Add new comment

Submitted by Jason on Tue, 14/10/2008 - 15:33

You say you oppose troops out now- "because - abstracted from a programme of working-class power - its consequences would be reactionary?"

So in other words you oppose it. I get thusa stuff from your website, your publications and people's comments on this board- now confirmed by you.

"Does that mean we positively support the presence of occupying troops in Iraq, or would oppose their withdrawal (immediate or otherwise) and would counsel Iraqi workers not to fight for it? No. If you can't get your head round that, Jason, then I'm sorry. It doesn't seem to me that one would require a PhD in political science to understand the idea that just because you don't choose to make shrilly demanding (in the abstract) a particular outcome in a given conflict, you're necessarily in favour of its opposite."

I never said any of the above. In fact I said, "you (the AWL) are against 'troops out now', "- that's all.

On Matgamna- OK that's his view. He is a leading member of your organisation and there have been several articles in your paper supporting him- and to be fair several opposing it. Fair point - I should have said, several members of the AWL have put forward views suggesting a lack of willingness to condemn an attack on Iran by israel. I am happy to make that clarification.

On the Mahdi army you brought it up not me. You keep assigning views on it I don't ave and then berating me for them. It';s a line of argument often called the straw person (or 'strawman' in its orgiinal). Once again I don't consider them "not being sufficiently anti-imperialist/part of the resistance "- they are anti working class forces, not part of resistance at all.

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.