Photobucket

The Novelization of Romney & Campaign 2012

by: fairleft

Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:42:50 PM EST


There will be a real 2012, the one we experience, in which neither of the major parties gives a damn about us and our needs, and there will be the novelized version.

One proposed theme of novelized Campaign 2012 is heartless Richie Rich Romney versus 'I care' former community organizer Obama. It likely has legs, in part because it matches up with some of the Romney reality and imagery, and harmonizes as well with some of the real Obama imagery and more importantly the corporate media's Campaign 2008 Obama which, despite the almost completely contradictory last three years, it must still pretend is real. I mean, how could the corporate media admit that it presented and presents as 'news' an Obama that was and is a lie, that in fact he is completely subservient like Romney to wealth and the giant banks, that the two candidates in all important respects are identical? It can't.

And so we will get stuff like this:
fairleft :: The Novelization of Romney & Campaign 2012
Romney 'Not Concerned About the Very Poor'

This is our silliness, our Campaign 2012. Will you vote for a man who is not concerned about the very poor, or will you vote for Campaign 2008 Obama, who of course is very concerned about the very poor? Now that's not a very tough choice, is it?
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

The Novelization of Romney & Campaign 2012 | 101 comments
Argentina since default (Greece, look at this!) (0.00 / 0)
The chart is from a comparison of Brazil and Argentina, but just look what has happened to Argentina since it defaulted on most of its debt at the end of 2001:

Photobucket

Taken from the following article:

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/...

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

Added LIZZY PHELAN to blog roll (0.00 / 0)
Er...don't ever try to write code on an iPad, folks.
Nice, setting the record straight on Libya: (4.00 / 1)
"I have been accused by some of being a mouthpiece for the Libyan government but now the truth is coming out, [and] we know that the essence of the former Libyan government's analysis has been proved correct, whilst almost everything reported by the mainstream Western media has been proved wrong: - The rebellion WAS indeed armed from the very first day of the uprising (this was confirmed in Amnesty's in-depth report from late last year) - not a peaceful movement - The rebels WERE working hand in glove with Western intelligence agencies to facilitate a NATO blitzkrieg - The NTC ARE disunited and incapable of governing the country. - The rebels DO have a racist, even genocidal, policy towards sub-Saharan African migrants and the third of the Libyan population that is dark skinned - Gaddafi's government WERE NOT conducting aerial attacks against protesters or mass rape (or indeed ANY rape, according to Amnesty) - There HAD NOT been 10,000 people killed in Benghazi by Gaddafi's government during the uprising (as the NTC claimed), but 110 (Amnesty figures again) killed on both sides prior to NATO's attack."

http://lizzie-phelan.blogspot....

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
she's among those who were right when it mattered (4.00 / 1)
Though  now, being right merely means using critical thinking skills.

As usual the Americans and bougie Europeans prefer prostitutes covered in paint who lie for a living.

[ Parent ]
Her lenngthy tirade against the corporate media (0.00 / 0)
Doesn't deflect the fact that she is a pure tool of authoritarian state media.

Or that you too prefer prostitutes covered in paint.

Just paint of a different hue.

The corporate media also reported on the Libyan rebels abuses. They simply didn't use it as an excuse to defend a senile regime. The Libyan. Govt like the Syrians and Iranians shut down world media access. Why do you think? Because the corporate media lies and authoritarian state media is therefore the purveyour of truth?

Her stance: the rebels are attacking the regime! The poor regime must be defended! is fascist nonsense.  

This statement "she was right when it mattered" is laughable nonsense. Your profession of faith in fascist tools makes you into one.

The truth is the Arab Springs are not left vs right, in the western sense. They are Arab future versus imperialist past. You cling to the imperialist past, as long as its Russian imperialism, of course.

Russian made bombs fured by govt forces are destroying houses and killing more people today in Syria today. Silence about those repressive govt acts from the authoritarian state tool box.

[ Parent ]
For a real leftist take on the Middle East,one with y'know, nuanced thinking. (0.00 / 0)
http://leninology.blogspot.com...

The Syrian regime is fighting for its survival.  I have no sympathy for it, and will welcome its consumption in a revolutionary overthrow. The struggle in Syria is fundamentally - not exclusively, and not in a crude, unmediated fashion - a class struggle.  It is an open war of movement between, for the most part, the most advanced sections of the popular classes and a narrow state capitalist oligopoly which has always dealt with the surplus of political opposition by jailing it or killing it.  In that struggle, inasmuch as it matters what I think, I situate myself on the side of the popular opposition.  Not in an undifferentiated manner, and not without confronting the political problems (of eg sectarianism, pro-imperialism etc) that will tend to recur amid sections of the opposition to any of these regimes.  But without conditions or prevarication.

I know this guy uses big words and he's not simplistically a take sides cheerleader like Laura and Fail sis boom bah!, but maybe if you two read it a few times, and actually thought through, OK, I know I'm asking too much of simpletons.

[ Parent ]
Very useful critique of fake leftism, particularly relevant to Phelan's absurd defense of Qadaffy and Assad: (0.00 / 0)
Within the class and state structures of such societies, moreover, the domination of imperialism is reproduced in various ways, such that the modes of domination within those states cannot be extricated from the question of imperialism.  As a consequence, popular movements arising against them will tend to have two targets: a domestic and international opponent.  Their struggles will also have a tendency to be internationalized, and to have global effects.  By the same token, where you have a national bourgeoisie that has developed in resistance to imperialism, that resistance will also be inscribed in its forms of class rule and in the state through which its political domination is secured.  Its legitimacy will depend in part on the national bourgeoisie's promise to organise the society in its self-defence.  It follows that where there is a break-up of the regime's social control, the issue of imperialism will be to the fore in its ideological and political strategies for retaining its dominant position.  This isn't merely manipulation, nor can it be wished away.  It poses a particular challenge to popular movements aiming to depose the regime, which is why the role of the anti-imperialist pole in the Syrian uprising is so critical.

But the reality is that these dying regimes can't effectively resist imperialism.  The republics organised under the rubric of Arab nationalism have rarely, even in the rudest health, fared much better against Israeli aggression than the old monarchies, and have often been available for opportunistic or long-term alliances with imperialism.  This is even true of partially resistant regimes.  Hafez al-Assad's support for Falangists against the Palestinians provided the occasion for Syria's initial invasion of Lebanon.  Assad senior was also a participant in the Gulf War alliance against Iraq.  His son, Bashar al-Assad, has always notched up plaudits from Washington as a neoliberal reformer - the liberalisation of the economy along lines prescribed by the IMF has been one of the causes of the polarisation of Syrian society, and the narrowing of the regime's social base - and leased some of his jails to Washington during the 'war on terror' to facilitate the torture of suspects.  The Islamic Republic has a similarly chequered record with regard to imperialism.  So, if the regime's raison d'etre is partially that it is an anti-imperialist bulwark, the obvious answer is that it isn't even very good at this.

So how do we orient to this situation, politically?  It seems obvious enough that the greatest bulwark against imperialist intervention in societies like Syria is the fullest and most active mobilisation of the masses themselves.  Their defeat at the hands of their regime would represent a green light to those pressing for intervention.  This is not the main reason why I think marxists should support these rebellions, but it is a very strong reason for doing so.  Second, the organised opposition are for the most part, the most politically advanced sections of the popular classes in both Syria and Iran.  They are the ones who, however they represent it, are responding to the class antagonism in a way that we would want the most radical workers in Europe, the United States and beyond to do.  For this reason, arguments along the lines that both regimes continue to have a popular base and shouldn't be written off are fundamentally wrong.  They do have a popular base, but it is not predominantly organised around any claims or values that the left, especially the revolutionary left, has a stake in.  So, one must hope for that base to erode, and rapidly.  Third, the same basic political grounds on which one opposes an undemocratic capitalist regime and supports its downfall are those on which one must oppose the regime of US imperialism, and work toward its downfall.  Anti-imperialism is an indispensable and not merely occasional aspect of emancipatory politics.  


[ Parent ]
Essentially, what Seymour says here is that Phelan's, Fairleft's and Laura's defense of the "national bourgeois" in Iran, Libya and Syria (0.00 / 0)
behind the state repression of the people, which uses phony "anti-imperialism" as its final defense when it seeks to crush popular mass uprising against the nationalist bourgeois state  

....is not leftism.

Sorry, Fake Lefties, it just isn't.

And you aren't.

[ Parent ]
The comment thread too offers useful education for Fairleft and Laura, (0.00 / 0)
A (as usual) prescient bit by the original Lenin, who always perfectly described the callow nature of fake leftism in his critiques from a century ago:

To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc.-to imagine all this is to repudiate social revolution. So one army lines up in one place and says, "We are for socialism", and another, somewhere else and says, "We are for imperialism", and that will he a social revolution!

Here is a comment noting that the BRICs countries (to whom Fake Leftist Pepe Escobar regularly masturbates) are also imperialistic wannabe capitalists lacking only in as much military hardware (IE, the BRICs are just as much enemies of real leftists as the US and NATO) powers:

The reality is that the world is comprised of the first ranking imperialist "triad" of NATO and its hapless caboose Japan, the BRIC sub-imperialist second rankers, and then the third rank of states such as Egypt, Syria or Libya who orbit at some distance near or far around one or more of the component states of the first two.  Other than the residual category of "failed states", that's it.  The regimes of the third rank are tolerated so long as they keep the masses of their own countries in line.

This comment from a former Damascus resident is about Syria, but it applies just as well to the Libya under Qadaffy and Iran under the Ayatollahs:

As for the regime there is very little to be enthusiastic about from a marxist perspective. It is a secular regime, admittedly, but very authoritarian and repressive, it has increasingly implemented neoliberal reforms since Bashar came to power, and the privatisations have overwhelmingly benefitted a small group of ultrarich like Bashar's cousin Makhlouf who owns the two national mobile operators, Syriatel and MTM. Some remnants of a socialist system remain, like for example subsidized fuel or substantially cheaper vegetables in government shops, but the mode of production is dominated by capitalist production relations.

[ Parent ]
Is NATO's regime-change war in Syria worth it? (5.00 / 1)

Why do you support the killing?  

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep
[ Parent ]
"Get stupider Fairleft. As stupid as you wannabe." (0.00 / 0)
Once again, donkeytale predicts accurately.

[ Parent ]
Is NATO's regime-change war in Syria worth it? (0.00 / 0)

Why do you support the killing? Do you think the economic embargo and regime-change war will have been worth it to the average person in Syria? Were Clinton's long-term economic embargo and Bush's Iraq invasion worth it to the average person in Iraq?

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep
[ Parent ]
Never seen Seymour that stupid before, (0.00 / 0)

probly cuz I don't follow the site closely. He's always seemed like a guy trying to triangulate and obscure enough so he keeps getting published in the Guardian. This was an effective critique by insomniacal:

The WSWS article differs substantially [from Seymour's take] in that it comments on the insidious triangulation taking place between the GCC, UN and SNC. It makes the case that this triangulation is responsible for furthering western imperial aims in the region, as well as stirring up religious tensions (as was the case in Libya). Moreover, unlike yourself, the WSWS was firmly against western 'intervention' in Libya, seeing it as little more than an attempt to steal precious natural resources and suppress a rapidly expanding people's movement.

