Algerian Diplomats are dead.

by Duine Fri Jul 29, 2005 15:30

Níl Laidin Ciciro ag gach duine.

by cicero Thu Jul 28, 2005 18:59

You could have said all that in one small paragraph.

by Maoist cutter and paster Thu Jul 28, 2005 13:01

A THEORY WHICH FAILS TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN PEOPLE AND THE RULING REACTIONARIES, AND HELPS THE LATTER HIDE THE TRUTH ABOUT THEIR TERRORISM
Some relatively well-known Internet writers who rightly are opposing the imperialist aggressions against Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan also are advancing a certain theory about the causes of those acts of terrorism which have hit the masses of
people in some of the "rich", imperialists countries in the last few years, such as the recent bombings in London. They say - see some quotes further below - that those terror acts have been "caused by" those aggressions, that they have been organized "in order somehow to put up a kind of desperate defence against" them.

This is a completely false, upside-down theory, irrespective of whether it's put forward with good intentions or not. By advancing it, the protagonists of that theory are helping the
ruling reactionaries in their attempts to make people believe their really big and most important lie in this context, namely:

The proposition that it's "some representatives of the internationally-exploited and -oppressed peoples" who have been organizing these terroristic actions against ordinary working people in the "richer" countries, and "not" the ruling imperialist reactionaries themselves.

By claiming that Bush, Blair and their ilk, the main representatives of capitalism and imperialism, are (only) "indirectly responsible" for the terrorism, in this purported way, the protagonists of this "chickens-come-home-to-roost" theory are helping cover up the fact - for which there is ample proof - that those representatives are *directly* responsible for it, that those ruling cliques are the ones who have been organizing these acts of terror, in the last few years, against the working people in "their own" countries.

They are organizing this terrorism because they more and more fear the people in the "rich" countries too. They fear the resistance against themselves also in their "own" countries, since they are committing worse and worse crimes, in all fields, against the people in these countries as well.

Suppose that the terror against ordinary working people in Britain, for instance, really were organized by "some representatives of the poorer countries", with the intention of
"defending against the aggressions against them". This would mean that the organizers of such actions were extremely ignorant, or stupid, or both - a most unrealistic prospect, inaddition to there being many facts which contradict it. They would be targeting precisely their important allies, and by no
means their adversaries, in that country.

Both in the UK and in the other "rich" countries, whose ruling cliques have either directely participated in the aggression
against Iraq or else in practice have condoned it, there have been large demonstrations by the masses of people against that aggression, demonstrations which at one point in time, in February-March 2003 when the Iraq war had not yet begun but could be seen to be immediately threatening, were even the largest ever in the world. It's well known since long that a large majority of people in Britain oppose the war against Iraq and that only a minority support it. Clearly, the bombings in London on 7 July were not intended, by their organizers, to
"punish" the working people in the UK for their purportedly "supporting" the Iraq war. Quite on the contrary, they were intended to terrorize them for their *opposing* this crime,
among many others, by "their" government.

The openly-imperialist war terror against the people of Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan, and also the even bigger but "suitably-forgotten" such against the people of the DR Congo, for instance, on the one hand, and that terror against the people in the imperialist countries themselves, for which its
perpetrators loudly are trying to blame some others, on the other, are NOT "opposing" phenomena. They are not "attacks and counterattacks". They are PARLLEL acts of violence. The ruling elites in the world increasingly are hitting out, by violent means, against all their adversaries, since they're finding themselves in a more and more desperate situation.

TWO BOURGEOIS "THEORIES", BOTH FALSE, ON THE ORIGIN OF THE TERROR. PEOPLE ARE BEING ASKED, "PLEASE CHOOSE BETWEEN THEM".
Naturally enough, British prime minister Blair and others who are resposible for the aggression against Iraq (for instance), and those mass media which openly support that aggression, do not agree with the "chickens-come-home-to-roost" theory on the terror bombings. They don't want to accept even "indirect responsibility" for them. They instead are advancing an equally false, and if possible even more ridiculous "theory", or rather, cover story, concerning the origins of these atrocities. It's one about "some very few but very nasty utopians who want to set up a worldwide Islamic kingdom" as being the organizers, or something like that.

