Al-Qaeda cell killed by Black Death 'was developing biological weapons'.

[SocialRealist]

Source: Telegraph.co.uk [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/algeria/4294664/Al-Qaeda-cell-killed-by-Black-Death-was-developing-biological-weapons.html]
Summary: An al-Qaeda cell killed by the black death may have been developing biological weapons when it was infected, it has been reported.
My comments: This is very bad. Biological testings by a fundamentalist group that has shown they will strike whilst sacrificing themselves is never a good thing.

[Cunning_plan]

links dead...

[SocialRealist]

links dead...

It was just online, I wonder what happened to the link.

[Kassad]

Maybe if we'd stop sending military forces into their holy ground and supporting an oppressive colonialist state, they would not have the desire to harm us. You must observe the root of why these feelings of contempt occur.

[GPDP]

Maybe if we'd stop sending military forces into their holy ground and supporting an oppressive colonialist state, they would not have the desire to harm us. You must observe the root of why these feelings of contempt occur.

I'll tell you why. Because they're backwards cavemen with diapers on their heads that hate our freedom and tolerance towards the gays and because we allow women to walk around without a burka per their medieval standars, and now they want to take over the world because they're TEH EVIL!!!!11 USA USA USA USA USA!!!!!






But seriously, you're right.

[benhur]

Maybe if we'd stop sending military forces into their holy ground and supporting an oppressive colonialist state, they would not have the desire to harm us. You must observe the root of why these feelings of contempt occur.

Even otherwise, religious fanatics will continue to do this with a different excuse. Or, why would they target poor countries like Somalia, Ethiopia, and nations like Indonesia which are not only Muslim-majority, but have never done anything remotely 'imperialist?' Bin Laden hates US now, he was all praise for them while fighting the 'evil' soviets. What does this say about religious loonies? That they're all hypocrites, and are capable of inventing excuses when there are none, simply to keep the violence going.

[Red October]

Maybe if we'd stop sending military forces into their holy ground and supporting an oppressive colonialist state, they would not have the desire to harm us. You must observe the root of why these feelings of contempt occur.

That's right, but fundamentalist groups like al-queda are still reactionary and anti-worker.

[peaccenicked]

Al qaeda does not exist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTTgpsAs4_c)

[Kassad]

Even otherwise, religious fanatics will continue to do this with a different excuse. Or, why would they target poor countries like Somalia, Ethiopia, and nations like Indonesia which are not only Muslim-majority, but have never done anything remotely 'imperialist?' Bin Laden hates US now, he was all praise for them while fighting the 'evil' soviets. What does this say about religious loonies? That they're all hypocrites, and are capable of inventing excuses when there are none, simply to keep the violence going.

Very true, but I think the rallying cry of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda is the United States military imperialism. If we were not decimating their lands, most Muslims would not turn to extremist ideologies to overthrow the imperialist beast, since it would not exist.

[Charles Xavier]

Al Qaeda doesn't exist. Its a fairy tale invented by the imperialists to say its everything they hate.

[Some Red Guy]

Al Qaeda doesn't exist. Its a fairy tale invented by the imperialists to say its everything they hate.

True. This incident will only be used to take away more rights for our own protection. The CIA and the other alphabet gangs are the real terrorists. Too bad very few people realise it.

[Woland]

But....Black Death? Even flu is more of a potent killer nowadays.

[Devrim]

Maybe if we'd stop sending military forces into their holy ground and supporting an oppressive colonialist state, they would not have the desire to harm us. You must observe the root of why these feelings of contempt occur.

I don't send military forces onto 'their' holy ground. I don't support an oppressive colonialist state. And Islamicists committed violent attacks against the left well before the Americans were in Saudi Arabia, or even before the establishment of the state of Israel.

The idea that it is the fault of workers through out the world that the US government along with a few allies is occupying Iraq and therefore they 'deserve' to be attacked with biological weapons is obscene.

You come very close to putting that forward.

Devrim

[Annie K.]

But....Black Death? Even flu is more of a potent killer nowadays. In rich countries where rats are not in contact with the human population, yes. But maybe those countries weren't their target.

And I agree with devrim. The idea that the fault is "ours" is slightly egocrentric. It looks like an excuse to forget about the fate of the populations among which islamist organizations recruit. Perhaps, if the US, europe and russia suddenly stopped to intervene in the region, these organizations would no longer try to attack them. But they would still oppress and sacrify workers (and non-workers) on their "holy grounds".