Moreover, you cannot say that you deal sufficiently with the composition of the opposition movement - particularly as we know very little about it. Is it being armed by Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar? And if so, what are the strategic aims being pursued by these countries? Can one support a working class struggle by effectively tipping one's hat to the imperial projections of Arab oligarchs and western 'liberal interventionists? It seems the answer, to any right thinking person, is a categorical 'no'.




For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep
[ Parent ]
i have seen you this stupid before, as well as dishonest. You should also attach Seymour's rebuttal, if you are being a "Fair" "Leftist" (0.00 / 0)
which of course (as Mr. Orwell's Unrelenting Fascist Nightmare) you are neither.

RIOTOUS!

Right:

1) The article you're commenting on specifically deals with the "insidious triangulation taking place between the GCC, UN and SNC".
2) I was also "firmly against Western 'intervention' in Libya", so your conceit that I took a different stance is quite wrong.
3) I didn't say that I had dealt "sufficiently with the composition of the opposition movement". This would require a much more detailed piece. I said that WSWS hadn't dealt with it in any but the most perfunctory, vague, obtuse fashion, reducing it by implication to an arm of imperialism. You repeat this gesture through the rhetorical technique of 'asking questions' which are not really questions: ie is it being armed by Israel, etc? You don't seem to notice that the movement consists of multifarous tendencies, parties, alliances etc., that most of them are not even armed. But you would have done had you actually read the article on which you're commenting, and which you claim is decently rebutted by Hignacy and the WSWS article.
4) The rhetorical question, as to whether one supports proletarian struggle "by effectively tipping one's hat to the imperial projections of" yadda yadda is, of course, a red herring. You have not thus far demonstrated that I have thus tipped my hat. All you've done is waffle, and express vague 'concern'.
5) I don't have a monopoly on truth, but I do have a bullshit-detector. I have no patience whatever for your style of non-argument and non-engagement. If you have a substantive objection to anything specific in my article - ie, not a position that you've imagined that I hold, not a position that you attribute to me willy-nilly - then I will consider discussing it. But so far all you have done is insinuate an argument for which you are unwilling to provide supporting evidence, and which you are unwilling to defend explicitly.
6) FINALLY: concern trolling is that form of trolling wherein one claims to be in sympathy with a position, or an article, or an author, but merely have valid 'concerns' that need to be addressed - whereas in fact, the troll is beginning from a position of hostility and opposition, and is engaged in an attempt to undermine and derail sensible discussion. I can't say for sure what your motives are, but your conduct, your way of not making an argument, your way of not reading, and your manner of passive-aggressive insults ("I'm not being passive-aggressive, I'm just worried that you're an imperialist lackey!"), all suggest that you are a piss-taking concern troll. And I claim my £5.  


[ Parent ]
Seymour embarrassed himself as soon as he said (0.00 / 0)

he supported the revolution, counter-revolution, and/or anti-Assad regime civil war without conditions or reservations. That is not in any rational sense a leftist position. You must have conditions, in particular when you have no clear idea what or who you are supporting unconditionally and without reservations.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep
[ Parent ]
"That will tend to recur"? (0.00 / 0)
"will tend to"?

He gets caught in the romance of the possibilites, is almost autistic when it comes to some real world scenarios - his writing often focuses on what should happen to make the best of a situations, not what he knows will happen, given the actors.

But he's gold in many areas.

The reality is that there is no intelligent answer at this point, it's going to come down to some major failure or another to stop the global imperialist's trajectory. And you know that too you fucking helico-opter.

[ Parent ]
Seymour fails to deal with what will definitely recur, (0.00 / 0)

a reprise of Libya, except in a more severe ethnic/religious tinderbox. Regime change would involve the U.S./Saudi favorites taking charge in Damascus and a long-term civil war. Creation of a divided, crippled Syria, exceptionally weak regionally, would be perfect for U.S. imperialism and Israel.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep
[ Parent ]
No, he deals with it, and accepts that there is a larger struggle with imperialism along with this smaller struggle (0.00 / 0)
for throwing off the also imperialist-supported Assad regime.

The problem here isn't with what Seymour fails to deal with, the problem is that neither you nor Laura can grasp the point Seymour articulates with anything close to enough intellectual honesty (or maybe just enough intellectual ability) to understand his point.

The Left must fight both battles, against state oppression as well as against imperialism.

Allowing state repression to stand because you believe that state is a bulwark against imperialism (which, LMAO, in the case of Syria (and Iran and Qadaffy's Libya), the Bashar regime is actually not anti-imperialist at all, as Seymour clearly demonstrates) is in fact support for authoritarian, pro-imperialist state capitalism.  

Not leftist. What I said. Sorry, dudes. Read the following very, very slowly and very carefully. I annotated in brackets some of it to make it more understandable to you in context. Ask me for clarification on the points you still cannot comprehend. The important point that you consistently fail to grasp is that just because a country is "dominated" by imperialism doesnt mean that its ruling classes are not themselves imperialist or in service to imperialism, as was the case with Qadaffy's Libya, Saddam's Iraq, as well as the Ayatollah's Iran and Bashar's Syria.

I'm here to help you and Laura become truly leftist, even as I grok that you both are historically and logically deficient from an intellectual standpoint to get there without help. A lot of help.

With all that said, I intend to elaborate further in an abstract manner before coming up for air.  From a marxist perspective, the most fundamental antagonism in the capitalist world system is class antagonism.  These, of course, cut through the dominated [such as Iran, Syria and Libya] regimes in the imperialist hierarchy just as much as they do in the dominant regimes.  As such, in a popular struggle against these regimes [such as Iran, Syria and Libya], marxists start from the position of supporting those struggles.  To be more specific, in various direct and indirect ways, these antagonisms are amplified by imperialism, inasmuch as the ruling classes of the imperialist chain benefit from the exploitation of workers and popular classes in the dominated [ie, Syria, Iran and Qadaffiest Lybia] societies. This is a fundamental cleavage which, arising from the outward extension of capitalist productive relations from the core, separates the dominant from the dominated formations. As a consequence, marxists also start from an axiomatic position of opposing imperialism.  It is not simply that imperialism retards the social development of these societies [of the dominated regimes], but that it constitutes an additional axis of exploitation and oppression.

Within the class and state structures of such societies[of the dominated regimes], moreover, the domination of imperialism is reproduced in various ways, such that the modes of domination within those [deominated] states cannot be extricated from the question of imperialism.  As a consequence, popular movements arising against them will tend to have two targets: a domestic and international opponent. Their struggles will also have a tendency to be internationalized, and to have global effects.  By the same token, where you have a national bourgeoisie that has developed in resistance to imperialism, that resistance will also be inscribed in its forms of class rule and in the state through which its political domination is secured.  Its legitimacy will depend in part on the national bourgeoisie's promise to organise the society in its self-defence.  It follows that where there is a break-up of the [dominated] regime's social control, the issue of imperialism will be to the fore in its ideological and political strategies for retaining its dominant position.  This isn't merely manipulation, nor can it be wished away.  It poses a particular challenge to popular movements aiming to depose the regime, which is why the role of the anti-imperialist pole in the Syrian uprising is so critical.  


[ Parent ]
It comes down to Seymour's idealism and what he knows to be true about revolution based on history (0.00 / 0)
Never in modern history has such a hegemony been dealt with, let alone with intranational and/or 19th c. tactics.

He was saying the same things about Libya, at least in the beginning, and then he fell strangely silent.  We all know what is happening in Libya today, and it had nothing to do with leftist solidarity realized or not realized - it's simply not a part of the equation at this point. It's shitty to reference Rome, but leftist solidarity is not what brought it down.

[ Parent ]
The problem with your argument is that you assume that what has occurred in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya is an endgame (0.00 / 0)
but in reality like most revolutions, the initial overthrow of the repressive regime is just the beginning.

FWIW, Seymour is saying stuff about Libya still, even in this very article, which you either didnt read or read not very well.

Further, even in Libya, where no left or labour movement existed prior to the overthrow of Qadhafi, and where the revolt was quickly disfigured by a racist component, the opening of the political space subsequent to that overthrow has created a window in which germinal popular forces have been able to assert themselves.  A political strike in the oil industry took out a pro-Qadhafi chairman, while unrest in Benghazi has resulted in a serious rift with the governing 'transitional council'.

He also links to a leftist takeover of a labour union in Tunisia, which would not have happened prior to Arab Spring.

We can debate whether this is idealism or whether Marxism is relevant in today's world.

Those are different arguments.  

[ Parent ]
Did I mention Tunisia asshole? (0.00 / 0)
And he's still implying that the racist(or whatever) element wasn't present in Libya in the initial stages, which of curse it was, by design, becuse those guys were keenest to collaborate with the west (of course). The thing with Seymour is that he's still reluctant to admit when the CIA etc is behind things...like most journalists...though he is a bit better(as with everything) when commenting on British covert ops.

And actually, I'm not "arguing" anything. Why on earth would I? I might as well debate my cat.

[ Parent ]
PS (4.00 / 1)
Russia and China just blocked the latest BS reworking of the Syria resolution...

FTW!

[ Parent ]
Well, of course they did. Russia sells guns to Syria like we do to Saudi, but (0.00 / 0)
two wongs dont make a white.

You could consider being anti the imperialist states and the sub-imperialist states while being pro the peoples' uprising.

That would actually be leftist.

[ Parent ]
idgaf if Russia arms syria or not (0.00 / 0)
That's NOT why they blocked it and you know it. And I am pro-peoples uprising. I just know that a movement precluded by US airstrikes and all that goes with THAT doesn't make sense, given our behavior in the region...fuck...the planet.

(Not mention the bribery and looting by the usual suspects that always follows the initial unrest)

Heh. You're pro peoples uprising....even if it's an illusion, followed by carnage and decades of misery. Because TIME sez so. RIOTOUS. Well not really.

Everybody knows, buddy, that the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings have nothing to do with the subsequent "Arab Spring". Talk about a candidate for Fake-____ ness. But hey its a new tactic they cant expect it to go perfectly. As long as the domestic audience is placated they figure theyre WINNING.

[ Parent ]
you got some links to support all these statements of fact? (0.00 / 0)
Love to see them, especially the one where "everybody knows."

Everybody knows I have to believe whatever you say at face value when you say everybody knows.

This bit:

You're pro peoples uprising....even if it's an illusion, followed by carnage and decades of misery. Because TIME sez so. RIOTOUS. Well not really.

True enough, except for the illusion part, I guess thats another one of those facts that I must accept because everybody knows.

So, then, by your standards, there should never be a peoples uprising, since they are all an illusion to some degree, and everybody knows it.

They should just live with the coming decades of carnage and misery under their dick tater (and his kids and grandkids).

Thats fine if thats your belief. But its a conservative viewpoint, not a leftist one.  

