Pro-Islamist Left Exposed

[butchersapron]

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.

Do you and dylans both know that you're not in the british army anymore?

 

[Casually Red]

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

nope, again your taking the dicks route and conflating my opposition to NATO attacks on serbian sovereignty as support for government policy, British occupation of Argentine islands as support for fascism.
Its just like saying anyone who was happy seeing the red army resist the nazis is a confirmed stalinist, anyone happy seeing the zionists kicked out of Lebanon is a fanatical shiite .

Listening to the British left on this is just tiresome. They cant even get along with each other so I cant really expect them to get their pointy little heads around the profound difference between principle and personality .

 

[Casually Red]

So Iraq was the regional imperialist power right?

no, despite saddams delusions the united states was...where do you get these silly ideas from

 

[butchersapron]

Any progress on condemning Iraq as a regional imperialist power yet? Or that one too difficult?

You have a proven record of support of authoritarian regimes on anti-imperialist grounds. That you would publicly shy away from the consequences of such support is not surprising. That you would lie to yourself, well i don't know..

 

[sihhi]

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 it's not simply legitimate self-defence, the Pasdaran murders of intellectuals outside Iran began before Saddam invaded. Efforts were made to extend Shiite Islamist influence ideology and arms into Bahrain, into Lebanon, into Iraq, into Qatar, into Kuwait - probably elsewhere as well. The Iraq invasion and self-defence is only aspect of its behaviour in the 1980s.

no offence ,im not sitting here doing an entire thesis on the geo political ramifications of the foreign policies of 7 disparate nations .

In which case you can do the courtesy of accepting that Iran's behaviour is part of an opposite pole of imperialism, instead of charging in aimlessly. Iran doesn't stand up against the oppression of Muslim Chechens or Uighurs - because it is in tacit alliance with Russia and China which are both as we would presumably both agree imperialist (assuming your rough definition below).

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,

Iran has attempted to threaten and coerce peoples outside its borders so this definition doesn't prove anything about Iran.

whether its an Iranian food plant in venezuela or a Cuban doctor in Angola, then thats not imperialism

Did my list include food plants? It's an irrelevant inclusion here.

Plunder and control is generally the object of an empire. As yet Iran hasnt gone down that route

Exactly what it's done in Iranian Kurdistan certainly since the end of the conflict with Iraq. Virtually all Iranian Kurds will describe a scenario of intensified imperialism and centralisation comparing the Shah with Khomeini. (Not to say the Shah wasn't a dictator). It was Iran that tried to destroy the Kurdish movement in Iran, to length of a trio of assassins executing Dr. Hassemlou in exile in Europe at point blank range. It has plundered Kurdish territories to new depths. It has stepped up hot pursuit into the Kurdish regions of Iraq in its fight against PJAK.

What are the relationships between Iranian firms in Lebanon other than ones of domination and plunder? Likewise, it has constantly sought to wrest control of islands in the Gulf that are not its own by any stretch of international law, purely for gas exploration purposes. It has heavily threatened not just Israel but Jewish groups outside the country, as an offshoot of its ideology spilling beyond its borders.

Nor has it shown any inclination

It has constantly shown this inclination. It's how it has tried to offset its vulnerabilities (economic and ideological ones) as a dictatorial anti-democratic regime.

 

[butchersapron]

no, despite saddams delusions the united states was...where do you get these silly ideas from

There we have it don't we. No imperialism ever, apart from the US. Could you give some example of non-US imperialism since say 1914?

 

[Casually Red]

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

well youll need to tell me what it tells you and why, because yet again i havent a clue what your on about

 

[dylanredefined]

Do you and dylans both know that you're not in the british army anymore?

News to me why the fuck was I in sennybridge at the start of this month then?

 

[butchersapron]

News to me why the fuck was I in sennybridge at the start of this month then?

Lol, you're in the british army and you think all the reports of drone attacks killing innocents in pk or Afghanistan are taliban inventions. Officer training was it?

 

[butchersapron]

News to me why the fuck was I in sennybridge at the start of this month then?

