From the Onion: Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon
From The Onion:
Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon
TEHRAN—Amidst mounting geopolitical tensions, Iranian officials said Wednesday they were increasingly concerned about the United States of America’s uranium-enrichment program, fearing the Western nation may soon be capable of producing its 8,500th nuclear weapon. “Our intelligence estimates indicate that, if it is allowed to progress with its aggressive nuclear program, the United States may soon possess its 8,500th atomic weapon capable of reaching Iran,” said Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi, adding that Americans have the fuel, the facilities, and ”everything they need” to manufacture even more weapons-grade fissile material. ”Obviously, the prospect of this happening is very distressing to Iran and all countries like Iran. After all, the United States is a volatile nation that’s proven it needs little provocation to attack anyone anywhere in the world whom it perceives to be a threat.” Iranian intelligence experts also warned of the very real, and very frightening, possibility of the U.S. providing weapons and resources to a rogue third-party state such as Israel.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/iran-worried-us-might-be-building-8500th-nuclear-w,27325/
Hands off Syria!
Hands off Syria!
(new-power.org)
Syria is under attack by the imperialists and their agents. The Arab spring, which started out as a popular movement against comprador regimes that sell out to the imperialists, has been transformed and co-opted in many places by the imperialists themselves. The imperialists, especially the US and NATO, have sought to use the Arab spring to create color revolutions in places like Libya, Syria, and, eventually, Iran. At the same time, Gulf Arab states, like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are seeking to spread their own hegemony in the region, often though the support and financing of Sunni Jihadi groups, in order to challenge Iran. The Zionists in Israel also seek to weaken Syria because to do so weakens Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iranian regime. Turkey, a Western ally, also seeks to extend its influence. Here are points to consider.
1. Several forces are coming together to undermine the Assad regime in Syria. The Western imperialists seek to undermine the regime as part of its war against growing Iranian power in the region. The Assad regime is part of a regional alliance that includes the Islamic Republic of Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon. When the United States pulls out of Iraq, pro-Iranian forces hope to fill the vacuum and seek to solidify the alliance with the Islamic Republic of Iran with Iraq. Thus Iranian influence will increase. At the moment, many are biding their time in Iraq.
2. The Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are financing the anti-Assad forces in Syria. The Sunni Gulf states fear the emerging power of Iran, which they seek to stop in Iraq. In addition, it would not be surprising if Qatar is putting boots on the ground against Assad as it did against Gaddafi in Libya. While they are close allies with the West, the Gulf states are willing and able to use the Sunni-Islamist forces that the West keeps at arms length.
3. The Assad regime is a secular one. However, many of the top officials of the regime come from the Alawi, a religious and cultural minority that has suffered terrible oppression in the past. The Alawi were some of the poorest and most discriminated in the region. One of the reasons that the Syrian regime has a greater degree of religious tolerance than other regimes in the region is due to the Alawi origins of the Assad family. Hafez al-Assad, after taking power, removed the provision of the Syrian constitution that only allowed Sunnis to occupy the office of President. The Alawi will not willingly give up their position in society to become lower caste again. This means they will fight tooth-and-nail to keep power. This means that those seeking to take power from them may end up resorting to ethnic terror. There is much potential for Syria to descend into a bloodbath.
4. The Zionists in Israel also seek to weaken Syria because to do so increases their hold on Palestine and increases their power in the region. In Palestine, Hamas, a Sunni organization, has maintained close ties with both the Iranian regime and Gulf states. Because of the ethnic and religious nature of the conflict in Syria, Hamas is in a tough spot. As of now, they have said the conflict in Syria is an internal matter to be resolved by Syrians, but have not come out publicly to back Assad. Hamas has backers in the Gulf states that are coming more and more into conflict with the Iranian state and Iranian-state-aligned forces. In addition, Hamas is religiously and culturally closer to those who oppose Assad. The conflict in Syria will undermine Hamas in Palestine. The West benefits greatly by placing Hamas in such a difficult situation. This is one reason that the Zionists in Israel are moving to destabilize Syria. In addition, a weakened Syria means a weakened Hezbollah in Lebanon. Also, Israel has an interest in isolating and toppling Iran.
5. The Russian state has a longstanding commitment to the Assad regime. The Assad regime had been an ally of the Soviet Union in its revisionist days. Unlike with Libya, at present, the Russian state is seeking to actively block the West from taking down the Assad regime. The Russian state is moving to impede Western efforts to undermine Syria diplomatically and in the UN. Also, the Russian state recently stated it would honor its arms deals with the Syrian regime. The Russian regime is pushing for a peaceful resolution that keeps Assad in power, rather than throwing the regime to the Western wolves. At the same time, if push comes to shove, or if the West cuts the Russian state a deal, it is very possible that the Russian state will cut its losses and abandon its ally. We should not expect the Russian state to go to war with the West over Syria. As broader efforts by the West unfold to isolate the Iranian state, the Iranian state will try to turn to the Russian state too.
6. Despite the left rhetoric or anti-imperialist Jihadi rhetoric of the anti-Assad forces, the reality is that, at this moment, such forces are playing into the hands of the West’s efforts to gain control of the region and the West’s aim of eventually toppling the Iranian regime. The Assad regime, for all its flaws, should be defended against Western intervention.
Hands off Syria! Hands off Iran! No war! No sanctions! No intervention of any kind against Syria and Iran! Uphold the Broad United Front! Hold the Red Flag High!
US pigs urinate on Taliban
US pigs urinate on Taliban
(new-power.org)
A recent video has surfaced that depicts several US marines standing above the bodies of their dead Taliban adversaries. The dead are aligned as trophies while the US soldiers urinate on them. In the video, marines from Scout Sniper Team 4 laugh and mock the dead. One says “golden like a shower.” Another says, “have a great day buddy.” This graphically shows the US military violating the Geneva Conventions that state that the dead must be treated with respect. The video was posted to youtube by a whistle blower, “SimperfiLoneVoice,” who made his intentions known with the caption: “i thought marines were suppose to do the right thing when no one is watching.”
No matter how the US responds, this video is a major propaganda coup for those resisting imperialism. It has the potential to have an effect similar to Abu Ghraib in Iraq. The video has more sensational potential than the video of US troops executing a wounded combatant in Iraq. Even though the bodies appear to be corpses, all of the US crimes in the region can be symbolized in this simple, disrespectful act. Even though the dead do not feel, every living Muslim, even living Afghanistani, will see this as US marines urinating on their loved ones.
Uphold the united front from attacks by fake leftists
Uphold the united front from attacks by fake leftists
by cherokeetears
(new-power.org)
There are those who say that it is acceptable to support imperialism on some occasions. This opportunism has plagued revolutionary politics since their inception. From the anarchists of Marx, to the social-imperialists of Lenin, and through the capitalist roaders of Mao’s China, every revolutionary period has had its opportunism. The Left has been infected by the liberalism and idealism of identity politics, and too often it has succumb to the pressure of this idealism. Individuals have embraced imperialism for their own prejudices, they aligned against national liberation in places like Libya and Afghanistan. They have set themselves up as shills for so-called “progressive imperialism.” They enable oppression from the shores of their imperial homelands. This is the case today with the US assault in the Middle East.
Mao Zedong saw the principal contradiction as between imperialism and oppressed nations. The main enemy on the world’s stage was imperialism. There can be no liberation without the defeat of imperialism. The struggle against imperialism is the struggle that unlocks the possibility of other social liberation. In this way, the struggle against imperialism is the most important one today. The so-called “left”in the First World has often exhibit a liberal naïveté that supports imperialism when the imperialists present their projects in the liberal and activist language of the “left.” It will yield when the imperialists present themselves as champions of idealistic and unscientific ideas such as bourgeoisie “democracy” or when the imperialists present themselves as supporting Third World peoples against totalitarian dictators or when the imperialists present themselves as the saving Third World women from Islam. The illusion of progressive imperialism is just that, an illusion born of successful propaganda by the imperialist themselves. This propaganda allows opportunists on the so-called “left” in the First World to support the export of imperialism with a liberal, democratic face. Such opportunism is idealistic and unscientific. It assumes that imperialism brings “democracy” and “freedom” when in fact it only brings exploitation and oppression. The institutions placed in countries by the imperialists are rarely better, and are often worse, than the institutions that imperialists condemn. Imperialism is not a better option, it yields nothing but open markets for capitalism. When the US’s pocketbook is threatened, when its hegemony in the world market is threatened, it acts: economic sabotage, destabilization, sanctions, bombs, invasions. The imperialists intervene “on behalf of the people,” but the reality is that these interventions only provide instability and violence against people.