[ Parent ]
Or maybe you will listen to my conservative grandson if not me, answering the same pacifist pose from your pet monkey wrench: (0.00 / 0)
Richard Seymour:

Interesting - such ostensibly 'humanitarian' arguments can be deployed in principle against any process of radical social change, since entrenched power will always resist that change with violence. And for what?, you ask. This sort of question, posed this way, displays a complete lack of imagination. For what purpose has any oppressed people ever risen up? What could possibly possess them? What ungovernable fanaticism could compel them to brave massacres from Homs to Damascus? Idiot.  

[ Parent ]
Donkeytale, please read (0.00 / 0)
I know you don't like emailing with other bloggers, but please check your inbox. This has nothing to do with anything here or DFQ2. It's about something fun I think you'd be into.
[ Parent ]
I dont see the implication and I dont think anyone with any intelligence (pun intended) (5.00 / 1)
would deny the presence of intelligence services crawling all over both sides of these struggles in the ME.

But, please. That argument that these uprisings in the 100,000s with thousands killed, tortured , imprisoned are solely attributable to covert ops and not state repression is not only fantastical, but it is the very essenceof the same tired regime arguments by, count 'em, Iran, Qadaffiest Libya, Syria, Russia, China, and any and all authoritarian repressive state facing popular rebellion, since the beginning of time.

Thats whats called scapegoating the shadowy "other", and all states do it, including the US.

"Its their (the CIA/The Jews/ The Illuminati/Al Qaeda)fault, not mine.

[ Parent ]
ugh, pointless. ahistorical. and so on. (0.00 / 0)
but do go on listing countries you can remember exist.

(and you might want to also remember who imprisons the most of its citizens on the planet)

[ Parent ]
Yes, the US is a repressive state. Its so bad here for Sista Louie that you are in open rebellion too against the repressive state. (0.00 / 0)
No, instead of throwing off the yoke you back an even more repressive state simply because its an enemy of the US.

That is not only pointlessand ahistorical but illogical.

Not too mention, hypocritical.

[ Parent ]
of curse (0.00 / 0)
(and you might want to also remember who imprisons the most of its citizens on the planet)

And you can blame Sirhan Sirhan.

He has cursed his "people" for a thousand years!

==

[ Parent ]
idealism = naivete = service to imperialists (1.00 / 1)

This comment was on target:

"The service of the left to imperialism, potential and in some cases perfectly current and real, wouldn't be "actively arming" contras. It would be in providing propaganda services for them. The pro-imperialist left is NGO, not GI Joe. But in a world of propaganda, information, disinformation and misinformation, that can be just as malignantly useful. The imperialists have Belhaj, the IDF and their like to do the GI Joe stuff. But the Matgamnas, Achcars and Juan Coles serve another purpose."

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
Which makes me believe they are serious abt regime change in Iran (0.00 / 0)
because there is really no other reason to destabilise Syria, the Assad regime has been more than acceptable(despite the innane israeli propaganda to the contrary) for both Israeli and US regional interests. Well until now that is.

It's not looking good that's for sure.

[ Parent ]
The point is that she was right about the facts (0.00 / 0)

that I blockquoted, and the lies she exposes were the entire official corporate media basis for the war. You're unresponsive to that fact, that the Libya war, like the Iraq war, was based on a set of baldfaced lies promoted massively by the imperialist media. The very obvious step you now need to make is to ask yourself what the real basis of the war was, if the official media explanation has now been exposed as complete bullshit. See my Libya diaries for helpful documents and clues.

A different intellectual step you (and vox humana, for that matter) could take is to ask yourself, with the facts now exposed, "was it worth it?" Regardless of why they did it, the U.S., Britain, France and Italy decided that tens of thousands of civilians and fighters would die in order to replace Gaddafi with a more compliant regime. You supported that and now support a similar economic-chaos-and-civilian/soldier-killing-to-effect-regime-change effort in Syria.

Another intellectual question you (and vox humana, for that matter) could ask yourself is, "why was I a sucker for the official media version of the war, when that media has so often been exposed as lying imperialist weasels?"

Anyway, I now strongly suspect that you must have also (secretly, or as an alternative blog persona?) supported Bush's invasion of Iraq, since that was also an effort to replace the Saddam Hussein regime with one more compliant to Western imperialism. I don't understand how you would oppose one blatant bloody imperial move in Iraq but support two of them in Libya and Syria.  

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
He supports what the media tells him to (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
You support what the [authoritarian state] media tell you to (0.00 / 0)
See, anyone can play your and Failreft's stupid Fake left game.

Too easy.

[ Parent ]
Your premise, that the lies she exposes were the entire official corporate media basis for the war (5.00 / 1)
is simply false. There is no causal relationship. Besides, the official corporate media also reported on the lies, too.

As for the rest of your comment: nonsense. Stupidly conceived and delivered nonsense.

You can suspect whatever you want.

The comparison between the US Iraqi invasion and Libya is also a complete non-sequitor. There is no relationship other than Western bombs were dropped in both countries.

I didn't support the unprovoked Iraqi invasion, nor will I support the unprovoled bombing of Iran, if it comes to pass (which I doubt it will, btw).

I support the popular uprisings of the people against the senile regimes of the Middle East, whether those regimes are backed by the US or whether they are backed by Russia.

I support the popular uprisings against the Russian and US Governments, too. I note that you support neither.

I also welcome your stupid (not to mention, unproveable)suspicion that I backed Bush, and laughably that I did so with a sock. Get stupider, dude. Stupid as u wannabe.

[:o)

It just proves that when you can't argue based on facts or logic, you make shit up.

[ Parent ]
Wasn't Failreft roommates with Rona Bryntart for journalism undergrad? (5.00 / 1)
The multiple personality schtick has become the new loser fad, the new nuclear option for non-historic trolls to utilise. It is the one most likely used by weak minds such as Fakey and Bryntart, when they are getting fair and square blog spanked.

Godwin's Law ended up meaning squat, because cheaters started mentioning Hitler or whatnot to get the blog refs to suspend action or whitewash. It became too transparent, say akin to bad players in hoops hoping for a double ejection through starting a skirmish with the opp's best player.

As for the fakeleft allegation of your having different personas, I'd say the number is one. There was the fake college kid from Booman Tribune. I accept you were having fun with that back in the day, and that now you are a wiser and more pure historic troll.

Fairleft is an asswipe, period. He's a cheater. He's one of the bad guys.

Same with Rona. I have that 200 or so page motion Aaron wrote from that December or January period. Rona's been laying his head in the gutter posting lies.

Certain people on the net have agendas, and anyone paying attention will see it clear as day.

And the porn dude is now censoring my posts! Riotous. That fricken dude needs to clean up his schtick. He thinks one can simply show up and start socratising. Heck no.

And I'll concede a point. It does feel we are approaching the rubber match or game seven for a championship. Or maybe that's the Super Bowl tomorrow, and my brain wires are doing conflatatisation.

So I am done writing at the porn dude's Weinergate site. It seemed like he was getting somewhere. But he's shot his load. He's got nothing left. He got swatted. He got hoaxed on the net. I got arrested. I got hoaxed on the net.

The big difference is I was able to explain my side of the story, while porn dude scurries forward posting blah, blah, blah with no coherent narrative. I tightened up my schtick into an easily understood and backed up with proof narrative. Porn dude needs to chill out. Less is more. That's what I figured out the last couple years. That's the secret to good blogging.  

[ Parent ]
Rated holy for the effortless mixing of totally separate, fried internet milieus. (5.00 / 1)
Honestly, I am having a difficult time drawing many parallels between Brynaert and Fairleft.

I don't consider either one evil. Fairleft is simply too polarised and spun to be taken seriously. Out of sheer frustration with his repeated fake leftist schtick failures he acts dumber than he tries to extract some revenge by going the completely dishonest smear route. He just makes shit up. I dont see Brynaert doing that lazy fairleft schtick.

As for Porn dude, yeah,I cant realy follow that storyline. Its too obscure. Its very soap operish, the way the story line never seems to advance at all and each episode gets lost in minutae and side plots.

Plus, its boring. Makes you long for a detergent commercial...so you can grab a weed break...

[ Parent ]
Rated holy because you rated my post holy (0.00 / 0)
He's not happy with us calling him porn dude. He and I have had a falling out. I guess the next step with him will be to post our few private emails. Sheesh!

I'm not gonna get into it with you over Brynaert. I do think you're missing what he does which is so wrong. But that's not your fault. He is effective at playing troll games. I may or may not write something up on that.

I'm basically moving on. Or to be more specific, I too am bored with crying wolfe and twitter tweets. At some point it is time to come up with something new or find a new topic to blog on.

There will be new news and probably soon. But I'm not gonna blab anything I know just for the sake of proving I know stuff. For crying out loud, the bottom line is we hammered out pretty much the whole story. This Weinergate crap is just that, crap. Weiner or Wiener, however he spells his fucking name admitted he didn't get hacked. Case fucking closed. So the story then boils down to there being an internet predator named Neal Rauhauser and a fake internet journalist named Ron Brynaert desperate to make it seem he is some intrepid anti-dipshit. Maybe Ron and Neal aren't on the same team, but obviously they are both supporters of BradBlog and his buddy, the one who was exonerated for the Speedway bombings through the rarely utilised double secret can't talk about it thingie.

You know, the swatting stuff and even Rauhauser as internet predator are interesting stories, but the one you and I have been focussed on was much bigger than those. Maybe that's the wrong way to put it. But the point is our story has been solved or better put at least the narrative makes sense. The others appear to be no closer to ever reaching a catharsis.

[ Parent ]
Real slow: (3.50 / 2)

Remember why the humanitarian NATO invasion's pretext, that Gaddafi was a madman 'killing HIS OWN PEOPLE!'?

"Gaddafi's government WERE NOT conducting aerial attacks against protesters or mass rape (or indeed ANY rape, according to Amnesty)."

"There HAD NOT been 10,000 people killed in Benghazi by Gaddafi's government during the uprising (as the NTC claimed), but 110 (Amnesty figures again) killed on both sides prior to NATO's attack."

Remember the whole 'Gaddafi regime shooting peaceful unarmed protestors' bullshit?

"The rebellion WAS indeed armed from the very first day of the uprising (this was confirmed in Amnesty's in-depth report from late last year) - not a peaceful movement."

Remember the well-educated guess by anti-interventists (who you attacked, asking for red-handed concrete evidence) that much of the rebellion was working closely with if not at the direction of NATO and the West?

"The rebels WERE working hand in glove with Western intelligence agencies to facilitate a NATO blitzkrieg."

Remember the assertions by people you attacked that those who were gonna replace Gaddafi might be pretty damn fucked up, racist, and sucky?

"The NTC ARE disunited and incapable of governing the country."

"The rebels DO have a racist, even genocidal, policy towards sub-Saharan African migrants and the third of the Libyan population that is dark skinned."

Phelan has more or less summarized the entire official rationale for our invasion and pointed out that it was all lies, and has shown that the conjecture supporting the anti-intervention arguments has now been confirmed as true.


For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
Dude, you're so boring (0.00 / 0)
Maybe watch a video at youtube. Your schtick ain't working.
[ Parent ]
Not only is Phelan a rank propagandist, she appears to be a bald faced liar (0.00 / 0)
The rebellion WAS indeed armed from the very first day of the uprising (this was confirmed in Amnesty's in-depth report from late last year) - not a peaceful movement.

