I suggest killfiling "irongron." Attending to socialists in transition
to fascism is one thing; bothering with an apolitical idiot who nation
baits and libels out of the pettiest spite is another.

srd

I suggest killfiling "irongron." Attending to socialists in transition
to fascism is one thing; bothering with an apolitical idiot who nation
baits and libels out of the pettiest spite is another.

srd

On Nov 6, 5:19 am, srd <srdiam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

I suggest killfiling "irongron." Attending to socialists in transition
to fascism is one thing; bothering with an apolitical idiot who nation
baits and libels out of the pettiest spite is another.

srd

Killfile irongron?

He has, it is true, managed to lower the level of APST polemic, a very
difficult task which he has succeeded in.

And he smells like an Internet prank of some sort.

Good evidence of
this is that he actually *agrees* with your bizarre position on Al
Quaida, which you are, it seems to me, only trying out for the sake of
the argument,

and even goes you one better. Nobody in their right mind
could seriously agree with your position, in fact I don't think you
really agree with it yourself.

I mean, calling for Bin Laden to get nuclear weapons? Come on.

Just for the sake of clarity, be it pointed out that the reason
radicals should defend the right of Iran or North Korea to nuclear
weapons is that they need a deterrent to a nuclearly-armed USA.
Nuclear weapons in and of themselves, abstractly, are a bad thing.
That one even has to point this out is pretty strange.

Mr. Laden is not in danger of being nuked, if the US government knew
exactly where he was, they would either send in drones or paratroops.

That is of course if the US government actually *wants* to get him,
which is open to question.

First use of nuclear weapons by anybody could be the first step to
Armageddon. That the extirpation of the human race would certainly
with the fight for socialism is hardly the *only* reason to oppose it,
I should hope. Even Bin Laden probably doesn't really want nukes, he
would have no practical use for them even from his perspective, and
you can be sure that if he did get a few somehow, the Taliban would
immediately join hands with the US government to take them away.

Back to irongron.

Mixed in with sleazy garbage that pollutes the APST atmosphere even
further, he has also posted a lot of genuinely worthwhile material on
Australia, which is certainly more worth reading than anything else
posted on APST lately. So killfiling him is absurd, his historical
posts of the last day or two are the only really good reason to read
APST by now anyway. I learned a lot from them.

First use of nuclear weapons by anybody could be the first step to
Armageddon.

That the extirpation of the human race would certainly
with the fight for socialism is hardly the *only* reason to oppose it,

Listen to you shit talking fucks, polluting the internet with your
pseudo-communist bullshit...you filthy mono-lingual anglo-saxon racist
fucks, you lying shit pigs, you're all racist fakass fucks...go back to
molesting your children you sad cunts

hahhahahahah, fucken morons, whats it like to speak only one language ?

On Nov 6, 11:54 am, jh <jhsherl... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

First use of nuclear weapons by anybody could be the first step to
Armageddon.

Beware of petty bourgeois moralism whenever such platitudes appear!

That the extirpation of the human race would certainly
with the fight for socialism is hardly the *only* reason to oppose it,

Come on, sherlock. Marxists, while seeking to avoid it, don't "oppose"
nuclear war. I risk carping, but I think even your language reveals
the pacifism behind refusing support to al Qaeda. The more subtle
reason is if _you_ recognized the duty to defend, you would conclude
you owed support to its nuclear armament. Not a dime nor man for the
class state; the Third World state so remains. If you vote against the
bourgeois military budget in a capitalist neocolony and against
conscription, you can hardly justify supporting the augmentation of
state military/police power by other means.

Seems to me Spain should speak to this, although I don't know the

On Nov 6, 11:54 am, jh <jhsherl... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 6, 5:19 am, srd <srdiam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

I suggest killfiling "irongron." Attending to socialists in transition
to fascism is one thing; bothering with an apolitical idiot who nation
baits and libels out of the pettiest spite is another.

srd

Killfile irongron?

He has, it is true, managed to lower the level of APST polemic, a very
difficult task which he has succeeded in.

And he smells like an Internet prank of some sort.

If that isn't a good reason for killfiling someone, I can't imagine
one.

