Neutralising the SWP

88 posts / 0 new
Last post
kalabine
Offline
Joined: 27-03-04
Jan 29 2005 10:51

i apologise for my joke earlier in this thread - it was sick and went too far - i certainly wouldnt want to make light of pedophilia which is a disgusting crime imo

Joe Hill
Offline
Joined: 2-12-04
Jan 29 2005 19:24

thanks kalabine - can the admins now delete this entirely please...

lucy82
Offline
Joined: 31-05-04
Feb 2 2005 17:35

why? i didn't like the joke either and said so somewhere else, and its good kalabines acknowledged it was a step to far, but whats the point in deleting the thread? thats a bit to much netnannyish for my taste.

leave it up. it shows at least that we're capable of sorting things out.

Joe Hill
Offline
Joined: 2-12-04
Feb 4 2005 23:20

Understand, but, no platform...

(said the 'tankie', ooh, controversial...)

XX

Joe Hill
Offline
Joined: 2-12-04
Feb 6 2005 00:28

May I ask one more time why it was ok to ban nuclear but not even delete this thread (or indeed, even treat it as my my innocent Osama thread)? I find the logic incongruent to say the least.

Who is making these illogical & illiterate decisions?

lucy82
Offline
Joined: 31-05-04
Feb 6 2005 08:52

Hey Joe, I don't agree with your linking this with "no platform" . Making a joke in bad taste and apologising for it when people objected is not the same as promoting oppresive ideology in a public arena. it just really is not the same issue.

I don't really care whether the thread comes down or not but anyone reading back through the thread can see what was said and how people responded and there is no need to delete it. on indymedia sometimes things are left up that otherwise would be taken down because people have responded and there is then no need to remove the original post. as for banning nuclear, surely you're not arguing that it would be logical to ban kalabine are you?

Joe Hill
Offline
Joined: 2-12-04
Feb 7 2005 00:38

Since I did not see the post that caused nuclear to be banned I can't be 100 percent about this, but I seem to recall it being about forcible removal of uteruses (unpleasant to say the least). Surely paedophilia is up there with that kind of sentiment at the very least (logically speaking and unless I am living in a parallel universe). I wouldn't have voted to ban nuclear, but what do I know. Juts as I would not vote to ban kalabine. (I don't know either of them BtW.)

Also, I do know that an innocent thread I started about Osama and the CIA (which has a least historical possibiltiies) was swiftly debarred and deleted. A lot less offensive than this one I may say, alhough you seem o be ok with it for some reason.

HENCE, my confusion and feeling that there is an illogical, illiterate, illiberal and alliterative issue here.

(PS Also, see previous refs to 'jokes')

Joe Hill
Offline
Joined: 2-12-04
Feb 7 2005 01:20

I am surprised you folk don't know about Osama being funded by the CIA in the '80s and '90s? in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union (or maybe you supported it? like the SWP)... Do I need to spell it out? US New World Order?

I still think you need to study logic properly...

Also, working class people see things differently.

What are you about with this censorship of the few and support for folk you know who post obscene jokes? Kiddyland I think...

Strange lot.

Love as usual

Joe

xx

Joe Hill
Offline
Joined: 2-12-04
Feb 7 2005 01:34

But you cannot deny it is a possibility?

Joe Hill
Offline
Joined: 2-12-04
Feb 7 2005 02:05

Why don't you engage your brain instead of attacking me? then maybe we could get somewhere.

AnarchoAl
Offline
Joined: 29-05-04
Feb 7 2005 12:17

Joe, that response was ridiculous.

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Feb 7 2005 23:27

What evidence is there that the CIA actually funded Islamic Jihad. Why make Bin Ladin an omir if not for his money? The arab islamics were a tiny minority in Afganistan, without that much influence. They spent most of thier time in camps on the border trying to recuit.

Joe Hill
Offline
Joined: 2-12-04
Feb 9 2005 01:12

I am confused - do you guys know that the CIA set up and funded the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan against the USSR in the '80s/'90s or no? I did a dissertation on this, but I'm damned if I know where it is. Just forget it...

And Anarcho Al, my response was no more ridiculous than Revol labelling me (that always helps in the selection process...for Geo and fellow travellers).

AnarchoAl
Offline
Joined: 29-05-04
Feb 9 2005 11:12

Jason, CIA funding of the muj in Afghanistan is a matter of public record.

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Feb 9 2005 11:42

Yes Joe we do know (well some of us at least). Whilst the Mujahedeen did receive money funnelled through MAK (which Bin Laden was one of the founders of) what evidence have you that he siphon off monies for his own brand of jihadism. He split from MAK in 1988 over their more 'moderate' position. Whilst it is probable that the CIA and ISA funding for the Mujahedeen and other (islamic) groups meant that some arms and eqiupment possibly ended up with members of Islamic Jihad, i haven't come across any evidence to point to Bin Laden receiving funding from the CIA after Afganistan. If you know of any, please point the way. Otherwise this is just conspiritorial speculation without foundations, hardly helpful or constructive. If i want conspiracy theories i go elsewhwere on the web (you should too).

si
Offline
Joined: 16-01-05
Feb 10 2005 13:58
Quote:
I am confused - do you guys know that the CIA set up and funded the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan against the USSR in the '80s/'90s or no? I did a dissertation on this, but I'm damned if I know where it is. Just forget it...

According to Pilger the Mujahedeen were founded (and funded by the US) in opposition to the Socialist people's government that came into being in the 70s, without much input from the USSR - NOT in opposition to the Societ tanks rolling in. Thoughts on that?

Apparently it was, if I can make an anti-anarchist slip, a radically progressive government with a huge amount of popular support... basically instituted a series of Cuba-style reforms. Women were given equality of access, and often equality of position, education and health funding was vastly increased, and the USSR was held at arms-length.

That might not be true =) or over-simplistic. You did your dissertation on it: regale me with facts smile

Joe Hill
Offline
Joined: 2-12-04
Feb 11 2005 00:33

Si, you are right in fact.

Wore the t-shirt

Outcomes are important, despite current availability of proof.

Joe Hill
Offline
Joined: 2-12-04
Feb 11 2005 22:02

????

confused

JH