A new youtube video I created.

“I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am President, it is the first thing that I will do! I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war! You can take this to the bank!” Sen. Barack Obama, October 27, 2007

“After eight years, some of those years in which we did not have, I think, either the resources or the strategy to get the job done, it is my intention to finish the job.  And I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear rationale for what we’re doing there, and how we intend to achieve our goals, that they will be supportive.”  Pres. Barack Obama, November 24, 2009*

*President’s speech announcing plans to deploy more than 30,000 additional US troops to occupied Afghanistan.

WASHINGTON — The Army’s ability to train its forces is “increasingly at risk” because of the nation’s protracted commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan, the general in charge of training has told the Army’s chief of staff.

In a Feb. 16 memo to Gen. George W. Casey, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the commander of the Army Training and Doctrine Command, says that the Army has lost thousands of uniformed trainers because of troop demands in Iraq and Afghanistan, has had to put junior officers in charge of some key training functions and has delayed initial instruction for nearly 500 pilots because it doesn’t have enough trainers.

Only 30 percent of the instructors at Army training schools are in the military, Dempsey says, with the Army increasingly dependent on outside contractors.

“We are behind in integrating lessons learned, developing training and updating doctrine,” Dempsey wrote in the memo, a copy of which McClatchy obtained. “We are undermanned in our efforts to design the future Army.”

Dempsey’s warning occurs as the Obama administration presses ahead with plans to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan by 30,000 and has committed a growing number of military trainers to doubling the size of the Afghan security forces. Since Dempsey took command of TRADOC in December 2008, the command has sent 889 troops, contractors and civilians to Iraq and 675 to Afghanistan.

Casey, who’s frequently warned that the long-term commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan have strained the Army, said in an interview this week that Dempsey’s memo didn’t surprise him.

He said, however, that the military didn’t have enough soldiers to commit more troops to training, and that relief would come from two developments: the continued withdrawal from Iraq and the planned expansion of the Army by 65,000 soldiers by the end of 2011.

Dempsey’s memo “is his way of getting it on my radar,” Casey said.

Titled “Erosion of TRADOC’s Core Competencies and Functions,” the memo contains a litany of how keeping a large troop presence in two war zones while committing to train foreign troops has hurt the military’s training efforts.

There are 96,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and 78,000 in Afghanistan.

Dempsey wrote that since September 2001, the number of soldiers assigned to training and other planning responsibilities has declined by 7,300, while the number of civilian employees has declined by 4,500. To fill the gap, Dempsey says, his command has hired 9,000 outside contractors.

He complains that the result is a “de-greening” of training, meaning less reliance on Army personnel. For example, he wrote, outside contractors are teaching 68 percent of the courses at the Army’s Intelligence School.

Dempsey says the manpower shortage has affected ROTC training programs, particularly at universities that provide large numbers of junior officers to the Army. He says that the officer-to-student ratios at five of the nation’s six largest ROTC programs, including The Citadel in South Carolina and Texas A&M University, now exceed 1 to 45 and that in some cases the ratio is 1 to 76.

A shortage of captains and majors with combat experience is particularly troubling, he says.

“Their experience level is of extreme importance to our command because it gives them the field-tested knowledge and credibility to teach, coach and mentor the officers following behind them,” Dempsey wrote.

He wrote that 18 first lieutenants were filling company command positions in basic combat training units — positions usually reserved for higher-ranking officers — and that the command has had to turn to noncommissioned officers in some of those units to fill operations positions usually reserved for commissioned officers.

Agencies – Media sources said that former Prime Minister Tony Blair lied to the investigation committee on the Iraq war when he claimed that attention to topple former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein began after the attacks atheist ten of September. And removed the newspaper “The Independent” British unveiling of the document did not receive the Commission of Inquiry into the Iraq war, confirms that the government of Tony Blair made secret plans to drum up support for the establishment of an internal coup against Saddam Hussein two years before the invasion of Iraq. The newspaper “The Independent” The British Foreign Office officials drafted a plan called “contract with the people,” suggested to the dissidents in Iraq that toppling Saddam would receive support from Britain, also pledged to provide aid and debt cancellation of oil contracts and the provision of commercial transactions as soon as the ouster The newspaper “has been the completion of the plan, titled” Confidential – for the eyes of the British and U.S. “in the June 11, 2001, and approved by the cabinet of ministers.” The document said Britain would “want to deal with Iraq that respects the rights of its people and live in peace with its neighbors and abide by international law and the right of the Iraqi people to live in a society based on rule of law, free from repression, torture and arbitrary arrest, and that respects human rights, freedom and prosperity the economy. The document said “those who wish to be published a call for change in Iraq deserve our support. We look forward to the day when Iraq who is due to join the international community, will receive a new system to reschedule debt and aid from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund aid package and trade of the European Union.” Mr Blair said during his testimony before the commission last week that serious attention to the overthrow of Saddam breed only after ten atheist attacks of September, which changed from “a risk”. For his part, “said Ed Duffy, spokesman for the Liberal Democrats in foreign affairs, said the document questioned the validity of the certificate made by Blair should have been published before hearing his testimony on Friday. “The plan to support the Iraqis who seek to topple Saddam may be less harmful, and that was without a doubt the most legitimate what happened. However, it appears that Blair had always intended to change the system since the early and before the atheist of September.” “It seems, however, that veil of secrecy was lifted from the documents is crucial, which stop an obstacle to question Blair and other people.” In addition, newspaper “The Guardian” The Commission of Inquiry Celkot Blair will call again to make further submissions before it. She said Blair would be questioned in public and in secret after the committee expressed concern that his testimony on the legality of the invasion are contrary to those made by the former British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith.

This article focuses on Blair, but it is clear that Bush was trying to downplay the Afghanistan war, and switch to Iraq, even though a stronger case can be made against Afghanistan than against Iraq. Iraq is secular and never attacked USA. It was back stabbed. Afghanistan is theocratic and could be accused of Al-Qaeda collaboration. Yet Bush wanted to get the focus off of Afghanistan and onto Iraq.

The motives are ulterior! Profit and gain!

The war in Afghanistan is completely different. Bush didn’t plan on invading. 9/11 happened and put him on the spot. I don’t take people seriously who argue that 9/11 was an inside job and will just laugh at them if they comment.

The war in Afghanistan is a war against Islam, but it is corrupted by the profit motive. But the war does not have an original class nature. Bush didn’t plan on invading Afghanistan before 9/11. The original nature of the war was to destroy Sharia law and destroy Al-Qaeda

It is the profit motive that corrupts the American military into democratization, but the original motive was indeed an anti-Jihad motive.

I still oppose the Afghanistan war at least as it is being fought under the current conditions, but it is different. I do not think the war in Afghanistan is as ethically flawed as the war in Iraq.

War President Obama: 30,000 More Troops to Afghanistan

Obama: “We Did Not Ask for This Fight”
Bush: “We Did Not Seek This Conflict”
Obama: “New Attacks are Being Plotted as I Speak”
Bush: “At This Moment … Terrorists are Planning New Attacks”
Obama: “Our Cause is Just, Our Resolve Unwavering”
Bush: “Our Cause is Just, Our Coalition [is] Determined”
Obama: “This Is No Idle Danger, No Hypothetical Threat”
Bush: “The Enemies of Freedom Are Not Idle”
Obama: “We Have No Interest in Occupying Your Country”
Bush: “I Wouldn’t Be Happy if I Were Occupied Either”

The war in Afghanistan turned 8 years old on October 7^th, 2009. The War in Afghanistan has carried on longer than the Second World War…
Longer than the First World War…
Longer than the American Civil War …

When you talk to a person in the United States or Canada about the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, many are unaware that the conflict persists to this day (in fact, it is escalating). Despite the recent escalations in Afghanistan, most pay the conflict absolutely no mind in their day-to-day affairs. Why would they? But the Afghan resistance continues, in the face of a foe that is better armed, funded and supplied than the insurgency. In the face of this resistance, successive administrations of NATO commanders continue to give the same message on Afghanistan: “We cannot win”.

