You are viewing anarchists

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Just for the record....

... anarchists don't support fascists or war criminals - of any sort.

Comments

( 11 comments — Leave a comment )
vehemencet_t
Sep. 17th, 2013 02:27 pm (UTC)
For starters, you would have to define "support". If you think refusing to support one imperialistic state punishing a smaller dictatorship constitutes supporting war criminals than we would have a problem. Not saying you do, but the post was very concise.

Secondly, what defines a "war criminal"? If you refer to one who conducts warfare outside the bounds of various bureaucratic international conventions, agreements, and the like made between powerful nation-states, then we likewise have a problem. Anarchists have no reason to accept the authority of groups like the U.N. or the ICC to define "criminal" behavior in combat.

Obviously many of us would agree on certain personal ethical strictures, of course, and we do not even believe in participation, support or advocacy of any conventional wars to start with.
tcpip
Sep. 17th, 2013 11:13 pm (UTC)
Thanks for posing the sensible questions. I do suppose it was a response to the recent deluge of a rather one-sided perspective on the Syrian conflict which has currently flooded the community.

I would start by suggesting that "support" includes the proposal that State sovereignty transcends universal human rights, and that people who engage in such abuses can do so with impunity within a particular State.

There are various definitions of "war criminal" but the purpose of this discussion I would certainly include Statist terrorism; the systematic use of violence against non-combatants for a political end.

With some consideration, it seems to me that the Assad regime is deserving of no protection, no support, and is deserving of being overthrown. I do share similar concerns with the recently essay by Samar Yazbek on the situation, but I also am sympathetic to the conclusion.
vehemencet_t
Sep. 18th, 2013 12:07 pm (UTC)
No problem, this community hasnt seen any serious discussion in what seems like ages.

I do not believe that state sovereignty transcends universal human rights. However, I cannot support another imperial power's military attack when the motivations are geopolitical rather than humanitarian and their history already a poor record of achieving actual benefit. I live in that country and want it to become less powerful, not more. There are many dictatorships which go unchallenged--the U.S. has even propped up a few of its own for good business. Its telling that only select ones get targeted for "intervention". My heart's desire is for the Syrian people to secure freedom, justice, peace and self-determination for themselves. But whether Assad stays in power with the backing of his Russian and Iranian allies, the U.S. uses its military to overthrow the regime or the al-Qaeda insurgents in the country brutally take power and impose their rule instead, the Syrian people will not have those things. None of them are true solutions.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/18617-syrian-anarchist-challenges-the-rebel-regime-binary-view-of-resistance

http://anarchistnews.org/content/toward-anarchist-policy-syria

Will you admit that the U.S. administration's iterest in military action against Syria has nothing to do with political freedom or human rights, but is motivated by more imperial geopolitical concerns?

Are you aware of the conflicting reports and problematic bias surrounding the original premise of U.S. intervention, such as whether or not the Islamist insurgents themselves performed chemical weapon attacks?

vehemencet_t
Sep. 18th, 2013 01:24 pm (UTC)
(Sorry for possible redundancy, first attempt to reply got marked as spam bizarrely)

(Also got marked as spam for second time so I will just remove the two links I had included: One was "Syrian Anarchist Challenges the Rebel-Regime Binary View of Resistance" on the truth-out and the other was "Toward Anarchist Policy Syria" on anarchistnews)

No problem, this community hasnt seen any serious discussion in what seems like ages.

I do not believe that state sovereignty transcends universal human rights. However, I cannot support another imperial power's military attack when the motivations are geopolitical rather than humanitarian and their history already a poor record of achieving actual benefit. I live in that country and want it to become less powerful, not more. There are many dictatorships which go unchallenged--the U.S. has even propped up a few of its own for good business. Its telling that only select ones get targeted for "intervention". My heart's desire is for the Syrian people to secure freedom, justice, peace and self-determination for themselves. But whether Assad stays in power with the backing of his Russian and Iranian allies, the U.S. uses its military to overthrow the regime or the al-Qaeda insurgents in the country brutally take power and impose their rule instead, the Syrian people will not have those things. None of them are true solutions.

Will you admit that the U.S. administration's iterest in military action against Syria has nothing to do with political freedom or human rights, but is motivated by more imperial geopolitical concerns?

Are you aware of the conflicting reports and problematic bias surrounding the original premise of U.S. intervention, such as whether or not the Islamist insurgents themselves performed chemical weapons attacks?
(Anonymous)
Sep. 18th, 2013 05:19 pm (UTC)
"Will you admit that the U.S. administration's interest in military action against Syria has nothing to do with political freedom or human rights, but is motivated by more imperial geopolitical concerns?

