even the mainstream news will tell you a different story these days), and that Israel is perfectly reasoned in striking targets in Gaza because they only want to get at that nasty Hamas and never ever mean any harm to any civilians (other than those pesky human shields of course).

 

[Casually Red]

Iran are representatives of another pole of imperialism - which doesn't respect 'sovereignty' either - its thrust into Iraq during the war, Pasdaran murders of dissidents in France and Europe, the AMIA bombing, the 1990s chain murders.
Obviously no one here apart from maybe dylanredefined would support one imperialism's war against another.

thats not imperialism ffs

Iran was unilaterally attacked and invaded by Iraq, going onto the offensive in Iraqi territory in response to a unilaterally declared war of aggression and invasion is by no means an imperialist infringment of Iraqi sovereignty ...jesus

none of that is imperialism. Your usually a good sensible poster but youve had an obvious brain fart there while scraping the barrel for a non applicable equivalence.

 

[butchersapron]

Iraq was the regional imperialist power then?

 

[CyberRose]

Iraq was the regional imperialist power then?

Don't think they ever made it to the dizzy heights of "regional imperialist power", but not for lack of effort or desire

 

[sihhi]

thats not imperialism ffs

Iran was unilaterally attacked and invaded by Iraq, going onto the offensive in Iraqi territory in response to a unilaterally declared war of aggression and invasion is by no means an imperialist infringment of Iraqi sovereignty ...jesus

none of that is imperialism. Your usually a good sensible poster but youve had an obvious brain fart there while scraping the barrel for a non applicable equivalence.

No barrel scrapping. Imperialism if it means anything should include efforts that don't always succeed.

Iran was trying to extend its influence into the Shiite heartlands of Iraq after it had repulsed the initial invasion. In 1982 Khomeini rejected a peace offer from Saddam and declared Iran would continue until Shiites in Iraq were "liberated" it even set up a pro-Iran government (SCIRI) to accomplish this. Things went awry for them when the rest of the Gulf and parts of the West swung behind Saddam at this point.

More generally, can you define imperialism. And explain how the definition works in practice. Is Russia imperialist in 2013? Is Turkey? Is Indonesia? Is China? Is Holland? Is Sweden?

 

[Casually Red]

Drones aren't used like that. Taliban ieds on the other hand.

drones most definitely are used like that, just as manned western aircraft deliberately terrorise civilian populations

first strike on a commuter train



double tap on the survivors




and again



and if you want to seriously claim theres an equivalence between the multi billon dollar western armed forces with their precision technology and an uneducated 17 year old tribesman hiding behind a bush with a command wire thats up to you .

 

[dylanredefined]

If your the poor sod who gets blown up it really does not matter whether its a state of the art smart bomb or a kettle of hme you still have no legs. Apart from the left wing will whine about drone strikes or ignore you.[/media][/quote]

 

[IC3D]

Casually Red can we now add Slobodan Milosevic to the list of strongman regimes you support?

 

[J Ed]

Casually Red can we now add Slobodan Milosevic to the list of strongman regimes you support?

 

[IC3D]

I thought it was a reasonable question

 

[SpineyNorman]

They whine about drone strikes which is swallowing the taliban stories.

Don't be a pillock all your life.

 

[Casually Red]

No barrel scrapping. Imperialism if it means anything should include efforts that don't always succeed.

Iran was trying to extend its influence into the Shiite heartlands of Iraq after it had repulsed the initial invasion. In 1982 Khomeini rejected a peace offer from Saddam and declared Iran would continue until Shiites in Iraq were "liberated" it even set up a pro-Iran government (SCIRI) to accomplish this. Things went awry for them when the rest of the Gulf and parts of the West swung behind Saddam at this point.

?

Iran was invaded, and the western and gulf states were the backers of saddams initial strike, even the soviets were happy enough . Iran was facing an existential threat and to accept an invaders offers of bona fides would have been pretty dumb . Maybe Rudolph hess should have been sent home with a message to Adolf that its ticketyboo old chap, we.ll forget all this unpleasantness, weve no intention of going anywhere near Berlin now afterall . In the absence of any support from the UN, who bombed the Iraqi army to smithereens for invading Kuwait, Iran was fully entitled to take whatever steps it could to overthrow ,destabilise and undermine a regime which was launching an unprovoked war of aggression and intent on invading . Thats most definitely not imperialism . Its legitimate self defence .

More generally, can you define imperialism. And explain how the definition works in practice. Is Russia imperialist in 2013? Is Turkey? Is Indonesia? Is China? Is Holland? Is Sweden

no offence ,im not sitting here doing an entire thesis on the geo political ramifications of the foreign policies of 7 disparate nations . As a rule of thumb however my definition of what constitues imperialism is in line with international law. If a nations relationship with another is predicated upon mutual sovereign consent without threat to boths mutual benefit thats mere co operation, whether its an Iranian food plant in venezuela or a Cuban doctor in Angola, then thats not imperialism . Plunder and control is generally the object of an empire. As yet Iran hasnt gone down that route . Nor has it shown any inclination

 

[butchersapron]

Iran was invaded, and the western and gulf states were the backers of saddams initial strike, even the soviets were happy enough . Iran was facing an existential threat and to accept an invaders offers of bona fides would have been pretty dumb . Maybe Rudolph hess should have been sent home with a message to Adolf that its ticketyboo old chap, we.ll forget all this unpleasantness, weve no intention of going anywhere near Berlin now afterall . In the absence of any support from the UN, who bombed the Iraqi army to smithereens for invading Kuwait, Iran was fully entitled to take whatever steps it could to overthrow ,destabilise and undermine a regime which was launching an unprovoked war of aggression and intent on invading . Thats most definitely not imperialism . Its legitimate self defence .



no offence ,im not sitting here doing an entire thesis on the geo political ramifications of the foreign policies of 7 disparate nations . As a rule of thumb however my definition of what constitues imperialism is in line with international law. If a nations relationship with another is predicated upon mutual sovereign consent without threat to boths mutual benefit thats mere co operation, whether its an Iranian food plant in venezuela or a Cuban doctor in Angola, then thats not imperialism . Plunder and control is generally the object of an empire. As yet Iran hasnt gone down that route . Nor has it shown any inclination

So Iraq was the regional imperialist power right?

 

[J Ed]

I thought it was a reasonable question

Do you actually think that objecting to NATO war crimes in Serbia makes you a supporter of Milosevic?

 

[butchersapron]

He is exactly the sort of strongman he would support on anti-imperilaist grounds though.

 

[treelover]

No, but SWP head honchos like the late Chris Harman got very close

see CR has brought his uber anti-imperialism to this part of P/P

 

[Casually Red]

I thought it was a reasonable question

then your a dick

having a serious problem with NATO warplanes deliberately massacring serbian commuters equals support for the Serbian government . Thats an equation only a dick would come up with .

 

[butchersapron]

then your a dick

having a serious problem with NATO warplanes deliberately massacring serbian commuters equals support for the Serbian government . Thats an equation only a dick would come up with .

Which is why people think it's a position that you would have. The phrasing of your response here is rather telling.

 

[likesfish]

Er iran backs hezbollah and syria and iraqi militas so it plays similar games.
Galloways found a useful bunch of brown people who are pissed off and see him as there champion poor sods or just see him as a useful stick to beat whitey with.