When facing the threat of the invading Japanese forces, the Communist Party of China (CCP) allied with the reactionary Guomindang (GMD) in order to defeat the imperialist aggressors. The GMD was made of of several elements ranging from the nationalist bourgeoisie, feudalists, to compradors. The GMD had waged war against the CCPfor decades. The GMD had tried to annihilate the CCP. The long march, led by Mao, was begun as a breakout by the CCP from an anniliation campaign by the GMD. However, there was a bigger enemy than the GMD. The Japanese invaded and occupied China. If the Communists had continued fighting the GMD, both groups would have more easily been defeated by the Japanese. It was by upholding the Broad United Front Against Imperialism that the CCP won support of the masses. The CCP took up the national banner against the Japanese. This not only won them the support of the masses. This also won more progressive elements within the GMD to their cause. We must learn from history.
Imperialism cannot be justified in any aspect. Bourgeois so-called feminists try to justify imperialism by appealing to “women’s rights.” They try to justify imperialist aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan. Women’s rights have not significantly improved under the pro-US governments. Any improvement in women’s rights on the ground is coupled by religious, ethnic, and sectarian violence. Social programs in many cases have been destroyed, people have been forced into exile for fear of persecution on religious, ethnic, or political grounds. Resources are taken from the people by multinational corporations. This is not better than the current regime. Iraq is being destroyed by religious violence, and Sunni-Shia infighting is killing innocent civilians every day. This was not an issue under the previous government. Afghanistan is involved in a brutal tribal war, one in which there are still remnants of Taliban supporters, along with other tribes and ethnicities, all fighting one another. Imperialism has not made life better in these areas by any means. In addition, when the imperialists cannot put in a boot-licking, pro-Western moderate, they often cut a deal with those who are the most socially conservative. The imperialists are about power, not about human rights.
In light of recent events, attention has turned towards the tensions between the imperialists and Middle Eastern and African countries, most recently Libya and Syria. The US is setting the stage for a confrontation with Iran also. If imperialist aggression occurs with Iran in any aspect, the imperial so-called “left” will remain divided on the issue. Some — Leading Lights, anti-imperialists, and others — will oppose the attacks against the Third World. Many others — Democrats, opportunists, revisionists, and other First Worldists — will support the imperialists in the name progress. A “left” that supports imperialism is an enemy of the Third World masses and the revolution. They are social-imperialists. They may claim to be socialist, communist, anarchist, democratic, or progressive, but they line up with the imperialists. They do not understand the balance of social forces in the world. They do not correctly answer Mao’s famous question “Who are our enemies? Who are our friends?” Not only does their opportunism and idealism lead them to their incorrect position, but their privilege as First World peoples also leads them to align against the Third World. They desire more for themselves. They are consumers. They have a class interest in supporting a system that provides them with a relatively comfortable life.
The most deliberate opportunists will qualify their support, as they did with Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, stating that they “don’t support the imperialist support, but they support the movement of the people.” The reality is that they do not support the people. The media portrays these civil wars as one-sided, they portray US invasions as domestically popular, but this is not the case. Few support the invasion of their country by an occupying force. To do so is consider treason by most. Civil wars are civil wars because they are struggles between antagonistic groups. No coup d’etat, no civil war, no dissenting action is unchallenged or undisputed. Libya was a civil war. Tribal and religious opportunists took advantage of opportunities presented to them. They manipulated Libyan people to fight the government, the people did not act unanimously to destroy their governments, this was done for them. The Libyan regime was only defeated with massive support from the US, NATO bombs, MI6 and CIA operations, etc. Even other Arab states put troops on the ground in what amounted to a de facto invasion to oust Gaddafi. This imperialist act was cheered by the opportunist and movementarian so-called “left” in the US.
The same will be true of the actions in Syria and Iran. US aggression in Syria and Iran will face support from the corporate media. The media will portray one-sided views of unanimous support for imperialist aggression, and many self proclaimed “leftists” will support the imperialists. Be warned: these opportunists are effectively supporting imperialism and denying self-determination of peoples. They are serving up the people and resources of the Third World to the imperial butchers. Those who align with imperialism are lackeys. They are idealists. They are liberals. They do not uphold Marxism, they uphold liberalism. Their approach is not scientific. It will not bring socialism. Only by acknowledging the enemy of imperialism, will we be able to end imperialism. Embracing science will bring socialism, not idealism and liberalism.
Oppose US intervention in the Middle East. Fight against imperialism and its lackeys. Syria and Iran are the next targets in the imperialist’s crosshairs. We must not support imperialism against Syria and Iran, we must oppose imperialist aggression and uphold Leading Light Communism. Revolution is the only solution, imperialism will only delay the revolution.
Muammar al-Gaddafi dead – What does this mean?
Muammar al-Gaddafi dead – What does this mean?
by modernmarxist
(new-power.org)
It has been reported that the NATO-supported “rebels” of the NTC have overrun Sirte (after repeated bombings of Sirte from NATO, of course) and captured Mummar al-Gaddafi. On the way to Misrata, it is reported that the Libyan leader has died of his wounds.(1) Pro-imperialist tri-color flags from the Kingdom of Libya era are flying to represent the coming return of the old Libya, a Libya which was one of the poorest countries in Africa until Gaddafi took power.(2) While flags alone rarely are able to describe the whole nature of a movement, it is clear that NATO’s involvement and the NTC’s willingness to work with the imperialists mean that this “revolution” is not one designed to prevent Libyans from becoming victims of oppression and exploitation.
Gaddafi certainly wasn’t a Leading Light Communist, but his record of anti-imperialism far outweighs his comprador aspect. Gaddafi worked with many pan-Third World organizations and partnerships including SATO with Hugo Chavez, the Great Man-Made River which brought fresh water through parts of the Saharan, attempts at a unified Africa, attempts at pan-Arab unity including a movement to introduce a pan-Arab, pan-African, and pan-Islamic currency, the gold Dinar, that would have allowed for easier transaction between other Middle Eastern economies as those of the entire of Africa. This proposal would have irrevocably damaged imperialist economic recovery and the supremacy of their markets. Gaddafi also took decisive steps against the bourgeoisie in his country including nationalizing oil fields, and seizing key industries from the multinational corporations and imperialist powers that had previously exploited the country’s resources.
We should not allow ourselves to be fooled by pro-imperialist and imperialist-owned, sensationalist media reports. The NTC couldn’t even take Sirte without NATO intervention. NATO was the deciding factor in these events.(3) NATO directed the NTC, provided weapons for them, and thoroughly bombed areas which the NTC “rebels” were supposed to take control of, resulting in the deaths of many civilians.(4)(5)(6) It is no coincidence that Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa,(7) and while there were times when Gaddafi’s anti-imperialism wavered and he acted as a comprador to benefit the imperialists, his comprador role was shaky at best and unreliable. In the end, he refused to bend to the will of the First World imperialists. MI6 threatened Gaddafi’s generals with the First World’s message of “Obey us or die”.(8.) In typical imperialist fashion, the forces of NATO countries and those backed by NATO attempted to assassinate Gaddafi many times before.(9)
The First Worldists, especially the Trotskyists, have very clearly shown their true colors in this conflict. They have acted like true social-imperialists, siding with NATO and the rebels instead of joining the broad United Front against imperialism. Many self-proclaimed communists claimed that they supported the “Libyan people” in their struggle against Gaddafi, however there is no “Libyan movement” against Gaddafi without NATO airpower and support. There would have been no victory without the assistance of NATO, who’s firepower made the assault on Tripoli possible. There is no doubt that without the imperialists, Gaddafi would have never been defeated. Therefore there is no option for “siding with the Libyan people” against Gaddafi, the people themselves have been divided on the issue. The Trotskyists sided with the neoconservatives on this issue, Gaddafi’s blood is certainly on the hands of these “communists.” The various groups battling over control of the country have their own tribal interests and will surely honor those interests rather than the interests of the Libyan people. There is no excuse for communists to oppose Gaddafi and side with the imperialists.
NATO and the First World have much to gain upon Gaddafi’s death. Libya has oil, natural gas, and gypsum.(10) The NTC’s role in Gaddafi’s death was minimal. They were and still are merely NATO puppets on the world stage. Gaddafi will be sorely missed by the Libyan people…especially after the First World sucks their country dry for all it has.
Sources:
Mummar Gadaffi Killed As Sirte Falls http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/10/20111020111520869621.html (1)
Human Development Index Trends http://web.archive.org/web/20061027013029/http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/indicators.cfm?x=10&y=1&z=1 (2)
Clarity on Libya: MI6 is not part of the United Front http://new-power.org/2011/08/29/clarity-on-libya-mi6-is-not-part-of-the-united-front/ (3)
ibid. (4)
France supplying weapons to Libyan rebels http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8606541/France-supplying-weapons-to-Libyan-rebels.html (5)
Libya: exodus from Sirte as thousands flee rebel offensive http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8794617/Libya-exodus-from-Sirte-as-thousands-flee-rebel-offensive.html (6)
Oil reserves in Libya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Libya (7)
ibid 3. (8.)