If we were not decimating their lands, most Muslims would not turn to extremist ideologies to overthrow the imperialist beast, since it would not exist.But the fact is that imperialism exists, and religion exists. And though we have no responsibility in their existence, they won't fall apart without our help. We should not allow ourselves to ignore any part of the problem.

[Kassad]

I don't send military forces onto 'their' holy ground. I don't support an oppressive colonialist state. And Islamicists committed violent attacks against the left well before the Americans were in Saudi Arabia, or even before the establishment of the state of Israel.

The idea that it is the fault of workers through out the world that the US government along with a few allies is occupying Iraq and therefore they 'deserve' to be attacked with biological weapons is obscene.

You come very close to putting that forward.

Devrim

Sorry. When I say 'we', I am referring to the United States. It's a bad habit. Apologies.

I would never blame the working class for the Islamic extremist hatred towards the West. I am very anxious, though, to comprehend where you came up with the absurd notion that I claim workers 'deserve' to be attacked.

[Devrim]

Sorry. When I say 'we', I am referring to the United States. It's a bad habit. Apologies.

I would never blame the working class for the Islamic extremist hatred towards the West. I am very anxious, though, to comprehend where you came up with the absurd notion that I claim workers 'deserve' to be attacked.

You seem to be blaming the fact that this Islamicist group was preparing chemical warfare weapons on the fact that the US occupies Saudi Arabia. To me it seemed that this was one step away from justifying what they are doing,...and if it is justified then it is only a tiny step further to say that 'we'* deserve it for what 'we' are doing.

I don't say that you are saying this. I said that '[y]ou come very close to putting that forward'.

Maybe it comes back to this whole idea of 'we'. The Islamicist groups do not divide the population of the USA into antagonistic classes. It is understandable that they then view the US, government and citizens, capitalists and workers as 'them'. It isn't an attitude you expect from a socialist.

Devrim

*This we refers to the US.

[Kassad]

You seem to be blaming the fact that this Islamicist group was preparing chemical warfare weapons on the fact that the US occupies Saudi Arabia. To me it seemed that this was one step away from justifying what they are doing,...and if it is justified then it is only a tiny step further to say that 'we'* deserve it for what 'we' are doing.

I don't say that you are saying this. I said that '[y]ou come very close to putting that forward'.

Maybe it comes back to this whole idea of 'we'. The Islamicist groups do not divide the population of the USA into antagonistic classes. It is understandable that they then view the US, government and citizens, capitalists and workers as 'them'. It isn't an attitude you expect from a socialist.

Devrim

*This we refers to the US.

Well, yes and no. Osama Bin Laden has come out and said that the main reason the United States is a target is because of their support for Israel and their troops occupying areas in Saudi Arabia, as well as other parts of the Middle East. I'm just stating a fact here. Their justification for targeting innocents in the United States is the government's reckless occupation.

Does that make their attacks justified? No. These are innocent civilians we're talking about. Biological, chemical and other forms of attacks are never justified. I am merely stating that their justification is the occupation in the Middle East. Does that make it right? No. Does that mean that we should probably take a step back and realize what's pissing them off? Definitely. Now, I don't think that the United States pulling its troops from the Middle East and support from Israel is going to resolve the situation, despite the fact that both of those need to happen. Still, I think it would be a significant step in directing a blow to Bin Laden's recruitment numbers. I mean, what has fueled the massive insurgency? Our occupation. If we leave them be, they will not be directing their hatred at us. If anything, they'll direct hatred on eachother, due to their never-ending petty religious squabbles. Do I want to see a massive civil war erupt and cause massive casualties? Of course not, but it's inevitable. Our occupation just gives them something to direct their anger towards and that puts citizens of the United States and the Western world in danger.

[Devrim]

Does that make their attacks justified? No. These are innocent civilians we're talking about. Biological, chemical and other forms of attacks are never justified. I am merely stating that their justification is the occupation in the Middle East. Does that make it right? No. Does that mean that we should probably take a step back and realize what's pissing them off? Definitely. Now, I don't think that the United States pulling its troops from the Middle East and support from Israel is going to resolve the situation, despite the fact that both of those need to happen. Still, I think it would be a significant step in directing a blow to Bin Laden's recruitment numbers. I mean, what has fueled the massive insurgency? Our occupation. If we leave them be, they will not be directing their hatred at us. If anything, they'll direct hatred on eachother, due to their never-ending petty religious squabbles. Do I want to see a massive civil war erupt and cause massive casualties? Of course not, but it's inevitable. Our occupation just gives them something to direct their anger towards and that puts citizens of the United States and the Western world in danger.