Good interrogation facing skills there btw.

 

[sihhi]

no, despite saddams delusions the united states was...where do you get these silly ideas from

United States which actually sent weapons over to Iran, attempting to aid its military in exchange for a more domestically orientated fundamentalist Iran (most particularly keep out of Lebanon).

Iran Contra transfers in money and weaponry began in 1984, whilst US military aid to Iraq probably only began in 1985, and was only really stepped up after 1987. Soviet Union was the main military backer of Iraq.

 

[Casually Red]

No it's not simply legitimate self-defence, the Pasdaran murders of intellectuals outside Iran began before Saddam invaded. Efforts were made to extend Shiite Islamist influence ideology and arms into Bahrain, into Lebanon, into Iraq, into Qatar, into Kuwait - probably elsewhere as well. The Iraq invasion and self-defence is only aspect of its behaviour in the 1980s.



In which case you can do the courtesy of accepting that Iran's behaviour is part of an opposite pole of imperialism, instead of charging in aimlessly. Iran doesn't stand up against the oppression of Muslim Chechens or Uighurs - because it is in tacit alliance with Russia and China which are both as we would presumably both agree imperialist (assuming your rough definition below).



Iran has attempted to threaten and coerce peoples outside its borders so this definition doesn't prove anything about Iran.




Did my list include food plants? It's an irrelevant inclusion here.



Exactly what it's done in Iranian Kurdistan certainly since the end of the conflict with Iraq. Virtually all Iranian Kurds will describe a scenario of intensified imperialism and centralisation comparing the Shah with Khomeini. (Not to say the Shah wasn't a dictator). It was Iran that tried to destroy the Kurdish movement in Iran, to length of a trio of assassins executing Dr. Hassemlou in exile in Europe at point blank range. It has plundered Kurdish territories to new depths. It has stepped up hot pursuit into the Kurdish regions of Iraq in its fight against PJAK.

What are the relationships between Iranian firms in Lebanon other than ones of domination and plunder? Likewise, it has constantly sought to wrest control of islands in the Gulf that are not its own by any stretch of international law, purely for gas exploration purposes. It has heavily threatened not just Israel but Jewish groups outside the country, as an offshoot of its ideology spilling beyond its borders.



It has constantly shown this inclination. It's how it has tried to offset its vulnerabilities (economic and ideological ones) as a dictatorial anti-democratic regime.

tell me when exactly there was such a state known as Iranian kurdistan? as far as im aware, and the world for that matter, that is iranian sovereign territory and no nation is engaged in imperialism by utilising its own resources within its own national territory. A territorial dispute with a neighbour over a little island doesnt constitute imperialism either, otherwise vietnam would be an imperialist country. Ireland claims Rockall, doesnt make it imperialist. Even bumping people off abroad doesnt remotely constitute imperialism.

 

[IC3D]

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 .

Do you think Milosevic wasn't an Imperialist when he tried to annex Bosnia with his genocidal army?

 

[framed]

There we have it don't we. No imperialism ever, apart from the US. Could you give some example of non-US imperialism since say 1914?

What's your definition of imperialism?

 

[Casually Red]

United States which actually sent weapons over to Iran, attempting to aid its military in exchange for a more domestically orientated fundamentalist Iran (most particularly keep out of Lebanon).

Iran Contra transfers in money and weaponry began in 1984, whilst US military aid to Iraq probably only began in 1985, and was only really stepped up after 1987. Soviet Union was the main military backer of Iraq.

and what ??
they were arming Iraq to the hilt as well, including with chemical weapons. Whats your point

 

[butchersapron]

What's your definition of imperialism?

I think it's a ridiculous term. cr is throwing it around willy nilly. Let's see what he has to back it up.

 

[Casually Red]

Do you think Milosevic wasn't an Imperialist when he tried to annex Bosnia with his genocidal army?

no, because a bit of bosnia does not an empire make. If hed been talking western bosnia today, europe tomorrow you might have a point. But he didnt and you dont .