Good evidence of
this is that he actually *agrees* with your bizarre position on Al
Quaida, which you are, it seems to me, only trying out for the sake of
the argument,

That's all I EVER do. What's the point of arguing contentions I'm
already convinced of?

and even goes you one better. Nobody in their right mind
could seriously agree with your position, in fact I don't think you
really agree with it yourself.

I mean, calling for Bin Laden to get nuclear weapons? Come on.

I haven't read most of irongron's posts; I stopped when he accused
Fusty Fascist of being a child molester. So, was this nuclearizing of
al Qaeda_his_ position, or are you claiming it's mine? (I don't call
for it and never did.)

Just for the sake of clarity, be it pointed out that the reason
radicals should defend the right of Iran or North Korea to nuclear
weapons is that they need a deterrent to a nuclearly-armed USA.
Nuclear weapons in and of themselves, abstractly, are a bad thing.
That one even has to point this out is pretty strange.

Sounds like you thought I said it; if it's irongron, it wouldn't be
_strange—for an internet prankster. And why would you remind me that
someone whose killfile I urged is strange. Somehow you got the
impression I favor a nuclear-armed al Qaeda. Might I inquire what?

What's genuinely strange is that you get it right in imputing to me
what I haven't stated: there's no difference between being for a
nuclear armed ultra-Islamic Pakistan or al Qaeda. In claiming
distinction, you forget to notice that just as nuclear weapons would
serve to deter attacks on Pakistan, 1) they would also deter the use
of nuclear weapons against national liberation movements: 2) they
would serve to offset other advantages of imperialism equally bad as
nuclear weapons (napalm bombing, etc.) But don't get carried away; to
recognize the analogy isn't to embrace the result. Rather, it creates
insurmountable problems for the Spart League when it advocates
providing reactionary Third World governments with nuclear weapons.
Giving al Qaeda nuclear weapons is the reductio ad absurdum of
ignoring the class line regarding state power.

You confuse defense of Iran against attacks forestalling its nuclear
capacity (for example) with favoring Iran's *achieving* enhanced
military capability. This is surprising because the positions'
assessment boils down to a straightforward distinction between defense
and support. Workers defend Iran by their own means, not through the
Persian state, even as they welcome the victory of the Persian state
in partial struggles where it takes on imperialism, including the
struggle against imperialist interference with its nuclear
development. Should a workers state deliver nuclear weapons (or ANY
weapons) to a capitalist state merely because of its neocolonial
status and conjunctural conflict with imperialism? NO. You disagree;
the contradiction's yours.



Mr. Laden is not in danger of being nuked, if the US government knew
exactly where he was, they would either send in drones or paratroops.

Irrelevant. We're talking about a question of principle. You're
searching for ad hoc objections—pettifogging.

That is of course if the US government actually *wants* to get him,
which is open to question.

True but, again, irrelevant.



First use of nuclear weapons by anybody could be the first step to
Armageddon. That the extirpation of the human race would certainly
with the fight for socialism is hardly the *only* reason to oppose it,
I should hope. Even Bin Laden probably doesn't really want nukes, he
would have no practical use for them even from his perspective, and
you can be sure that if he did get a few somehow, the Taliban would
immediately join hands with the US government to take them away.

You've gone to some lengths in your strawman about nuclear-arming bin
Laden.



Back to irongron.

Mixed in with sleazy garbage that pollutes the APST atmosphere even
further, he has also posted a lot of genuinely worthwhile material on
Australia, which is certainly more worth reading than anything else
posted on APST lately. So killfiling him is absurd, his historical
posts of the last day or two are the only really good reason to read
APST by now anyway. I learned a lot from them.

Only a suggestion and an imprecise one,  real point to urge his
isolation. Killfiling is mere metaphor for not responding (although
_you_ observe your kilfilles literally).

As to the role of his garbage injected into discussions, I take as
confirmation one result: your unusual confusion about how far my
_defense_ of al Qaeda extends.

srd

On Nov 6, 1:09 pm, srd <srdiam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:





On Nov 6, 11:54 am, jh <jhsherl... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

A.  There is no difference between a nuclear-armed Islamic Pakistan
and a nuclear-armed Islamic Iran. Unless you think there is a
principled difference between Sunnism and Shi'ism, which you do not.
And, of course, Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, so this is not
merely a hypothetical.