Do you find it difficult to differentiate between different classes in your country?


Our occupation. If we leave them be, they will not be directing their hatred at us. If anything, they'll direct hatred on eachother, due to their never-ending petty religious squabbles.

This is an argument that usually comes from the imperialists. It is a step away from racism.

Devrim

[Kassad]

It's a bad habit. Again, I apologize. I do realize that the bourgeoisie interests are not necessarily American or proletariat interests.

I'm advocating withdrawl from the entire Middle East. Your argument is completely ridiculous. Advocating simple facts doesn't make me a racist. It doesn't justify occupation either, so stop making generalizations.

[Devrim]

Advocating simple facts doesn't make me a racist. It doesn't justify occupation either, so stop making generalizations.

I didn't say you were a racist. I said:


[This argument] is a step away from racism.

Let other people decide:


If anything, they'll direct hatred on eachother, due to their never-ending petty religious squabbles.

I read "Of course 'they' can't stop killing each other because 'they' are all crazy religious lunatics, and not civilized like us".

Devrim

[KC]

Sorry. When I say 'we', I am referring to the United States.What do you mean when you say "United States"?


Do you find it difficult to differentiate between different classes in your country?PSL is generally known for forming nearly their entire ideology around "anti-Americanism".


This is an argument that usually comes from the imperialists. It is a step away from racism.It's strange that he threw that in there, as well, considering it wasn't really relevant to what he was trying to say (that "we" are "responsible").

Also, regarding the OP:


Dr Igor Khrupinov, a biological weapons expert at Georgia University, told The Sun: "Al-Qaeda is known to experiment with biological weapons. And this group has direct communication with other cells around the world.

This article is from The Sun (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2146286.ece). That should settle that.

[Kassad]

I read "Of course 'they' can't stop killing each other because 'they' are all crazy religious lunatics, and not civilized like us".

Devrim

Then your reading comprehension is lackluster. Are you truly going to dent that there is a battle between Sunni and Shiite Muslims in the Middle East? Are they religious lunatics? Yeah, kind of. They're promoting their religion and a consistent level of fighting, war and destruction has been caused due to the debate. Still, I'm not going to generalize. I'm merely referring to the Islamic militants.


What do you mean when you say "United States"?

KC, when I say 'United States', it can mean anything. Normally, it's referring to the actions taken by the United States government, such as support for Israel and the occupation in Iraq.

Anyway, the United States is the core of imperialist oppression in the world. They (I'm getting better :)) have been known to manipulate smaller countries for profit, as seen in Panama, Ecuador and Cuba. They allow the corporate elite to manipulate the actions of government, which leads to making major human rights sacrifices in a quest for profit. Still, I will criticize the Party for being uncritical of Chavez, but I am stunned that you think some anti-Americanism is a bad thing. I mean, there isn't much of Amerca to love. A nation founded by wealthy slaveholders? Has there been a time when the capitalist enterprise and market system didn't oppress the working class in America? It only got worse with the turn of the 20th century. Not much to support, really.

[KC]

Anyway, the United States is the core of imperialist oppression in the world.

No, the United States is currently the most prominent "imperialist country" in the world. It is not the "core of imperialist oppression" because it exists outside of the United States and will exist as long as capitalism exists, not as long as the United States exists.

But where your analysis (along with PSL in general) mainly fails is on its starting point. The definition of imperialism has a very specific meaning in Marxist theory; it does not just mean "big/rich/strong" countries exploiting "small/poor/weak" countries.


I am stunned that you think some anti-Americanism is a bad thing.

I never referred to "some anti-Americanism". I said that PSL has "formed nearly their entire ideology around anti-Americanism." It has led them to bow down to the likes of Kim Jung Il, Saddam Hussein, the Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, Hamas, etc...


I mean, there isn't much of Amerca to love.

What do you mean by "America" here?