Muammar Gaddafi – Assassination attempts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadaffi#Assassination_attempts (9)
FIELD LISTING :: NATURAL RESOURCES https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2111.html (10)
The death of Anwar al-Awlaki
The death of Anwar al-Awlaki
(new-power.org)
The death of Anwar al-Awlaki is not only another murder at the hands of imperialists, but it also reveals that the First World “legal system” is a sham. We often see the United States violate their own international “law,” however they are usually not so blatant about the violation of domestic law. This is an exception. Anwar al-Awlaki was an American born citizen. The drone attack against Awlaki is a deliberate attack against an American citizen without “due process.”
Liberal ideas of “moral superiority” hold no weight when the Unites States condemns others for “human rights violations” while simultaneously firing hellfire missiles at American citizens. The United States easily gets away with the murder of non-American citizens, including noncombatants, but it is obvious now that the United States can kill its own without condemnation. This is not a war on terrorism, it is a war of the First World against the Third World.
This was not collateral damage either. Awlaki was not the tragic casualty of a carpet bombing. Awlaki has been deliberately targeted in the past. His death was at the hands of two predator drones. Not only was he targeted, but his murderers were hundreds of miles away, deliberately ending his life as if it were a video game. Predator drones are the newest dehumanizing weapon in the imperialist arsenal, successfully separating assailants from their victims both physically and emotionally.
Awlaki’s father and the ACLU had been working on removing his son from the US “targeted killing” list since 2010. They stated:
“The United States is not at war in Yemen, and the government doesn’t have a blank check to kill terrorism suspects wherever they are in the world. Among the arguments we’ll be making is that, outside actual war zones, the authority to use lethal force is narrowly circumscribed, and preserving the rule of law depends on keeping this authority narrow.” (1)
This is an instance of the United States violating its own self-serving “legal code” and sense of morality. The United States only upholds its laws when those laws suit the needs of imperialists. Awlaki’s rights didn’t assist the needs of imperialists, but the rights of Sarah Shourd, Shane Bauer, and Josh Fattal in Iran certainly did. The United States was quick to denounce the Iranian government for “violating human rights” but allegations against the United States fall on deaf ears.
The imperialists will stop at nothing to exploit the Third World masses. Not only will they kill and remove all that oppose their rule, like Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and Osama bin Laden, but they will even kill their own citizens without arrest, charge or trial. Imperialism knows no categorical imperative, only death and destruction. The United States claims to uphold law and order. They claim to fight the good fight. The reality is that they plunder and murder wherever it is strategically convenient.
The United States will never win the “war on terror,” they will only use it as an excuse to continue to exploit the 5 billion people of the Third World. They will use the war to continue their consumerist lifestyle. The First World bleeds the Third World. Anti-imperialists like Awlaki are many, and where one falls, another picks up his gun and continues fighting. We uphold the broad united front. The global struggle will have casualties, but our allies outnumber the assassins. We will win. There is a revolutionary saying that the physical atom bomb is no match for the spiritual atom bomb. No amount of predator drones will ever hold down the spirit of the masses. Leading Light Communism will lead the way to a world free of oppression.
Sources:
[1]http://seerpress.com/cia-on-the-verge-of-lawsuit/3341/
Qatar reveals it invaded Libya to aid so-called “rebels”
Qatar reveals it invaded Libya to aid so-called “rebels”
(new-power.org)
It is now being reveled for the first time publicly that armed forces from Qatar were operating against Gaddafi in Libya. Qatari chief of staff Maj. Gen. Hamad bin Ali al-Atiya stated:
“We were among them and the numbers of Qataris on ground were hundreds in every region.”
It was long known that Qatar, the West, and other Gulf States, among others, had financed the so-called rebellion. It has been known that Al Jeezera, Qatar state-owned media company, had been the mouthpiece of the so-called “rebels.” Not only was Gaddafi faced with NATO and MI6 intervention, but Qatari military forces had boots on the ground too.
Even with all these forces arrayed against the Gaddafi regime, the regime fought tooth-and-nail for months. In fact, the regime was easily sweeping aside the so-called rebellion until NATO bombings changed the equation. This admission shows that what occurred in Libya was not simply a popular revolt by Libyans or a civil war, but an orchestrated plot that involved Western airpower, MI6, CIA, Gulf-state financing, and, now, even Qatari troops.
Source:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2011/Oct-26/152269-qatar-admits-it-had-boots-on-ground-in-libya.ashx#axzz1cRBxL4wo
US beating war drums: Mexico and Iran
US beating war drums: Mexico and Iran
(new-power.org)
A sensational story is being reported in the media. The FBI and DEA have claimed to foil a plot by Gholam Shakuri, an individual with alleged connections to the elite Iranian Quds Force. According to reports, Iranian agents operating in the United States were attempting to contact Mexican drug cartels in order to secure their help in blowing up the Saudi ambassador Adel Al-Jubeir. They also reportedly sought to supply the cartels with “tons of opium.” US Attorney General Eric Holder held a press conference:
“High-up (Iranian) officials in those agencies … were responsible for this plot… I think one has to be concerned about the chilling nature of what the Iranian government attempted to do here.”
Iranian state television has rejected the accusations:
“The Islamic Republic of Iran has rejected U.S. accusations of the country plotting to assassinate the Saudi envoy to Washington as a prefabricated scenario.”
It is important to use common sense here. Even though Saudi Arabia and the United States, along with Israel, have been trying to prevent the growing regional power of Iran, the allegation against Iran has to be looked upon with great skepticism. Iran has little to gain from assassinating a single individual, especially an ambassador. Such a plot would be extremely risky. If the plot were uncovered, as it has been, it would turn international opinion against Iran in diplomatic circles. It would also give the United States a reason to launch more attacks against Iran, especially Iran’s nuclear facilities. The United States and Israel have already been accused of targeting Iranian scientists. The discovery of “terrorism” on US soil would sway US public opinion for more military action against Iran.
We cannot say for sure whether Iran was involved or not, but this looks like elaborate psychological warfare. Not only does this elaborate plot stir up US public opinion against Iran, it also begins to lay the groundwork for linking the so-called “war on terror” to the so-called “war on drugs.” It begins to lay the basis for US intervention in Mexico if the situation in Mexico continues to degenerate. The United States is laying the groundwork for a possible intervention on Mexican soil. This may be the United States reacting to the possibility of the chaos of warlordism spreading into the United States. The United States may be preparing for this contingency. Another possibility is that the United States may have a direct hand in aiding the drug warlords in an attempt to break up and more easily control Mexico. We cannot say for sure. US predator drones are already operating on the border. In any case, it is important to note these trends.
Leading Lights oppose all imperialist intervention against Iran and Mexico.
NTC can’t take Sirte, needs NATO help
NTC can’t take Sirte, needs NATO help
(new-power.org)
Since the fall of Tripoli, the so-called National Transition Council (NTC) has sought to extend its hold over the rest of Libya. Gaddafi’s forces appear to have retreated to areas where Gaddafi’s support is strongest, including Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte, which lays halfway between Tripoli and Benghazi. Sirte has now been declared the capital of Libya by the Gaddafi regime following the NTC capture of Tripoli. However, things are not going exactly according to NATO’s plans. Once against the NTC requires help from NATO to impose its will. Just as the NTC required NATO bombs in the sky and MI-6 muscle on the ground to turn the tide against Gaddafi leading up to the battle for Tripoli, just as the NTC required NATO bombs to take Tripoli, the NTC has demonstrated that it cannot even take Sirte without NATO help. This is a profound statement about the unpopular character of the NATO-backed uprising. After being beaten back several times, the NTC now asks NATO to increase its bombing of Sirte.
The number of NATO sorties against Libya is well over 20,000 now. Not only does this confirm the Gaddafi regime’s claim that NATO is acting as an air force for the NTC, but it has created a greater humanitarian disaster. According to mainstream media, thousands of civilians have been forced to flee due to the NTC and NATO offensives. Over 3,000 have been forced to flee. The price for the civilians of Sirte has been high. Reporting on an attack a little over a week ago, Gaddafi’s regime stated:
“NATO attacked the city of Sirte last night with more than 30 rockets directed at the city’s main hotel and the Tamin building, which consists of more than 90 residential flats. The result is more than 354 dead and 89 still missing and almost 700 injured in one night.”
The mainstream media confirms the carnage. An elderly woman reportedly said:
“They are bombing us and women and children are dying.”
Another resident:
“Since the 19th March when Nato started bombing we have been living in hell.”
Another:
“There is no medicine, no food, no electricity. It is a disaster.”
