Left Unity Party debates "critical support" for ISIS????

The relationship between the far left and the Islamists has long been a matter of concern. The recent article in Socialist Worker by Hassan Mahamdallie was rightfully described by Dave Osler as:

...among the most odious pieces I have come across in over 30 years of reading the far left press. Disgusting is the only word for it.

Trouble is we've come to expect this sort of thing from the SWP whose members were notorious for shouting "we are Hezbollah" on demonstrations despite the well known reactionary, misogynist and anti-Semitic homophobic nature of this terrorist organisation. Their uncritical support of Hamas is likewise a feature of SWP politics and much of the rest of the left. 

But with a few hundred anti-imperialists protesting in Wales this week against "NATO" Andrew Coates says:

The Stop the War Coalition urges people to ” Protest the NATO Summit” (? – Protest what? For, Against,?).

NATO in their view (see below) is responsible for "all" wars, Putin, Assad and ISIS of course are just "victims" of Western imperialism, and its "not their fault" of course.

Not to be left out the new Left Unity Party organisation has published an article by John Lubbock which muses that:

After ISIS’ capture of most of the North of Iraq, their statements indicated that their mission was to reverse the clumsy national engineering of the late colonial period:...

“Statements released by [ISIS] claimed that the assault on Mosul was the beginning of the end of the Sykes Picot agreement… Isis commanders say they are fighting to destroy the post-Ottoman nation state borders and restore a caliphate that submits to fundamentalist Islamic law.”

As well as the attempted establishment of this extremist new caliphate between Syria and Iraq, the chaos in the region is finally allowing the Kurds to establish their control over the oil rich region around Kirkuk.

The inference being that ISIS are amongst other things helping the Kurds is absurd.

One of their more deranged contributors in the thread below states:

You stop short of saying the Left should be supporting ISIS, yet your analysis (and mine) indicates that what is at stake for Obama, Cameron and ISIS is precisely the 1919-22 imperialist settlement of the Middle East and the weak, divided nation states on which it is based.

A clear cut call to support ISIS in the "struggle against the old order".

An argument of sorts does break out, but the fact that an organisation of supposedly "progressive" organisation actually contains "comrades" like this says a lot about the nature of anti-imperialism itself. 

So focused are these individuals on broad sweeping ideological visions to justify their existence the genocidal nature of the death cults known as ISIS seems to be of little importance.

Frankly that attitude seems to be firmly entrenched in the various sects of the far and sometimes not so far left. Their abstract notions of the "working class" and "oppressed peoples" leaves them with no perspective of the fate of the individual human beings that suffer in these "historical struggles".

The desire to get "the line right" and spin a few dialectics on the head of a pin leads to and will always result in these people excusing the worst of regimes.

Their demonstrations over NATO, over Gaza seem somewhat faux protests when their true natures are examined.

The far left, the anti-imperialists offer no future for humanity.

Of that we can be certain.