Phelan doesnt cite the specific Amnesty report. Just that it was a report released "late last year." By all means, find the report and quote the specifics that she claims form the basis for her assertion.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/regi...

And, anyway, there is a ton of Amnesty reportage that indeed indicts Qadaffy for murdering unarmed protestors, plus other violent,murderous repression against his opponenets for the prior 40 years, all of which Phelan omits, the typical trick of the rank propagandist.

On 1 January 2011 it would have been hard to imagine that anti-government protests would spread across Libya and evolve by late February into an armed conflict that would transform the oil rich North African state. Colonel Muammar al Gaddafi was firmly in control, as he had been for 42 years, with most of his opponents silenced, in prison or in exile. Draconian legislation outlawed dissent and the establishment of independent organizations. Hundreds of political prisoners were being detained arbitrarily. Special courts were sentencing opponents after grossly unfair trials. Impunity for torture, extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances was deeply entrenched. Calls for truth and justice by families of the some 1,200 detainees killed in the notorious Abu Salim Prison in 1996 were being ignored. Foreign nationals were living under risk of arrest, indefinite detention for "immigration offences" and torture and other ill-treatment. Discrimination against women existed in law and in practice. The death penalty and other cruel punishments such as flogging were prescribed for a wide range of "offences".

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news...

18 February 2011

Death toll mounts as Libyan security forces target protesters

Amnesty International has accused the Libyan authorities of recklessly shooting at anti-government protesters after the organization learned that at least 46 people had been shot dead by security forces in the last 72 hours.

Sources at al-Jala hospital in Benghazi today told Amnesty International that patients' most common injuries were bullet wounds to the head, chest and neck.

"This alarming rise in the death toll, and the reported nature of the victims' injuries, strongly suggests that security forces are permitted use lethal force against unarmed  protesters calling for political change," said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International's director for the Middle East and North Africa

"The Libyan authorities must immediately, rein in their security forces. Those responsible for unlawful killings and excessive force - both the direct perpetrators and those who gave the orders - must be identified and brought to justice."

Sources at al-Jala hospital have reported 28 fatalities from yesterday's protests in Benghazi with more than 110 people injured, and at least three further deaths in today's protests.

At least 15 people are reported to have been killed yesterday during "Day of Rage" protests in the city of Al Bayda, 100 km east of Benghazi.

Searching Amnesty website, I see reports of abuses, murder and torture committed by both sides in Lybia, as has been amply reported in the mainstream media, but nothing that exonerates Qadaffy for his murder, torture and repression of the Libyan people or the specific events of February, 2011 where Qadaffiest forces are accused of brutally gunning down unarmed protestors.

This report and two videos depicts Qadaffy's longstanding political repression, torture and murder of his political opponents.

http://blog.witness.org/2011/0...

And, of course, Syria, where Phelan laughably claims it is the people attacking the poor, defenseless government.

Amnesty again:

The Syrian armed forces and intelligence services have been responsible for a pattern of killings and torture amounting to crimes against humanity, in a vain attempt to terrify protesters and opponents into silence and submission. By the end of the year there were over 200 cases of reported deaths in custody, over 40 times the recent average annual figure for Syria.

Case closed.

I'll accept appeals based on specific evidence, sourced and verified.


[ Parent ]
Phelan is a liar and authoritarian state media propaganda tool--confirmed (0.00 / 0)
The Libyan protests did begin as unarmed demonstrations against governmental abuses in January 2011. Amnesty stated that subsequently the demonstrations evolved into armed rebellion by late February, 2011.

http://english.ahram.org.eg/Ne...

The Libyan government has run subsided housing projects for poor families in several cities for years. However local authorities in some projects postponed the delivery of hundreds of housing units to the owners who have already signed contracts and paid most of the installments.

A statement released by the National Front for Salvation of Libya, an opposition movement established in 1981, described the frustration of the protesters in Bani Walid: "Bani Walid has no basic services; thousands of people are without houses and the local authority is corrupted, it only delivers services with bribes. Nothing will make Bani Walid calm but freedom, justice and transparency."

Phelan lyingly claims that an Amnesty report confirmed "the rebellion WAS armed from the very first day."

What really happend is that peaceful demonstrations turned into violent rebellion in late February, after the government assaulted, fired upon and killed unarmed protestors in mid-February.

Busted, Lizzie.

Duped, Laura and Failreft

[ Parent ]
How dare you. (2.00 / 1)
Show me, please, where I supported any war.

Any. War.

Libya, in particular, which I happen to think was NOT an authentic internal uprising.

I have not yet commented regarding Syria, other than to mourn the loss of life of protesters.  They do appear to be at a disadvantage in the current situation, at the very least at ground level. Are those people unimportant?

Then, after you provide links to your allegations, continue with your arguments.  And I will give your continued arguments the consideration for factual basis that your comment here has given merit.

[ Parent ]
You are caught up by the same old propaganda trick. (0.00 / 0)

September 8, 2011:

... are you [fairleft] claiming that the "common Libyan" or "common American[o]" was doing well a year or six months ago, when the previous status quo was in place?

For the record, I'm not thrilled about either "side" in Libya.  I would absolutely resent opposition to one automatically putting me in the camp of the other.

http://pffugeecamp.com/showCom...

The point of war propaganda directed at the left is not to turn leftists into supporters of war against 'the natives', but to debilitate opposition to such wars by sewing confusion and making you feel 'ok' if you just silently sit this particular imperial war out. Your comment above shows you were effectively debilitated -- by getting caught up in the usual 'I can't decide which side is worse' game -- in regard to Libya, and probably the same is happening to you for the Syrian campaign. After all Assad is a very very b-a-a-a-a-a-d man, and rule by imperial puppets surely can't be all that bad, especially compared to what the media tells me is going on in Syria now.

Oppose imperialism and otherwise butt your nose out of what's not your business.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
Fascinating. (4.00 / 1)
Is your claim, then, that Qaddafi and Assad were/are good men?

Is your claim, then, that Libyans and Syrians are too stupid to determine their own fates?  That they are powerless in the face of imperial domination?

So, then, what good are these people, in your view?

I tend to believe in self-determination as an antidote to imperialism.  And I tend to believe that the proletariat who are there in these countries might know better than I do regarding their situation.  But maybe that's just me.  Others in powerful nations might presume to tell them what is good for them, since they clearly are easily duped and aren't smart enough to know what is good for them.  That might be seen as a form of imperialism, mightn't it?  Well, to me it might.

In the meantime, I hate it all. I don't believe what you are trying to sell here any more than I believe what the US State Department wants to sell.  I support the natural intelligence of the citizens of these countries.  Perhaps others do not and believe that more enlightened folk from the West need to explain to them what they should think and do.  I wish these people with such an intellectually imperialist attitude well, as long as they do not add to the violence.

Alas, their self-righteous certainty is as unlikely to end well as it ever does.

[ Parent ]
What is absurd is this false meme of "blame the MSM" (0.00 / 0)
For not getting the story accurately in Libya where there was a total media blackout on the war by Qadaffy and now in Syria where tjere is also total state censorship.

If honesty in reporting were the root problem and the causus belli, then it is the responsibility (not to mention in the cause of their self-preservation) of the regime to open up the front lines and let reporters including those like Phelan and Escobar who are predisposed to side with the authoritarian rightist regimes and those who are biased to a liberal view, Marxist, etc etc.

But Escobar nor Phelan are allowed any access either. She was stashed away in the same medjia hotel and forced to endure the same puppet show as all reporters sent to Tripoli. That she bought the act doesn't mean the act was any more real.

Escobar clearly hasn't left his bedroom since 1974, the last time he shared bong hits with Col Qadaffy. Everything he 'reports' comes from unnamed, secondary sources who may or may not be residing mostly in his imagination. He is an entertaining, intelligent and insightful opinionator, but he is no closer to knowing the honest truth of the political and military battles going on in the media blackout zones. Than any other blogger.

If the west is basing regime change on completely fabricated media stories based on false reports from the rebels, then it seems Assad and Qadaffy have only themselves to blame by creating an environment where nothing resembling eyewitness, verified journalism from reporters (of all ideological persuasion) can occur. Or, if the rebellions were armed from the beginning and/or consisted entirely of CIA mercenaries attacking the government, and Qadaffy and Assad possessed the only direct media access to those early 'attacks' then they could easily have swayed western opinion by providing footage, instead of rhetoric from their own obviously biased state owned media and the usual fake left suspects who sympathasise with these fake left regimes.

 

[ Parent ]
CNN is high on anti-Assad hysteria, (4.00 / 1)

forced to listen to it for 10 minutes earlier today. Far right warmongering. But that doesn't mean you have to be.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep
[ Parent ]
Thats what I'm sayin. Send in a regiment of international media to attack the hot spots (0.00 / 0)
with klieg lights n cameras.

The greatest crime these autocrats commit that invariably gets them deposed, and potentially beheaded.... is the crime of not letting the media in while the rockets are raining down, to see if they are really raining down. And from where? Who is firing from where?

Transparency, chief.

Always remember the old donkeytale dictum....er, ah, phdt, rfuy, brynaert,cawf, cawf...

Thus Skapeth Thonkeydustra.


[ Parent ]
You are such a moron, with the example in Libya so recent (4.00 / 1)

Qaddafi allowed the media fairly free reign, and they acted like what they are, propagandists for the imperialist powers. That you didn't notice is probly related to the fact that you still haven't noticed that all the main imperial war-inducing 'charges' against Qaddafi have been shown to be false, ignored or papered-sleaziness about the 'rebels' is now clear, and predictions by the real left that a post-Qaddafi Libya now are coming true, that it would likely be a racist neoliberal-imperialists-subordinate regime immersed in a long-term civil war, to the extreme detriment of the Libyan people compared to the peace and relative prosperity of most before the imperial war preparations began.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep
[ Parent ]
Gibberish: "Fairly free reign" is like convicting a criminal for being "very probably guilty." (0.00 / 0)
You are either for freedom of the press, freedom of speech or your not, without equivocation. Clearly, you are not. Thanks for yet another illustration of your fascist mentality at work.

The reason Qadaffy and Assad have only themselves to blame for the false media narrative that devoured one and soon will vanquish the other is because they have never allowed freeddom of the Press. They refused it for decades, refused it when the first demonstrations took place. Look at the difference between (lack of) reporting from Misurata, Benghazi, Homs, with Tahrir Square, as example, where news cameras captured everything.

The petty imperialist dick taters Qadaffy and Assad allowed the rebels' unconfirmed reports to control the media narrative because they were/are afraid to allow press freedom.

Imperialist and otherwise. Let Lizzie and Pepe in, too! I'm not afraid of piecing together the truth from conflicting ideological takes based on first hand verified and sourced information.

Why are you, Qadaffy and Assad afraid?

The very nature of state media is non-credible, all the moreso when it is put into the service of defending the state itself.

This is what is known as a conflict of interest.

Dupe.