So, how is it that the some of the poorest people on the planet earth are holding their own, and continuing to give NATO forces in Afghanistan an ongoing fight and mounting casualties? More importantly why do the people of Afghanistan continue to resist?

Afghanistan: A Brief History
Afghanistan is, if nothing else, a historical example of iron resistance to invasion.
Alexander the Great, the Mongol Khans, the Persians, the British Empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics…no great power has been able to conclusively conquer Afghanistan or hold it indefinitely, no matter what the brutality towards the Afghan peoples inhabiting the region or the cost in human life. Every empire that has ever invaded Afghanistan has subsequently collapsed.

The following account could have just as easily been written after the American conquest of Afghanistan in 2001, but it is an analysis of the British conquest of Afghanistan in 1839 (my emphasis added):
“The conquest of Afghanistan seemed accomplished, and a considerable portion of the troops was sent back. But the Afghans were noways content to be ruled by the Feringhee Kaffirs (European infidels), and during the whole of 1840 and ’41, insurrection followed on insurrection in every part of the country. The Anglo-Indian troops had to be constantly on the move. Yet, McNaghten declared this to be the normal state of Afghan society, and wrote home that every thing went on well, and Shah Soojah’s power was taking root. In vain were the warnings of the military officers and the other political agents….every insurrection during the summer of ’41 was successfully repressed, and toward October, McNaghten, nominated governor of Bombay, intended leaving with another body of troops for India. But then the storm broke out. The occupation of Afghanistan cost the Indian treasury £1,250,000 per annum: 16,000 troops, Anglo-Indian, and Shah Soojah’s, had to be paid in Afghanistan; 3,000 more lay in Sinde, and the Bolan Pass; Shah Soojah’s regal splendours, the salaries of his functionaries, and all expenses of his court and government, were paid by the Indian treasury, and finally, the Afghan chiefs were subsidized, or rather bribed, from the same source, in order to keep them out of mischief. McNaghten was informed of the impossibility of going on at this rate of spending money. He attempted retrenchment, but the only possible way to enforce it was to cut down the allowances of the chiefs. The very day he attempted this, the chiefs formed a conspiracy for the extermination of the British, and thus McNaghten himself was the means of bringing about the concentration of those insurrectionary forces, which hitherto had struggled against the invaders singly, and without unity or concert; though it is certain, too, that by this time the hatred of British dominion among the Afghans had reached the highest point.”
-Friederich Engels, Afghanistan, 1857

While the British occupiers grew complacent in their conquest of Afghanistan, resistance erupted. Engels continues:

“ Nov. 2, 1841, the insurrection broke out. The house of Alexander Burnes, in the city, was attacked and he himself murdered. The British general did nothing, and the insurrection grew strong by impunity…. A few companies were sent against the thousands of insurgents, and of course were beaten. This still more emboldened the Afghans. Nov. 3, the forts close to the camp were occupied. On the 9th, the commissariat fort (garrisoned by only 80 men) was taken by the Afghans, and the British were thus reduced to starvation…In fact, by the middle of November, his irresolution and incapacity had so demoralised the troops that neither Europeans nor Sepoys were any longer fit to meet the Afghans in the open field. Then the negotiations began. During these, McNaghten was murdered in a conference with Afghan chiefs. Snow began to cover the ground, provisions were scarce. At last, Jan. 1, a capitulation was concluded. All the money, £190,000, was to be handed over to the Afghans, and bills signed for £140,000 more. All the artillery and ammunition, except 6 six-pounders and 3 mountain guns, were to remain. All Afghanistan was to be evacuated. The chiefs, on the other hand, promised a safe conduct, provisions, and baggage cattle.”
-Friederich Engels, Afghanistan, 1857

The British adventure in Afghanistan ended with the withdrawal of British troops and thousands of British soldiers dead with a disproportionately larger amount of the people of Afghanistan killed in the process. The later Soviet adventure in Afghanistan ended under similar terms. The mass resistance to occupation was enough to drive out even the most technologically superior foe. After the withdrawal of the Soviet Union, the period of Taliban rule began, which leads us to the current occupation which began in 2001.

“Cartoon” Muslims and Chauvinistic Orientalism

“These are detestable murderers and scumbags, I’ll tell you that right up front. They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties.”
- Canadian Chief of Defense staff, General Rick Hillier.

The ongoing resistance in Afghanistan is written off by Western audiences as savage and the ongoing resistance to occupation is seen as a malevolent force that would just as surely wage a military strike on the United States itself, as well as allied countries, if ever given the chance.
The fighters in Afghanistan are seen literally by many Western observers as being in league with the infamous 9/11 hijackers. Of course, none of the 19 alleged hijackers were from Afghanistan (15 from Saudi Arabia, 2 from the United Arab emirates, 1 from Egypt, 1 from Lebanon), but nonetheless the parallel is drawn.
For this reason, as with resistance/national liberation fighters all over the Middle East, the Afghan resistance fighters are portrayed as two-dimensional cartoon villains, motivated purely by irrational religious fundamentalism. Of course, it is true to an extent that all political movements in contemporary Afghanistan (including the Karzai puppet regime) claim allegiance to Islam, as the majority of the population does.

The dehumanizing portrayal of all Afghan resistance fighters as bloodthirsty religious zealots—note that in most narratives, it is the occupied people of Afghanistan who are portrayed as the aggressors—coupled with “War on Terror” pop-Islamic theology, where the smug premise is given that the unwashed Muslim peoples of the world want nothing more than to end their own life and others in order to receive a celestial gift of paradise and virgins in the afterlife, has given rise to massive national-chauvinism and racism.

While Islam does perhaps have cases of condoning martyrdom, one must also remember that so do Christianity and Judaism, the other major Abrahamic faiths. The allegations of Islamic scriptural basis for the war in Afghanistan are flimsy, as it contrasts sharply with not only the long history of coexistence (including intermarriage) among Muslims and non-Muslim neighboring peoples around the world, but also contrasts with some of the teachings of Islam itself.
From the Quran:
“Be good to . . . the neighbor belonging to your people and the alien neighbor.” (4:36)
“Allah does not forbid you concerning those people who do not fight you because of your religion, nor expel you from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly.. . . Allah forbids you only concerning those people who fight you for your religion, and drive you from your homes and help others to expel you, that you make friends of them.” (60: 8,9)
“And you will always find treachery in them, except a few of them. So pardon them and forgive. Surely Allah loves those who do good to others.” (5:13)

These are words of peace and coexistence, taken from the same scriptures as those alleged to incite suicide bombings. It becomes clear at this war being waged in Afghanistan, and other wars waged in other parts of the Middle East against occupation, while they may assume Islam as their vehicle just as most Western conflicts acquired a basis in Christianity, it is not the Islamic faith that is the driving force behind their armed defiance. The actual reasons for their armed resistance are very worldly, very material and tangible—the continuation of capitalism and imperialism.