According to mainstream reports, the NTC forces are not making distinctions between combatants loyal to the regime and citizens caught in the crossfire. Some NTC loyalists implied that all of the residents were legitimate targets and the civilians had “chosen to die.” According to NTC loyalists, “Here, inside [Sirte], most people still want Gaddafi.”
NATO will oblige its NTC clients with more bombings aimed at the populations of Sirte and other Gaddafi strongholds. However, NATO’s help comes with strings attached. In a high-profile visit to Libya, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Senator John McCain of Arizona, and others toured Tripoli and met with the head of the NTC, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil and other high-ranking officials. Graham reported to journalists that “there is a desire here by the Libyan people to make sure that those who helped will get paid back.”
McCain was also optimistic that Libya under the NTC would play ball with the United States:
“I think that American investors are more than eager to come invest here in Libya and we hope and believe that they will be given an opportunity to do so.”
McCain, like much of the First Worldist social-imperialists, expressed hope that Gaddafi’s fall will also lead to color revolutions in Syria and Iran. It is the duty of all Leading Lights to oppose imperialist intervention, even when it disguises itself as rebellion.
Sources
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8794617/Libya-exodus-from-Sirte-as-thousands-flee-rebel-offensive.html
http://news.yahoo.com/anti-kadhafi-fighters-capture-hometown-port-101257414.html
http://news.yahoo.com/us-senator-says-libya-wants-pay-back-supporters-172008157.html
http://new-power.org/2011/08/29/clarity-on-libya-mi6-is-not-part-of-the-united-front/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/17/gaddafi-claims-nato-airstrikes-kill-hundreds
The Leading Light Has Always recognized the Statehood of Palestine
The Leading Light has always acknowledged the statehood of Palestine by cherokeetears
(new-power.org)
A UN vote on the statehood of Palestine will be held this month.(1) Not only will this vote pass the general assembly, but it is said that it will pass with a 190-2 vote, with the US and Israel being the only countries expected to vote against the statehood of Palestine. Though the United Nations is a lackey for the US and other imperialists, the overwhelming vote will be against the US and Israel, America’s crooked cop in the Middle East. World opinion, even in a body as biased as the UN, is against the imperialists in Palestine.
The Zionist occupation of Palestine that established the state of Israel has yielded nothing but pain for the people of Palestine. The war against this occupation has been a long struggle that the Palestinians have fought courageously. The Arab street has been supportive of their brothers in the Palestinian national struggle, and many groups within the Middle East have gone to war with Israel to show support for the sovereignty of the Palestinian people and opposition to imperialism and its disguise: Zionism. Groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and al-Qaeda have previously shown support for the sovereignty of the Palestinian people, and states such as Syria, Iran, and Gaddafi’s Libya have denounced Israel for its crimes against the Palestinian people. However, this support has often been inconsistent and limited.
Crimes against the Palestinian people have included the use of chemical weaponry, biological warfare, and systemic oppression by the Israeli state against displaced Palestinians. (2) For many decades, an apartheid against the Palestinians has led to the systematic oppression of an entire ethnic population: a crime that has been denounced by almost every group outside of US political circles and Israel itself. (3) Not every Israeli supports this apartheid, and not every Jew supports Zionism. (4) Zionism is a view that is separate and distinct from Judaism, which is a tool used by the imperialists to justify crimes against humanity. Even so, most Israelis support Zionist policies because they benefit from them.
It is unlikely that this vote will mean much in the end. Hopefully, things will change this time; however, there are already dozens of votes, going back half a century or more, that condemn Israel’s actions against the Palestinians. Another one is unlikely to change anything on the ground. In reality, the vote is nothing more than an international community’s bleak attempt to oppose the US hegemony that it can’t control. The resolution will fall on deaf ears. Israel will only react to this gesture with more violence. More genocide. More outrage. The international community will voice impotent protests and make empty gestures. Even so, the vote is a public relations problem for Israel. The UN acknowledges that Israel is occupying another member state’s land in yet another resolution. At the same time, according to the vote, the Palestinians are only entitled to a small part of their land. Oppression of the rights of the Palestinian people will likely continue without UN response, but other countries — like Iran or Venezuela — that take a stance with Palestine will be further empowered to speak out and act out against Israel.
To protect its interests, the US is set to oppose the bid for the statehood of Palestine, an action both typical and predictable. If the US passes a veto in the Security Council, the country of Palestine will not come to fruition. However, in this case, the Palestinians will go to the General Assembly to seek a 2/3 majority, an action that they will use to pressure statehood against the wishes of the US. (6) Even without the US vote, Palestine will only need a majority vote in the UN General Assembly in order to be admitted to the UN as a “non-member state,” a designation that soon leads to admittance to the UN as a full member. Before the dissolution of the USSR, 75 states recognized the Palestine as a sovereign state.
Israel is based on imperialism, racism and violence. Israel is a settler state based on the theft of Arab land, continuous wars and apartheid against the Arab peoples. Imperialists and their Zionists goons will continue to oppress and exploit until they are defeated everywhere. National sovereignty for all Arab people without fear of foreign oppression is the only solution. A UN mandate will not secure that, but it may help empower the Palestinian people to continue to oppose imperialism. Palestine will not be free until Israel ceases to exist. Palestine is not simply the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. All of Zionist occupied Palestine, including the modern day apartheid “state of Israel,” belongs to the Palestinian people. The migration of Palestinians into the area will soon make them the majority in their occupied homeland for the first time since their displacement and the virtual ethnic cleansing enacted against the Palestinian people. Until the Zionists are forced from the Middle East, the Palestinian people will never be completely free. Until the US and its lackeys are expelled from the area, the Arab people’s will not be free. Zionism is the strong arm of US imperialism in the Middle East, and by eliminating the Zionists from the region, we remove the US’s strongest ally in the Middle East. The realization of the Palestinian state, and the expulsion of the Zionists from occupied Palestine is one of the first steps to eliminating imperialism in the Middle East.
The Leading Light Communist Organization has always recognized the self-determination of Palestine. Leading Lights around the world actively oppose imperialism in all forms. Leading Lights support the end of all oppression, including national oppression, racism, and apartheid. This is what makes the Leading Light Communist Organization the real arm of the people. We oppose all forms of imperialism, including Zionism. We oppose all oppression. No one is free until everyone is free.
Sources:
2. http://www.vtjp.org/report/overview.htm
3. http://www.ceia-sc.org/page55/page55.html
4. http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
6. http://www.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/US-to-Oppose-Palestinian-Recognition-at-UN-126200088.html
More ethnic cleansing by NATO-backed forces
More ethnic cleansing by NATO-backed forces
(new-power.org)
As NATO’s forces consolidate their hold on Libya, many are expressing their fears about ethnic cleansing. Throughout the conflict, there were many reports of attacks by NATO-backed forces against darker-skinned peoples in Libya. The mainstream press encouraged these lynchings of blacks by publishing numerous angry reports about Gaddafi’s use of mercenaries from Africa — an ironic claim, since the entire anti-Gaddafi cause was a mercenary one financed by NATO. In addition, the number one employer of mercenaries in the world is the United States — who is currently using massive mercenary forces in their occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. (1)
The chairman of the African Union Jean Ping said that the NATO-backed forces are indiscriminately killing the black population of Libya, which comprises a third of the population, and African migrants:
“NTC seems to confuse black people with mercenaries,” AU chairman Jean Ping said Monday, referring to the rebels’ National Transitional Council. “All blacks are mercenaries. If you do that, it means (that the) one-third of the population of Libya, which is black, is also mercenaries. They are killing people, normal workers, mistreating them.”(2)
These atrocities by NATO-backed forces are cited as one of the reasons that the African Union will not recognize the NATO-backed regime. Richard Sollom, deputy director of Physicians for Human Rights, who is back from a June fact-finding mission in Misrata, Libya, stated:
“I really fear vigilante justice and retribution and attacks by civilians against other civilians.” (3)
Sollom said Monday that his group knew of about 500 Darfuris “who are desperately trying to get out of Libya. They have no money, they are basically homeless because they are from Darfur, and they very much fear for their lives because of the color of their skin.” (4) He added that guest workers from Sudan, Chad, Darfur and other sub-Saharan African locales were also targeted.
NATO has no concern for human rights. The imperialists have never been concerned with human rights. They are concerned with control of the resources of Libya and the Third World. They are concerned with maintaining their regional power. The regime change in Libya by NATO was a brazen act of imperialist aggression. It was designed to ensure continued flow of value from the Third World to the First World. (5) The NATO-backed forces spread the most racist lies in order to encourage a bloodbath against black Libyans and others into to maintain their imperial power.