 

[butchersapron]

and what ??
they were arming Iraq to the hilt as well, including with chemical weapons. Whats your point

That you should call the USSR Imperialist. And then argue that it stopped being imperialist in the mid-80s.

 

[sihhi]

tell me when exactly there was such a state known as Iranian kurdistan? as far as im aware, and the world for that matter, that is iranian sovereign territory and no nation is engaged in imperialism by utilising its own resources within its own national territory. A territorial dispute with a neighbour over a little island doesnt constitute imperialism either, otherwise vietnam would be an imperialist country. Ireland claims Rockall, doesnt make it imperialist. Even bumping people off abroad doesnt remotely constitute imperialism.

Iranian Kurdistan a state (recognised by all 'progressive' forces of the world ie Soviet Union and allies) set up in 1945 and lasted until 1947.

Iran is in alliance with the opposite pole of US imperialism. It attempts to secure gas reserves in the Gulf for the benefit of Russia and China not the USA.


"no nation is engaged in imperialism by utilising its own resources within its own national territory" (Casually Red)

That means UK never did any imperialism in the six counties. ?? ??

 

[butchersapron]

no, because a bit of bosnia does not an empire make. If hed been talking western bosnia today, europe tomorrow you might have a point. But he didnt and you dont .

You know the term imperialism in your modern use has very little to do with empires and empire building right?

 

[butchersapron]

Iranian Kurdistan a state (recognised by all 'progressive' forces of the world ie Soviet Union and allies) set up in 1945 and lasted until 1947.

Iran is in alliance with the opposite pole of US imperialism. It attempts to secure gas reserves in the Gulf for the benefit of Russia and China not the USA.


"no nation is engaged in imperialism by utilising its own resources within its own national territory" (Casually Red)

That means UK never did any imperialism in the six counties. ?? ??

Worse, it pretty much means imperialism never happened ever as the question of border drawing clearly doesn't matter after initial victory.

 

[IC3D]

no, because a bit of bosnia does not an empire make. If hed been talking western bosnia today, europe tomorrow you might have a point. But he didnt and you dont .

So you measure Imperialism by what then, success? you can trust him to only go to x point and stop. Ok then.

 

[Casually Red]

I think it's a ridiculous term. cr is throwing it around willy nilly. Let's see what he has to back it up.

hmm..its ridiculous of me to around chucking the term imperialist ...willy nilly no less....at the united states, britain and france.

the nerve of me

 

[butchersapron]

no, because a bit of bosnia does not an empire make. If hed been talking western bosnia today, europe tomorrow you might have a point. But he didnt and you dont .

Just a little bit imperialism.

 

[Casually Red]

So you measure Imperialism by what then, success? you can trust him to only go to x point and stop. Ok then.

so milosevic did actually want to invade europe....bloody hell that was a close shave

 

[Casually Red]

Just a little bit imperialism.

nope

 

[sihhi]

hmm..its ridiculous of me to around chucking the term imperialist ...willy nilly no less....at the united states, britain and france.

the nerve of me

Sorry doesn't work. This whole sidetrack started because you attacked a minor point that Iran was engaged in its own 'imperialist' intrigues which Press TV is a manifestation of (doesn't mean it's not useful for some things).

No one mentioned US, Britain and France until you had to point out that Iran wasn't ever and isn't now part of the opposite pole.

 

[butchersapron]

hmm..its ridiculous of me to around chucking the term imperialist ...willy nilly no less....at the united states, britain and france.

the nerve of me

Who you aren't chucking it at is more revealing.

Maybe you can answer framed's question as to what this thing that structures your support for various authoritarian regime actually is?

 

[butchersapron]

nope

Why not? Because you think imperialism means having an empire? Please tell me that you don't.

 

[Casually Red]

Worse, it pretty much means imperialism never happened ever as the question of border drawing clearly doesn't matter after initial victory.

no it doesnt, if theres an Iranian kurdistan challenge to Iranian sovereignty in that region then im all ears . Where is it, Id like to read their submission