Are you aware of the conflicting reports and problematic bias surrounding the original premise of U.S. intervention, such as whether or not the Islamist insurgents themselves performed chemical weapons attacks?"

Thank you for this statement and all the rest. The recent activity to this (otherwise inactive) community from its newest member was attempting through articles and videos to convey just that. It would seem, information recently posted here goes on read or perhaps viewed with strong bias even to the point of ridiculously accusing its newest member of being a supporter of the Syrian government. From what I’ve read here, seems pretty outrageous. This coming from the moderator of this community shows lack of integrity and bullying..…IMHO .
tcpip
Sep. 19th, 2013 02:14 am (UTC)
Hey, you're welcome to become a moderator if you want.
tcpip
Sep. 19th, 2013 02:10 am (UTC)
Sorry for possible redundancy, first attempt to reply got marked as spam bizarrely

Yes, I am not sure why that is the case.

You will probably note that with regard to the first link, I have previously posted the author's article itself.

Will you admit that the U.S. administration's iterest in military action against Syria has nothing to do with political freedom or human rights, but is motivated by more imperial geopolitical concerns?

I think both are the case.

Are you aware of the conflicting reports and problematic bias surrounding the original premise of U.S. intervention, such as whether or not the Islamist insurgents themselves performed chemical weapons attacks?

Yes, I am aware of those claims. Having reviewed the evidence I do not think they are convincing. But even it was so, it would still mean that a preferred option would be removal of the chemical weapons arsenal, international peacekeepers, and the end of the fascist government in Damascus (and not the replacement with a theocratic one).
vehemencet_t
Sep. 19th, 2013 10:57 am (UTC)
I found reading the newer article "Response by a Syrian anarchist to the First of May statement on Syria" on Libcom to be very helpful in giving me some additonal perspective from someone more intimately familiar with Syria on the ground, something that can be hard to acquire as a civilian in the West.

Regarding your second statement though it just seems to me like the U.S. is absolutely the worst party to do so, given its history of fuckery on the Middle East so far already. Its like enough is enough. I say this not because of concern over its financial cost to the U.S. or anything but because I fear it will be detrimental to the people of Syria overall and further empower the U.S. empower in the region, which means less self-determination locally. Keep in mind the U.S. has expressed little issue with or intent to get rid of the regime machinery in Syria, but only do not like its current player Assad. Once they have someone more pliable and amicable to Western interests Im sure the media frenzy on human rights abuses will disappear. The abuse will continue, however.
tcpip
Sep. 19th, 2013 10:49 pm (UTC)
... giving me some additonal perspective from someone more intimately familiar with Syria on the ground, something that can be hard to acquire as a civilian in the West.

Well, I have daily contact with a few people in Syria, FWIW.

Regarding your second statement though it just seems to me like the U.S. is absolutely the worst party to do so, given its history of fuckery on the Middle East so far already.

Sure, I generally don't disagree with that, and certainly an international peacekeeping force would be vastly preferable. However, it seems that Russia will allow their ally in Damascus to get away with anything and they'll just block any proposal.

For example, you know it was Russia that blocked the UN weapons inspectors from investigating the ghouta site? You know it was Russia who, after the site was bombed by conventional weapons, finally did allow the inspectors in but only on the proviso that they could determine whether chemical weapons were used, not who used them?
vehemencet_t
Sep. 20th, 2013 04:42 pm (UTC)
an international peacekeeping force would be vastly preferable

Unfortunately, there is *no* impartial free-agent international force of dedicated peacekeepers not affiliated with any government, corporation or religion who can step into conflicts like these and protect the innocent, help the weak and buff back the strong without being branded some kind of international criminals or saboteurs.

No I actually I hadn't seen anywhere that Russia was behind the provisos of the UN inspection mission. I think in the things I read the origin was simply not mentioned. I certainly believe in your strength of character but do you have a source for easy reference.
tcpip
Sep. 21st, 2013 02:28 pm (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is *no* impartial free-agent international force of dedicated peacekeepers not affiliated with any government...

I am aware of that which makes it a matter of preferential politics. I'd rather see a UN peackeeping force, but failing that at least something from the more liberal-democratic states to those that are not. The "hands off" approach I put last.

No I actually I hadn't seen anywhere that Russia was behind the provisos of the UN inspection mission.

Here is the link to the report that China and Russia blocked the probe after the attack,

http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/syria/un-holds-emergency-meeting-syria-chemical-attack-claims


I'll see if I can find the one about the provisions as well.
( 11 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

ngnm
anarchists
Anarchism Community

Latest Month

June 2014
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     
Powered by LiveJournal.com