[BobKKKindle$]

Are you truly going to dent that there is a battle between Sunni and Shiite Muslims in the Middle East? Are they religious lunatics?You speak of "Sunni and Shiite Muslims" as if both of these groups are entirely homogeneous in their internal composition and political outlook. There are certainly members of both of these schools of Islam who currently live in the Middle East and are intent on killing members of the rival school as well as the adherents of other religions such as the Bahá'í Faith as part of a religiously-inspired campaign of violence, but it's absurd, and, as Devrim points out, incredibly insulting towards inhabitants of the Middle East to characterize entire populations as driven by religious fanaticism. There have been numerous instances of workers belonging to multiple religions coming together and fighting for their interests as a class independent of religious rivalries, such as the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions (IFOU), which involves both Sunni and Shia workers, and opposes the imperialist occupation of a country which is often seen as totally dominated by sectarian violence but in reality has always had a proud tradition of secular nationalism that has historically united Iraq against imperialism.

[Kassad]

KC, I believe that the United States serves as the figurehead; the head honcho, if you will, of imperialism. The United States dominates world affairs by instilling monetary and military threats on small and large nations alike which usually forces submission from opposing nations. Submission is preferable to destruction, I suppose. I don't see imperialism as merely exploitation. I see it as using military, monetary and political power to exploit nations of the world, which is inherent in the capitalist system.

Also, the PSL prides itself in its varying ideologies. I've gotten criticism from some of my comrades there for rejecting dialectical materialism, as well as I criticize them for assorted issues. Still, I'm going to need to see some proof of the PSL submitting to the Soviet colonialism, Jim Jong Il and everything else you mentioned. Though I disagree with your assertion about Hamas, I do understand your perspective.

"America" as in the nation. I don't see much to be patriotic about.

Bobkindles,


Still, I'm not going to generalize. I'm merely referring to the Islamic militants.

I understand your assertion and totally agree with it.

[Devrim]

Then your reading comprehension is lackluster. Are you truly going to dent that there is a battle between Sunni and Shiite Muslims in the Middle East? Are they religious lunatics? Yeah, kind of. They're promoting their religion and a consistent level of fighting, war and destruction has been caused due to the debate. Still, I'm not going to generalize. I'm merely referring to the Islamic militants.

And I am sure that this sort of thing could never happen in Western countries.

Devrim

[Kassad]

And I am sure that this sort of thing could never happen in Western countries.

Devrim

It's much less likely, as religious and politican tensions are much lower, at least at the present time.

[KC]

KC, I believe that the United States serves as the figurehead; the head honcho, if you will, of imperialism. The United States dominates world affairs by instilling monetary and military threats on small and large nations alike which usually forces submission from opposing nations. Submission is preferable to destruction, I suppose. I don't see imperialism as merely exploitation. I see it as using military, monetary and political power to exploit nations of the world, which is inherent in the capitalist system.

Your use of words is no mere accident; it stems from your overall ideology. You are not saying "the US" by accident. This is clearly evident in this quote. Your analysis is very broad, and while correct in many ways, it is also incorrect on its own. You offer an analysis based on nations ("the US exploits smaller nations"); what you are missing are the complexities of the situation. There is no mention of class in this analysis at all; it is essentially non-Marxist.


Also, the PSL prides itself in its varying ideologies. I've gotten criticism from some of my comrades there for rejecting dialectical materialism, as well as I criticize them for assorted issues.

That is my entire point. Their ideology is formed around a vague notion of anti-Americanism.


Still, I'm going to need to see some proof of the PSL submitting to the Soviet colonialism, Jim Jong Il and everything else you mentioned. Though I disagree with your assertion about Hamas, I do understand your perspective.

Many of these happened before they split with Workers World Party, but there is basically no difference in ideology between the two (hell, nobody can really tell me what the difference actually is). I can come up with some links later, if you really want.


"America" as in the nation. I don't see much to be patriotic about.

Nations are ideological constructs. You can either be a nationalist or not, but you can't "dislike" a nation.

[ls]

This story was supplied from the well-known right-wing UK news publication 'The Sun'

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24937585-948,00.html and the now-moved http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/algeria/4287469/Black-Death-kills-al-Qaeda-operatives-in-Algeria.html (curiously these is no cached version of the original link to the differently named Telegraph story, I think there has been some suppression here).

All seems very suspicious to me, seems like western imperialist arseholes yet again getting their hands dirty and failing to cover it up well enough.

[Devrim]

It's much less likely, as religious and politican tensions are much lower, at least at the present time.

No it could never happen to 'us' people in the West are much more civilised than those barbarous people in the Middle East.

Back in the real world, it is actually well know that there was massive sectarian strife in Northern Ireland where members of two different religious sects did exactly the same thing as those backward people in the Middle East.