What has he changed, nothing?

The economy still sucks for anyone who does not have special connections.
The war for liberal Democracy still goes on.
Americans remain ignorant.

CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE

Wednesday, December 2, 5 p.m.
Powell and Market Streets

On Tuesday, December 1, President Obama is expected to announce that tens of thousands additional U.S. troops will be sent to Afghanistan in the coming months.

A call for protest actions across the country against the war and escalation following the announcement has been issued by several national organizations including A.N.S.W.E.R Coalition, World Can’t Wait, United for Peace and Justice, Veterans For Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, National Assembly, and others.

Join us to demand: No Escalation—Bring ALL the Troops Home Now! No to War and Occupation in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Everywhere! Money for People’s Needs, Not War!

Call 415-821-6545 for more info or to volunteer.

A new report has accused the US private security firm formerly known as Blackwater of operating a covert assassination and kidnapping program against suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda members in northwest Pakistan. In an article published on Monday, The Nation magazine said that the firm, now known as Xe, is also involved in running a US military drone bombing campaign out of Pakistan.

Jeremy Scahill, the investigative journalist who broke the story, told Al Jazeera on Tuesday that the program was so secretive that senior officials in the administration of Barack Obama, the US president, were likely unaware of it. “What I learned is that for years there has been a covert operation of the US military inside Pakistan’s borders … and that Blackwater operatives are at the centre of not only the drone bombing campaign but also planning snatch-and-grab operations of high value targets.”

Scahill, citing military intelligence sources and a former Blackwater official, said the program began with an agreement between the US and Pakistani governments. “In 2006, the Bush administration struck a deal with the government in Islamabad that would allow US special forces to actually enter Pakistani territory if what they were doing was hunting Osama bin Laden or his top deputies.”The agreement was such that the Pakistanis said that they would have the right to deny that they had given permission.”

There was no immediate comment from Islamabad on the story, and Scahill said that the White House also failed to respond to his request for comment. But he said the office of Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, had contacted him to reject the allegations. “I did not call them, they called me and told me that the [allegations] did not stand up to reality,” Scahill said.

“I’ve talked to my sources though, and they say that it’s possible that officials within the military chain of command are simply not in what [they] called ‘the circle of love’ on this program.” US officials have said that they believe northwest Pakistan is a hiding place for al-Qaeda fighters, including Osama Bin Laden.
The northwest tribal region, and in particular Peshawar, the capital of the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), have borne the brunt of attacks perpetrated by the Taliban in recent weeks. The attacks are in apparent retaliation for a military offensive launched in the country’s semi-autonomous tribal region of South Waziristan against members of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, one of the main anti-government groups.

But a spokesman for the Taliban last week blamed Blackwater for at least two of the recent bombings. Azam Tariq posted a video statement on the internet, saying the Taliban attacks never aimed to target civilians and that the explosions were linked to Blackwater activities in the country. Xe has denied having any contracts in Pakistan.

The North Carolina-based firm provides security for diplomats around the world, but it is facing charges of human rights violations stemming its part from a 2007 shooting in Iraq that left 17 civilians dead.

They got in power solely because of warfare. WWI got Lenin in power. The Tzar was too weak and unprepared.
WWII got Mao in power. Kai-Shek didn’t have the ability to fight another war after fighting Japan.

Non-Marxists got in power more because of the depression than the war. They worked within capitalism to fix its contradictions. The depression got Mussolini in power. Same for Hitler. Not Franco, however. Marxists took power more violently.

If Iranian Marxists or similar movements take power, it will be because of the pressure US put on Iran weakens it, not in spite of it. The more screwed up things get, the more the opportunity exists for change. That opportunity won’t exist without pressure from Zionism and America.

If Iran does become socialist, then US imperialism will be the reason. But fundamentally, not the way that Besoshvilli thinks. It will be because the Iranian people are sick of fighting and finally overthrow their own government which is already fatigued from USA. Not because the Iranian people rally behind their government. Not because Iran gets stronger and heroically fends off USA. Because Iran gets weaker. The only reason a Marxist should support the ruling order in Iran, is under the logic that it will self-destruct and socialism can defeat it. The idea of supporting the Theocratic capitalist regime as an end in itself baffles me and any clear thinker when done under the banner of Marxist-Leninism.

If the US disappeared tomorrow and Islam dominated the world, atheistic socialism would be finished. It is not the working class that allows for revolution. It is infighting between capitalists.

I don’t agree with libertarianism. I am much more of a communitarian. On those points I disagree with Lavey.

But no-one has done more to help liberate my generation from the tyrannies of Abrahamic falsehood. I absolutely salute Anton Lavey for his work against Judeo-Christian values (and Islam). If there was a war between religions, I would fight as a soldier for atheism without hesitation.

Karl Marx and Benito Mussolini were big secularist thinkers in their day. Saddam Hussein denied his secularism but he was obviously secular. Anton Lavey is not the only successful secularist, but his shock value works.

Western and Afghan forces try to find out why an otherwise normal young man snapped and killed men he had worked with for months.

By Aziz Ahmad Tassal and Mohammad Ilyas Dayee in Lashkar Gah (ARR No. 344, 5-Nov-09)

The young man’s name was Gulbuddin and he came from Musa Qala, in the northern part of Helmand. He was big and strong with a reputation for fierceness in fighting the Taleban. Gulbuddin was a graduate of the police academy, had served honourably for two years in the Afghan National Police in Helmand, and his commander describes him as trustworthy.

That was until the afternoon of November 3, when he suddenly took a machine gun and mowed down his British colleagues, killing five and wounding six others. Two Afghan police were also injured in the incident.

“We do not know what triggered this,” said Haji Manan, a police commander in Nad Ali, the district where the incident occurred. “We were sitting at our checkpoint and we heard shooting. My deputy grabbed a gun and rushed out. Gulbuddin knocked him down with his machine gun. I ran up to the roof and I was shot. But I rolled down off the roof. He thought I was dead. He shot the foreigners first, then us.”

In the bitter aftermath of the shootings, both western and Afghan forces are trying to piece together what could have motivated an otherwise normal young man to snap and kill men alongside whom he had served for months.

The killings reopened the debate in Britain about the country’s role in Afghanistan, where it has 9,000 troops and has lost 92 so far this year. The Times newspaper in a headline called the shooting “A Bloody Betrayal” and the Daily Mail asked “What Kind of War is This?”

The reasons for the deployment, which had wide public support when it began in 2001, have become confused, some people say. While the initial aim was to deal with the Taleban and al-Qaeda, politicians now talk about bringing peace and stability to the streets. There does not seem to be an exit strategy and the mounting death toll has hit public support.

Armed Forces Minister Bill Rammell said British troops must stay in Afghanistan until the country’s own security forces are ready to take over.

“We do believe that the approach of partnering, mentoring and training has to be the right approach because it’s about building Afghan capacity,” he said. “We do not want our troops to be there forever and a day.”

Some people in Helmand believe that Gulbuddin belonged to the Taleban and had infiltrated the police. Others think that he may have lost friends or family in the bombardments by foreign forces that have ratcheted up tensions between Afghans and western forces, especially in the south.

“Gulbuddin was a soldier like me,” said Khairullah, one of the wounded policemen. “He did not have psychological problems, and he was not a drug addict. He was a disciplined policeman. Nobody knows why it happened. We rushed out of our rooms and I was shot in the leg by a British soldier. It was hell, shots being fired everywhere.”

