Edit: I updated the title per suggestions.
Edit: I apologize for snapping at people in the comments. I was arguing with someone earlier today and bad habits make preventable mistakes. I’ll do better.
I deliberately didn’t talk about the current events going on in Iran with the justification that a) I’m not from there b) I don’t know enough. But this article takes some concepts I thought I knew and spits them back at me.
I kept quiet about Israel for a long time because I was afraid of being called a bigot, and I will regret that until I die. So why am I suddenly willing to do this again when it comes to Iran? Because some of their interests align with mine? Because I’m afraid of pissing off reactionaries even within leftist spaces and then losing access to them?
What sort of Anarchist, leftist, or being capable of empathy would I be if I remain silent when I know something is wrong.
What have you heard about “the region”? What autonomous zones?
The largest autonomous zone would be Rojava. They’re a confederation of several autonomous nations who follow a variant of Bookchin’s communalism. They’re the ones who defeated isil. But they’re not the only autonomous groups in West Asia, but they are the largest.
As far as I’ve heard, the article sums up a lot of it. Religious repression, foreign interference, police state. Things like that.
Also, do you think this article is relevant regarding the current riots and that we should provide unconditional support to the forces seeking to overthrow the Islamic regime?
“For once just have our backs unconditionally”
Something the author reiterates is that this topic always ends up either centering the US or the state. And because of that they are either the targets of bombs or their needs are dismissed. The author is requesting that we try to see things on their level. Yes, imperialists having control would almost assuredly be worse, but when the people are taking that risk in the hopes of a better life it goes to show just how mistreated they must feel, and it highlights that their material circumstances are clearly vastly different from ours.
pog
Ok so you’re just an unserious person, got it
Oh, you’re talking about the SDF? They’re only autonomous while the US needed them, and benefit greatly from foreign interference. as we speak they’re being abandoned and left for dead. The troops of Iran, Assad’s Syria, and Hezbollah also fought ISIS, without American assistance. Martyr Soleimani paid for that with his life.
So that’s part of why people are reacting strongly to an article requesting uncritical support for the toppling of the primary American enemy
Do you have any additional reading on this I can look into?
Edit: sorry, I misread the tone of conversation, and I’m a bit irritated at the moment as my pain is flaring up.
You didn’t read the article.But it looks like you do read Wikipedia. Isn’t it convenient having NATO summarize several openly Zionist news outlets into easy bullet points. (I know which outlets because I actually followed the citations to see who was saying it.)Somehow I don’t think you’d accept the argument that the involvement of Mossad in these protests means they can simply be dismissed out of hand, but when news outlets report on open facts that can be confirmed or falsified, you just discard it out of hand because the outlets are zionist instead of discussing where any actual inaccuracy is.
I most certainly did read the article. But you can’t actually provide a response
My bad. As others pointed out I was clearly misreading the tone of conversation. I’m not going to make excuses, I was dismissed you without engaging because I assumed you were being disingenuous.
I’m going to go clear my head then reply in good faith.