Devrim

[Jet]

No it could never happen to 'us' people in the West

:laugh:


Do you realize that you are part of those "backward" people in the ME?

The Middle Eastern country that you are from is LIGHT years behind even Greece (I don't want to say the west because it'll be unfair comparison for them)
=========

back to the "real" topic,

Me too think Al-Qaeda or whatever is called doesn't exist, actually is an American.gov made-up for sure.



oh and I'm 3-years reader of this forum by the way, so ended up replying :cool:

[Devrim]

:laugh:
Do you realize that you are part of those "backward" people in the ME?

It is called sarcasm. I did hesitate before using it as I thought it may go over some people's heads. Obviously I made the wrong choice.


The Middle Eastern country that you are from is LIGHT years behind even Greece (I don't want to say the west because it'll be unfair comparison for them)


Industrial workers as a percentage of the labour force:
Turkey:24.7
Greece: 22.4
United Kingdom: 18.2

Source: CIA World Factbook.

Devrim

[ls]

It is called sarcasm. I did hesitate before using it as I thought it may go over some people's heads.

Devrim

Devrim, you would be amazed how massively ignorant people are about northern Ireland. ;) It can actually be quite shocking compared to other conflicts (and the fact it was featured heavily in the US with Bill Clinton and stuff).

[Yazman]

I know this sounds nitpicky, but we still don't really know if bubonic plague was actually the Black Death or not.. so its probably better to just say "Bubonic plague" for the sake of clarity.

[Kassad]

Your use of words is no mere accident; it stems from your overall ideology. You are not saying "the US" by accident. This is clearly evident in this quote. Your analysis is very broad, and while correct in many ways, it is also incorrect on its own. You offer an analysis based on nations ("the US exploits smaller nations"); what you are missing are the complexities of the situation. There is no mention of class in this analysis at all; it is essentially non-Marxist.

I really think you're just riding a high horse here. It's not like I have some deep-seeded passion for the United States or a lack of comprehension of class distinction. The United States, notable the government influenced by the corporat elite, has taken part in environmental, monetary and political suppression of nations across the world. In places like Iraq, Panama, Iran and Ecuador, the United States had been slightly more devious and sly. Basically, it's a process performed by 'economic hit men.' The usual process is that either the government directly or private corporations influencing the government send in a small group of economically-trained persons to influence developing nations to accept huge loans and monetary reforms.

After the nation accepts these reforms, which are configured to send the nation into debt, we go back and just say "Hey, you lost a lot of money. We get it. So how about we help you pay us back and you, in exchange give us control of some of your social services." By doing this, the American corporations take advantage of the inflated currency to obtain resources for pennies on the dollar. They also profit from the privatized social services they obtain. This is one of many ways the United States takes control of a nation and it has happened multiple times, in multiple administrations and in multiple different situations. For some reason, you seem to think that I am concocting some elaborate conspiracy where I am anti-Marxist, when in fact I am saying that the capitalist exploitation and profit system promote these kinds of actions.


That is my entire point. Their ideology is formed around a vague notion of anti-Americanism.

If you say so.


Many of these happened before they split with Workers World Party, but there is basically no difference in ideology between the two (hell, nobody can really tell me what the difference actually is). I can come up with some links later, if you really want.

Well, the Party for Socialism and Liberation has pretty much left Workers World behind, since Workers World has mustered absolutely no political participation or community activism since the split. Meanwhile, the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition organizes almost every massive anti-war, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialism rally in the United States. I assume that there were hositilies that caused the split and I accept that. There are always going to be personal issues. Still, we move on and the Party is much more organized than Workers World will ever be again.


Nations are ideological constructs. You can either be a nationalist or not, but you can't "dislike" a nation.

Well, not really. They're physical constructs, since borders have and always will be established by treaties and agreements. Of course, those are intertwined with the bourgeoisie system. You can ignore them if you want, but they exist. Let's see China send some troops into Alaska and we'll see how 'ideological' the borders are believed to be.

Still, I can dislike whatever I want. No matter what you say, I can say that I like and have a fondness for Cuba, but I dislike the United States. There's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean I'm a blind, flag-waving patriot.


No it could never happen to 'us' people in the West are much more civilised than those barbarous people in the Middle East.

Back in the real world, it is actually well know that there was massive sectarian strife in Northern Ireland where members of two different religious sects did exactly the same thing as those backward people in the Middle East.