A resident of Nad Ali who knew him well said that Gulbuddin was a fighter.

“He was a veteran of many battles against the Taleban,” said the man, who did not want to give his name. “He deserved medals. But he told me that whenever they had the Taleban pinned down the British would call them off. Maybe he was ready for a fight and his nerves just short-circuited.”

Gulbuddin fled the checkpoint where the shooting took place and a Taleban commander said that Gulbuddin was with them.

“After he killed the British soldiers he came to us,” said the commander, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “We picked him up near a cemetery, just three kilometres away from the police checkpoint, in an area under our control. He has been taken away to an undisclosed location. We did not have ties with him before, but recently he started to open relations with us.”

A member of the local council, who did not want to give his name, told IWPR that the police were searching for Gulbuddin even behind the Taleban lines.

“Talks are going on between tribal elders and the local Taleban to turn him over to the police,” said the man.

But most Helmandis think it is unlikely that the Taleban will give him up voluntarily.

“That boy is a hero,” said Khial Mohammad, a resident of Greshk. “The Taleban will treasure him like a flower.”

Shin Kalay, the village in Nad Ali where Gulbuddin staged his desperate act, is on the front line in the fight against the Taleban. The British soldiers and their Afghan police colleagues had been working and fighting side by side, and the police are now shocked and ashamed by their colleague’s action.

“I cannot look anybody in the eye,” said a police officer in the police headquarters, in Lashkar Gah. “The British will not trust any of our soldiers after this. We killed people who were trying to help us.”

Musafer, a police officer with the counter-narcotics team, also expressed shame and embarrassment but he tried to find some rationale for what most see as just a random act of violence.

“Maybe Gulbuddin was offended by the British,” he said. “Sometimes the foreign soldiers insult the Afghan police. Sometimes they restrain them and will not let them shoot when they are in a battle with the enemy. When we ask why, the British just say ‘these are our rules’.”

Captain Tim Dark, a media liaison officer with the western forces’ Lashkar Gah Provincial Reconstruction Team, PRT, said that he could not comment on ground operations.

“I cannot possibly know what happens in the heat of battle, or second guess what decisions are made,” he said.

An Afghan police commander in Nad Ali praised the British soldiers with whom he had served, and said he could not understand why his colleague had done what he had.

“This group of British soldiers was with us in every single operation, and they were very brave,” he said. “They were better than us in fighting. But this policeman had been with us for two years, and had served in Chanjir, Bolan, and other districts in Helmand. He was not al-Qaeda or Taleban. I cannot understand why he did this.”

For now the British are saying that Gulbuddin was a rogue policeman and the Nad Ali shootings are an isolated tragedy, not part of a wider pattern.

But the years of war have made many Afghans angry and bitter against the western presence on their soil. Tensions between the British and the Afghans are deep, and go back almost two centuries, to the three previous wars the British fought, and lost, on Afghan soil.

Civilian casualties are a major irritant in the relationship, and some Helmandis welcomed the news of British losses.

“[Gulbuddin] is a good boy, and the parents that bore him should be proud,” said Gul Agha, a resident of Greshk. “He should be given a medal. Let the foreigners know the pain of losing your own people. Let them know how death smells.”

“Let them know how tragic is the death of a son, a father or a brother,” said Abdul Majid, another resident. “Just last night they bombed innocent people in Babaji. Didn’t they have fathers and mothers? They were just farmers, threshing corn, and they were killed on the spot. All their young sons are dead. I am sure they would welcome that soldier as a hero.”

According to the Helmand PRT, the incident Majid referred to occurred at about 7.30 pm on November 4, when international forces launched a rocket attack against people they believed to be insurgents.

“We killed nine individuals who were attempting to plant an IED (improvised explosive device),” Dark said. “I am not aware of any civilian casualties.”

But this version does not sit well with Helmandis, who say that nine civilians were killed, including three children, as well as eight insurgents. A group of 60 tribal elders went to the PRT, the governor’s office, and to a local hospital in Lashkar Gah, the provincial capital, to protest at the attack, and according to media reports, they had the bodies of the civilians with them.

Aziz Ahmad Tassal and Mohammad Ilyas Dayee are IWPR reporters in Helmand province.

Not striking first is like giving your opponent a head start. Nice guys really do finish last. This is a lesson I’ve learned on internet forums but also by observing the consequences of political correctness. People who try to play by the rules really do get shafted in the end. It is a fact of life.

“Maybe if we are nice to competitive ideologies, they will stop hating us.” Military build ups are the only solution. War is the answer if “how” is the question.

But the real answer is that conversions to Democracy are useless if they go against the interest of the state which won the victory.

WE’LL KEEP OUR EYES PEELED

Black & White

We enjoyed summer weather in Beit-ul-Moqaddas until about a week ago. The days were hot, the evenings were cool…. but not cold. There wasn’t a sign of rain. This literally changed overnight as cold winds and rain turned the clock into winter mode.

That’s when the Israeli authorities decided to destroy the tent that an evicted family was living in. The family in question is not alone, Israel has plans to continue with illegal evictions and home demolitions in Occupied East Beit-ul-Moqaddas. The United Nations is calling on Israel to immediately stop demolishing Palestinian homes in occupied East Beit-ul-Moqaddas. The UN says 60,000 Palestinians may be at risk of being forcibly evicted. Israel says the houses are built without construction permits, which Palestinians say are almost impossible to obtain.

(Source: thepeoplesvoice.org

1. To end Slavery
2. To end Genocide
3. To end Fasicism
4. To end Nazism
5. To protect the life and liberty of the oppressed and helpless

But the fact that war is necessary to do this means liberals must emulate fascism temporarily to destroy fascism. You can’t organize an army without temporarily putting civil rights on hold internally. If you do not emulate fascism, you get Malik Hassan.

So liberalism crumbles as soon as there is intolerance.

If they refuse to eat it on explicitly religious grounds, oppress them.

At some point, nobody will be left to resist you.

For your information, Pol Pot actually did this (in the name of Maoism).

I know it sounds harsh, but when you consider the way religion has been poisoning the world for so long, it is completely justified on utilitarian grounds.

What we have in America is people who want to convert Muslims to capitalism. The policies of the neo-cons in USA (Bush, Cheney, Obama) include nation building and cooperation with reactionary forces. My policies would be intentional nation destruction of all backwards theocracies. The primary goal of foreign policy should not be material – converting Muslims to capitalism for business – but secular – destroying Islam even if it is bad for business. The strategy of the neo-cons is to divide between extreme and moderate Muslims. This delusional greed has prevented the secular world from really burying Abrahamic backwardness into the sands, even if it disrupts business contracts and relations. I don’t understand liberalism. By expanding liberal democracy to Muslims, and not becoming energy independent, you give them the industrial capability to eventually wipe you out using military technology that of course only infidels could invent.

I consider Saddam Hussein a hater of Islam and so does Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, The Iranian regime and virtually every Islamic movement. Saddam Hussein was one of the most brutal secularists in Middle Eastern history, and supporting the Ba’athist and the Iranian regime at the same time makes absolutely no sense. Only a Marxist who views the world ONLY through materialism cannot see the contradiction there.

According to all official mouthpieces and apologists for NATO-aggression in occupied Afghanistan, the world was told that the seemingly “international” invasion in 2001 was an act of “revenge” against the so-called “Taliban regime” in Afghanistan, for allegedly harboring the CIA-trained Usama Bin Laden and other high-level operatives of the al-Qaeda organization. These blatant lies, manufactured by US and British imperialism, were then broadcast throughout the entire network of Western bourgeois mass-media outlets in an unscrupulous effort to popularize military aggression against Afghanistan.