NATO is encouraging a narrow and reactionary form of nationalism to divide and conquer Libya. Sam Dagher reports:
“Some of the hatred of Tawergha has racist overtones that were mostly latent before the current conflict. On the road between Misrata and Tawergha, rebel slogans like ‘the brigade for purging slaves, black skin’ have supplanted pro-Gadhafi scrawl.” (6)
The violence against black Libyans is brutal. (7)(8) Many black Libyans are being rounded up and detained. (9) Anwar bin Naji, who helps run a detainment facility for black Libyans, said the following:
“They [the detainees] are all arrested by rebels or by civilians who love the homeland.” (10)
Other black Libyans are holed up in refugee camps, terrified of leaving due to the so-called rebels, who threaten to rape and kill them. (11) The refugees are calling for assistance from the United Nations, despite the fact that the UN has been nothing more than an arm of imperialism throughout the conflict.
A 25-year-old man from Mali, who is as of the time of writing being detained in a school along with 75 other detainees, said the following regarding his arrest at his home:
“At about 10 p.m. a big group of Libyans came with the owner of the building. They tied us up, took all of our passports and possessions, and beat us. They brought us to a big mosque in the neighborhood, and then they went to other African houses and arrested them. In the end, they had more than 200 Africans in there. Then they put us on vehicles and took us around town shouting ‘Allahu Akhbar!’ ['God is great'] and saying we were mercenaries they had captured.” (12)
The streets of Tripoli are littered with the bodies of black Libyans and migrants, their hands tied behind their backs. (13) NATO is complicit in the ethnic cleansing. Gaddafi, by contrast, has always encouraged African unity and pan-Africanism — even if his leadership was unscientific and flawed. Leading Light Communists support the unity of all exploited and oppressed peoples, the unity of the Third World and their allies, against the First World. Those so-called “leftists” who stood with imperialism, NATO and MI6 are totally discredited in the eyes of the world. The Leading Light has always taken a principled stand. Support the broad united front. Hold the red flag high. Critical support to all those fighting imperialism.
Sources
1 Cenus counts 100,000 contractors in Iraq xhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401311.html
2 AU head: Libya rebels may be killing black workers xhttp://news.yahoo.com/au-head-libya-rebels-may-killing-black-workers-153142974.html
3 ibid.
4 ibid.
5 Maximillian Forte, “The War in Libya: Race, ‘Humanitarianism’, and the Media” xhttp://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/forte200411.html
6 Libyan rebel ethnic cleansing and lynching of black people xhttp://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/07/07/libya-ethnic-cleansing/
7 Lynching in Benghazi xhttp://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/07/17/lynching-in-benghazi/
8 Amnesty and racist rebel atrocities in Libya http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/08/31/amnesty-racist-rebel-atrocities-libya/
9 Libyan rebels round up black Africans xhttp://news.yahoo.com/libyan-rebels-round-black-africans-130723394.html
10 ibid.
11 Dark skinned people in Libya say they suffer at hands of fighters http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tnJ7jt97d4
12 Human Rights Watch and persecution of black people in Tripoli http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/09/04/human-rights-watch-and-persecution-of-black-people-in-tripoli/
13 ibid.
Clarity on Libya: MI6 is not part of the United Front
Clarity on Libya: MI6 is not part of the United Front
(new-power.org)
As the Gaddafi regime is slowly dislodged in Tripoli, more and more information is being revealed about the the extensive NATO support for the so-called rebels. With all the bad press received about botched intelligence operations and the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the imperialists and their press are using this moment to revel in their apparent success in Libya. The imperialists are brazenly bragging in the press about their extensive involvement with the anti-Gaddafi operation from the beginning. Most of all, the imperialists are proud of their Tripoli operation.
Before the NATO intervention, Gaddafi was clearly winning. NATO changed that. As NATO bombers prevented any movement of Gaddafi’s forces in the vast desert between Libya’s cities, the NATO-backed forces were able to gather strength and slowly advance, taking one city at a time. The NATO-backed forces slowly gathered forces as Gaddafi was bogged down in Tripoli. NATO’s strategy created a problem: how to take Tripoli? After all, Gaddafi had massive support here. It was in Tripoli that a massive rally was held in support of the regime on July 8, 2011. According to the imperialist reports, the battle of Libya was planned by an “A Team,” an elite group of British diplomats, spies and special forces.
This team was headed up by Sir John Jenkins, the former British ambassador to Iraq and former director from the Middle East at the Foreign Office, a lifelong expert on the Middle East. It contained about twenty diplomats, military experts, and development experts. It worked with another group made up of experienced British military officers and longtime MI6 assets already operating in Libya.
According to the imperialist media, this group revamped and organized the NATO-backed Libyan National Transitional Council’s military organizational structures, communications and logistics. They advised the NATO-backed forces how to infiltrate Gaddafi territory to undermine the regime. This probably included the use of rooftop snipers by the NATO-backed forces, who reportedly fired randomly at people, to cause panic as the offensive began. According to the mainstream media:
“The rebels smuggled undercover forces into Tripoli, carrying communications equipment, including satellite phones which they used to identify key targets for the RAF to attack with laser-guided bombs.”
Thus the West was able to bomb a corridor into Tripoli from the West for the rebels to enter. And NATO bomb neighborhoods that refused to surrender. The bodies piled up from NATO bombs and death squads. Tha mainstram media reports that Tripoli has become littered with mass graves:
“In the Tajoura district of the capital, local people prepared a mass grave for the bodies of 22 African men who appeared to have been recruited to fight for Gaddafi. One of the dead had his hands tied behind his back.”
Another part of the operation was to personally threaten Gaddafi’s generals: defect or die. MI6 operatives personally contacted Gaddafi’s numerous commanders to personally deliver the warning. British intelligence bragged:
“That’s pressure. It worked in Iraq [too].”
As of today, it is being reported that the NATO-backed rebels are still unable to take all of Tripoli. They are also unable to take Sirte, the birthplace of Gaddafi. NATO is clearing the way with bombs once again. According to the mainstream press:
“NATO jets have flown nearly 20,000 sorties in the past month, including about 7,500 strike attacks.”
According to Al Jezeera, when this conflict started Gaddafi only had around 12,000 soldiers. This was before defections. Even with all this military might arrayed against the regime, it held onto power against overwhelming odds. It took NATO about a half a year to dislodge Gaddafi. And, the fight may not be fully over.
As the tide turned, Gaddafi increasingly reached out to Islamists amongst NATO’s rebels. He may be hoping that the more radical Islamists will be cut out of post-Gaddafi, NATO-backed regime. Gaddafi reportedly stated in a telephone interview:
“We will fight inch by inch. This is our land. We will arm the entire Libyan people. Anyone who co-operates with the crusaders is a traitor. We are not afraid of your rockets or your air raids. We do not fear you. You were defeated in Somalia, in Lebanon, in Iraq. You were beaten by bin Laden. We will defend our honor, our families, our homeland.”
The Islamists have played a most reactionary role in Libya up to this point. Will they remain in the West’s pocket? How the anti-imperialist struggle in Libya will develop at this stage is not clear.
What should be clear to all is how poorly much of the First Worldist “left” behaved in this crisis. There is a saying that you cannot be neutral on a moving train. Much of the First Worldist “left” revealed themselves as total lackeys of imperialism. They were so against Gaddafi that they became de facto shills for NATO. They, consciously or not, entered into a united front with MI6. Now, of course, they will say they were really acting out of solidarity with the Libyan people. However, the reality is that the vast majority of their readers are made up of Western activists. The role of these MI6 “leftists” in the First World was to legitimate the imperialist narrative and undermine the anti-interventionist and anti-imperialist movements.
This crisis has once again demonstrated the need for scientific leadership. The principal contradiction in the world is between the First World versus the Third World. NATO’s regime change was a blatant act of aggression. The correct line is one of critical support to those who resist imperialism. Support the broad united front against imperialism. Hold the red flag high.
Sources
1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8723490/Libya-British-A-team-that-laid-the-ground-for-battle-of-Tripoli.html
2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368264/Libya-MI6-puts-gun-Gaddafis-generals-heads-warn-defect-die.html
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2011/aug/27/libya-hunt-gaddafi-live-blog
4. http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2011/08/22/nato__racing_to_wrap_up_campaign/
5. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368264/Libya-MI6-puts-gun-Gaddafis-generals-heads-warn-defect-die.html#ixzz1WGSZOPPb
6. http://news.yahoo.com/libyans-count-deadly-cost-battle-tripoli-015025675.html
7. http://markcurtis.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/britain-qadafi-and-the-libyan-islamic-fighting-group/
8. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24096
9.http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24311
Saif al-Islam, Gaddafi’s son, exposes psy-war lie
Saif al-Islam, Gaddafi’s son, exposes psy-war lie
(new-power.org)
For the last week, there have been several reports that Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi’s son, Saif al-Islam, had been captured. This was reported by across the mainstream media worldwide. Again and again, the media reported the words of NATO-backed “rebel” Mustafa Abd El Jalil:
“We have confirmed information that our guys have captured Saif Al-Islam… We have given instructions to treat him well so that he can face trial.”
