Support the Syrian people

A joint statement on the Western intervention in Syria, calling for continued support for the revolution and opposition to Western intervention 

The defeat of the government pro-war resolution in Parliament is important. Even though Labour voted against the Tory motion, it too had submitted a pro-war resolution, albeit calling for a pause until after the report from the UN weapons inspectors. That resolution was also defeated. These votes reflect the anti-war mood in Britain. But as far as the USA is concerned, the threat of war is still on the agenda possibly using bases in Britain.

The regime of Bashar al-Assad is every day carrying out more massacres of increasing cruelty against the people of Syria, whether it be the bombing of civilian areas or the use of chemical weapons. Two years into the uprising against the dictatorship, over 100,000 have died, two million are refugees and many more are “displaced” out of a population of just 20 million. This tragedy fills us with horror and rage.

We continue to extend our solidarity to the movement for democracy in Syria. We pay tribute to all those who have lost their lives in the fight against the brutal dictatorship and to all those who are continuing to resist.

But, the hypocrisy of imperialist countries also makes us angry. They bear the primary responsibility in the tragedy and in allowing the murderous Assad dictatorship to remain in power by allowing the rebellion to be starved of arms whilst Assad is supplied by Russia and Iran. They wring their hands at the plight of the Syrian people but deny them the means to defend themselves.

For over two years, Britain, the USA and France have stood by, refusing to deliver defensive anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons to the progressive and democratic components of the opposition, for fear that the toppling of the Assad regime may extend and deepen the revolution which started in Egypt and Tunisia in 2011. At the same time, they allowed Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to support Islamist reactionary forces, in their attempt at transforming the Syrian revolution into a sectarian war. They know that the victory of the revolution in Syria could spread across the region constituting a major threat to their regimes.

Now, Britain, the USA and France are discussing yet another “humanitarian intervention”, with targeted military strikes to warn Assad that they have the monopoly on the use of chemical weapons.

We continue oppose with the utmost determination any foreign direct military intervention in Syria, be it that of the USA, Britain, France and their allies or that of Iran and its allies. Those within the rebellion who support this are making a big mistake. We believe that the people of Syria should be enabled to free themselves from the Assad dictatorship. For their struggle to be successful, they should receive all the necessary material aid, including arms and humanitarian assistance, without conditions imposed by the West.

There has been a deafening silence from Western states in the face of the huge refugee crisis gripping Syria. This reflects the long-term racism and Islamophobia against refugees and economic migrants.

The Assad dictatorship has burnt all the bridges to a possible peaceful and negotiated transition to democracy. Both the USA and Britain on one side, and Russia and Iran on the other, want a solution imposed from above: maintain the regime but remove Bashar al-Assad.

We reject the notion that this rebellion has been co-opted by imperialism. This remains a popular revolution by a people struggling to free itself from oppression. It is a key component of the Arab Spring which has inspired the masses of the region and beyond.

We oppose both the “humanitarian intervention” of Britain, France and the USA, and the pro-Assad intervention by Iran and Russia. Instead, we choose to be on the side of the revolutionary masses struggling for their emancipation, and extend our solidarity in particular to the democratic and progressive components of the revolution.

Alongside the Stop the War Coalition, we will continue to campaign against intervention in Syria by Britain, France and the USA, and to send practical relief and humanitarian aid to the Syrian revolution. We also extend our hand of solidarity to Syrian socialists such as those in the Revolutionary Left Current, who have stated that their ‘revolution has no sincere ally, except the popular revolutions of the region and of the world and of all the militants struggling against regimes of ignorance and servitude and exploitation’.

No to imperialist intervention.
Solidarity with the revolution against the Assad dictatorship.
Let the people of Syria determine their own future, free from foreign intervention.

This is a joint statement supported by the International Socialist Network, Socialist Resistance, Workers Power, and the Anticapitalist Initiative (National Coordination)

Share
.