Devrim

You can put words into my mouth all you want. It just makes you look immature and foolish. I never said that and you're very aware of it, but I think you get some sort of snide amusement from being arrogant.

[Devrim]

You can put words into my mouth all you want. It just makes you look immature and foolish. I never said that and you're very aware of it, but I think you get some sort of snide amusement from being arrogant.

No, it is how it comes across to me, and others. I don't take any sort of amusement from it. I just dislike nationally based politics like yours.

Devrim

[Sasha]

OMFG!!! BLACK-DEATH!!! TO THE SHELTERS!!!!

you can also get the plague by picking up a dead squirel is the US, i would wory about ricine before i start to freak out about evil terrorist who are spreading the plague.

[Kassad]

No, it is how it comes across to me, and others. I don't take any sort of amusement from it. I just dislike nationally based politics like yours.

Devrim

Nothing I state, write or think comes from nationally-based politics and understanding. You're in quite a bubble of ignorance if you think so.

[KC]

I really think you're just riding a high horse here. It's not like I have some deep-seeded passion for the United States or a lack of comprehension of class distinction.

I'm not riding a high horse at all; I'm stating my assessment of your politics. I'm not going to sugar coat it, but I don't think I was being rude or conceited either.

Nor do I think you don't understand class struggle; what I was saying, though, is that it is secondary to "national" struggles in your method. Hence, for example, your support of Hamas. Hence, from an organizational point of view PSL's "anybody but America" politics.


The United States, notable the government influenced by the corporat elite, has taken part in environmental, monetary and political suppression of nations across the world. In places like Iraq, Panama, Iran and Ecuador, the United States had been slightly more devious and sly. Basically, it's a process performed by 'economic hit men.' The usual process is that either the government directly or private corporations influencing the government send in a small group of economically-trained persons to influence developing nations to accept huge loans and monetary reforms.

What you have completely failed to mention is the complicity of groups in these "small/imperialized/victimized" countries. This is why I am saying that your method downplays class struggle in favor of national struggles. You keep talking about how the "United States" "exploits" these "victims". Yet you fail to even acknowledge the complexities of the situation within either country with regards to the class struggle.

It is a simplistic analysis that ignores the important details and from that draws incorrect conclusions.


Well, the Party for Socialism and Liberation has pretty much left Workers World behind, since Workers World has mustered absolutely no political participation or community activism since the split. Meanwhile, the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition organizes almost every massive anti-war, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialism rally in the United States. I assume that there were hositilies that caused the split and I accept that. There are always going to be personal issues. Still, we move on and the Party is much more organized than Workers World will ever be again.

This doesn't explain any significant difference between Workers World and PSL. All it says is that PSL has been more effective in organizing. Also, you missed my point entirely. My point was that the ideologies of WWP and PSL are basically identical, and because of that we can take the positions of WWP before the split as the positions of PSL after it. Of course, I'm completely open to clarification on whether or not they are ideologically distinct, but I have yet to see any evidence at all, and judging by the character of the split everything points to "no".


They're physical constructs

I suggest that you pick up Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities. In it, he traces the development of the nation and consequently of nationalism from its foundation to the present day, and its effect on human society.

Note that a country is not the same thing as a nation, which is what it appears you assumed when you read that and responded. A country is a geographic designation on a map.


Still, I can dislike whatever I want. No matter what you say, I can say that I like and have a fondness for Cuba, but I dislike the United States. There's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean I'm a blind, flag-waving patriot.

You cannot like or dislike the concept of nation in the same way that you cannot like or dislike the concept of race. You can dislike racism/nationalism, but you can't dislike nation/race; you can only disagree with it as a concept.

It's like saying "I dislike 2+2=4". It makes no sense.


Nothing I state, write or think comes from nationally-based politics and understanding. You're in quite a bubble of ignorance if you think so.

I think Devrim was addressing the same point that I have been addressing, namely that your method of analysis downplays class struggle in favor of "national struggle".

[Kassad]

I'm not riding a high horse at all; I'm stating my assessment of your politics. I'm not going to sugar coat it, but I don't think I was being rude or conceited either.

Nor do I think you don't understand class struggle; what I was saying, though, is that it is secondary to "national" struggles in your method. Hence, for example, your support of Hamas. Hence, from an organizational point of view PSL's "anybody but America" politics.