 

[ Parent ]
I strongly oppose a corporate-owned 'free press' and think (0.00 / 0)

it is one of the two major roadblocks, along with the fact that corporations and the wealthy buy our politicians, to a functioning democracy.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep
[ Parent ]
I am not reading where he says he is, (0.00 / 0)
but I may be missing something.  Here is what I saw:

If the west is basing regime change on completely fabricated media stories based on false reports from the rebels, then it seems Assad and Qadaffy have only themselves to blame by creating an environment where nothing resembling eyewitness, verified journalism from reporters (of all ideological persuasion) can occur. Or, if the rebellions were armed from the beginning and/or consisted entirely of CIA mercenaries attacking the government, and Qadaffy and Assad possessed the only direct media access to those early 'attacks' then they could easily have swayed western opinion by providing footage,

which seems a reasonable position to take. The Palestinians and Israelis have had intense media scrutiny from all manner of reporters, mainstream and quite otherwise.  Though one might disagree with the conclusions of any of these reporters, the relative access of journalists to that conflict give their perspectives credibility.

[ Parent ]
"Assad and Qadaffy have only themselves to blame" is a ridiculous position to take. (0.00 / 0)

Assuming there are restrictions on foreign journalists, that doesn't give them permission to act as pro-imperialist warmongers and cheerleaders for one side in a civil war. You consider yourself a progressive and yet you consider donkey's position reasonable?

And that's not even considering why an imperial target might censor and restrict journalists from the main imperial countries. Maybe because the imperialists' news operations are acting as pro-imperialist propagandists and as cheerleaders for the regime-overthrow side of the trumped up civil war?

and about this:

if the rebellions were armed from the beginning and/or consisted entirely of CIA mercenaries attacking the government, and Qadaffy and Assad possessed the only direct media access to those early 'attacks' then they could easily have swayed western opinion by providing footage

Of course no one contends the rebellions were armed from the "beginning," or that they consisted "entirely of CIA mercenaries." But, dealing with the second silliness, how is a targetted government to prove, with its own videos and news reports, that the armed rebellion is supported by the CIA or other imperial agencies?

And in any case, target governments and local media always tell their own side and these reports are dismissed as propaganda and so on by the media of the imperial centers. How about spend a day reading exclusively the Syrian government's take on its internal conflict, not because it is 'truth', but simply as a cure simply for CNN-induced pro-imperial war fever? Why exclusively imbibe one side's propaganda? Go here if you wanna try that: http://www.sana.sy/index_eng.html

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
The government has its own state media to "prove" its case. Now, let all the world media in to certify the state media' honesty.Why are you afraid of that happening? (0.00 / 0)
Lizzie Phelan in something you blockquoted stated "the Libyan rebellion WAS armed from very first."

So, yeah, even here you are incorrect when you say "nobody is saying...." They are saying it and you are approvingly blockquoting it then refuting it a post later.

Lie much?

Some easy obtained evidence refutes her contention, as well as her lie that the information emanated from an Amnesty report, which clearly stated the opposite.

Evidence that I supplied. And you supply to back up your contention.......zilch.

The "imperial targets" Assad and Qadaffy were themselves imperialists. By supporting them, you are supporting imperialism. Seymour clearly demonstrated that the elite bourgeois ruling classes of Lybia and Syria, as well as all the "dominated" state capitalist states (including Iran) are imperialistic. They earn their elitism through alegiance to the global capitalist system, which is the very essence of imperialism.

Lizzie Phelan runs an article on her blog by some guy named Basel Mohaisen. A quick googling reveals that he runs a family business called MAIT Traders, in Damascus.

He is part of the Syrian imperialist capitalist bourgeois whom you seek to protect. Put the shoe on the other foot, as Greenwald likes to do:

do you pimp articles by the US Chamber of Commerce defending the Republican Party line?

This is exactly what you are doing here, Mr. American Conservative Magazine.

RIOTOYS!

[ Parent ]
Linky thingie: (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Why are you in service to the regime-overthrow propaganda outfits? (5.00 / 1)

Surely you recognize that CNN, for example, is purely into the pretend news business in order to serve corporate wealth, which includes Western imperialism?

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep
[ Parent ]
A salad of pre-formed lies, as usual (0.00 / 0)
A "spring" in any sense of the word is not fueled by inorganic sources. No matter how many times you deny it the world knows that's whats happening. Co-opting, as always, for profit. NATO is not a revolutionary expression. Foreign or foreign trained mercenaries are not "rebels". US/allies backing factions whose support is in the single digits is fucking pathetic and laughable to the rest of the world......Not to mention the SILENCE regarding the much more eviler regimes in KSA, Bahrain, Yemen etc. Well of course we dont mention them because we ARE them, de facto.

I dont know why I'm even typing these words at this point, it's all a game, none of it is real to ikealogues like you. As you continue to play, WWIII has them publicly salivating for their various moonbases...thats how crazy they are, they think they can make the profit and then KEEP it in zombieworld. Every headline in the past few days is WAR!1!!

So yeah good luck with that. Russia/China do exist, and Europe is more or less quietly awaiting our demise.

[ Parent ]
You really shouldn't bother, since besides being fantastical nonsense, its beside the point from a leftist point of view. (0.00 / 0)
This especially, is pure fantasy. And beside the point.

Foreign or foreign trained mercenaries are not "rebels". US/allies backing factions whose support is in the single digits is fucking pathetic and laughable to the rest of the world

What you are really saying is that you back the status quo, as long as that status quo is non-US/allied.

And you will use whatever fake memes you can find (provided by the regimes themselves) to support your patherically reactionary, conservative politics.

[ Parent ]
absent the facts I guess you could make any argument (0.00 / 0)
but you'd still be wrong. Rejecting extremist factions who are pliant to outside influence, and have little if any populist support is not backing the status quo, in any hypothetical or real situation.

Seacrest out.

[ Parent ]
Nonsense piled atop nonsense. (0.00 / 0)
If we are absent all facts, which of course we are not in the case of Syria despite the murderous media crackdown by bashar (as in Iran and Libya too), then you cannot state that the "extremist factions" have "little if any populist" support.

Why? Because you are absent all facts, as you admitted.

I would say you are in denial of facts rather than absent them, but whatever.

By accepting state media propaganda as truth as you routinely do and by rejecting the legitimacy of the opposition solely on the basis of how the state media describes the resistance, you are in most definitely backing the status quo in Syria.

Without a shadow of any doubt.

Again, you can deny this, but only by making yourslef appear even more fantastical than you already do.

[ Parent ]
Whatever man. (4.00 / 1)
The very definition of denial these days is beliving the state propaganda that you do. It doesn't matter what the others' state propaganda does or doesn't say. The FACT that you think all opposition to US propaganda is inherently derived  from the US' targeted enemy state is very telling. There's no point in taking this further. As usual. I always fall for it dont I?
[ Parent ]
Speak accurately and we can always talk. But stuff like this is as silly as saying NATO is responsible for the opposition deaths in Syria, or that I am applauding those deaths (0.00 / 0)
The FACT that you think all opposition to US propaganda is inherently derived from the US' targeted enemy state.

In FACT, I dismiss both American propaganda and enemy state propaganda. Of course, some or all propaganda from both sides contain truthful elements. Propaganda isnt all lies, its mixed truth and half truth spun into an agenda.

I try to determine the truthful elements, as well as the agenda. The fact is, I'm just as good at smelling propaganda as you are and Lizzie Phelan is simply regurgitating state media propaganda. You are buying it because its what you want to hear.

The FACT is that you buy the propagandised agenda of the "targeted" US enemy state as truth because it fits the SIS BOOM BAH RAH RAH two-sided game of the Fake Left.

The marxist game has more than the two sides, as the Seymour article so aptly describes.

There is the US, there are the enemy states, and then there are the leftists looking at both as the imperialist capitalist bourgeois enemy of leftism that BOTH must be defeated.

When you can figure that out, instead of simply always siding with the US enemy states because they are the enemy of the US (and of course, Israel), then you will be a true leftist.

[ Parent ]
LOL. Conservative gramps telling me how to attain true leftism (5.00 / 1)
Go vote for Obma again dumbass. Or is it Romney this time? Who fucking cares right?
[ Parent ]
Srsly, Laura, I enjoy your schtick, and glad you played along today (0.00 / 0)
even though I planned on getting some actual RL work done.

So you can be happy that you helped me......

FAIL!

[:o)

You reule. Thanks for being here, even when you're not.

Lets do some musik talk next time.

[ Parent ]
What specifically is inaccurate or 'propaganda' in the Phelan blockquote I printed? (0.00 / 0)

Specifics, damn specifics.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep
[ Parent ]
Phelan is clearly propagandising here: (0.00 / 0)
Now not only these principles, but all relevant international laws and norms were violated in the case of Libya and the west's treatment of Muammar Gaddafi, and this has been well documented. The same violations are playing out against the Syrian government.

She conflates Libya with Syria and offers zero evidence to support her argument that the "same violations are playing out against the Syrian government."

Do you (and Phelan) deny that Qadaffy had blood on his hands or that he violated international law and norms by ordering the massacre and arrest of his own people who were peacefully demonstrating in Feb 2011?

Do you (and Phelan) deny that Qadaffy was an imperialist state capitalist dick tater who repressed a large segment of the populace of Lybia while enriching himsefl, his family and his bourgeois crony/tribal mates under the influence and protection of first the imperialist, Stalinist Soviet Union and then its successor, the imperialist, authoritarian capitalist Russian State? Do you (and Phelan) deny that Qadaffy collaborated with the CIA to further the imperialist aims of the capitalist US?

Do you (and Phelan) deny that Assad has blood on his hands has blood on his hands or that he violated international law and norms by ordering the massacre and arrest of thousands of peaceful demonstrators since March 2011?

Do you (and Phelan) deny that Assad is an imperialist state capitalist dick tater of family rule who is actively repressing a large section of the Syrian populace, first under the influence and protection of the imperialist, Stalinist Soviet Union and now under its successor, the imperialist, authoritarian capitalist Russian State? Do you (and Phelan) deny that Bashar collaborated with the CIA to further the imperialist aims of the capitalist US?

Do you (and Phelan) deny the right of the repressed peoples of Lybia and Syria, having serious grievances with the dick taterial abuses of decades-long unelected family rulers Qadaffy and Assad, their right to peacefully protest those abusive rulers and then to fight back when overwhelming military force of the imperialist, authoritarian state is used against them?


[ Parent ]
Get with reality: the February 2011 Bengazi incident was a lie and war promotion propaganda (4.00 / 1)

The Assad "massacre ... of thousands of peaceful demonstrators since March 2011" is also very likely a lie and war promotion propaganda. I can't say for certain, but reasonable people look at all the bullshit flung at Qaddafi by NATO imperialist/permanent war/corporate media propagandists, and then use that experience to make the educated guess that all or almost all of the "massacre" stuff is bullshit. This is how rationality and thinking works.

I've ignored anything above that depends on the propaganda tool bullshit that imperialism (which by its nature imposes evil exploitative regimes) is okay if it's overthrowing 'bad' regimes. Of course Assad and Qaddafi, and Bush and Obama and Blair, and Saddam and Bin Laden and so on and so on are 'bad'. Are the regime overthrow effort's tens of thousands of deaths and extreme economic deprivation worth it, just to achieve a neoliberal, extreme capitalism, evil exploitative regime?

