Comments on: Socialist Unity finally notices Amnesty debate

By: Paul Stott

Paul Stott — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:46:33 +0000

Abdul Alhazred wrote
“The smokescreen Andy is trying to set up about HP and “Class war” is really quite amusing, isn’t it?
Although its rather shocking that a self-proclaimed “socialist” should see no difference between striking miners defending themselves against police aggression by lobbing bricks (even if this is glorified in a semi-tongue-in-cheek manner by a bunch of silly anarchists) and religio-fascist scum seriously plotting to blow up “slags” in night clubs.”

I don’t think Andy Newman actually believes the shit he writes himself. Yesterday whilst trying to claim Class War is a terrorist organisation, he also managed to publish a piece promoting a forthcoming book by former Doncaster NUM official Dave Douglass.

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=5251

Dave was a member of Class War for over 20 years. I have not seen his book yet, but knowing the Doncaster miners group he was part of, its fair to say they went out on their shields in the miners clashes with the cops.

On Newman’s twisted logic of course, he himself is promoting a book by a terrorist…..

By: Graham

Graham — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:49:25 +0000

I take your childish swearing (vildechaye) in the spirit in which it is intended, which I take to be a frustrated, bullying incoherence.

It is always funny when this last line of defence is reached. Reminds me of Captain Mainwaring for some reason.

By: Ann On

Ann On — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:45:06 +0000

Can I say that I absolutely did not use the words “shifty zionist” (above) , nor would I, this phrase is entirely an invention of vildechaye. Indeed the main issue I raised – Brett’s enthusiasm for Guantanamo, has zero to do with Israel – the obsession with Israel exists mostly in vildechaye’s head, I think. If the circus needs a mind reader, please don’t apply- your “what they really means” are all wrong.

On the one Israel-related issue, it seems extraordinarily overheated to say that not supporting “targeted killings” = believing Israel should not exist. I can see there is an argument for assassination, but it doesn’t convince me. However, the point I am raising is that enthusiasm for assassination (no due process etc) is not the sign of a committed supporter of Amnesty – I suppose in a way you make this point yourself, as I suspect you are not a great fan of AI

I take your childish swearing (vildechaye) in the spirit in which it is intended, which I take to be a frustrated, bullying incoherence.

By: Jimmy Glesga

Jimmy Glesga — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:34:31 +0000

Strange mob the left in Britain. They were originally supposed to improve the living and working conditions of the British Working Class. They have not acheived this. This was done by moderate people. They have now moved on to supporting onerous murderous people. Should we be surprised.

By: vildechaye

vildechaye — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:33:48 +0000

What he said:
you aren’t “really a concerned Amnesty supporter worried about their direction”

What it really means:
you must be one of those shifty Zionists pushing a pro-Israel agenda under the guise of caring about AA’s direction, which you “really” don’t care about at all.

Incidentally, is there any means at all by which fellows such as Ann On would allow Israel to defend itself. Let’s see:

Targeted assassinations of known terrorists and terrorism planners: NO
Blockades of territories “governed” by terrorists: NO
Separation wall to keep terrorists out: :NO
Armed response to continued acts of terrorism (i.e. rocket fire): NO
Demolitions of terrorist homes: NO
Insistence that Hamas lives up to prior agreements and recognize Israel before negotiations: NO

What, pray tell, can this particular sovereign states do to protect itself that would meet with the approval of ann on et al:

Wait, I know. There is only one acceptable strategy:

Negotiate Israel out of existence: YES

Fuck off, Ann On. Yes, that’s swearing, meant for you. Take it in the spirit in which it’s given.

Negotiate

By: Ann On

Ann On — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:54:41 +0000

I had in mind this piece by Brett

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/05/28/what-to-do-with-terrorists/

which seems as far from an Amnesty viewpoint as you could get. Which makes me think you are not genuinely trying to “support” Amnesty. If you would rather only have people comment who agree with you, fair enough, just say so and I will toddle off, but it is hard not to rise to sweary rants and I think temporary bans (unless that was just my internet playing up). Equally, Gene, given your enthusiasm for Israel’s extrajudicial assassination policy – something condemned by Amnesty because of , you know, due process and legality and that kind of thing, it seems hard to imagine you are really a concerned Amnesty supporter worried about their direction.

By: Richard Farnos

Richard Farnos — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:37:49 +0000

Brett, give Ann’s comments would you care to clarify what position is regarding:

a) Guantanamo

b) Women

By: Ann On

Ann On — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:30:21 +0000

Swearing ? Mis spellings ? easily rattled, Brett.

By: Golden Gordon

Golden Gordon — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:23:16 +0000

I am part of campaign to make sure that a known supporter of the Taliban is brought to justice. This person was part of a group which armed, trained and took the lives of individuals who were fighting for feminism, gay and egalitarian workers rights. This person supported organisations who believed in Islamic law and set up of Muslim schools.
Yes, we want to see Maggie in an orange jump suit.
I know many on this site Brett, Roo, David T and Lucy will defend this lady but she has to be interned.
Also another guy for the orange suit is Olly North, a known trafficker of arms to Islamic regimes. Sorry Gene

By: Brett

Brett — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:45:51 +0000

Given that you can’t follow an argument Ann On, shouldn’t you just fuck off?