23 Comments

  1. September 3, 2013 at 12:44 am · Reply

    I’m not sure who you could identify as ‘the movement for democracy in Syria’.

    The last thing the Kurdish political parties want is more weapons floating around. They are being attacked by the regime, some FSA and jihadist groups supported by Turkey, and whilst they would welcome support it’s not forthcoming. The PYD is a member of the National Coordination Body – NCB which has been working tirelessly for a non-violent solution, but it has been sidelined. I believe that the LCCs have varied agendas and visions of a Syria of the future, but Kurdish rights don’t necessarily figure there.

  2. September 3, 2013 at 12:45 am · Reply

    Statement by the General Command of the People’s Protection Units YPG

    The 19th July revolution, marked the beginning of the construction of a new Kurdish determination in West Kurdistan towards the building of a free society by the people’s own free will, by means of operations of liberation which have spread throughout revolutionary West Kurdistan.

    The launching of this historical period represented a brilliant opportunity to enable resistance based upon democratic values, Kurdish identity and the preparation, organisation and implementation of People’s Protection Units, YPG, as an immediate necessity to protect citizen’s lives, their land and to develop the values of this new society.

    Our people responded to this revolutionary renaissance in West Kurdistan in full awareness of our historical experiences and the urgent need to protect the people without distinction of ethnic, religious, sectarian or ideological differences.

    The People’s Defence Units were born to be a bridge of our people in their honorable journey towards achieving freedom, which is now no longer just an aspiration but within their grasp.

    Living through the most critical and sensitive periods of our history in Syria or Western Kurdistan our Defence Forces have been welcomed by ululating crowds of our people with joy and happiness as our liberators protectors of our values, principles and existence. Repeatedly, the People’s Protection Units have adhered to it’s basic principles and national duties of protecting our people with all its components in western Kurdistan and Syria on the basis of the principles of legitimate self defence and to face, heroically, all attacks that have targeted our land and people from whatever source the threat has arisen.

    YPG is constantly reaffirming it’s commitment to the practical and difficult tasks it has faced throughout it’s short heroic history. A commitment made all the more heroic by the fact that from all sides we have faced attacks and genocidal approaches from the regime of Assad and dark forces including free Syrian army FSA and others that at times operate overtly against us and at other times operate covertly against us in an attempt to annihilate us.

    YPG is now a national organisation as confirmed officially at the conference of the People’s Protections Units, committed to the legitimate aspirations and defence of our people and pledging allegiance to the decisions and orders of the Supreme Kurdish Council, who, in the eyes of over one million people who have taken part the people’s uprising under their banner, consider to be their legitimate political representatives.

    YPG has faced some serious challenges and accusations during unfair, harsh and organised attacks from various media outlets of the International, regional and Kurdish press. These attacks began to question YPG’s independence and commitments to it’s principles through the distortion and creation of events and ‘facts’ that had no relation to the actual reality on the ground. At first these attacks could not be understood but with time it became crystal clear they were part of an organised attempt designed to attempt to divide our units from the people.

    Various accusations were flown accusing YPG of not being independent nor free of political party influence and accusing them of doing things they had not done or that they only protected Kurds. All of which were false and aimed solely at attempting to defeat our revolution by our enemies and to divide our armed forces from the people. The relationship and trust of the people and their people’s defence units came through this difficult period but we must still be wary and mindful that such attempts may still be made and must be aware of these attacks, challenge them and put them into the dustbin of history with all the other conspiracies.

    We condemn all such dishonourable and hostile attempts to divide us that serve only the enemies of our people and nation and warn those who continue on this path to desist as it is the path that leads to treason. We call on our people to stand steadfastly against such treasonable actions and together we will repel such acts. We stand, side by side with the people, as one and act as a guarantor of the people’s existence and freedom. YPG will respond decisively to all such attempts by our enemies and their agents to divide us.