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
No sourced evidence, all propaganda, as usual from Fact Free Fantasy Fairleft (2.00 / 1)
Phelan does it a lot better than you, plus she's alot better looking.

Which obviously is the basis for her fake leftist "fame."

Looks coupled with her willingness to pimp the authoritarian state party line.

RIOTOUSS!  

[ Parent ]
And where are your sources donkeytale? (4.00 / 1)

The first several of the following are full of citations and links to the documentary evidence you pretend to seek.

1. Top Ten Myths in the War Against Libya
http://www.counterpunch.org/20...

2. Terror and Revenge Engulf NATO's Libya
http://www.counterpunch.org/20...

3. US-NATO war crimes in Libya
http://wsws.org/articles/2012/...

4. Global Nato and the Recolonisation of Africa - Lessons From the Libyan Intervention

http://allafrica.com/stories/2...

5. The "Decent Left" and the Libya Intervention
http://www.counterpunch.org/20...

6. The "Left" and Libya
http://www.counterpunch.org/20...

7. Libya, the Lie
http://www.globalresearch.ca/i...

8. The War in Libya: Race, "Humanitarianism," and the Media
http://globalciviliansforpeace...

Speaking of the absence of any documentary evidence, the following is from "6." above:

In the crucial February 15 - March 17 time slot, there was no determined effort to investigate the charges against Ghadafi, leveled in the U.N. Security Council Resolutions and by NATO principals such as Obama and Clinton, the U.K.'s prime minister Cameron, or President Sarkozy and his foreign minister.

The amazing vagueness of news stories of this - or indeed any - topic  coming out of Libya has been conspicuous. Here, remember, we had a regime accused in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 of "widespread and systematic attacks ... against the civilian population [that] may amount to crimes against humanity."

Yet since mid-February the reporting out of Libya displayed a striking lack of persuasive documentation of butcheries or abuses commensurate with the language lavished on the regime's presumptive conduct. Time and again one read vague phrases like "thousands reportedly killed by Gaddafi's mercenaries" or Gaddafi "massacring his own people," delivered without the slightest effort to furnish supporting evidence. It was the secondhand allegation of massacres that drove both news coverage and U.N. activities - particularly in the early stage, when U.N. Resolution 1970 was adopted, calling for sanctions and the referral of  Gaddafi's closest circle to the International Criminal Court.

News reports in mid-March, such as those by the McClatchy news chain's  reporters Jonathan Landay, Warren Strobel and Shashank Bengali, contained no claims of anything approaching a "crime against humanity," the allegation in Resolution 1973. Yet by February 23 the propaganda blitz was in full spate, with Clinton denouncing  Gaddafi and with Reagan's "mad dog of the Middle East" exhumed as the preferred way of describing the Libyan leader.

The U.N. commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, started denouncing the Libyan government as early as February 18; U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon joined Pillay on February 21. The U.N. News Center reported that Ban was "outraged at press reports that the Libyan authorities have been firing at demonstrators from war planes and helicopters" (our italics). In these early days, no one who represented the Libyan government was permitted to address the council. Only defectors speaking on behalf of Libya were given the floor.

Now, remember that on March 10 French President Sarkozy, a major player in NATO's coalition of the willing against Libya, declared the Libyan National Transition Council the only legitimate representative of the Libyan people. So,  Gaddafi was facing a formal armed insurrection - not a protest movement demanding "democracy" - led by a shadowy entity based in Benghazi. Seven days later, Resolution 1973 made clear that attempts to suppress this insurrection would elicit armed intervention by NATO.



For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
Nice try, Tokyo Rose. LMAO at (2.00 / 1)
the avalanche of already well-known and documented by the MSM information that you do provide to obscure the fact that you can't cite documented, sourced evidence for the sole proof statement I requested:

Get with reality: the February 2011 Bengazi incident was a lie and war promotion propaganda

Nowhere do I see in any of your many (count em!) links a single sourced citation of the central Fake Left Propaganda claim that unarmed peaceful demonstrators were not violently attacked, shot and killed by Libyan forces in February 2011. But I admit,I'm not gonna slog through them all to find what you should yourslef provide.

But thanks for citing one thing: further proof of your dishonest propaganda techniques. Not that more was needed.

I see also where Fake Leftist demi-God Pepe Escobar, world traveler, reporting from inside a bowl of excellent hashish, used the exact same technique to claim Syrian forces did not shoot unarmed demonstrators. He linked to the entire Arab League report but couldnt, y'know, quote a single statement to prove his assertion, as you don't either. Problem: the report doesnt back up his claims. My guess, after skimming all 8 of yours, is that they don't back up your claim either.

RIOTOUS!

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/M...

Pepe:

The report is adamant. There was no organized, lethal repression by the Syrian government against peaceful protesters. Instead, the report points to shady armed gangs as responsible for hundreds of deaths among Syrian civilians, and over one thousand among the Syrian army, using lethal tactics such as bombing of civilian buses, bombing of trains carrying diesel oil, bombing of police buses and bombing of bridges and pipelines.

But here from the report itslef, two of several examples documenting just such an organised lethal repression by the Syrian Govt:

The Mission determined that there is an armed entity that is not mentioned in the protocol. This development on the ground can undoubtedly be attributed to the excessive use of force by Syrian Government forces in response to protests that occurred before the deployment of the Mission demanding the fall of the regime. In some zones, this armed entity reacted by attacking Syrian security forces and citizens, causing the Government to respond with further violence. In the end, innocent citizens pay the price for those actions with life and limb.

On being assigned to their zones and starting work, the observers witnessed acts of violence perpetrated by Government forces and an exchange of gunfire with armed elements in Homs and Hama. As a result of the Mission's insistence on a complete end to violence and the withdrawal of Army vehicles and equipment, this problem has receded. The most recent reports of the Mission point to a considerable calming of the situation and restraint on the part of those forces.

RIOTOUSS!! The cessation in Homs seems to have, uhhhm, ended. 200+ civilians dead thanks alot to Lizzie Phelan's Russian imperialist/corporatist employers, the state media.

Get the net!! I've scored an easy hat trick today against three lying Fake Left propagandists, Lyin Lizzie Phelan, Pepe Pinocchio Escobar and Fact Free Fantasy Failreft!!

LMFAO!!

[ Parent ]
it really duzzent get (0.00 / 0)
any stupider than this:

LJ the Fake NA:

Not to mention the SILENCE regarding the much more eviler regimes in KSA, Bahrain, Yemen etc.

Syria:

It is a rule now as soon as there is a disaster in Egypt and clashes between protesters and security forces in Egypt that capture the attention of the world , El Assad regime commits a horrible massacre in Syria , it is not a pattern anymore , it is a rule.

Tonight the Syrian Arab army that follows El Assad has been bombarding Homs especially the El Khalidiya neighborhood for hours killing hundreds and injuring hundreds as well. The Syrian air forces are reportedly participating in the offensive. Many houses are reportedly destroyed over the residents , I read the description and I freak out more than I am freaking out already for what is happening in Egypt.

The death toll has reached so far 230 according to the local coordination committees in Syria !! The injured numbers are increasing , we have reached so 800 injured. The video clips coming from El Khalidiya tonight are more than horrible.

==

There are news that bodies of children were found headless in the area to the and complete families have been killed. Below couple of videos showing a glimpse of this massacre after the break . {+18 Extreme Grpahic content}

==

Now I am receiving tweets claiming that the water in El Khalidiya  is being poisoned and people are dying there just like what happened in Hama in 1982 but there are people who are saying that due to the constant shelling targeting the area it seems that the water station and the sewage station were blew up and the water is mixed with sewage thus people are getting sick and poisoned.

==

Updated :
The death toll of the massacre has reached to 300 Syrian while the injured numbers have reached to 1300.Some reports claim that 57 child have been killed last night.

Syrian opposition figure Obedia El Nahas says the Syrian NTC received information that the operation in Homs might last for 5 days !!

   We received credible information that the #HomsAttack might last 5 days.Is #Russia stalling the UN to allow the regime to finish us?#Syria
   - Obeida Nahas (@ObeidaNahas) February 4, 2012

http://egyptianchronicles.blog...

btw - this guy posted a graphic videe a few weeks ago showing a Syrian baby which had been tortured!!!!

SYRIAN BABY TORTURERS! HOLY FUCK!

She was only 4 months when she was detained with her mom and dad "still detained" , I do not know how to say it but that baby angel was tortured, you can see the bruises on her small pale body. I still remember Layal.

I can't imagine , I swear I can't imagine someone would harm such a small beautiful thing.

Unfortunately Afaf is not the youngest baby to be killed by the hands of the Syrian regime, maybe she is the first to be tortured till death though in detention. Both ideas drive me angry

http://egyptianchronicles.blog...

SYRIAN BABY TORTURERS!

SYRIAN BABY TORTURERS!

But the udder regimes are more eviler!

==

--


[ Parent ]
fairhambrain (0.00 / 0)
so ya don't believe Zeinobia] [  that Assad's a Baby Torturer.

go take it up with her!

go call her a propagandist ya fookin' madman!

==

[ Parent ]
You have no evidence, fool. (0.00 / 0)

Anti-regime propaganda is not evidence. You're just a pointless promoter of pro-death, pro-regime-change, pro-globalization-empire propaganda.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep
[ Parent ]
pff (0.00 / 0)
what do you want fairham, the actual tortured baby delivered to your doorstep for inspection!

fairham supports Baby Torture!

oh the Syrian children! oh the Syrian babies!

ye are all abandoned by uber leftist ahole liars!

==


[ Parent ]
Learn from 'baby torture' in Kuwait 1991, and similar in Iraq 2003 and Libya 2011 (0.00 / 0)

The bullshit didnt' happen, idiot.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep
[ Parent ]
but the rally of (0.00 / 0)
"500,000 to 1,000,000" happened!

right fairham....

haha!@

baby torture in Libya, Kuwait and Iraq! who knew!

holy shit!

=


[ Parent ]
Reft, apparently tired of being spanked here, goes crawling to be dominated there (0.00 / 0)
RIOTOUSS!!

Fairleft

What Seymour welcomes will involve many thousands of civilians dying. And for what?

Fairleft

"In that struggle ... I situate myself on the side of the popular opposition.  Not in an undifferentiated manner, and not without confronting the political problems (of eg sectarianism, pro-imperialism etc) that will tend to recur amid sections of the opposition to any of these regimes.  But without conditions or prevarication."

Isn't "tend to recur" a bit weak in the present context, only months after the overthrow of Libya by the West? Screw "tend to recur,", we can be sure what is recurring and will recur is close to the Libyan story. Who will have the guns and money? The U.S./Saudi/Qatari backed forces. Who will have logistics, mobility and immediate control over state media? The U.S./Saudi/Qatari backed forces. On the periphery looking in -- pissed as hell -- will be the honest and populist revolutionists. Yet you support the revolution "without conditions or prevarication" but if you think just a little you know that the winners will be the U.S./Saudi/Qatar. Why?