The reports were expressed with such certainty that it was said he was being prepared for the International Criminal Court (ICC), an instrument of imperialism. Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo’s words were reported over and over:
“Saif was captured in Libya… We have confidential information from different sources that we have within Libya confirming this.”
The reality was much different. Saif al-Islam has resurfaced free and defiant early Tuesday at the Rixos hotel, where about 30 foreign journalists are staying in Tripoli:
“I am here to refute the lies… The ICC can go to hell.”
He added that his father was alive and well.
What this incident reveals is that psychological operations are very real. The media barrage about Saif al-Islam’s alleged capture was designed to demoralize the Libyan’s defending their country from imperialist attack and occupation. Saif al-Islam is Gaddafi’s heir apparent. He is also an important military commander in the defense of Libya, and Tripoli. This media barrage about his false capture is similar to many media blitzes claiming Gaddafi or his sons had fled Libya or been killed.
In his appearance, Saif al-Islam corroborated what had been reported this week by Russia Today reporters in Tripoli. Saif al-Islam echoed reports that Western reporters on the ground were working hand-in-hand with NATO intelligence agencies. This is no surprise. The false news barrage was designed to cause chaos in the chain of command of the Gaddafi’s forces, especially in Tripoli, and encourage surrender to NATO.
The attack on Tripoli was highly coordinated. Even the mainstream media is reporting that the defeat of Tripoli was closely planned by NATO. It was reported in the British press today that MI6 had been directing the rebels for months, they also planned the attack on Tripoil. The news barrage occurred as NATO bombed a corridor into Tripoli, followed by NATO-backed “rebels” and NATO advisers entering the city. The NATO forces were reportedly able to push their way to Green Square, an important symbol of the Gaddafi regime. British “peace keepers” are reportedly standing by in Cyprus, ready to be deployed “if needed.” However, the NATO forces are now reported to be on the defensive. Gaddafi loyalists still have military capacity to launch attacks across Tripoli, according to reports. They may not have enough to turn the tide against NATO’s overwhelming onslaught. Saif al-Islam defiantly gave a “V” for victory sign to spontaneous crowds that had gathered to support the battle ahead against NATO.
In all of this, sharp lines have been drawn within the so-called “left.” On one side, there are those who stood against the NATO-backed aggression. On the other, there are those who stood with NATO, those who became shills for the CIA and MI6, those whose main role was to try to legitimate the imperialist narrative and undermine the anti-interventionist, anti-imperialist, and anti-war movements in the First World. Not everyone who calls themselves a revolutionary is a revolutionary. There is a reason that — over and over — some forces calling themselves radical, revolutionary, socialist, communist or anarchist line up with imperialism. These forces lack real science. They do not understand global class dynamics. They do not understand the principal contradiction between the First World and Third World. They do not understand the broad united front against imperialism. They are thoroughly unscientific. By contrast, the Leading Light has consistently stood with the Third World against the First World. The Leading Light stands against imperialism everywhere. Gaddafi’s fall will only lead to an increase of imperialist hegemony in Africa and the Arab worlds. All genuine revolutionaries stand against imperialist attacks against Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran. Follow the Leading Light to victory over imperialism! Follow the Leading Light of genuine communism!
Sources
1. http://english.libya.tv/2011/08/22/icc-and-ntc-saif-al-islam-gaddafi-captured/
2. http://news.yahoo.com/gadhafi-son-resurfaces-free-vowing-fight-031445311.html
3. http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/spotlight/libya/2011/08/2011822235934828611.html
4. http://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaToday#p/u/4/cJa8nN7kFyQ
5. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2028982/Libya-Gaddafis-son-Saif-al-Islams-claims-father-safe-Tripoli.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
6. http://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaToday#p/u/7/zadvM7umTzk
Imperialist Aggression in Libya
Libya – Imperialist Aggression by cherokeetears
(new-power.org)
Libya is the victim of unrelenting imperialist aggression. The message from Washington to the Third World is clear: “Do what we say, or we’ll destroy you.” Imperialists have set up a fabricated “revolution” to oppose Gaddafi’s regime. With UN backing, the imperialists have spent billions of dollars setting up a mercenary army backed by the CIA and NATO air power. Yet even so, they cannot dislodge Gaddafi. Gaddafi has put his foot down to resist American imperialism and defend his country.
It is first important to ask the question: “Why is the US seeking to eliminate Gaddafi now?” Is it because of the “war crimes” as the US claims? No. After all, Gaddafi has been in power since the late 1960s. His reorganization of Libyan society began in the 1970s. And the US has claimed that Gaddafi has supported and sponsored “terrorist” groups in since the 1980s. (1) (2) “War crimes” are simply slanderous words that imperialists reserve for leaders and regimes that they see as vulnerable and resistant to imperialist control. Those who don’t go along with imperialism get accused of “crimes against humanity” and similar flashes of rhetoric even though the real war criminals are the imperialists themselves. The US itself is a country founded on the principles of genocide and slavery; and in the modern era, the US funds and operates alongside paramilitaries and tyrants in the Third World to ensure the smooth functioning of Empire. (3) Charges of “crimes against humanity” are both unreasonable and unbelievable when they come from the imperialists themselves.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has recently switched sides in the struggle. While previously condemning Gaddafi, Ahmadinejad recently joined in discussions with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez about opposing imperialist aggression in Libya and assessing the role of OPEC in the conflict. (11)(12) The opposition against the insurrection in Libya is attracting widespread criticism from the anti-imperialist movement.
The invasion and attempts to remove Gaddafi from power violate the self-determination and sovereignty of the Libyan, Arab and African peoples. International law, as practiced by the UN, is a façade for imperialist aggression. (4) The International Criminal Court acts as a US lackey, and though the US has rhetorically committed to “trying all parties” in the conflict, the reality is that, together with NATO, the US only seeks to remove Gaddafi from the equation. (5) The US and NATO are violating sovereignty and even their own purported international law. These events demonstrate the ideological component of international law. Bourgeois law merely masks underlying power relations.
As they often do, the Western media and the US government are shaping this conflict to appear as one of “Western democracy” against “totalitarian dictatorship.” (6) The reality is that this conflict is a manifestation of the principal contradiction: the First World, with its imperialism and petrol-based consumerism, against the Third World. In 2009, Gaddafi made movements to further nationalize oil in Libya. (7) The country’s largest export was made to serve Libyan development, not imperialism. This would take the largest deposits of oil in Africa (roughly 41.5 billion barrels) away from the hands of 10 foreign owned oil companies. (8) This is one of the main reasons behind the imperialist-backed so-called rebellion. The situation in Libya mirrors that of Venezuela to an extent, which is one reason Hugo Chavez has expressed his support for Gaddafi. The president of Venezuela has also nationalized oil and placed it toward the development of his country. As with Libya, the US reacted with severe measures against Chavez, including a coup d’état attempt in 2002. Imperialism is not waging war for the Libyan people, it is waging war for the First World against the Libyan people. The US and NATO are seeking to commodify the Libyan people, take the capital from their country, and create a dependency on the markets of the First World. The US consumes 25% of the world’s oil, over 19 million barrels per day, and 30.8 million barrels are imported to the US from Libya every year. (9) (10) First world consumption is fueling Third World poverty and instability. Imperialist aggression is directly tied to corporate interests and unsustainable consumption of First World populations.
The removal of Gaddafi will also increase imperialist military hegemony in the region. Gaddafi has historically supported many anti-imperialist movements, including the Palestinian struggle against genocide committed by Israel. In the past, he was a thorn in the side of the US and other imperialists. He has historically opposed US control in the Middle East and elsewhere. He has supported pan-Arab movements and pan-African movements.