    We have proved that by standing together in the highest alert, aware of the threats we face, we can be victorious. We, the People’s Protection Units YPG, will continue our revolutionary war to defend and protect our people from all threats with our independent national will and orders of the Kurdish Supreme Council, the legitimate representation of the people, separate from partisan loyalties and parties. We have the strength and capabilities to defeat all external and internal threats and enemy attacks, as we are the sons and daughters of a people thirsty for freedom and ready to sacrifice whatever is needed to achieve it.

    Eternal glory to our honorable martyrs of our homeland and quest for freedom. Shame for those who conspire and plot against us. Long live the People’s Protection Forces who independently, continue to protect the people and nation. The General Command of the People’s Protection Units YPG. 31-08-2013

  3. September 3, 2013 at 4:04 pm · Reply

    A few points:

    “At the same time, they allowed Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to support Islamist reactionary forces, in their attempt at transforming the Syrian revolution into a sectarian war. They know that the victory of the revolution in Syria could spread across the region constituting a major threat to their regimes.”

    This is factually wrong. The Saudis are arming moderates and secularists in the south of the country, not Jabhat al-Nusrah or ISIS who control the north: http://news.yahoo.com/saudi-supplied-missiles-boost-rebels-south-syria-144229964.html

    “Moderate opposition groups make up the majority of actual fighting forces, and they have recently been empowered by the influx of arms and money from Saudi Arabia and other allied countries, such as Jordan and France.” Source:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324463604579044642794711158?mg=reno64-wsj.html?dsk=y

    “We oppose both the ‘humanitarian intervention’ of Britain, France and the USA, and the pro-Assad intervention by Iran and Russia. Instead, we choose to be on the side of the revolutionary masses struggling for their emancipation, and extend our solidarity in particular to the democratic and progressive components of the revolution.”

    So you’re on record opposing what Salim Idriss of the Free Syrian Army wants: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/17/free-syrian-army-gen-salem-idris-yet-to-hear-from-d-c-about-promised-military-support.html

    And you’re on record opposing the military intervention — in the form of no-fly and/or buffer zones — the Friday protests in Syria have called for on at least four occasions (September 9, 2011; October 28, 2011; December 2, 2011; March 16, 2012).

    But you’ll work with the revolution’s outright enemies, the likes George Galloway, Nick Griffin, and supporters of Assad in the Stop the War Coalition?

    “Alongside the Stop the War Coalition, we will continue to campaign against intervention in Syria by Britain, France and the USA, and to send practical relief and humanitarian aid to the Syrian revolution.”

    Do you think anyone in Syria will believe that you genuinely support their revolution when you unite with supporters of counter-revolution who bring their Assad portraits and regime flags to your “hands off Syria” demonstrations?

    No one who supports the Syrian revolution can make common cause with its enemies on the other side of the barricades and hope to retain an ounce of political credibility.

  4. Stuart King
    September 7, 2013 at 1:05 pm · Reply

    Pham Binh gets carried away with point scoring to the detriment of the political argument. The civil war in Syria is complex and difficult to read and I’m sure we will all make mistakes in facts and estimation of what is exactly happening on the ground but generally the joint statement above is a good one.

    Arms supplies
    It is probably true that Qatar rather than Saudi Arabia (SA) has been the major supplier of arms to the jihadist wing of the Syrian opposition, probably because SA works more closely with the US State Department (the BBC provides a useful survey, Who is supplying weapons to the warring sides in Syria? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22906965 )

    But at the same time SA is doing everything in its power to stir up sectarian divisions between Sunni and Shia throughout the middle east, with Syria being used as part of the proxy war for dominance in the region between SA and Iran. Its arms and political support are used to further this aim, certainly not to bolster the democratic and secular opposition.

    Supporting the revolution
    Do we set ourselves against what the FSA and National Council are calling for – military intervention by the imperialists? Yes we do. We are not uncritical supporters of the Syrian opposition, we support their struggle to overthrow Assad but we don’t agree with everything they say or do.

