******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
I don't feel some vicarious need to claim a "side" in other people's civil wars, especially when none of them seem very good. I know a lot of outside activists in both camps think proving one or two of the major protagonists - those who could conceivably win the thing - are rotten is some kind of impressive trick. It's actually about the least impressive trick in the world. Proving that one of them - a contender, mind you - is *not* rotten would be impressive. As for this habit among some Trotskyists of saying "down with" all the major protagonists in situations, well, I share the sentiment - who could dispute it? - and I'm taking it and 75 cents out for some coffee. On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Andrew Pollack <[email protected]> wrote: re 1st question: (not) Interested in speculations about outside players > without my requirement > re 2nd question: enough with the abstractions: "political > process/movement." Which side are you on? > Same with ceasefire. If grassroots groups ask for it to gain time to > regroup, fine. As a neutral solution foisted on them by outsiders, > including activists, no. Down with Assad, down with Daesh/Nusra, victory to > the Syrian people! > -- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað." _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