The falsifications, disinformation and outright lies spewed by the “un-official” mouthpieces of US imperialism have been truly astounding in terms of their utter and total perversion of the facts. In the buildup to war, the populations of the Western, imperialist countries were spoon-fed pre-packaged “news” that deliberately obfuscated key facts about not only the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, but also the alleged “relationship” between the government of Afghanistan and senior operatives within the al-Qaeda organization.

Despite the contentious and cynical lies of the imperialist ruling class, the quantifiable evidence negating the entire case for war by then US President George W. Bush, the US Congress, the General Chiefs of Staff and other guilty parties has since emerged, and the general public has begun to understand the overwhelming degree to which it had been lied to in order to “approve” NATO’s campaign of terror and destruction upon the people of Afghanistan.

What the New York Times, CNN, Fox News, BBC World Service, Los Angeles Times and other mainstays of the Western bourgeois press didn’t report on was US interests in constructing pipelines transporting oil from the Caspian Sea with the means to bypass both Russia and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The US imperialists, coordinating their efforts through the so-called NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), understood the potential for massive returns on an oil pipeline system that could yield enormous profit margins while simultaneously satisfying Western demands for crude oil.

In essence, the events of September 11, 2001 – an act in direct response to US imperialism, aggression and continued support for the Zionist, terrorist state of Israel, provided the US imperialists and their warmongering allies with the perfect pretext for launching a massive campaign of imperialist aggression against the people of Afghanistan; and in using the manufactured “relations” between the Taliban government and al-Qaeda and employing a sophisticated and superbly funded propaganda effort, Washington was able to manipulate the public into believing the invasion (and subsequent occupation) was a just and principled response to the so-called “terrorist attack.”

What the American people also didn’t see covered by the bourgeois mass-media conglomerates, were the diplomatic efforts of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan to examine Washington’s alleged evidence connecting them with al-Qaeda. Just days after the US imperialists broadcast their allegations against the Taliban, Afghanistan’s then Foreign Minister, Mullah Abdul Wakil Muttawakil, requested to see the evidence, and expressed a willingness to co-operate in order to prove that al-Qaeda had no operational basis within the country. Former Foreign Minister Muttawakil’s requests went unanswered by the US Department of State; little did the Foreign Minister or the people of Afghanistan know that war against Afghanistan was a foregone conclusion, pre-determined some time before the events of September 11.

But the real crimes of US imperialism followed the invasion, with the establishment of a long-term foreign military occupation forces proliferating throughout the country, and the imposition of a pre-selected puppet regime to uphold NATO/US interests in Afghanistan. Currently, there are more than 100,000 imperialist occupation forces in Afghanistan, including the additional 17,000 US occupation forces deployed under executive order of current US President Barack Obama. Despite the so-called “surge,” the NATO-led foreign military occupation continues to suffer heavy losses as Taliban mujahideen and other national resistance forces continue to wage a fierce, merciless and just struggle for independence and national liberation. This year alone, the NATO-ISAF occupation forces have experienced a record-setting number of casualties – 384 occupation soldiers killed, 226 of them American, in 2009.

The mounting body count, coupled with the stresses of a worldwide capitalist crisis that’s been ravaging the economies of even the wealthiest imperialist states since September of last year, has led to increased demands across the globe for an immediate withdrawal of the foreign occupation forces, even among the more liberal elements of the ruling bourgeoisie.

According to the most recent public opinion polls, including one conducted by USA Today in September 2009, shows that “50 per cent” of the US population no longer believes the war in Afghanistan is “worth it.” Similar sentiments are raging throughout the respective populations of those countries whose governments have committed to collaborating with US and British imperialism and militarist aggression in Afghanistan.

Ultimately, the struggle in occupied Afghanistan demands the attention of the international proletariat in demonstration its unyielding support for the anti-imperialist struggle of the myriad national resistance forces taking arms against American-British imperialism. Imperialism is not only the detriment to the people of occupied Afghanistan, occupied Iraq or occupied Palestine, but to the working peoples of the imperialist bloc, culpable for the gross crimes committed in their names by their plutocratic governments. The national struggle in occupied Afghanistan is therefore of the utmost interest to all members of the international working class. United by a common interest in standing firm against imperialism, neo-colonialism and militarist aggression, the proletariat must openly, and publicly, convey its support for the national resistance movement, regardless of perceived “reactionary tendencies” within its varied ideologies.

A thorough, scientific analysis of the “Afghanistan Questions,” employing Marxist-Leninist dialectical methodology unequivocally concludes that the struggle of the mujahideen resistance forces is objectively progressive. Likewise, those so-called “communists,” embodying the vilest and opportunist trends characteristic of modern revisionism, should be exposed and condemned at every opportunity. It is the duty of all progressives to stand against not only the imperialists, but their “labor lieutenants” who serve the interests of the ruling class as unprincipled apologists for even the most violent manifestations of imperialist aggression.

The above photograph, taken by the Associated Press on September 5, 2009, depicts just one of the many dozen of innocent civilians injured as a result of the blatant act of hostile military aggression when NATO occupation forces in Afghanistan launched an airstike in Kunduz province on Friday September 4, 2009.

According to reports, the death toll resulting from the NATO-ISAF airstrike could be as high as 150, with the vast majority of those killed innocent civilians, including several women and children.

NATO forces in occupied Afghanistan were slow to acknowledge responsibility for this criminal act of violent aggression – only recognizing their guilt on Tuesday September 8th.

Interesting Website. I will add it to the blog roll. It has well constructed political opinion and links to very good material about the global financial crisis.

August 31 – Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) is expected to release new, groundbreaking documents from its historical archive today providing detailed evidence into Nazi German and Polish collaboration prior to the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War.

According to the SVR, the documents indicate that both the Polish bourgeois pre-war regime and the so-called Polish “government in exile” during the war were ripe with infiltrators from both German and British intelligence services. This includes pre-war Polish Foreign Minister Jozef Beck, which the documents reveal was working for German foreign intelligence, and exiled Prime Minister Stansilaw Mikolajcyzk, who was an agent of the British Foreign service in 1943 and 1944.

The details of the negotiations between Nazi Germany and the reactionary bourgeois nationalist regime of pre-war Poland show that the two had made a secret pact in 1934, which include a planned invasion of the Soviet Union. Among the evidence anticipated for public release is a photograph of German Chancellor Adolf Hitler in the office of Polish Foreign Minister Beck in Warsaw, 1934.

According to the SVR’s Public Relations and Mass Media Bureau, responsible for briefing the media and public on the activities of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, the archived evidence shows unequivocal aggression on behalf of the bourgeois Polish regime towards the Soviet Union leading up to the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War in 1941. The new evidence also provides an important element in further justifying the controversial “Molotov-Ribbentrop” Non-Aggression Pact of 1939, which provided a strategic delay of hostilities between the Soviet Union and Hitlerite Germany.

For decades Western bourgeois historians and Polish nationalists have attempted to cover-up the degree of collaboration between Nazi Germany and the Polish bourgeois-nationalist regime. However, the public release of the aforementioned incontrovertible evidence may bring to light the criminal intentions and hostile aggression of both parties towards the Soviet Union.