Thus there are two so-called theories on this matter which you're liable to see or hear rather often. The "chickens-etc" one is as bourgeois in character as the other and partucularly outlandish cover-up story. Its protagonists may have a little more "popular appeal" since they at least are opposing, or
criticizing, the imperialists aggressions such as the one against Iraq. A recent so-called opinion poll in the UK even maintains that "2/3 of the people" in that country do believe that the bombings on 7 July "were somehow intended as a defence against" that aggression. But these "opinion polls" are
part of the propaganda efforts of certain bourgeois circles too. Their "results" are always "slanted". It's unlikely that a majority of ordinary people in Britain have actuallty been
deceived into believing the "chickens-come-home-to-roost" cover-up "theory".

Why do the Internet writers mentioned above believe in that story, then?

They obviously, while opposing the worst crimes of the ruling arch-reactionaries, have a bourgeois political standpoint themselves, and thus fail to see that sharp contradiction between bourgeoisie and proletariat which there is in the "rich", imperialist countries too and which is the explanation for the present-day terrorism in them. While practically every industrial worker, shop assistant etc very well knows that he or she have no say whatsoever on government decisions in those countries, these Internet writers seem to believe that those countries are "democracies", ruled by the majority of people there. This is a mistake by those otherwise well-informed writers which their readers of course should not copy.

The presenting of two (or more) seemingly conflicting "theories" on a matter which however both (or all) are supporting a main big lie which the reactionaries are very anxious thateveybody should believe, that is one propaganda trick of theirs which they are using in several fields. In the case of the terror bombings, those writers who are advancing the "chickens-come-home-to roost" theory on their origins and from
whom I shall quote some lines in the below, probably are sincere in believing this false theory themselves.

MISTAKEN "ANALYSIS" BY ROBERT FISK, JOHN PILGER, GALLOWAY AND THE SWP
a) Robert Fisk, a columnist of the newspaper The Independent in London, wrote, as quoted on 9 July by
and others, in an article headlined (quite misleadingly too) "Bush's alliance with Blair bombed", among other things:

"'If you bomb our cities,' Osama bin Laden said in a recent videotape,'we will bomb yours.'" [To believe statements, or
purported statements, by that person, who is rather well-known to be a tool of the US imperialists and a scapegoat for some of their own heinous crimes, of course is not the smartest thing you can do.] "It was clear Britain would be a target ever since Prime Minister Tony Blair decided to join President
Bush's 'war on terror' and his invasion of Iraq." [Which precisely is incorrect and upside-down. The writer forgets that ,the target of the 7 July bombings was not "Britain" or its government, which is waging war on Iraq, but the ordinary
working people in that country, who oppose that war. Further, in the same vein:]

"The Spanish paid the price for their support for Bush..." [No, the Spanish people, in their large majority, certainly neither have "supported" Bush nor "paid the price for" any purported such support. It was they, and not the ruling bourgeoise in Spain, for instance, who were hit by the terror
bombings in Madrid on 11 March 2004.]

"If we [who?] are fighting insurgency in Iraq what makes us [whom?] believe insurgency won't come to us [to whom?]?" [It's typical of bourgeois-thinking writers, also of such who
rightly are opposing the imperialist aggressions, that they simply cannot, will not, tell the difference between the masses of people, on the one hand, and the ruling reactionaries, on the other.]


b) John Pilger, likewise an often-quoted opponent of the aggression against Iraq, wrote, in the same vein as Robert Fisk,
in an article published on 10 July at
http://www.rense.com/general66/abalie.htm and headlined "Lest We Forget - These Were Blair's Bombs", among other things:

"In all the coverage of last week's bombing of London, a basic truth is struggling to be heard. It is this: no one doubts the atrocious inhumanity of those who planted the bombs, but no one should also doubt that this has been coming since the day Tony Blair joined George Bush in their bloody invasion and oc-
cupation of Iraq. They are 'Blair's bombs', and he ought not be allowed to evade culpability with yet another unctuous speech about 'our way of life', which his own rapacious violence in other countries has despoiled."