    Every socialist can understand why oppositionists and civilians being pounded every day by the might of the Assad regime’s weapons, including poison gas, would call for western intervention, as they did in Libya. We are not in favour of them remaining helpless, some sort of fake “neutrality”. As the statement makes clear we are in for the sending arms to the opposition of sufficient quantity and quality so that they can defend themselves and fight to victory, we are for supplying weapons “without conditions”.

    The planned imperialist intervention has no intention of doing this. The US do not want the opposition as it is to come to power, they do not have sufficient political and economic control over it, in the words of US General Martin Dempsey they must ensure the winning side “must be ready to promote US interests”.

    As socialists in the imperialist countries we must say to the opposition in Syria, “any intervention by western imperialism will be based on controlling and limiting your struggle, with the long term aim of dominating your country – that is why we must oppose it”.

    Let me pose the question to Pham Binh: As a US socialist are you going to support your government’s military attack on Syria because the FSA is demanding it?

    United fronts and the Stop the War (StW) Coalition
    A united front is a pact for action, in this case to stop Cameron’s government dragooning the British parliament into supporting the US military strike against Syria. That is what we are agreed on, we have differences on much else. We are allowed in that coalition to put out our own reasons for not supporting a strike (thus the statement above) and to criticise others like George Galloway and pro-Assad supporters. There are no fascists in StW. I don’t know where you get the idea that Nick Griffin is a member, if he showed up I have no doubt he would be “shown the pavement”.

    There are very reactionary elements involved in the Syrian opposition to Assad as well but I’m sure you would not object to the military co-operation going on to bring down the regime – it’s a united front on the military terrain.

    • PB
      September 11, 2013 at 3:15 pm · Reply

      A number of problems here.

      “But at the same time SA is doing everything in its power to stir up sectarian divisions between Sunni and Shia throughout the middle east, with Syria being used as part of the proxy war for dominance in the region between SA and Iran. Its arms and political support are used to further this aim, certainly not to bolster the democratic and secular opposition.”

      So by arming the secular and moderate Islamists in Syria, they furthering their aim of stirring up Shia-Sunni sectarian strife? That makes no sense.

      The reason I object to your statement and the reason I brought up the factual error in the group statement is because the left should stop force-fitting the facts into a grand narrative about the reactionary, sectarian role of Saudi Arabia in the region, as if that’s news to anyone in the West or in the East.

      “Do we set ourselves against what the FSA and National Council are calling for – military intervention by the imperialists? Yes we do.”

      But why? Why should we oppose military aid — either in the form of arms or airstrikes — to beleaguered revolutionaries?

      “Every socialist can understand why oppositionists and civilians being pounded every day by the might of the Assad regime’s weapons, including poison gas, would call for western intervention, as they did in Libya. We are not in favour of them remaining helpless, some sort of fake ‘neutrality’. As the statement makes clear we are in for the sending arms to the opposition of sufficient quantity and quality so that they can defend themselves and fight to victory, we are for supplying weapons ‘without conditions’.

      “The planned imperialist intervention has no intention of doing this. The US do not want the opposition as it is to come to power, they do not have sufficient political and economic control over it, in the words of US General Martin Dempsey they must ensure the winning side ‘must be ready to promote US interests’.

      “As socialists in the imperialist countries we must say to the opposition in Syria, ‘any intervention by western imperialism will be based on controlling and limiting your struggle, with the long term aim of dominating your country – that is why we must oppose it’.”

      How would cruise missile attacks on the airfields where Russian planes full of weapons land “control and limit” their struggle? How would attacks that wipe out Assad’s command and control centers “control and limit” their struggle? Up until yesterday, Assad’s military hadn’t flown any airstrikes because American ships are parked off the coast — how and why is that a bad thing?

      “Let me pose the question to Pham Binh: As a US socialist are you going to support your government’s military attack on Syria because the FSA is demanding it?”