Source: Russian Foreign Intelligence Service Public Relations and Mass Media Bureau

Nazi war crimes in the Soviet Union, some images are for Mature audiences.
I uploaded the original HQ.wmv that’s in a higher resolution, it looks way better than on Youtube. (6.8mb)

http://sharebee.com/a184f220

http://www.zshare.net/video/6474297060538f7e/

http://depositfiles.com/files/n7di1k7kh

http://www.badongo.com/vid/1230839

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=1I7YIQMK

http://rapidshare.com/files/272226231/EasternFront.wmv.html

A non-aggression pact is an international treaty between two or more states agreeing to avoid war or armed conflict between them and resolve their disputes through peaceful negotiations. Sometimes such a pact may include a pledge of avoiding armed conflict even if participants find themselves fighting third countries, including allies of one of the participants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance

An alliance is an agreement between two or more parties, made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests.

As you can see, there is a major difference. Alliances are about seeing “eye to eye” with the characteristics of another nation, whereas non-aggression pacts are merely avoiding conflict.

Are we at Free Media Productions a non-aggression pact or an alliance?  I think that depends on what mood we are in!

When Soviets declared the existence of USSR, that did not solve their problems. Subsequently, a war against the Tsarist / Provisional Army erupted.

When America declared Independence, that was not the end of it. A war followed.

Saying that illegal immigration is not a crime does not solve anything. We can say that murder is not a crime. The murder problem would continue despite the rosy face.

The Afghanistan war, even though I no longer support it after learning more about imperialism, cannot be won by slogans and tough talk.

The Iraq War was not won when scumbag George W. Bush said “mission accomplished.”

“Racism” will not stop just because the ADL and SPLC try to legislate it away. Reverse racism will not go away until phony civil rights organizations realize that it actually exists.

Protests in Iran will not go silently into the night, no matter what the Government legislates or publicly displays.

1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

…it sort of reminds me of the people who control America!

It should be noted that in my interpretation, antisocial personality disorder on its own is not psychopathy. Psychopaths display both the traits of sociopaths AND of narcissists concurrently.

A few examples…

K.Vasilev. Invasion - 1941

A.Sukhoverkhov. Partisans of Belorussia - 1944

V. Bozhko. Banner of Victory - 1945

Just because the non-agression pact with Hitler and Mussolini failed, just because Hitler was a total moron, does not in my opinion mean that Marxists and intelligent Nationalists are natural enemies for eternity.  Plus Ukranian nationalists were hardly Utopian.  They were bourgeious.

Saddam Hussein is a good example of the ideal Third Positionist.  Zionism, the version we have today, is almost Western Capitalism and can hardly be viewed as being inline with anti-capitalist thought.  If it was it would be compared to Saddam Hussein favorably, but it is not.

The most conventional answer is that they can only reconcile to the extent that Marxist-Leninists are not materially capable of taking power.  However I do not intend to answer the question myself.

From Red Phoneix

(online blog forthe American Party of Labor)

By Comrade Marcus Winter

Imperialist powers such as the United States, the UK, Russia and China have been eager to “condemn” the recent underground test of a nuclear device by the DPRK (North Korea). President Obama was quick to announce on TV that the DPRK was “a grave threat to the peace and security of the world,” while USA Today labeled it “an erratic, potentially dangerous regime.” The United Nations and France have already called for more imperialist sanctions against the legitimate and sovereign Korean nation. The capitalist governments of the world, led by the US, are trying to sanction and isolate the DPRK and to portray it as a “rogue regime” because it stands up to their colonial ambitions and demands independence.
While their President goes on TV and complains about the DPRK standing up to threats of invasion, the United States seems to have no problem with Israel’s huge stocks of nuclear and biological weapons, nor with their genocidal massacre against the people of the Gaza strip earlier this year, which killed over 1,400 and wounded over 5,000 Palestinians. It is the utmost hypocrisy for the United States and its cronies in the NATO bloc to criticize the DPRK for “aggressive” actions when currently a million people lie died from their wars of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as their air strikes in Pakistan. Likewise, it is utterly ridiculous for the US imperialists to demand that the DPRK stop “disrupting peace” when it is the larger capitalist countries which are intensifying the calls for invasion and war against the nations of the world.
To date, the United States remains the only country to ever use nuclear weapons in warfare. It is worth noting also that the United States posses enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over, and has massive stockpiles of smallpox, plague, mustard and nerve gas and other biological weapons. The use of napalm and chemical weapons in both the Vietnam and Korean Wars, both of which killed over three million people each, is also widespread and well-known. The United States government has no right to act as the ruler and emperor of the world, and has no right to dictate who has the right to nuclear technology and who doesn’t. The DPRK has the right to its own self-determination and access to modern technology without the interference of foreign powers.

Lies Concerning the DPRK
The American media has always endeavored to portray the DPRK as a “nightmare” or a “hell-on-earth,” a “dictatorship” which is ruled by an “insane kook” of a ruler. There is also non-stop talk of famine and foot shortages in the DPRK, which is never corroborated by facts. The DPRK has kept itself independent and self-reliant since being allied with the USSR. It currently has a planned economy, and provides its people with food, clothing and housing, free medical service and preventive care as well as free education up through college. Despite the fairy tales about its “prison camps,” the DPRK imprisons far smaller percentage of its population than the US, and then rarely for political reasons. In addition, charges of “poverty” are mostly superpower chauvinism, since the DPRK has a far better economy than other capitalist post-colonial nations such as Jamaica or Haiti. It is also important to realize the small country is not more than 50 years old, and does not have a history of slavery or genocide, nor has it invaded and occupied other nations.
The capitalist media, which parrots the ruling class, insists on talking endlessly about the “famine” in the DPRK and of the suffering of the people, when there has not been a famine in over a decade, and the original one occurred due to the massive destruction of the Korean peninsula during the Korean War, in which over 115,000 air raids were conducted and 600,000 tons of bombs were dropped. This lead not only to the destruction of most of the buildings and infrastructure, but also the trees and vegetation, causing flooding and agriculture failure. The DPRK is still dealing with these problems, and has mostly solved them. The 1954–56 three-year plan repaired much of the massive damage caused by the war and brought industrial production back to pre-war levels. By the 1960s North Korea was the second most industrialized nation in East Asia, trailing only Japan. The Republic of Korea (South Korea) would be in far worse shape than the DPRK today if it hadn’t received billions of dollars of aid from capitalist powers over the past few decades, which has lead the country’s economic success to be upheld as the myth of “capitalism’s superiority.” In reality, before economic aid was sent, the two states were running evenly, with the DPRK even surpassing the ROK at times.

The American Party of Labor maintains that Juche is a revisionist ideology that is devoid of the teachings of scientific socialism. As such, the DPRK was never a socialist society. For a more detailed look at Juche, read the polemic here:

http://theredphoenix.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/letter-of-criticism-to-the-rural-peoples-party/

Nevertheless, the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea is a progressive and anti-imperialist force in the world. The American Party of Labor fully upholds the Korean peoples’ right to self-determination and its right to have access to nuclear technology.

Those who think they are weakening Islamic Fundamentalism made the incorrect move to target Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein is proof that American imperialism can be resisted without excusing Zealot behavior. Arabs and South Asians should view Hussein, not the Taliban or Shias, as their model.