B. You argue that there is no difference between a nuclear-armed Al
Quaida and a nuclear armed Islamic Pakistan.

C. In the past, you have argued strongly that North Korea has the
right to nuclear weapons, and have never disagreed when this logic was
extended to Iran.

Therefore, either:

A. You support the nuclear arming of Al Quaida, or;

B. You have changed your position on Iran, and now agree with the
consensus extending from Bush Jr. and Obama to all sorts of leftists,
e.g. the ISO, that Iran should not have nuclear weapons.

I had concluded that your position was A. Is it in fact B?

On Nov 6, 1:22 pm, srd <srdiam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:



On Nov 6, 11:54 am, jh <jhsherl... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

First use of nuclear weapons by anybody could be the first step to
Armageddon.

Beware of petty bourgeois moralism whenever such platitudes appear!

That the extirpation of the human race would certainly
with the fight for socialism is hardly the *only* reason to oppose it,

Come on, sherlock. Marxists, while seeking to avoid it, don't "oppose"
nuclear war. I risk carping, but I think even your language reveals
the pacifism behind refusing support to al Qaeda. The more subtle
reason is if _you_ recognized the duty to defend, you would conclude
you owed support to its nuclear armament. Not a dime nor man for the
class state; the Third World state so remains. If you vote against the
bourgeois military budget in a capitalist neocolony and against
conscription, you can hardly justify supporting the augmentation of
state military/police power by other means.

Seems to me Spain should speak to this, although I don't know the
positions. What was the 4th International's position on helping arm
bourgeois republican forces? By analogy, I'm saying they should have
called for arming only proletarian forces (and not necessarily all of
them).

srd- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I make the
basic distinction between having the right to nuclear weapons and
actually getting them.

On Nov 6, 1:42 pm, srd <srdiam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:





On Nov 6, 1:22 pm, srd <srdiam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 6, 11:54 am, jh <jhsherl... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

First use of nuclear weapons by anybody could be the first step to
Armageddon.

Beware of petty bourgeois moralism whenever such platitudes appear!

That the extirpation of the human race would certainly
with the fight for socialism is hardly the *only* reason to oppose it,

Come on, sherlock. Marxists, while seeking to avoid it, don't "oppose"
nuclear war. I risk carping, but I think even your language reveals
the pacifism behind refusing support to al Qaeda. The more subtle
reason is if _you_ recognized the duty to defend, you would conclude
you owed support to its nuclear armament. Not a dime nor man for the
class state; the Third World state so remains. If you vote against the
bourgeois military budget in a capitalist neocolony and against
conscription, you can hardly justify supporting the augmentation of
state military/police power by other means.

Seems to me Spain should speak to this, although I don't know the
positions. What was the 4th International's position on helping arm
bourgeois republican forces? By analogy, I'm saying they should have
called for arming only proletarian forces (and not necessarily all of
them).

srd- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There was a relevant Trotsky piece on this very question, which has
been posted here on APST from time to time. (Dave, if you are paying
attention, please repost.)

I recall that Trotsky said that dockworkers should try and prevent
fascist arms shipments to Spain, while facilitating arms shipments to
the Republican side.

Which is an entirely separate question from whether you would vote for
the military budget in the Spanish parliament, which he opposed.

I'd like to see a principled distinction between voting to let the

On Nov 6, 1:42 pm, jh <jhsherl... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:





On Nov 6, 1:09 pm, srd <srdiam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 6, 11:54 am, jh <jhsherl... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
A.  There is no difference between a nuclear-armed Islamic Pakistan
and a nuclear-armed Islamic Iran. Unless you think there is a
principled difference between Sunnism and Shi'ism, which you do not.
And, of course, Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, so this is not
merely a hypothetical.

B. You argue that there is no difference between a nuclear-armed Al
Quaida and a nuclear armed Islamic Pakistan.

C. In the past, you have argued strongly that North Korea has the
right to nuclear weapons, and have never disagreed when this logic was
extended to Iran.

Therefore, either:

A. You support the nuclear arming of Al Quaida, or;

B. You have changed your position on Iran, and now agree with the
consensus extending from Bush Jr. and Obama to all sorts of leftists,
e.g. the ISO, that Iran should not have nuclear weapons.

I had concluded that your position was A. Is it in fact B?