      It’s not just the Free Syrian Army that is asking for the imperialists to hit the regime — it’s one of the most popular demands of the revolutionary movement in Syria, and has been since mid/late 2011:
      http://www.occupiedkafranbel.com/sites/default/files/1239757_512344118849808_1982212907_n.jpg
      http://www.wadinet.de/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/kafranbel.jpg

      I support whatever aids the revolution and hurts the counter-revolution in Syria. Salus revolutionis suprema lex — the well-being of the revolution is the highest law. If I was in Congress, I would vote with Kafranbel.

      “A united front is a pact for action, in this case to stop Cameron’s government dragooning the British parliament into supporting the US military strike against Syria. That is what we are agreed on, we have differences on much else. We are allowed in that coalition to put out our own reasons for not supporting a strike (thus the statement above) and to criticise others like George Galloway and pro-Assad supporters. There are no fascists in StW. I don’t know where you get the idea that Nick Griffin is a member, if he showed up I have no doubt he would be ‘shown the pavement’.”

      People who support Assad are supporting fascism in Syria. Those people are fascists. People who support counter-revolution in Syria are quite obviously counter-revolutionaries. You would unite with them, demonstrate with them, form a “united front” with them — do you expect anyone on the side of the revolution in Syria to take what you have to say about the Free Syrian Army and the question of intervention seriously with regime flags flying behind you?

      You should be showing the Assadists the pavement if you hope to have any credibility among the revolution’s supporters. Nick Griffin is beside the point.

      “There are very reactionary elements involved in the Syrian opposition to Assad as well but I’m sure you would not object to the military co-operation going on to bring down the regime – it’s a united front on the military terrain.”

      I don’t object to unavoidable alliances on the revolutionary side in Syria.

      I do object to completely avoidable alliances between revolutionary and counter-revolutionary forces in the West.

    • PB
      September 11, 2013 at 9:44 pm · Reply

      A quick PS to this debate is the fact that it is the revolution’s Islamists who tend to oppose Western military intervention while the secularists tend to support it:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbSj4Kis0Gg
      http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/09/05/waiting_for_the_tomahawks_syrian_rebels_us_strikes

      U.S./NATO military operations in Libya did a lot to keep the Islamist elements like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group from gaining significant traction. The absence of similar operations in Syria catapulted the Islamists and their extremist variants to the position of vanguard of the revolution, hence the secular-Islamist split now over U.S. airstrikes. I tend to think both of those forces’ positions on military intervention reflect where their interests lay and it’s another reason why blanket opposition by Western leftists to imperialist military action that will hurt the regime and the Islamists is a huge mistake.

  5. John Grimshaw
    September 12, 2013 at 10:15 am · Reply

    Personally Stewart I think Pham Binh has ably answered your question. He supports US/Western military intervention in Syria. And furthermore he thinks that anybody in Syria who supports, either actively or by keeping their mouths shut, the “fascist” Assad regime must be a “fascist” also. So that includes the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, Hezbollah, the odd Christian or two and most Alawites as well as the odd Assyrian or two. I wonder what position he has on the Kurds who last I heard were engaged in fire fights with the Islamic extremist “unavoidable allies” of the revolution? Given the lack of desire for military intervention in the UK population at large (whatever their reasons) does this make them fascists also? Interestingly I googled Kafranbel and the first hit was of a whole series of photos on “Harry’s Place” (home of “decent” socialists). One picture stood out in particular. A small group of villagers denouncing Obama for his inactivity with a banner with the slogan “Obama’s procrastination kills. We miss Bush’s audacity. The world is better with America’s Republicans (sic).”

  6. Stuart King
    September 12, 2013 at 10:15 pm · Reply

    I think Pham Binh presents us with all the problems of those who support imperialism in its “humanitarian interventionist” guise. They end up as apologists for imperialism and for some of the most reactionary forces on the planet – the Sunni dictatorship of Saudi Arabia.