[No, sorry, that theory presented here certainly is not "a basic truth". It precisely is one of two "basic" falsehoods. It's not "struggling to be heard" either, but on the contrary, people have heard it quite often, as coming from a certain group within the "establishment" itself. The bombs of, ap-
proximately, those reactionaries one of whose representatives is Tony Blair, this certainly the 7 July ones in London were. In so far, the writer is right. But they were this in
a *direct* manner, not in an indirect such, as is being maintained here.]

"Britain's most outspoken, controversial and, many would say, courageous MP, George Galloway, ignored the outpouring of pla-
titudes from British and G8 politicians over the bombings and identified the real reason: `Londerners paid the price for Tony Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.'"
[Courageous or not, Galloway is wrong on the
real reason as those writers quoted above. The article continued:]

"A hitherto unknown group called European al-Qaida affirmed, the transit attacks were indeed revenge for Britain's invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. You [who?] can't expect to invade other nations without getting some form of return fire [against whom?]."

"When we [who?] kill them in droves, some of them will strike back [at whom?]. Calling on such avengers to fight fair is a waste of time. Claiming these extremists attacked because they hate our [whose?] western way of life, as Bush and Blair have done, is dishonest. They attacked us [whom?] because we [who?]
have been attacking them."

[The writer may well sincirely believe that it indeed was "some anti-western extremists" who organized the London bombings. In his advancing this false theory, he precisely happens to echo the main point of the mendacious propaganda of the Bush/Blair
group of reactionaries anyway. Like the other writers quoted, he apparently cannot tell the difference between the masses of people, on the one hand, and the small cliques of ruling reactionaries, on the other. He lumps them all together by referring to them, "indiscriminately" as "we" and "us". It seems he even thinks that on their part, bourgeois politicians such as Bush and Blair (etcetera) at least "are fighting fair", or that there are some "limits to" their dishonesty. There aren't any such, of course]


d) The International Action Center , which organizes demonstrations in the USA against the imperialist aggressions, made the same mistake in a statement on 7 July on the terror bombings in London. The final lines of that statement read:

"The only way to respond to today's bombing is to extend condolences to the families of those who perished or were injured; build solidarity with people around the world struggling against war, racism, and colonial occupation; to stand in solidarity with Arab and Muslim communities who have been tar-
geted by the Bush Administration; and to continue building the movement to stop the oppression that inevitably brings resistance."

The lines of action recommended here of course are quite good, but the words about stopping "the oppression that inevitably
brings resistance" contained a strong hit, at least, of such a false "analysis" of the terror bombing as their being somehow intended as "resistance against oppression", which certainly they were not.

It may be added that oppression, in the form of imperialist aggression, for instance, has that positive side to it that it precisely brings forward resistance, real resistance, to it by
the people. And terrorist bombings by the reactionaries, such as the recent ones in London, have a certain positive side to them too, in that they are liable to educate the people also in the "richer" countries concerning what is the real character of the present-day international social "order", that of capitalism and imperialism, and thus concerning what needs to be done about that social "order". In the long run, the ruling
reactionaries will hardly be able to conceal from anybody that precisely they are the perpetrators of those crimes.

by jamie Thu Jul 28, 2005 10:18

Maybe they shouldn't have been there provoking trouble, supporting the yanks.

by Duine Wed Jul 27, 2005 17:56

Is beag leithscéal is gá le cur leis an mharfach?
Ar dheis Alla go raibh siad.