I take neither position; I don't think they're exhaustive. I make the
basic distinction between having the right to nuclear weapons and
actually getting them. Iran has the right to nuclear weapons; workers
must defend Iran against imperialist efforts to deprive the Iranian
state of nuclear capacity. But that doesn't mean workers should
otherwise facilitate the Iranian state's acquisition of nuclear
weapons.

Take a look at the Spain analogy in another posting. (Since I don't
_know_ the historical position, I at least can't be accused of
intentional bias.) Where the bourgeoisie tried to embargo arms
shipments to bourgeois republican forces, I'd say socialists demand an
end to the embargo. But do socialists favor *putting* arms in the
bourgeois republicans' hands? To me the answer must be NO because the
same weapons will be used against workers and peasants.

From what I know of the ISO, I'd expect favoring peaceful development
of nuclear energy in Iran while not objecting on principle to efforts
to restrain the development of nuclear weapons — not recognizing the
right to develop nuclear weapons as part of the nation's right to self
determination. That is, straight up liberal moralism.

Previous discussions haven't made an issue of actual acquisition. The
question is clearest if it's posed as whether a workers state should
provide nuclear weapons.

Also, there's the distraction that I would personally like to see Iran
with nuclear weapons in confronting Israel. But that doesn't mean as
an Iranian communist I would vote for its budget. Nor does it mean
that as (say) a Chinese communist, I would favor gifting Iran with the
bomb. (Like I think you would.)

In considering the reinforcement of
ANY "nation-state's" power, the class line predominates over any
specific anti-imperialist struggle.

The issues aren't identical with a workers state like North Korea.

srd- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Nov 6, 5:19am, srd <srdiam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

I suggest killfiling "irongron." Attending to socialists in transition
to fascism is one thing; bothering with an apolitical idiot who nation
baits and libels out of the pettiest spite is another.

srd

Killfile irongron?

He has, it is true, managed to lower the level of APST polemic, a very
difficult task which he has succeeded in.

And he smells like an Internet prank of some sort.

Good evidence of
this is that he actually *agrees* with your bizarre position on Al
Quaida, which you are, it seems to me, only trying out for the sake of
the argument,

and even goes you one better. Nobody in their right mind
could seriously agree with your position, in fact I don't think you
really agree with it yourself.

I mean, calling for Bin Laden to get nuclear weapons? Come on.

Just for the sake of clarity, be it pointed out that the reason
radicals should defend the right of Iran or North Korea to nuclear
weapons is that they need a deterrent to a nuclearly-armed USA.
Nuclear weapons in and of themselves, abstractly, are a bad thing.
That one even has to point this out is pretty strange.

Mr. Laden is not in danger of being nuked, if the US government knew
exactly where he was, they would either send in drones or paratroops.

That is of course if the US government actually *wants* to get him,
which is open to question.

First use of nuclear weapons by anybody could be the first step to
Armageddon. That the extirpation of the human race would certainly
with the fight for socialism is hardly the *only* reason to oppose it,
I should hope. Even Bin Laden probably doesn't really want nukes, he
would have no practical use for them even from his perspective, and
you can be sure that if he did get a few somehow, the Taliban would
immediately join hands with the US government to take them away.

Back to irongron.

Mixed in with sleazy garbage that pollutes the APST atmosphere even
further, he has also posted a lot of genuinely worthwhile material on
Australia, which is certainly more worth reading than anything else
posted on APST lately. So killfiling him is absurd, his historical
posts of the last day or two are the only really good reason to read
APST by now anyway. I learned a lot from them.

Listen to you shit talking fucks, polluting the internet with your
pseudo-communist bullshit...you filthy mono-lingual anglo-saxon racist
fucks, you lying shit pigs, you're all racist fakass fucks...go back to
molesting your children you sad cunts

hahhahahahah, fucken morons, whats it like to speak only one language ?


"srd" <srdiamond at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f817f42-2efb-4e89-8b40-20a288c4a243 at (no spam) 12g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 6, 11:54am, jh <jhsherl... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 5:19am, srd <srdiam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

I suggest killfiling "irongron." Attending to socialists in transition
to fascism is one thing; bothering with an apolitical idiot who nation
baits and libels out of the pettiest spite is another.

srd

Killfile irongron?

