wat0n wrote:Same logic, actually - opposing BLM riots was deemed an active support for white supremacy.
Even taking no position was taken as violence.
To claim that the BLM protest movement was just a series of riots is
just detached from reality.And yes, opposing a movement that points out that Black people should not be disproportionately murdered by police inherently has a level of racism attached to that opposition.
Why is the left siding with those who want to curse upon the Jews?
Explain what you mean by "siding with"? Is the Left promoting the political and social ideology of the Houthis? That wouldn't even make sense in a Western context.
Again, refer to my previous example. It was consistent (and correct) for the Left to oppose the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. That doesn't mean that the Left "sided with" or "supported" Saddam Hussein. Saddam had repressed Marxism in Iraq and was no friend of the Left.
Iran has certainly imperialist aims. It wants to expand its influence and control in the Middle East and to a lesser extent the Caucasus.
It's not that surprising, Persia was itself historically an empire - well, several of them, actually.
Persia having been an empire a long time ago has nothing to do with the geopolitical reality that Iran is not an imperial power. The fact that Iran has regional influence is not the same thing as it being an imperialist power. It has relations to groups and countries beyond its borders but lacks a single military base outside of its borders, for example (I'm sure you'll try to use Iraq as a counter example, but again this is just where Iran has influence over other groups).
Iran doesn't economically dominate any other country either, for example. To call it an "imperialist power" is just laughable and false.