I think it's mostly from conditioning. Regardless, I disagree, as I believe the class struggle and the awakening of class consciousness to be the core of our revolutionary socialist movement.


What you have completely failed to mention is the complicity of groups in these "small/imperialized/victimized" countries. This is why I am saying that your method downplays class struggle in favor of national struggles. You keep talking about how the "United States" "exploits" these "victims". Yet you fail to even acknowledge the complexities of the situation within either country with regards to the class struggle.

It is a simplistic analysis that ignores the important details and from that draws incorrect conclusions.

Again, I disagree. The elitist bourgeoisie of the United States manipulates the resources and workers of developing countries. They manipulate the means of production to serve their needs, which in turn allows manipulation of the proletariat and destruction of workers rights. The class aspect is the core of this atrocity, since the sheer existence of the ruling class of manipulation is what causes these problems in the first place.


This doesn't explain any significant difference between Workers World and PSL. All it says is that PSL has been more effective in organizing. Also, you missed my point entirely. My point was that the ideologies of WWP and PSL are basically identical, and because of that we can take the positions of WWP before the split as the positions of PSL after it. Of course, I'm completely open to clarification on whether or not they are ideologically distinct, but I have yet to see any evidence at all, and judging by the character of the split everything points to "no".

I understand, but I don't see it as relevant. I consider constructing a workers movement to be much more important and necessary that worrying about petty squabbles.

Onto your statements of nationalist, I don't really see where you're coming from. You can be 'racist' for just disliking one race, so does that make me anti-nationalist for disliking one country? I mean, I dislike the bourgeoisie United States, but I am fond of Cuba. Does that make me 'nationalistic' towards Cuba? Not at all. It is merely acknowledging that one area has done a better job at overcoming class conflict and bourgeoisie domination than the other has.

The national struggle and the nationalistic sense of class conflict is completely irrelevant. The core of the struggle between nations stems due to the class struggle. I suppose you could say that there is a struggle between nations, but that is simplistic. The central reasoning behind war and occupation is the manipulation of the bougeoisie. Imperialism, colonialism and militarization is an aspect of capitalism and it stems directly from the profit system.

[Killfacer]

Al Qaeda doesn't exist. Its a fairy tale invented by the imperialists to say its everything they hate.

This is why people hate you and you have shit rep.

[BobKKKindle$]

This is why people hate you and you have shit rep. No, he has "shit rep" mainly because people like you can't tolerate any opinion which doesn't correspond to your prejudices. In this case, GDII is completely right - the idea that Al Qaeda is a coherent organization with an established command structure is wrong, and has been created by western governments in order to obscure the fact that terrorism is a very complex phenomenon which cannot be understood within the theoretical framework which has been used to analyze military conflict in the past. The main role of Osama Bin-Laden is to provide funds for isolated cells operating throughout the world and to serve as the public face of the movement - he does not issue orders, as the groups which use the name Al-Qaeda to claim responsibility for their attacks operate independently and without instruction from above. This is one of the reasons why western governments will never be able to defeat Al-Qaeda or any other section of the Islamist movement - even if a government managed to capture and imprison a large number of militants they would not be able to offer much in the same of information and as long as the conditions which encourage people to turn to terrorism in the fist place continue toe exist there will always be other individuals who are willing to take their place.

[Kassad]

This is why people hate you and you have shit rep.

And how does that feel?

[KC]

First you completely ignore the class struggle in your analysis, favoring a "national struggle" methodology instead. Now, you apply it only partially in your analysis.


Again, I disagree. The elitist bourgeoisie of the United States manipulates the resources and workers of developing countries. They manipulate the means of production to serve their needs, which in turn allows manipulation of the proletariat and destruction of workers rights. The class aspect is the core of this atrocity, since the sheer existence of the ruling class of manipulation is what causes these problems in the first place.

This quote, for example, pits the "bourgeoisie" of the "imperialist" country against the "workers" of the "victimized" country. As I said earlier, this is a partial application, as it makes no mention of the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie of the "victimized" country and their involvement and active participation in this "imperialism". This is also what I was referring to earlier when I said that "you fail to even acknowledge the complexities of the situation within either country with regards to the class struggle."

This method leads to a very Manichean-esque outlook, whereby those that are doing the "imperializing" are "bad" and those that are "victimized" are "good". It leads to a belief that anyone "fighting imperialism" is to be supported, which is evident in your support of Hamas.


I understand, but I don't see it as relevant. I consider constructing a workers movement to be much more important and necessary that worrying about petty squabbles.