    Pham has a touching faith in the Saudi monarchy because it is supporting “secular and moderate islamist forces”. How naive can you get – this is the regime that was instrumental the crushing of the revolution in Bahrain and offered its full support to the recent military coup in Egypt. Its weapons have turned up in the hands of jihadists and Sunni extremists in Syria (again check BBC reports). It will only play a reactionary role in Syria as it has played everywhere else since the start of the “Arab spring”.

    Even worse is your belief that your own imperialism will play a progressive role in the Syrian revolution. It really does not matter that this or that isolated action might in some way aid the FSA, the over all policy of US imperialism is to control the revolution, ensure the most conservative and pro-US forces come to the fore, and to further its interests in the middle east. That is why we oppose all its interventions.

    Assad’s regime is not a fascist regime, any more than the Saudi dictatorship is. Labelling regimes we don’t like as “fascist” is a hangover from third period stalinism and maoism, I would have thought you would know better.

    Unfortunately there are misguided socialists in Stop the War who defend the Assad regime “against imperialism”, that does not make them fascists. It would be like calling misguided socialists like yourself who support imperialist interventions “state department socialists”.

    • PB
      September 13, 2013 at 6:29 pm · Reply

      You confuse intentions and motivations with objective outcomes. A counter-revolutionary regime in one country does not play a counter-revolutionary role in every country or situation. German imperialism put Lenin on a train. Did Lenin have a touching faith in the German General Staff? No.

      • John Grimshaw
        September 17, 2013 at 9:40 am · Reply

        A counter -revolutionary regime is always counter-revolutionary whatever country its from. The German “Lenin on a train” analogy is getting a bit well worn. Surely its obvious that Imperial Germany did what it did in 1917 because it thought it in its own interests. And in a sense it was right. The Kaiser’s government wanted to destabilise the Czar’s government in order to win the war. They obviously calculated that the Bolshevik project was just that “a project” with no chance of getting anywhere ultimately. Finland station changed things but the German High Command couldn’t have known what was going to happen. Do you have “touching faith” in American Imperialism?

        • PB
          September 18, 2013 at 3:39 pm · Reply

          The French monarchy armed the American revolution to fight the British. There are tons of historical examples of reactionaries playing a progressive role in struggles despite their character if you know where/when to look.

          • John Grimshaw
            September 23, 2013 at 9:57 am ·

            I don’t disagree with you despite your sarcasm. The question is should socialists in Imperialist countries call on their governments to intervene militarily in situations like Syria, either with armaments or with men with armaments?

          • John Grimshaw
            September 23, 2013 at 10:07 am ·

            This may appear the wrong way round. Besides I’m not sure the French intervention in the American War of Independence is a good example of what you are looking for. A lot of American businessmen who supported the W of I were looking for freedom from British taxation, freedom for their own slave plantations, freedom to expand at the expense of native Americans and so on. In other words they were hardly oppressed and did quite a lot of it themselves.

    • Brian S.
      September 17, 2013 at 3:08 pm · Reply

      @Stuart & John: I share a lot of Binh’s perspective, although not every detail and I wouldn’t presume to speak for him. But I think you are either misrepresenting or misunderstanding his arguments. Anyway to speak for myself: I am in favour of the provision of material assistance to the Syrian opposition including military material. That has nothing to do with having illusions in the nature or intentions of imperialism or its “humanitarian intervention” rhetoric. Its based on a recogition of the needs of the struggle in Syria and a recognition that imperialism often (indeed usually) finds itself subect to contradictory forces and these contradictions can sometimes be used to the advantage of anti-imperialist forces. Indeed, an anti-imperialism that fails to exploit the contradictions of the enemy is one doomed to marginalisation.(That I believe is the point of Binh’s “sealed train” argument – an old one but still a relevant exemplar.)
      Solidarity resolutions are fine – but you can’t fight a military machine like Asad’s with paper.
      You dismiss Kafr Anbel with a flick of your wrist: But this is an authentic voice of a people in struggle (with over 200 posters on line) – passionate, humorous, sometimes perceptive, sometimes not politically correct, frequently desparate (you’ll note that their name shifted from “Occupied Kafr Anbel” to “Liberated Kafr Anbel”: that’s because for months they had to carry out their work in between aerial and artillery bombardments) but always determined and hopeful. They are trying very hard to communicate with us – but you don’t seem to be interested in listening. Is it any wonder their views are often bitter?