With regards to Saddam Hussein’s theocratic opponents (the Taliban, the Iranian regime etc.), the pragmatic part of my mind still supports the lesser evil against the imperialists, but the idealist part of my mind knows that these regimes are far from Utopia.  Saddam Hussein’s style of rule was much closer to utopia.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/31/weekinreview/the-world-khomeini-vs-hussein-mideast-s-contenders-for-nasser-s-mantle.html?amp;sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

THE WORLD: Khomeini vs. Hussein; Mideast’s Contenders for Nasser’s Mantle

By YOUSSEF M. IBRAHIM
Published: July 31, 1988

A LITERARY essay published in the Middle East in 1952 created a stir among Arab intellectuals for its description of an empty cloak of leadership waiting to be placed on some hero somewhere in the vast, leaderless world of Islam.

Within months it had been claimed by Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt. Over the next 18 years, his revolutionary zeal and strategies provoked the expulsion of the French from Algeria and the British from Egypt and Jordan, and the overthrow of pro-Western monarchies in Yemen and Iraq. His confrontation with the West introduced Soviet influence in the region, and was a major factor in the emergence of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the current of Arab nationalism that continues today.

Eventually, Nasser’s equally colossal failures caught up with him. Egypt’s crushing defeat at the hands of Israel in 1967 placed much Arab land under Israeli occupation and ended Egypt’s role as leader of the Arab world.

Nasser died in 1970, and since then many Middle Eastern leaders have tried in vain to grab the elusive cloak – among them, President Saddam Hussein of Iraq and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran.

It was largely their quests to impose their views on the region that led Iran and Iraq into war. It looked last week as if the war was winding down, with intense peace talks continuing at the United Nations. But after eight years of fighting, neither man has managed to claim that mantle of leadership.

Now 51 years old, Mr. Hussein is a strong advocate of progress under the banner of secularism and a united Arab destiny. Mr. Hussein believes that a dictatorial government that force-feeds modernization is a shortcut to progress. He is convinced that such an approach will catapult the backward Arab world, starting with Iraq, into the next century.

In a conversation a few years ago, Tarik Aziz, who is the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and a friend of President Hussein, explained it this way: ”You must understand – our country is cutting through a lot of time. We can’t afford to go through 200 years or so until we have a ‘natural evolution’ from feudal to industrial to modern age, as Europe did to get to its golden age.

”We must push our people 200 years ahead and away from medieval, reactionary ideas, through education and discipline.” The accent, he said, was on push. Backward and Forward

Ayatollah Khomeini, the other contender for the role of pan-Islamic leader, is, at 88 years of age, a revolutionary who once called democracy the equivalent of prostitution.

His belief that the Middle East is dominated by foreign powers, that it has lost the right to define its own destiny and that it must shake away these chains does not differ much from the views of Mr. Hussein or other so-called progressive Middle Eastern leaders, including those of Algeria, Libya and Syria.

But the Ayatollah’s methods and ideological foundations are diametrically opposed to those of Mr. Hussein, and for that matter those of the whole Arab world he seeks to convert. And as the Iraqi leader is rushing impatiently forward in time, the Ayatollah is rushing backward.

”Khomeini tried the impossible task of rewriting history,” said Ahmad Bahaa-eldine, a columnist for the Egyptian daily Al Ahram who is also published in several other Arab dailies and is a friend of President Hussein.

”He wanted to rebuild the third Islamic state after those of the Prophet Mohammed 1,400 years ago and Imam Ali shortly afterward.”

”We are talking about reconstructing something that existed 14 centuries ago in the world of the 1980’s,” Mr. Bahaa-eldine continued.

”It is as though science, technology, the arts, literature, sociology, never came to add shades and colors to what used to be white and black in our perceptions. For most of us, the attraction of what Nasser did was that he tried to launch a modern revolution.”

In the Middle East, as in much of the third world, the search for dignity, independence, prosperity and freedom is still a search for a magic formula. Many Arab intellectuals argue that the formulas presented thus far -Arab socialism, Arab nationalism and the Ayatollah’s pan-Islamic nationalism – are proven failures.

”Today in our Middle East world the role of ideologies is shrinking,” said a senior Arab ambassador in Washington, D.C. ”This cloak of leadership does not belong to any single man anymore. The Middle East has a much better educated, wealthier, smarter population today.”

If they are looking for anything, he said, it is ”just democracy and a little respect for the individuals.”

That may not be soon in coming, at least not in Iraq or Iran, even if their war is about to end. Ayatollah Khomeini has called for a cease-fire so that the Islamic Government can devote itself to eradicating more internal enemies and consolidating his vision of 14th-century righteous Islamic rule.

Mr. Bahaa-eldine said Mr. Hussein also has strong views on the subjects of democracy and individual rights. He recalled a visit to Baghdad a few years ago in which he spent a spirited evening of talk with the President.

”I had argued that power is best held by persuasion,” Mr. Bahaa-eldine recalled. ”He would kid me that we ‘intellectuals’ know nothing about building nations.” Without the gun to force progress, Mr. Hussein argued, there would be no progress.

Later that night at his hotel, Mr. Bahaa-eldine said, an Iraqi guard appeared at the door with a velvet box. Inside was a revolver on which was engraved the inscription: ”With the compliments of Saddam.”

President Zelaya of Honduras has just been kidnapped
[Note: As of 11:15am, Caracas time, President Zelaya is speaking live on Telesur from San Jose, Costa Rica. He has verified the soldiers entered his residence in the early morning hours, firing guns and threatening to kill him and his family if he resisted the coup. He was forced to go with the soldiers who took him to the air base and flew him to Costa Rica. He has requested the U.S. Government make a public statement condemning the coup, otherwise, it will indicate their compliance.]

Caracas, Venezuela – The text message that beeped on my cell phone this morning read “Alert, Zelaya has been kidnapped, coup d’etat underway in Honduras, spread the word.” It’s a rude awakening for a Sunday morning, especially for the millions of Hondurans that were preparing to exercise their sacred right to vote today for the first time on a consultative referendum concerning the future convening of a constitutional assembly to reform the constitution. Supposedly at the center of the controversary is today’s scheduled referendum, which is not a binding vote but merely an opinion poll to determine whether or not a majority of Hondurans desire to eventually enter into a process to modify their constitution.

Such an initiative has never taken place in the Central American nation, which has a very limited constitution that allows minimal participation by the people of Honduras in their political processes. The current constitution, written in 1982 during the height of the Reagan Administration’s dirty war in Central America, was designed to ensure those in power, both economic and political, would retain it with little interference from the people. Zelaya, elected in November 2005 on the platform of Honduras’ Liberal Party, had proposed the opinion poll be conducted to determine if a majority of citizens agreed that constitutional reform was necessary. He was backed by a majority of labor unions and social movements in the country. If the poll had occured, depending on the results, a referendum would have been conducted during the upcoming elections in November to vote on convening a constitutional assembly. Nevertheless, today’s scheduled poll was not binding by law.

In fact, several days before the poll was to occur, Honduras’ Supreme Court ruled it illegal, upon request by the Congress, both of which are led by anti-Zelaya majorities and members of the ultra-conservative party, National Party of Honduras (PNH). This move led to massive protests in the streets in favor of President Zelaya. On June 24, the president fired the head of the high military command, General Romeo Vásquez, after he refused to allow the military to distribute the electoral material for Sunday’s elections. General Romeo Vásquez held the material under tight military control, refusing to release it even to the president’s followers, stating that the scheduled referendum had been determined illegal by the Supreme Court and therefore he could not comply with the president’s order. As in the Unted States, the president of Honduras is Commander in Chief and has the final say on the military’s actions, and so he ordered the General’s removal. The Minister of Defense, Angel Edmundo Orellana, also resigned in response to this increasingly tense situation.