Although Gaddafi did make overtures to imperialism in recent decades, he has been the first modern leader of Libya not completely controlled by imperialists. Italian colonization of Libya began in 1912 out of territory taken from the Ottoman Empire after the Italo-Turkish War. Native Libyans actively and militarily opposed this occupation until 1931, a period that consisted of intense subjugation of the Libyan native population including forced migration to Italian concentration camps, where up to one third of the Cyrenaican and half of the Bedouin population were killed or starved to death. (13) When Benito Mussolini came to power in the 1930s, he began a violent military campaign against Libyan nationals for their opposition to fascist occupation. Libyan service to the Italians during World War II did not bring the indigenous populations first class citizenship, but only “limited” citizenship in instances of great heroism. Italian settlers during the years of Italian fascism made up nearly 12% of the population of Libya, and through their desire for Italian luxury, put the Libyans to work building railroads, agricultural villages, and industry for their European settler populations. (14)
Under the Kingdom of Libya, established by the UN in 1952, Italian settlers remained and continued to exploit the native populations, as did new English settlers that were only completely expelled in 1970 after the emergence of Muammar al-Gaddafi. The country’s prior ruler, King Idris, showed Western sympathies and a favoritism towards the Cyrenaican tribe to which he was born. This tribal alignment and Western favoritism did not appeal to the Libyan people, who did not want the continuation of Western imperialism. Libya was one of the poorest countries in Africa, and Idris was only allowing the continuation of institutionalized poverty by allowing the continuation of imperialism even after the defeat of the fascists in World War II. Idris’ alienation from the Libyan masses only continued as he began spending more time near the British military base located near his palace in Tobruk, a sign of imperialist alignment after years of imperialist aggression under the Italians. The 1969 revolution of Gaddafi was the first example of the overthrow of imperialism in Libya. Gaddafi took a country destroyed by imperialism and world war and made it one of the wealthiest countries in Africa with the highest Human Development Index (comparison of life expectancy, literacy, education, and standards of living for countries worldwide) in Africa. This increase in the standard of living is due to the social programs put in place by the Libyan government under Gaddafi. (15)
Gaddafi is not a Leading Light Communist. We have seen his past attempts in recent decades to appease the imperialists; however, Gaddafi, in light of recent events, has been pushed back to a position of anti-imperialism. He is once again defending Libya from the imperialists. The so-called rebels who oppose Gaddafi oppose the Libyan people because they support the foreign invasion and occupation of Libya. They are agents of imperialism. Whatever their rhetoric, they objectively support further imperialist control of their country. The US recognition of the rebel forces as the “official government of Libya” effectively allies the rebels with US imperialism. Underdevelopment and exploitation are very real consequences of imperialism, and by acknowledging and accepting this alternative, the Libyan rebels are acting against the interests of the Libyan people. They are acting against the Third World.
Opposing imperialism means supporting the struggle of the Third World peoples for liberation from tyranny in its worst and most advanced form today: imperialism. It is important for Leading Lights and any allies of the Third World to work for the self-determination of all Third World peoples. Gaddafi’s regime is far from ideal, but it is putting boots on the ground against imperialism. We must support the broad united front against imperialism. At the moment, this means supporting those fighting against the imperialist destruction of Libya. At the same time, we need to emphasize that, in the long term, only the reconstitution of the global communist movement led by the most advanced scientific line can defeat imperialism. Support the broad united front, hold the red flag high, follow the Leading Light to genuine communism and total liberation.
Sources:
- Middle Eastern Quarterly
- Libyan terrorism: the case against Gaddafi.
- Military Veterans Fighting For Justice
- The Telegraph
- “On the Situation in Libya” by the Leading Light Communist Organization
- ibid.
- Infowars.com
- Libya Energy Information
- Oil Consumption in North America
- Where is Our Oil Coming From?
- Chavez, Ahmadinejad blast “aggression” in Libya, Syria
- “Libya: Ahmadinejad slams repression in Libya as Iranian authorities confiscate satellite dishes”
- Ilan Pappé, The Modern Middle East.Routledge, 2005, ISBN 0415214092, p. 26
- New villages in coastal Libya (in Italian)
- Human Development Index Trends
On the Racism Behind the Terrorist Crutch – the Attacks on Oslo, Norway
On the Racism Behind the Terrorist Crutch – the Attacks on Oslo, Norway by cherokeetears
An explosion in the capital of Oslo, Norway, followed by a shooting at a youth camp shook the country on Friday. Immediately deemed an act of “terrorism,” blogs, reports, and hearsay worked to effectively place the blame preemptively on the shoulders of Islamic “extremists.” Reports blamed the attacks on a number of groups: Gaddafi, al-Qaeda, the Palestinians, et al. Positive that Gaddafi was acting on his threat to “bring the war to Europe,” (1) or that al-Qaeda had decided to act in retaliation on one of the EU’s “more peaceable” countries for their involvement in the occupation of Afghanistan(2), rumor and gossip spread about the “terrorist atrocity” that had led to the death of 93 Norwegian citizens. All of this speculation sounded the same tune: “blame it on the brown people.” When the Norwegian police finally discovered the truth behind the conspirator, the party responsible was not a coalition, it was not an Islamist faction, it was not a leftist group, and it was not a foreign attack on European soil. Quite the opposite: it was Anders Behring Breivik – a white, Christian, Norwegian reactionary acting on right-wing political motivations against what he saw as the “radically left” Labour Party in power in Norway and the invasion of “Muslim” and “multicultural values” into “white European heritage”. Despite the emergence of of Breivik as the suspect, the following day’s cover of Sun tabloid read: “al-Qaeda’s massacre: Norway’s 9/11,” showing us that demonizing others is the most effective way to shift the blame to somebody else.
It was not just the radical right that blamed the attack on “radical Islam:” First World “leftists” and “left-wing” political parties were also quick to place the blame on Islamic militancy, implying that the Islamist movement is the only movement capable of such a horror. First Worldists tend to discredit themselves when it comes to this assumption, since imperialism is the real “terrorism.” When we reflect on the reactionary and racist notion of the “terrorist,” it’s easy to see that far too often, First Worldism and the politics of its people jump to the racist conclusion that a “terrorist” can be nothing other than a Muslim, furthering the jihadist movement(3). This is not the first case where the racist stereotype has been wrong, but rather than changing the preconceived notions of what a terrorist is, liberalism continues the reactionary policy of disassociation with “radical” right-wing “terrorism.” Conservative hotspots are now trying to detach themselves from the man who has such an affinity for these movements. Alex Jones, the renowned “Libertarian Constitutionalist,” continued to blame Al-Qaeda even after the suspect was found to be of Norwegian nationality, stating on his Prison Planet website that a “white Al-Qaeda” is to be blamed.(4) The anti-Muslim blog “Little Green Footballs” released a post separating themselves from Breivik after it was found that Breivik had been citing the column in his racist blog.
The reactions of other right-wing advocates was similar to that of the “No true Scotsman” fallacy, claiming that Breivik was acting more similarly to a Muslim than any Christian.(5) Big Peace, another reactionary right-wing commentary with a fascination and admiration for the military “hero” had this to say about Breivik:
“This Norwegian terrorist was not a Christian or a conservative. He acted contrary to the teachings of the Bible and conservatives from Burke to Madison. He was instead a jihadist, blinded by an ideology who resorted to violence rather than engaging in a public debate of ideas. He was a coward who planted bombs and killed innocent people. For him, violence was the only answer. He claimed to be fighting jihadists…but he actually became one. He didn’t kill one islamist [sic] terrorist with his actions-only innocent Norwegians. Change the location, and he acted like so many jihadists in the Middle East. He became one of them.”(6)
The actions of Timothy McVey, Jared Lee Loughner (who took his assassination cues from Sarah Palin’s “Target Map”), Charles Manson, The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, the Ruby Bridge incident, and other examples of right-wing extremism were also not the actions of a Christian or a conservative? It seems like the right is having to distance itself from too many movements for it to be a simple coincidence. The truth is that imperialism, fascism, and right-wing hate groups fuel sentiments of animosity towards other groups, and when people react violently to this coaxing, the right is the first to denounce him with the reply “no respectable Christian/Republican/First Worldist/etc would ever commit such horrific acts, only Arab/Muslim/Third World/poor people would have the Satan inside them to commit such an atrocity. Whereas the Third World fights to survive, Breivik fought to “protect” his twisted Eurocentric nationalism, a theme that is professed far too much in the right-wing corporate media. So why is “preserving European culture” any more racist than “preserving American values?” Well, the answer is because Breivik is crazy, whereas the rest of the right-wing world is simply “patriotic” or “concerned.” At least, that is their reasoning behind it.
It is also interesting to note the difference in reaction to al-Qaeda and the Breiviks of the world. Al-Qaeda became, for the people of the First World, the “nature” of Islam. Islam was blamed for being a “religion that professes hate” and “encourages violence.” Groups like Little Green Footballs claim that “Muslims are terrorists until proven innocent,” but when a radical nationalist professes hatred and kills almost 100 people to promote “white European culture,” he simply represents himself. He acted mistakenly and the right does not profess hate. Once again, that’s what the right says.
Overall the racism that placed blame on al-Qaeda was a reflection of the racism that plagues the First World. The attack itself purveyed the intolerance that was so quickly exposed by those who observed the tragedy. Breivik was seeking to show that Islam was “evil” and tainted “European values,” and people bought it, because they claimed that such an act of malice could only be committed by al-Qaeda and all the Muslims that profess their “religion of hate” instead of the truth, that their fascism, imperialism, and First Worldism are the worst example of “terrorism” that the world has ever seen.