  7. John Grimshaw
    September 18, 2013 at 9:16 am · Reply

    Just a thought. In the anti-war in Iraq campaign we were criticised for being pro-“clerical fascist” now in Syria we’re being criticised for being anti-“clerical fascist”. Go figure!

  8. PB
    September 18, 2013 at 3:45 pm · Reply

    In the future, I suggest left statements on Syria be fact-checked by people knowledgeable about the revolution, especially by pro-revolution Syrian activists in the West.

    Far from Jabhat al-Nusrah, ISIS, and Al Qaeda being armed by the Saudi and Qatari governments as some sort of plot to sectarian-ize the revolution, there’s a lot of evidence that they are winning the resource war with the secular-democratic Free Syrian Army because these forces are funded, manipulated, and otherwise supported by the Assad regime itself: https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentaryanalysis/assads-no-enemy-of-al-qaeda

  9. Brian S.
    September 20, 2013 at 9:50 am · Reply

    I’ve had a perfectly reasonable post stuck in moderation for 3 days now: what is going on?

    • Joana Ramiro
      September 20, 2013 at 10:00 am · Reply

      Apologies, editorial team is now entirely on full-time jobs rather than our previous university courses, so things can get a bit delayed. all done now.

      • Brian S.
        September 20, 2013 at 12:38 pm · Reply

        Thanks – I understand perfectly: sorry to get techy, but it did seem like a very long wait.

      • PB
        September 20, 2013 at 4:09 pm · Reply

        This anxiety/impatience is what happens when sites like Andy Newman’s Socialist Unity engage in wholesale political censorship. I have no problem with comments taking days to show up; ish happens. 🙂

  10. patrickm
    October 1, 2013 at 12:47 am · Reply

    I doubt that a lower point will ever be reached by the pseudoleft. Assad has just been rewarded for ethnically cleansing hundreds of thousands of people and all he has to do is give up his CW that he just used to see what would happen. The ditherer in Chief is a complete disaster.

    This statement is shamefully useless, and self evidently so.

    ‘Support the Syrian people’ is exactly the type of pseudoleftist document that has discredited what has presented to the world as the anti-war left since well before the liberation of Kuwait from Iraqi Baathist aggression. Similar useless ‘support’ was offered to the people of Kuwait when what was required was armed forces capable of delivering that country from such blatant aggression. Consider the sort of clap trap that is still spread by the pseudoleft even to this day about Kuwait. All of it is nothing more than excusing a mass murdering chemical weapons using gangster’s conquest!
    Shake this tree a little and see what falls out.

    Just for 1 second consider your current response to a comparable absurdity. Lets just say that a mass murdering Chemical weapons using Baathist in 2013 was to launch his army into Jordan and annex it. No one other than the completely clueless pseudoleft would oppose countries going to war in an act of obvious collective security. Now reflect on the history of Kuwait and the shameful role of Neverland ‘lefts’ at that time and ever since.

    In my view if you want to work out what is to be done about the Syrian tyranny then the first thing to do is review what you think you know about imperialism. Try this small article I wrote a few years back and note in particular Arthur’s astute comments.
    http://archive.lastsuperpower.net/members/+disc+members+10005119409.htm

  11. PB
    November 5, 2013 at 9:36 pm · Reply

    “Unfortunately, the evidence of my eyes at this event suggest that this [‘Support the Syrian People’ statement] was little more than hot air.”
    http://magpie68.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/blog-post.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *