I didn't just say it's insulting- though personally I do find it pretty insulting to be called by the name of a murderous barbaric distortion of politics that has had an effect on immediate family members. I'm not sure that is demagogic.
Demagogy s appealing to emotions in the absence of rational argument. I have made plenty of rational points about how we don't have to choose between two evils, about how an attack on Iran is not only a disaster for those killed but a triumph for reactionaries and far from defending the interests of Israeli Jews helps imperil them. However, I do think it is entirely relevant to point out that Stalinism like the crimes of the Iranian dictatorship has been responsible for – and in the latter case continues to be responsible for horrific crimes beyond most of our experiences (perhaps my wife’s father’s experiences aren’t directly relevant admittedly- it was just an example and it was on my mind as she has recently been to visit him).
But as I never once said any of the points Cathy falsely claims I did say how can I directly argue against them in my post responding to hers?
You don't have to choose between two evils- the Iranian dictatorship or imperialism.
There is an alternative- supporting working class resistance in Iran, Israel/Palestine, and Middle East as whole as a whole and here.
And what's with the final riposte- "It's called being honest.
Try it sometime."
Firstly, there is nothing honest about misrepresenting my political position and claiming I said things I never did and never would.
Secondly, 'try it sometime'- where have I been dishonest?
Can we not get over this kind of playground banter?
(And anyway you started it!)
PS That parenthesis was a joke in case anyone is tempted to pull me up on it!