A new low from Stop the War Coalition

Stop the War Coaltiion have rescinded an invitation to a Syrian member of the UK-based Syria Solidarity Movement, Abdul Aziz Al-Mashi, who was due to speak at a local Birmingham event – because they were “told” (presumably by their national leadership) that the Syria Solidarity movement “supported an imperialist-imposed No-Fly zone” (that didn’t stop them jumping on a record London demo for refugees organised by the Syria Solidarity Movement two weeks earlier however).

As it happens, there is a variety of opinions within the Syria Solidarity Movement on the subject, and two SSM members have written on opposing a NFZ (mainly because it’s the exact opposite of what is currently happening, with both the US and Russia bombing Syrian rebels and coordinating the same airspace with the Assad regime). You can read their articles here and here.

What makes this absolutely insane however, is that one of the panel’s speakers (whose invitation has most certainly not been rescinded) is a member of the PYD, i.e. the *only* force serving as a ground force for the current “imperialist airstrikes” in Syria, and one which has repeatedly praised the “imperialist US” for its airstrikes (and asked them for more).

And we’re supposed to believe there’s no socialist “bias”, right?

 Birmingham Stop the War

reqef

Just in case there is any doubt as to the vacuous, ideologically inconsistent, unprincipled hypocrisy of the pro-fascist Stop the War Coalition.

Let STWC continue its hemorrhage of British Muslim support.

Endgame: Both US and Russian forces in Syria

Loads of news as Syria’s endgame approaches.

Roundup: both US and Russian (‘advisory’) forces in Syria

1) Russian envoy at the UN states: the US does not want regime to fall http://in.rbth.com/news/2015/09/16/us-does-not-want-asad-regime-in-syria-to-fall-rusian-envoy-at-un_397119

2) US Defence spokesman: US special op forces enter Syria, to advise YPG, whilst Russian forces enter to advise regime

(Presumably, they will now be aptly described, by the Western left’s scab opponents of the Syrian revolution, as “proxies”)

3) US newspaper: Ground invasion needed to fight ISIS
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/americas/21066-us-newspaper-destroying-daesh-requires-ground-troops

4) Pictured: Russian armoured tanks in Syria
http://www.souriat.com/2015/09/9360.html

5) Revolutionary forces launch missile attacks on Russian positions
http://www.mojahedin.org/newsen/37742/Syria-rebels-launch-missile-attack-on-Russian-military-positions-near-Jibla-airport#.Vfftnz7Vumk.facebook

Only difference between US and Russian policy on Syria – US wanted to prolong the conflict and to weaken (but maintain) the regime, Russia wanted regime’s stability.

It is tempting to state that this (de facto) inter-imperialist alliance is unprecedented, but the fact is that such alliances have occurred with relative regularity between imperialist competitors throughout history. This is just the most substantial one to yet happen in the post-CW era, where the conflict in this case between the US and Russia is not ideological (or even a pretense of ideology), but pure geopolitical competition.

5 years of lies, coming to an end. Pity about those who allowed Western powers to bluff their way full circle.

[Brief thoughts] On the much vaunted 2013 threat of intervention

My theory of imperialism is this: if the people of the region want it, the US won’t support it (unless there is something potentially to make it worthwhile, like oil in Libya, but they’ll still try to fuck shit up afterwards). That’s the yardstick you should measure ‘imperialism’ by, instead of abstractions on what you think it wants. People in Syria wanted an intervention against Assad, they didn’t get it. Voila. If they didn’t want intervention, they probably would’ve got it. People in Iraq did not want an invasion, they got it, voila. That’s how it works.
 
The US *did not want to take down Assad in Syria*, ever. It wanted to rid Syria of chemical weapons because it was clear that the regime might not be able to safeguard them, and because having them flying around is a regional threat (especially to one certain country). They threatened Assad, Israel came up with a deal and voila.
 
In my opinion, the fact that intervention in the case of Syria would clearly have been anti-genocidal and aligned with the will of the majority there meant that I (and loads of Syrians I’ve seen interviewed at the time) never believed it would happen. The fact that prolonging the conflict (which entailed keeping Assad in power) would be genocidal meant that it was going to happen.
Now, with the West bombing every single one of Assad’s enemies, perhaps those conspiratorial Arabs who were always suspicious of the Americans’ motives whilst others were getting their pants in a twist about how the US had it in for Assad (instead of for the Syrian people) were right.