Richard Seymour

Interesting - such ostensibly 'humanitarian' arguments can be deployed in principle against any process of radical social change, since entrenched power will always resist that change with violence. And for what?, you ask. This sort of question, posed this way, displays a complete lack of imagination. For what purpose has any oppressed people ever risen up? What could possibly possess them? What ungovernable fanaticism could compel them to brave massacres from Homs to Damascus? Idiot.

Richard Seymour

This isn't analysis on your part, it's bar stool ranting. These are not the trends that have been dominant. The only situation in which they will become dominant is if the popular forces collapse under a regime onslaught.

christian h.

Interestingly, the neo-Stalinists now are arguing both that a continuation of the revolutionary process will cost "many thousands" of lives; and that the Syrian opposition is recklessly exaggerating the scale of violence. Just like in old times, they seem to think that because they only read the party press (replace nowadays with like-minded blogs) nobody else will be able to spot the internal contradictions in their arguments either.


I crush those their moronic arguments in two responses, (0.00 / 0)

but let's see if Seymour allows them to be posted.

http://leninology.blogspot.com...

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
Here they are: (0.00 / 0)

Fairleft

The 'radical social change' if this effort succeeds will be a regime installed by the U.S./Saudi/Qatar. The forces in their command have an overwhelming military/logistical/money advantage compared to the independent popular anti-regime Syrian forces. We just saw the same movie in Libya 6-9 months ago, so it's extraordinary that you can't see that.

14 hours ago in reply to Richard Seymour


Fairleft

U.S., Qatar and Saudi Arabian money will impose a reactionary and counterrevolutionary regime, which will generate a long-term civil war along religious/ethnic lines.

It's amazingly anti-historical naivete to pretend there will be a victory of the relatively weak forces of authentic popular rebellion, in the context of the very recent Libyan experience.

14 hours ago in reply to christian h.



For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep
[ Parent ]
Thats it? RIOTOUSS! (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
That's it?! Unable to argue with me as usual. (0.00 / 0)

"Let's watch a video" is not an argument.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep
[ Parent ]
Another comment there, to Shawn Witney but perfect for donkeytale too: (0.00 / 0)

You seem to know so much about what is going on inside Syria, even what the revolutionaries' unspoken motives are, even when those motives conflict with what they have said. My guess though is that you're wrong, and this is just what it looks like, the U.S. and reactionary subordinate regimes doing some empire expansion at the expense of Syrian civilians and those few revolutionaries who are not clued into what's really going on. Those who are naive must be very few because this is so similar to what the imperial center did to Libya.

And, uh, yeah, there is imperial rivalry but it is not 'intense' within the Middle East. The U.S. is the sole superpower, Israel and Iran are important regionally, but Russia and China are only important because they can tie up the U.S.-subordinate UN. So there is no great game or U.S./USSR rivalry for local revolutionaries to exploit. Recent and present reality is either to resist (with help from several non-superpower allies) or get with U.S. hegemony. U.S. hegemony, which is what you unwittingly support because you can't figure out the preceding basics, will suck in Syria.



For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep
[ Parent ]
Lenin decided to disallow my response. (0.00 / 0)

Show's how strong his team's side of the argument is.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep
[ Parent ]
You aren't even addressing their argument. (0.00 / 0)
Which is that the unrest in Syria is class-based and targets the imperialist bourgeois state capitalist class, therefore should be supported by Marxists.

Your argument is that the imperialist capitalist state should be defended because of its tie to imperialist Russia and also Iran, your excusebeing that people will die in the attempt of overthrowing the state, and that it is the imperialist US, not the imperialist Syrian state using arms supplied by imperial Russia, who is responsible for the deaths that have already occurred.

A conservative viewpoint that ignores the plain fact that the Syrian regime itself is part of the global imperialist food chain.

Thus, your argument is a non-sequitor, and worse, it is an excuse for continuation of the regime.

Reactionary conservative repetition of a single line shouted over and over by an infoboob from her barstool probably isn't allowed there.

Thats what this blog is for .

[ Parent ]
I directly address their point, that of course is the problem for Seymour and his warmonger team, and it is why my responses are banned. (0.00 / 0)

As I wrote, find my comment that has three recommendations, the popular forces are going to be or much more likely are already utterly dominated by the forces being paid for by U.S./Saudi/Qatari money and supported by NATO/Western spies, arms, military bases, logistics, and propaganda.

For further proof, and I would love to put that blockquote on the Lenin thread, read and respond if you can to the Philip Giraldi report I have posted elsewhere on this site. Exactly like in Libya, so my point is exceptionally clear, obvious, and devastating.

The assholes there have no response and in despair simply resort to moronic namecalling and discourse coarsening. Like you, actually.


For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
2012 Nobel Peace Prize Winner (?) Sergei Lavrov explains Russia's veto or warmonger resolution (0.00 / 0)

A voice of reason and reconciliation:

"First, the document contains very precise demands addressed to the Syrian regime, while, on the contrary, any reference to [other] armed forces operating there lacks clarity, although these armed gangs intimidate local citizens, violate their rights and attack government buildings. For example, among many other demands, here we may find one urging the Syrian government to withdraw its troops from all cities. We suggested that some specification should be made there, demanding an immediate halt of violence from the opposition forces.

"Without such provisions, the resolution sounds more like a calling to surrender. It is hard to imagine a country's leader handing over power to illegal armed forces. ..."

"Secondly, the problem is also about a subject of national dialogue and the way it should be held. The Arab League initiated a peace plan in November which said that there should be no outside interference, while a national dialogue should be started, involving all Syrian political forces, with no attempts made to prejudge its outcome," Lavrov said.

The text of the recently vetoed draft resolution says that the dialogue must be started without foreseeing the results. Nevertheless, citing a statement made by the [Arab] League on January 22, the authors of the [UN] draft resolution say that the talks must meet the deadlines set by the League. And the first demand here was to insist on President Assad`s resignation. ...

http://english.ruvr.ru/2012/02...

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

Assad the Baby Torturer (0.00 / 0)
On the heels of the mind bending revelations that Assad tortures babies, HRW has released a new report documenting the torture of children.

oh the children! uber leftist aholes don't believe you!

(New York) - Syrian army and security officers have detained and tortured children with impunity during the past year, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch has documented at least 12 cases of children detained under inhumane conditions and tortured, as well as children shot while in their homes or on the street. Human Rights Watch has also documented government use of schools as detention centers, military bases or barracks, and sniper posts, as well as the arrest of children from schools.

==

Children have not been spared the horror of Syria's crackdown, said Lois Whitman, children's rights director at Human Rights Watch. Syrian security forces have killed, arrested, and tortured children in their homes, their schools, or on the streets. In many cases, security forces have targeted children just as they have targeted adults."

==

"Ala'a," a 16-year-old boy from Tal Kalakh, told Human Rights Watch that Syrian security forces detained him for eight months, starting in May 2011, after he participated in and read political poetry at demonstrations. He was released in late January 2012 after his father bribed a prison guard with 25,000 Syrian pounds (US$436). During his detention he was held in seven different detention centers, as well as the Homs Central Prison. Ala'a told Human Rights Watch that at the Military Security branch in Homs:

When they started interrogating me, they asked me how many protests I had been to, and I said "none." Then they took me in handcuffs to another cell and cuffed my left hand to the ceiling. They left me hanging there for about seven hours, with about one-and-a-half to two centimeters between me and the floor - I was standing on my toes. While I was hanging there, they beat me for about two hours with cables and shocked me with cattle prods. Then they threw water on the ground and poured water on me from above. They added an electric current, and I felt the shock. I felt like I was going to die. They did this three times. Then I told them, "I will confess everything, anything you want."

=

"Hossam," age 13, told Human Rights Watch that security forces detained him and a relative, also 13, in May 2011 and tortured him for three days at a military security branch about 45 minutes by car from Tal Kalakh:

Every so often they would open our cell door and yell at us and beat us. They said, "You pigs, you want freedom?" They interrogated me by myself. They asked, "Who is your god?" And I said, "Allah." Then they electrocuted me on my stomach, with a prod. I fell unconscious. When they interrogated me the second time, they beat me and electrocuted me again. The third time they had some pliers, and they pulled out my toenail. They said, "Remember this saying, always keep it in mind: We take both kids and adults, and we kill them both." I started to cry, and they returned me to the cell.

==

A number of adult detainees and security force members who had defected and who were interviewed by Human Rights Watch confirmed the presence and torture of child detainees in facilities across Syria. "Samih," a former adult detainee held in a political security facility in Latakia, told Human Rights Watch that children were subjected to worse treatment than adults, including sexual abuse, because they were children.

We were 70 to 75 people in a group cell that was 3 by 3 meters. We slept with our knees to our chests. Some people had broken hands, legs, their heads were swollen. There were 15- and 16-year-old kids in the cell with us, six or seven of them with their fingernails pulled, their faces beaten. They treat the kids even worse than the adults. There is torture, but there is also rape for the boys. We would see them when the guards brought them back to the cell, it's indescribable, you can't talk about it. One boy came into the cell bleeding from behind. He couldn't walk. It was something they just did to the boys. We would cry for them.

It's clear from the brutal methods used against children that Syrian security forces show child detainees no mercy, said Whitman. "We fear that children will continue to face horrendous punishment in detention until Syrian officials understand they will pay a price for such abuse."

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/0...

oh the children! no mercy for the children!

oh the Syrian Arab children!!!!!!!!!

==

Noom, Believer in Lamest Propaganda (0.00 / 0)


For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep
[ Parent ]
fairleft: Syrian Children are Liars! (0.00 / 0)
fairleft's calling Syrian Arab children a bunch of liars!

fairleft calls HRW propagandists!

fairleft is a fucking anti-human rights crusading racist!

Syrian child and baby torture victims don't rate with uber leftists! The Bahrain regime is much "more eviler" according to LJ the Fake NA!

fairleft makes up his own set of facts! he believes only what he wants to believe!

fairleft bizarrely claimed 500,000 to 1,000,000 protesters turned out for a staged pro Assad rally when his own link from Iran state media claimed only tens of thousands!

he's insane! literally!

fairleft is a fascist tool!

fairleft supports Assad the Baby Torturer!

==

[ Parent ]
oh the children! (0.00 / 0)
Children Shot in Their Homes

Syrian activists have reported dozens of cases in which children have been killed by sniper fire or shelling from government security forces in residential areas. In interviews with Human Rights Watch, army defectors confirmed that they fired arbitrarily in residential areas in some cases.

"Mohammed," a doctor treating Syrians in Lebanon who were injured in Syria, told Human Rights Watch in January that he had treated 24 Syrian children in the last two months, and that the majority of them were injured by bullets, some in their homes.

Human Rights Watch interviewed two children who said they were shot while inside their homes in Quseir. "Youssef," age 11, told Human Rights Watch that he was a student until the fall of 2011 when schools closed because of the violence, and that after that he started work in a shop as a car washer. He described being shot in the back at his home in late January:

I came back to my house at 12:30 p.m. - we closed the shop where I work because we knew there would be an attack. Around 2 p.m. they started shelling the hospital near my house, the national hospital, which is about 500 meters from the house. Then they started to hit the baladiye [municipality] building, about 1 km away. I was inside the house, my brother and all my siblings were with me. I heard shooting and felt pain in my back. Then I fell unconscious.