He has, it is true, managed to lower the level of APST polemic, a very
difficult task which he has succeeded in.

And he smells like an Internet prank of some sort.

If that isn't a good reason for killfiling someone, I can't imagine
one.

Good evidence of
this is that he actually *agrees* with your bizarre position on Al
Quaida, which you are, it seems to me, only trying out for the sake of
the argument,

That's all I EVER do. What's the point of arguing contentions I'm
already convinced of?

and even goes you one better. Nobody in their right mind
could seriously agree with your position, in fact I don't think you
really agree with it yourself.

I mean, calling for Bin Laden to get nuclear weapons? Come on.

I haven't read most of irongron's posts; I stopped when he accused
Fusty Fascist of being a child molester. So, was this nuclearizing of
al Qaeda_his_ position, or are you claiming it's mine? (I don't call
for it and never did.)

Just for the sake of clarity, be it pointed out that the reason
radicals should defend the right of Iran or North Korea to nuclear
weapons is that they need a deterrent to a nuclearly-armed USA.
Nuclear weapons in and of themselves, abstractly, are a bad thing.
That one even has to point this out is pretty strange.

Sounds like you thought I said it; if it's irongron, it wouldn't be
_strangefor an internet prankster. And why would you remind me that
someone whose killfile I urged is strange. Somehow you got the
impression I favor a nuclear-armed al Qaeda. Might I inquire what?

What's genuinely strange is that you get it right in imputing to me
what I haven't stated: there's no difference between being for a
nuclear armed ultra-Islamic Pakistan or al Qaeda. In claiming
distinction, you forget to notice that just as nuclear weapons would
serve to deter attacks on Pakistan, 1) they would also deter the use
of nuclear weapons against national liberation movements: 2) they
would serve to offset other advantages of imperialism equally bad as
nuclear weapons (napalm bombing, etc.) But don't get carried away; to
recognize the analogy isn't to embrace the result. Rather, it creates
insurmountable problems for the Spart League when it advocates
providing reactionary Third World governments with nuclear weapons.
Giving al Qaeda nuclear weapons is the reductio ad absurdum of
ignoring the class line regarding state power.

You confuse defense of Iran against attacks forestalling its nuclear
capacity (for example) with favoring Iran's *achieving* enhanced
military capability. This is surprising because the positions'
assessment boils down to a straightforward distinction between defense
and support. Workers defend Iran by their own means, not through the
Persian state, even as they welcome the victory of the Persian state
in partial struggles where it takes on imperialism, including the
struggle against imperialist interference with its nuclear
development. Should a workers state deliver nuclear weapons (or ANY
weapons) to a capitalist state merely because of its neocolonial
status and conjunctural conflict with imperialism? NO. You disagree;
the contradiction's yours.

Mr. Laden is not in danger of being nuked, if the US government knew
exactly where he was, they would either send in drones or paratroops.

Irrelevant. We're talking about a question of principle. You're
searching for ad hoc objectionspettifogging.


That is of course if the US government actually *wants* to get him,
which is open to question.

True but, again, irrelevant.

First use of nuclear weapons by anybody could be the first step to
Armageddon. That the extirpation of the human race would certainly
with the fight for socialism is hardly the *only* reason to oppose it,
I should hope. Even Bin Laden probably doesn't really want nukes, he
would have no practical use for them even from his perspective, and
you can be sure that if he did get a few somehow, the Taliban would
immediately join hands with the US government to take them away.

You've gone to some lengths in your strawman about nuclear-arming bin
Laden.

Back to irongron.

Mixed in with sleazy garbage that pollutes the APST atmosphere even
further, he has also posted a lot of genuinely worthwhile material on
Australia, which is certainly more worth reading than anything else
posted on APST lately. So killfiling him is absurd, his historical
posts of the last day or two are the only really good reason to read
APST by now anyway. I learned a lot from them.

Only a suggestion and an imprecise one, real point to urge his
isolation. Killfiling is mere metaphor for not responding (although
_you_ observe your kilfilles literally).

As to the role of his garbage injected into discussions, I take as
confirmation one result: your unusual confusion about how far my
_defense_ of al Qaeda extends.

srd




Seriously, listening to your rodomontades is hilarious...a bunch of morons