Sources:
US cuts foreign aid to Pakistan
US cuts foreign aid to Pakistan by Cherokeetears
The US made cuts to Pakistani aid this week following months of tensions between the two. This means that the US “war on terror” will only be weakened now that it has properly discarded a valuable ally in its pursuit of imperialism. Pakistan has been an unstable arm of the US in the Middle East, and Pakistani interests have often conflicted with the interests of American imperialism.
So what has the US actually done to Pakistani aid? Well, they effectively retracted 300 million US dollars(1) originally invested in the Pakistani military, because they felt that the Pakistani government was not doing an adequate job of fighting “terrorist organizations.” This only displays US imperialism and chauvinism because of what the US defines as a terrorist, many Pakistani citizens would call a “freedom fighter,” in that they fight against foreign invested interests. These are conflicts of interests that the Pakistani government has struggled with, only interested in actively pursuing militants within its own country(2), and clueless as to the presence of Osama Bin Laden on their soil.
The US response to suspicions that Bin Laden was on Pakistani soil was not proper delegation with the Pakistani government, but instead, a secret and covert attack on Pakistani soil. This is a prime example of imperialism and criminality from the US. Because the US was allied with Pakistan, it was only in the interest of imperialism to conduct an invasion of the country without consent from the government itself. It is irrelevant whether a “sensitive situation” was created by the circumstances, the US blatantly violated a law that they would hold every other country too.
In the wake of these tensions, the US has pulled funding. Ultimately this is a victory, because the Pakistani military, unsupported by the US government, will not be as effective in fighting militants, nor will they be nearly as motivated. The move has cost significant political clout with the Middle East, and shows a partiality towards India that Pakistan will come to resent. Maybe someday soon the Pakistani government will be more inclined to join the United Front. Eighty percent of Pakistanis opposed the US pursuit of Taliban in 2007(3) and it looks like the government is starting to recognize and reflect this public opinion in its policies.
The “war on terror” is imperialism in the flesh. It dehumanizes opponents of imperialism and its acting agents. It justifies their lives as less valuable than those of the American. It reflects nationalism to an extent on the level of, or even worse than that of Nazi Germany in that it is a preservation of lifestyle and exploitation of the entire Third World out of a sense of entitlement to capital. It is the commodification of human lives and the reaction to any opposition to that commodification.
Sources:
1)Xinhuanet News: “Could US cuts add strain to shaky ties with Pakistan?”
2) ibid
3)http://feldsparia.blogspot.com/2007/12/most-pakistanis-in-favor-of-al-qaeda.html
Egyptian leader pledges to allow "democratic elections" during a visit with Kerry and McCain
 |
| Kerry and McCain ringing the opening bell of the Egyptian Stock Exchange, opening the country up to even more FDI |
Senator John Kerry and Senator John McCain paid a visit to Egypt Sunday in order to ring the opening bell of the Egyptian Stock Exchange in Cairo. The two, visiting on a business trip to see the opening of the Stock Exchange, received an assurance from Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, leader of Egypt’s military security council, that political power in Egypt would be transferred to an “elected government.” The two senators expressed concern that they would like to see Egypt become a “free and democratic country.”1 One imperialist puppet being replaced by another is not a “revolution,” and the reactionary and astroturf nature of the “Arab Spring” will not bring self-determination to the Third World masses, and the opening of the stock exchange and the promise of a liberal bourgeoise puppet government will not benefit the people, who can only be hurt by the aftermath of the Egyptian revolt.
The façade of a “popular” government can be seen through; the Prime Minister and other parliamentary groups are attempting to delay any election because of the threat of the strength of “Islamist” groups and the possibility that Islamists would come to power2, something that wouldn’t show promise for the US or their imperialist puppets. The US interest in the Egyptian situation is one of economic “interdependence” and political “stability.” Egypt being a lackey of the United States is a ticket to controlling the Middle East. Together with Saudi Arabia and Israel, Egypt will continue to follow the US control – even with Mubarak out of the picture. Some revolution huh?
The two senators suggested increased “economic cooperation,” a term which really means opening markets and exploiting Egyptian impoverished to provide for an American service industry that simply reflects unproductive labor without adding surplus value. ”Economic cooperation” will mean cheap products for the mall economy at the cost of underdevelopment and impoverishment resulting from the exploitation of the Egyptian masses.
Anybody who views the Arab Spring as a positive revolution is simply supporting opportunism and social imperialism. The military acted on behalf of the US throughout the entire protest. The military is US funded and supported, as was Mubarak, and the newly “elected” government will be as well. Imperialism is the order of the day for the country of Egypt. The masses will once again be oppressed by First World interference. McCain says “the success and failure of the revolution in this part of the Arab world will be directly related to the ability of providing investments and jobs for the Egyptian people”3. What he really means is that “revolution” will only be successful for the United States if Egypt continues to open itself up to Foreign Direct Investment. The astroturf “Arab Spring” will only be successful if imperialism is allowed to remain and grow further entangled in Egyptian political/economic life.
Kerry follows McCain in his belief that the best option for Egypt is to open up to imperialism to “change the region” and make the way for a “better future.” A “better” future full of exploitation, imperialism, and American power? Maybe. A better future for the Egyptian masses or the workers of the Third World? I think not.
Increased EU sanctions against Syria; evidence of more imperialism
 |
| Protesters in Seattle being dealt with “peaceably” |
Increased EU sanctions against Syria; evidence of more imperialism by Cherokeetears
Despite the fact that the EU has been dealing malevolently with protests in the last year and a half, they nevertheless have no problem applying a double standard to the Syrian government’s response to protests. It’s easy to condemn the suppression of protestors without acknowledging the domestic protest violence that the EU has been continually dealing with. Protests in Greece, Portugal, and France over the last year have met incredible amounts of police suppression, yet when Syria acts the same way, sanctions are imposed.
Syria’s Ba’ath Party is simply coming under attack by First World imperialism, just like Afghanistan, Iraq, Venezuela, Egypt, and Libya before. Imperialists are continuing to fight for the “freedom of speech” that they deny their own citizens. It’s easy for the EU to forget the three deaths from the Greek Protests1, the 65 deaths from the fire that the state so incompetently failed to prevent in 20072 and the authorities’ reaction to the protests that followed. It’s easy for the EU to forget the repression of protests in Portugal, Spain, and France; it’s easy for the First World to forget the 1999 WTO suppression of protests in Seattle. The First World forgets a lot when it’s telling others what to do.
 |
| Police Brutality in Barcelona |
It is important to distinguish that these protests are First World protests working for nothing more than a larger piece of the pie and “austerity reform,” but the EU’s actions are hypocritical nonetheless. The deaths of protesters this week is nothing compared to the deaths that occur at the hands of imperialism every day. NATO has been responsible for the deaths of 700 civilians in Libya so far in the Civil War backed by imperialism.3 UN sanctions in the past have been the cause of the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children. 4 Yes, imperialist backed protestors have died in the wake of violent protests in Syria, but how many deaths have been the result of imperialism? How many deaths have been the result of First World parasitism? How many deaths have been the result of capitalism? Many more.
The EU needs to learn to choose their words and actions wisely, since they have had to eat them in the past, and will have to eat them in the future.
As Imperialist Forces Continue, Opium Production in Afghanistan Increases
As Obama orders the withdrawal of 10,000 troops from Afghanistan, the country is left with larger problems than before. The opium trade in Afghanistan, which quickly rose after the removal of the Taliban in November of 2001, has now grown to be the largest in the world.1 It’s impossible to deny that this is the direct effect of imperialism, since under the Taliban, opium production was almost completely destroyed.2 Until the Taliban made opium production illegal, Afghanistan was the largest producer of opium in the world, and now it is once again the largest producer of opium, surpassing Myanmar Burma early last year.
The effects of imperialism on occupied countries is all-encompassing. While we see the obvious effect of war on civilian casualties, we can also see that imperialism ruins economies, splits families, and now destroys lives through the exploitation of the drug trade. Warlords in charge of the trade are forcing farmers to sell their daughters into slavery,3 organized crime is on the rise, and violence on behalf of the opium gangsters is said to be worse than violence of the Taliban.
Speaking to farmers, we find that their turn to the opium trade is due to the fact that they cannot afford to feed themselves by raising conventional crops. Each crop of opium brings a farmer $1000, enough to feed the family. 4 They turn to this crop despite the danger of dealing with warlords, NATO, and harsh working conditions because they are pursuing austerity in the simplest form.
The turn to these awful conditions is the direct result of underdevelopment from the First World on the Third. Opium production in the Third World supports opium consumption in the First. Opium addiction in the Third World funds sex slavery for the First World consumers. The drug trade is the direct result of imperialism from the First World against the Third World. It is the result of the First World declaring war on the Third World. Fight imperialism, fight the First World, Fight with the Third World.
Recent Comments