Latest attack in Syria

[Jammybean]

Just watching BBC news, they were frantically trying to save a toddler who was convulsing . I feel physically sick.

"Have you lived in a communist country?" is a very relevant question, actually.

If he'd asked "have you lived under a totalitarian regime?" that would've been more relevant.

That would be more relevant only if she were singing praises to totalitarian regimes. She is not. She is singing praises to communism. So the question "Have you ever lived in a communist country?" is very relevant.

I'm sure Martin Luther King, Pankhurst and even Florence Nightingale were considered "progressive" fruit loops in their time, all of the civil liberties we enjoy are as a result of people questioning and struggling against the status quo. In retrospect we look back and think that these people were rational. When the peasants revolted creating the material conditions that could allow capitalism to take shape, they didn't know what would come out of their struggle, they only struggled against existing conditions.

We can not conceive of what might come out of capitalism only that something will. I am not singing the praises of any "regime" country or politics, I am a Marxist in so far as I have a Marxist conception of history, economics and society. So no, it is not necessary to live under communism to critique capital, it is necessary to live under capitalism to critique capitalism.

Sorry but at the thought that an advocate of Marxism in 2013 would be considered "progressive".

Anyway, the thread isn't about you. If it is clear to all why the question was asked (and the answer is clear, too: you have never lived under communism), let's go back to Syria.

I'm all for passionate debate but it really isn't ok to call someone a fucking dullard, it just isn't.

On RT they're reporting that America are launching attacks 'probably on Thursday', another pre-emptive strike. Have they learned nothing?

Hmm, the [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/ Washington Times]] isn't convinced.

I think they should wait until the UN has finished it's investigations, but the trouble is, they've made up their minds to "liberate" the country now & nothing will stop them.

Sorry - proper link here - Washington Times

NicholasTeakozy

What has that got to do with anything you fucking dullard?

As I pointed out above, it would be weird to be espousing a system of government while never having experienced it. And judging by your reaction, and your tedious posts where you bleat on about the evils of capitalism on your Macbook from your centrally heated home, that's precisely what you're doing.

But of course there's little people like you hate more than having your ghastly hypocrisy exposed.

Are you seriously debating or are you trying to derail? Don't bother, we already know, we see the same bollocks all the time, most have stopped bothering because you constantly belittle those who disagree with you and your deranged right wing policies. Sorry, neoliberal policies.

Well God forbid I might not take you seriously when you've got so much wit, erudition and knowledge to contribute.

Here's a funny thing. The US, who created Al Qaida by funding the muhajideen in the 80s and then opposed them after Russia left Afghanistan are about to fight alongside Al Qaida again. "We have never been at war with Al Qaida, we have always been at war with Al Assad".

Here's a funny thing. The British and Americans were allied with the Soviet Union against the Axis powers between June 1941 and April 1945. Then there was the Cold War. But before June 1941, the Soviet Union was allied with the Axis powers. It was allied from August 1939, when it signed the agreement to divide up Poland with Nazi Germany.

Then there's Italy, an ally of Great Britain in WW1 and an Axis ally in WW2 until it switched sides.

The point being - since I have to spell everything out to the peanut gallery - that expecting everyone to stay 'on the same side' over a period of decades is ridiculous - but not nearly as ridiculous as attempting to claim that the US is going to fight "alongside Al Qaeda".

It's also questionable whether the US 'created Al Qaeda'. They funded the Mujahadeen to make life hell for the Soviets after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan - let's not forget to mention that the soviets INVADED AFGHANISTAN. Some of the people in the mujahadeen went in to Al Qaeda. But the US never created that exciting combination of religious fanaticism and loathing of the West.

I am slightly unsure as what communism has to do with Syria but that maybe me being ignorant.

However I do agree with the Russian sentiment of how can we attack without conclusive proof I don't logically see why Assad would have used chemical weapons it doesn't sit right with me.

I think we have to look to the Arab league, Iran and the UN to try to solve the situation.

If the west keeps interfering in the Arab world like this I can see a generation of people susceptible to joining terrorist causes as they will have grown up with the aftermath of our interventions

What has that got to do with anything you fucking dullard?

NOW NOW THEN

Wannabestepfordwife flatpackhamster thinks that shouting "red" at someone is going to discredit everything they say, that is why she is obsessed with asking q's about communism. CoteDAzur trust me its so fucking progressive and upsetting to the state that we now talk about racism, gender oppression and gay rights instead and blame all inequality on cultural and religious differences. And I agree its not about me but it would seem I am not allowed to defend myself from hamsters mud slinging and her constant insinuations and digging for personal information.

hamster what's with the history lesson? do you want another one. The Bush family bankrolled Hitler, the Bush family had business dealings with the Nazis and Al Qaeda. These rich white suits don't give a shit about us, never have, and not the Syrian people either. This next round of murder isn't pursued because of human rights. Its about greed and wealth and creating the political/economic situation throughout the globe that benefits their class of people.

If you look at the way in which social life has evolved under different modes of production, how social relations change, how families become tribes, tribes > city states, city States > nations and nations become interconnected through various trade/political agreements it is possible to see that with each change to the base structure/economic relations you get a situation of more connectedness. Of course it may be that as "Empires" have evolved, each becoming more powerful than the last that eventually differences that lead to conflict btw nations will be just a story in a history book. Of course we might run out of oil and degrade the planet or we might start a war to end all wars. And all wars thus far have been about material resources and power, the cultural and religious is just used as a means of obscuring the class relations under capital, just as racism could be invoked to justify slavery. Slave owners never thought that it was unnatural that Black people be enslaved. Black people thought differently.