But the following day, Honduras’ Supreme Court reinstated General Romeo Vásquez to the high military command, ruling his firing as “unconstitutional’. Thousands poured into the streets of Honduras’ capital, Tegucigalpa, showing support for President Zelaya and evidencing their determination to ensure Sunday’s non-binding referendum would take place. On Friday, the president and a group of hundreds of supporters, marched to the nearby air base to collect the electoral material that had been previously held by the military. That evening, Zelaya gave a national press conference along with a group of politicians from different political parties and social movements, calling for unity and peace in the country.

As of Saturday, the situation in Honduras was reported as calm. But early Sunday morning, a group of approximately 60 armed soldiers entered the presidential residence and took Zelaya hostage. After several hours of confusion, reports surfaced claiming the president had been taken to a nearby air force base and flown to neighboring Costa Rica. No images have been seen of the president so far and it is unknown whether or not his life is still endangered.

President Zelaya’s wife, Xiomara Castro de Zelaya, speaking live on Telesur at approximately 10:00am Caracas time, denounced that in early hours of Sunday morning, the soldiers stormed their residence, firing shots throughout the house, beating and then taking the president. “It was an act of cowardness”, said the first lady, referring to the illegal kidnapping occuring during a time when no one would know or react until it was all over. Casto de Zelaya also called for the “preservation” of her husband’s life, indicating that she herself is unaware of his whereabouts. She claimed their lives are all still in “serious danger” and made a call for the international community to denounce this illegal coup d’etat and to act rapidly to reinstate constitutional order in the country, which includes the rescue and return of the democratically elected Zelaya.

Presidents Evo Morales of Bolivia and Hugo Chávez of Venezuela have both made public statements on Sunday morning condeming the coup d’etat in Honduras and calling on the international community to react to ensure democracy is restored and the constitutional president is reinstated. Last Wednesday, June 24, an extraordinary meeting of the member nations of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), of which Honduras is a member, was convened in Venezuela to welcome Ecuador, Antigua & Barbados and St. Vincent to its ranks. During the meeting, which was attended by Honduras’ Foreign Minister, Patricia Rodas, a statement was read supporting President Zelaya and condenming any attempts to undermine his mandate and Honduras’ democratic processes.

Reports coming out of Honduras have informed that the public television channel, Canal 8, has been shut down by the coup forces. Just minutes ago, Telesur announced that the military in Honduras is shutting down all electricity throughout the country. Those television and radio stations still transmitting are not reporting the coup d’etat or the kidnapping of President Zelaya, according to Foreign Minister Patricia Rodas. “Telephones and electricity are being cut off”, confirmed Rodas just minutes ago via Telesur. “The media are showing cartoons and soap operas and are not informing the people of Honduras about what is happening”. The situation is eerily reminiscent of the April 2002 coup d’etat against President Chávez in Venezuela, when the media played a key role by first manipulating information to support the coup and then later blacking out all information when the people began protesting and eventually overcame and defeated the coup forces, rescuing Chávez (who had also been kidnapped by the military) and restoring constitutional order.

Honduras is a nation that has been the victim of dictatorships and massive U.S. intervention during the past century, including several military invasions. The last major U.S. government intervention in Honduras occured during the 1980s, when the Reagain Administration funded death squads and paramilitaries to eliminate any potential “communist threats” in Central America. At the time, John Negroponte, was the U.S. Ambassador in Honduras and was responsible for directly funding and training Honduran death squads that were responsable for thousands of disappeared and assassinated throughout the region.

On Friday, the Organization of American States (OAS), convened a special meeting to discuss the crisis in Honduras, later issuing a statement condeming the threats to democracy and authorizing a convoy of representatives to travel to OAS to investigate further. Nevertheless, on Friday, Assistant Secretary of State of the United States, Phillip J. Crowley, refused to clarify the U.S. government’s position in reference to the potential coup against President Zelaya, and instead issued a more ambiguous statement that implied Washington’s support for the opposition to the Honduran president. While most other Latin American governments had clearly indicated their adamant condemnation of the coup plans underway in Honduras and their solid support for Honduras’ constitutionally elected president, Manual Zelaya, the U.S. spokesman stated the following, “We are concerned about the breakdown in the political dialogue among Honduran politicians over the proposed June 28 poll on constitutional reform. We urge all sides to seek a consensual democratic resolution in the current political impasse that adheres to the Honduran constitution and to Honduran laws consistent with the principles of the Inter-American Democratic Charter.”

As of 10:30am, Sunday morning, no further statements have been issued by the Washington concerning the military coup in Honduras. The Central American nation is highly dependent on the U.S. economy, which ensures one of its top sources of income, the monies sent from Hondurans working in the U.S. under the “temporary protected status” program that was implemented during Washington’s dirty war in the 1980s as a result of massive immigration to U.S. territory to escape the war zone. Another major source of funding in Honduras is USAID, providing over US$ 50 millon annually for “democracy promotion” programs, which generally supports NGOs and political parties favorable to U.S. interests, as has been the case in Venezuela, Bolivia and other nations in the region. The Pentagon also maintains a military base in Honduras in Soto Cano, equipped with approximately 500 troops and numerous air force combat planes and helicopters.

Foreign Minister Rodas has stated that she has repeatedly tried to make contact with the U.S. Ambassador in Honduras, Hugo Llorens, who has not responded to any of her calls thus far. The modus operandi of the coup makes clear that Washington is involved. Neither the Honduran military, which is majority trained by U.S. forces, nor the political and economic elite, would act to oust a democratically elected president without the backing and support of the U.S. government. President Zelaya has increasingly come under attack by the conservative forces in Honduras for his growing relationship with the ALBA countries, and particularly Venezuela and President Chávez. Many believe the coup has been executed as a method of ensuring Honduras does not continue to unify with the more leftist and socialist countries in Latin America.

Q : What constitutes heroic and revolutionary resistance from the viewpoint of a neo-liberal?
A : Switching to “the other” neo-liberal party.

Q : Harmful influences prance around as “political dissidents” acting like clowns in a circus. What do misguided and youthful people do?
A: They give their full support in lock-step, serving the neo-liberal elite.

Q : Barack Obama promises change and fails to deliver. What have the American people learned from this?
A : Nothing!

Q  : What is the thought process behind a political candidate in America?
A : “I’ll just make up a fake political platform and get into office.  After all, the American people are too dumb to notice or remember by the time my term ends.”

Q : How do neo-liberal parties reach a stance on issues such as immigration?
A : If they are Republicans then they listen to their wallets.  If they are Democrats then they listen to the leaders of OBVIOUS special interest groups.

Dropped my flag. U.S.A.
It’s draped in blood and dirt,
Buried beneath the Earth,
Desecrated in every way.

Dishonored, my God has forsaken me.
He never existed anyway.
At least in death I will be free.
My country has gone astray.

God forgive me.
I was tempted by an evil regime.
Cowardly, I joined the team.
God forgive me.

What is decent is right.
What is popular is tight.
The easy way out…
Join the crowd.

Rape, murder, theft,
There’s nothing left.
All for the greed
Of those who lead.

I wish I had stood my ground
Resisted the corruption that I found.
I wish I had denounced the occupation
And demonstrated determination.

Now I lie.
Ready to look death in the eye.
I’ve killed innocents and cannot cry.
Maybe I deserve to die.

God…..FORGIVE ME……

(the final shot is heard)