"Fatima," 17, also said she was shot in the back, in the courtyard of her family home in Quseir in early October. She told Human Rights Watch:

It was about 10:30 at night. I was going to the bathroom when I heard gunfire. There were shots from all directions. We live in a traditional house [where the bathroom is outside], there are no high walls. Suddenly, I found myself on the floor, I just felt that I was on the floor but I couldn't feel anything.

A doctor currently treating Fatima, interviewed by Human Rights Watch, said that as a result of the gunshot wound, Fatima suffered a spinal injury and was paralyzed from the waist down.

Assad the Baby Torturer, Assad the Child Murderer, Assad the Butcher! thanks uber leftist ahole liars for their support!

--

[ Parent ]
Syrian counterrevolutionaries, paid by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, (0.00 / 0)

'report' many horrible things, every day like clockwork. Stupid people like fake noom believe them.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep
[ Parent ]
Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi on Syria (5.00 / 1)

According to former Central Intelligence Agency officer Philip Giraldi, writing in the current issue of The American Conservative magazine:

Unmarked NATO warplanes are arriving at Turkish military bases close to Iskenderum on the Syrian border, delivering weapons from the late Muammar Gaddafi's arsenals as well as volunteers from the Libyan Transitional National Council who are experienced in pitting local volunteers against trained soldiers, a skill they acquired confronting Gaddafi's army. Iskenderum is also the seat of the Free Syrian Army, the armed wing of the Syrian National Council. French and British special forces trainers are on the ground, assisting the Syrian rebels while the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] and US Spec Ops are providing communications equipment and intelligence to assist the rebel cause, enabling the fighters to avoid concentrations of Syrian soldiers.

Giraldi adds that the CIA analysts themselves are "skeptical regarding the approach to war", as they know that the frequently cited United Nations account of civilians killed is based largely on rebel sources and uncorroborated. The CIA has "refused to sign off on the claims" of mass defections from the Syrian Army. Likewise, accounts of pitched battles between deserters and loyal soldiers "appear to be a fabrication, with few defections being confirmed independently".



For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep
link for preceding and (4.00 / 1)

an interesting comment there by Bhadrakumar:

Russia and China sense that they could be booted out of the Middle East.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/C...

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
Condemning the actions (0.00 / 0)
of the Syrian government is not the same as calling for others to rush in and do the same.  Not at all.

You are putting yourself in a dangerous moral position if you deny or even downplay the documented suffering of the people of Homs (and elsewhere) just because they are potentially caught up in some massive international chess game.  I hope that is not what you are doing in these comments, but at times it appears that way.

And yes, the more media are allowed in, the better.

Do you think maybe, just maybe, some of this has to do with the Hama massacre of 1982 committed by Mr. Assad's father and brother?  That maybe, just maybe, some of it has to do with Sunni, Alewhite and Christian conflict?  That maybe, just maybe, the Syrians themselves know better than you or I or anyone outside knows what is going on from their own historic and cultural perspective?  If so, let the world in to get their story; and stop letting the world tell them what their own story means.

I would imagine a much more realistic supposition to the idea that these poor people are being manipulated by people richer and smarter than they would be to realize that all sides are using allies to achieve their own perceived goals, outside governments for certain, but including the opposing Syrian factions.

To claim otherwise is to say the Syrian people are not intelligent enough to understand their own situation and are only good for being manipulated.  Once again, that is intellectual imperialism. At a minimum internally in the country, people with longstanding grudges are using outside allies to claim vengeance on their enemies. How could such bloodshed go on for so long and so violently if it were pure incitement from outsiders?  That makes no sense.

Instead of taking sides, thereby contributing to the atrocity, maybe we should be looking for peaceful solutions. The Russian proposal today to at least consider the first Arab League plan is a step in that direction.

[ Parent ]
What are you talking about, "the more media the better"? (2.00 / 2)
Like, who, Wolf Blitzr, Bill Oreilly? Maybe we can get the cast of The Five to go over and finally clear up who started what.

Look, I know youre a Donkophile, but now you believe his "if you don't support the peeple you heart the diktator" schtick? I mean come on. Everyone knows 9 times out of 10 a leader has dirty hands. Hemming and hawing about the poor Syrian people is a fucking game. It's none of our business, and it's not our fucking chess board either, yet. Don't you see the endgame? Would you have a people and their countrys infrastructure destroyed(because that ALWAYS happens) just to feel that "something's been tried"?

God I am just so sick of the theoretical this and that. The US' "help" always comes in the same form, ALWAYS with the same outcome. Or hadnt you noticed?

[ Parent ]
yeah (3.00 / 2)
the whole world except for uber leftist ahole liar frauds are donkophiles! And it's good to see you finally admitting to not supporting the Syrian people!

what a psychopath. holy fuck yer nuts

it is amusing watching you and fairlame downplay insane violence against Syrian Arabs, but play up any perceived transgression to the hilt when Jews defend themselves against this sort of barbarism! Who hems and haws when the pal Arab imperialists throw out some idiotic propaganda and uber leftists use it to disparage Jews! Who pooh poohs the holocaust! Who lies about the history of Israel and denies the ethnic cleansing of Jews in the region! Who pretends Islamists are peaceful? You, a psycho nazi cunt! You claim that yer against war, but if it's against the Jews you support it! ain't dat right vampira!

fairhahole pretends not to get the concept of building a fence for defending Jews against maniac suicide bombers who blow up women and children! you and fairdipshit are the lords of propaganda when it comes to the Jews! And yer the head of the mondocunt brigade!

It's none of our busness! yeah ya fuckin nazi, what is your business? Just the Jews, ain't that right jewssanfrontieres psychobitch!

fuck you and your wanna have it every which way depending on the actors ya nitwit hick!

yer full of shit. a transparent hack.

a psychopath who wants nukes in the hands of the Ayatollahs and Ajad.

a true psychopath.

+)

[ Parent ]
You would think by having a whole world of donkophiles would make me a buck (0.00 / 0)
but nyet.

You have to be a an authoritarian-state-regimophile to profit from being an internet troll.

Poor donk, always on the non-paying side of the people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...

The Russian youth group Nashi has paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to a vast network of bloggers, journalists and internet trolls to create flattering coverage of Vladimir Putin and discredit his political rivals, according to a haul of thousands of emails allegedly sent to and from the group that have been released by Russian hackers.

More decisive (ie, real) evidence of a fried internet, from where the fried propagandists laura and Fairleft willing receive their disinfo training.

And no doubt are sooo stupid they are spreading it for free.

"Useful idiots."

[ Parent ]
Not quite. (5.00 / 1)
I do like donkeytale's writing, and I think he is misunderstood more often than not.

If Wolf Blitzer and Bill O'Reilly want to go over, let them!  They would not of course be the only ones over there.  I note the BBC is already there in Homs itself, with correspondents by phone from other villages.  I note as it is, even the Tehran Times isn't completely buying the offical Syrian line:

Lavrov said Assad assured him he was committed to halting violence by both sides and that he was ready to seek dialogue with all political groups in the country.

Russia's foreign ministry said Lavrov and Foreign Intelligence Service chief Mikhail Fradkov had gone to Damascus because Moscow wanted to see "the swiftest stabilization of the situation in Syria on the basis of the swiftest implementation of democratic reforms whose time has come."

Syrian state television showed thousands of people gathering on a main Damascus highway to welcome Lavrov. They were waving Syrian, Russian and Hezbollah flags and held up two Russian flags made out of hundreds of red, white and blue balloons.

Syrian state television said a committee charged with drawing up a new Syrian constitution - one of several political reforms promised by Assad - had completed its work on Tuesday.

Assad has said parliamentary elections will be held when the constitution is approved, but has also pledged to eradicate "terrorists" he associates with the violence.


Ummm, re:

now you believe his "if you don't support the peeple you heart the diktator" schtick?

No.  Aside from the fact that I haven't seen him say exactly that, here is what I said:

Condemning the actions of the Syrian government is not the same as calling for others to rush in and do the same.

I'm just as into what I regard as the corollary, which is that condemning the actions of the Syrian rebellion is not the same as calling for the Syrian government and its allies to rush in and do the same.

What have the actions of the Syrian rebellion been so far?

Hemming and hawing about the poor Syrian people is a fucking game. It's none of our business, and it's not our fucking chess board either, yet.

I agree.  Did you notice?  I think the point at which we differ is WHEN it is none of our business and HOW it is none of our business.  If atrocities or war crimes are occurring, it certainly IS our business, regardless of who is perpetrating those acts.  As far as WHEN it is none of our business, I respectfully maintain that one cannot say it is none of our business while telling those in the country what they should and shouldn't do and who is on "their" side (whoever "they" are) and who isn't.  That is precisely what I mean by "intellectual imperialism."  My comments are directed precisely at what we should do, not what they should do.  And since our influence from this blog at present is, believe it or not, rather minimal, I advocate that we at least consider working toward peace and reconciliation.  That comes from taking the side of peace and reconciliation and no other.

Would you have a people and their countrys infrastructure destroyed(because that ALWAYS happens) just to feel that "something's been tried"?

No. But perhaps you would want to ask Russia about that, since that was their suggestion as an alternative to the UN Resolution they vetoed.

The US' "help" always comes in the same form, ALWAYS with the same outcome. Or hadnt you noticed?

Well, not when Russia and China are lined up against it I hadn't. Has that happened before? Maybe Korea....  Anyway, to act as if we are the omnipotent power that can treat Russia and China as if they were mere inconveniences, pebbles in the desert as it were, on the way to our ultimate conquest, would be the height of naivete, if I believed for one second that anyone actually involved in this were that foolish.

But I don't.  As I said, everyone is in this for their own interest.  The outside countries are using the Syrians.  But the Syrians are also using the outside countries.  And when everything is said and done (mostly done, unfortunately), guess who will be staying around and living with the aftermath?

Exactly.  And one side will be happy (usually the opposite side from the previous massacre/conflict) and one side will be nursing its grievance, cultivating revenge.  And, in shaa'Allah this blog is still around in twenty to thirty years, well, we'll be talking about this exact same situation, but in reverse.

[ Parent ]
Rated boring (3.00 / 1)
because you mispelled "dick tater."
[ Parent ]
The Novelization of Romney & Campaign 2012 | 101 comments
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

Search




Advanced Search

Cliques ci-dessous
Penny
Land Destroyer
Lizzy Phelan
Arthur Silber
Mondoweiss
NarcoNews
uruknet
Glenn Greenwald
War Is Business
Lenin
3arabawy
Dissident Voice
Arabist
Francis L Holland
Angry Arab
Seymour Hersh
Left I
electronic intifada
WildWildLeft
The History Blog
Gallery Of The Absurd
reel newz
jewssansfrontieres
AntiWar
CounterPunch
Asia Times
World Socialist
Socialist Worker
Chris Jordan
John Pilger
In Gaza
Moon Of Alabama
Coteret
RT
Voltaire Net

Nothing here is endorsed by the admin, not even her own bullshit. And you'll be lucky if she's even watching yours.
Powered by: SoapBlox