Slave owners never thought that it was unnatural that Black people be enslaved. Black people thought differently

Slavery was pretty universal, actually, though the trans-Atlantic slave trade was unique in scale and brutality.

Thanks for clearing that up mini I was a tad confused as to what was going on

bleat on about the evils of capitalism on your Macbook from your centrally heated home, that's precisely what you're doing.

What we have now isn't capitalism, it's neoliberalism. Capitalism is an exchange of capital. Because of neoliberalism we no longer manufacture and export more than we import. We have an economy based on services, mainly banking.

I am actually a capitalist, but not a greedy bastard like those running our financial corporations who gambled with our money and ran for a handout when their gambles failed. I don't own a Macbook, nor any Apple product. I have a 7 year old PC which I can't afford to replace until I save enough to do so.

talking around the creation of Al Qaida out of the ashes of the muhajideen after the US pulled out of Pakistan.

Mini - No, actually, you trust me when I say that there is nothing "progressive" about advocating a political system that has been tried and tested about 100 years ago, and which failed spectacularly on all counts.

It's cute that you think so, though. Mini the Minx, ahead of her time, raising her left fist against the capitalists with revolutionary sparks in her eyes, bringing workers and peasants enlightenment and freedom from their chains. Bless (Sorry, I just couldn't resist it )

Meanwhile, Syria challenges U.S. to "produce the evidence" that Assad regime launched chemical attack

I'm not sure it matters who used the chemical weapons in the short term. If they have been used (and certainly it seems something was used which killed a lot of people), then surely it's the purpose of the UN, and specifically the security council to try and prevent it from happening again? I think the international community has looked away from Syria for too long. It has also looked away from lots of other problems for too long, but this thread is about Syria.

My major worry is that the action is not going to be decided on the basis of "what is best for Syria?". It's going to be decided by what political leaders think will win them the most political points. Ed Miliband, for example, seems to be using the situation to point score against the government, rather than co-operating and trying to come up with a good solution. It's not the things he's saying (I agree we should wait for the UN weapons' inspectors findings before acting) but the way he is saying them. He seems more interested in defeating the government than suggesting possible courses of action.

I'm not in favour of David Cameron's proposed course of action WRT air strikes either. It seems like he is trying to avoid commiting to putting troops in on the ground and trying to interveen in a way that won't be too unpopular with the British people.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but we (as in the west) have pretty much ignored the situation for two and a half years now, and it hasn't got better- it's escalated. It's also starting to spill over into other parts of the middle east such as Lebanon, where there have been car bomb attacks by supports of both the rebels and Asad. I think it is getting to the stage where we are damned if we do act- because the outcome might be no better and it might provoke Iran- but also damned if we don't- because it is making the whole area more unstable, especially combined with current events in Egypt. It seems like lots of innocent Syrians will die either way.

I think it's good that the UK are trying to go through the UN, although I am sure they will do what they want to do regardless. I don't think we can rely on the Arab league sorting things out, as unfortunately many of those countries are not especially stable at the moment, so they won't be willing to commit large numbers of troops elsewhere.

Has anyone seen the update in the mail (sorry don't) know how to link)

Apparently refugees have been going over the Turkish border and it looks like they have been attacked by napalm

Quick question. Has anyone on this thread actually visited Syria?

Now a request. Please google Hama massacre and Tadmor prison massacre.

Final question, when people in Syria referred to someone being "behind the sun", what did they mean??

gosh which Hama massacre? I've found 3

By all means we should work through the UN. That's the whole bloody point of why it's there. But in this case it doesn't suit us because Russia & China are (understandably) saying there isn't enough evidence. And I have to agree with them at the moment.

I'm not in favour of David Cameron's proposed course of action WRT air strikes either. It seems like he is trying to avoid commiting to putting troops in on the ground and trying to interveen in a way that won't be too unpopular with the British people.

And that's exactly what scares me. How the hell do you bomb another country then go "well there! Hope you've learned your lesson!!"

The answer is you can't. Can you imagine if say Russia bombed us for having nukes and said "There! Serves you right!" Would we say "Oh yes... fair enough. We deserved that!"

No. We'd get fucking outraged and want to kill every Russian we could find. And that's what's going to happen here.

The US will lob some bombs just to show they're the world's policeman and all round 'good guys'. The UK will follow because we're just their lapdogs.

The Syrians and other muslim countries will hate our guts even more than we already do and our politician's will wonder why.

Unless we're willing to commit boots on the ground and put up with large loss of US/UK casualties, there really isn't any realistic 'winning' situation for us.

In which case what the fuck are we trying to do?

I suppose the idea is not to change the outcome of the civil war (which would take a massive intervention) but to impress on the Assads that the use of chemical weapons will attract reprisals, so it becomes militarily not worthwhile for them to do it again.

In which case targeted air strikes alone could be effective to do that.

err, confused cote Marx never espoused a political system he developed a social theory and critiqued capitalism He believed that communism would develop out of the struggle against capitalism, he didn't develop an ideology.

Yes we have neo-liberalism NicholasTeakozy but I would disagree that capitalism is characterised by swapping/exchanging capital. Pre-capitalist systems exchanged money/often confused as capital (should really make a distinction here). What characterises capitalism is waged work and accumulation and the specific social relations resulting from this.

Anyway back to Syria SlowlorisIncognito not only would committing ground troops be unpopular but potentially very expensive in terms of time, money and lives. Although I can't see how we could avoid committing ground troops a post Assad Syria because the various factions will continue frighting. Maybe it would have been different if they hadn't been supplied with arms?

The UN today couldn't reach a consensus.

Wannabestepfordwife thank you, bloody hell, those poor people.

link here www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2404550/Injuries-Syrians-Assads-political-rivals-say-targeted-phosphorous-bombs.html