Again, I think you're missing my point. I was explaining the ideology of PSL and what they support, and only brought up WWP because of the fact that they hold same ideologies so the views of WWP before the split can be taken as identical to PSL after the split. This is why I stated that PSL supported Saddam Hussein, Kim Jung Il, etc...


You can be 'racist' for just disliking one race

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. "Race" is both an ideological and theoretical construct. In this instance you can either agree or disagree that race exists, but you cannot like or dislike it because that does not make sense (as I said earlier, it is similar to saying that you "dislike 2+2=4".

Because the concept of "nation" is similar in form to the concept of race the same statement applies.


so does that make me anti-nationalist for disliking one country?

Like I said, a country is a geographic designation on a map. A nation is an ideological construct. It is as stupid to dislike a country as it is to dislike a continent, and it is as senseless to dislike the concept of nation as it is to dislike the concept of 2+2=4.


I mean, I dislike the bourgeoisie United States, but I am fond of Cuba. Does that make me 'nationalistic' towards Cuba? Not at all. It is merely acknowledging that one area has done a better job at overcoming class conflict and bourgeoisie domination than the other has.

The bourgeoisie of the United States is not a country, nor is it a nation. Therefore, you should say "the American bourgeoisie" when you are referring to them and not "the United States".

[AIM Correspondent]

It was just online, I wonder what happened to the link.
CIA? MI5? We will never ever know the truth...

[Kassad]

This quote, for example, pits the "bourgeoisie" of the "imperialist" country against the "workers" of the "victimized" country. As I said earlier, this is a partial application, as it makes no mention of the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie of the "victimized" country and their involvement and active participation in this "imperialism". This is also what I was referring to earlier when I said that "you fail to even acknowledge the complexities of the situation within either country with regards to the class struggle."

This method leads to a very Manichean-esque outlook, whereby those that are doing the "imperializing" are "bad" and those that are "victimized" are "good". It leads to a belief that anyone "fighting imperialism" is to be supported, which is evident in your support of Hamas.

A lot more rash assertions than I'd like to see in a post. Like I said, it is the very existence of the bourgeoisie and the class system that allows the manipulation of monetary profit to divert support from social programs and revolutionary reforms and into the pockets of the wealthy elite. When we're observing countries like Panama and Ecuador, I don't really see the problem to be the petit-bourgeoisie in control. In those two instances, it is obvious that the United States corporatocracy was displeased with whatever the current ruler was trying to do (Like Jaime Roldos attempting to use the funds gained from Ecuador towards social reforms) and they sent in their agents to make sure that their corporate power was sustained and increased. Of course, I'm sure that bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie in Ecuador were not opposed to this, but I see the working class of Ecuador being oppressed by an imperialist menace. This manipulation is a product of the profit system itself and, like I said, it proves once more that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism.

I express solidarity with all movements that fight against murderous imperialism. This doesn't mean I always support their means, their ideology or the like, and it is always wise to observe the scenario before passing judgment, but I will continue to express my solidarity with Hamas against the Zionist imperialists. Still, that's for another thread.


Again, I think you're missing my point. I was explaining the ideology of PSL and what they support, and only brought up WWP because of the fact that they hold same ideologies so the views of WWP before the split can be taken as identical to PSL after the split. This is why I stated that PSL supported Saddam Hussein, Kim Jung Il, etc...

I believe that many of the Party for Socialism and Liberation did not necessarily support Saddam Hussein, but in truth, saw that the imperialism of the United States and religious disputes in the region were more significant factors to the rise of terrorism and poverty than Saddam Hussein was. I respect Saddam Hussein for standing up to the United States corporate sector and refusing to allow Iraq's resources to be manipulated. We're both smart here. We both know that the corporate imperialists did not occupy Iraq because Saddam was killing off Iraqis. Iraq was invaded because it refused to comply with the corporate demands and because of it, Saddam had to go. They installed their puppet there and once the region is secure, they will move on to the next area under whatever faulty pretext and they will continue to manipulate the resources of developing countries until the profit system is dismantles.

Also, I believe the PSL has come out and stated support for Korea's revolution and right to self-determination, as it has with most other revolutions. It acknowledges the counterrevolutions that have occured during the time after the revolutions, though.


You are misunderstanding what I am saying. "Race" is both an ideological and theoretical construct. In this instance you can either agree or disagree that race exists, but you cannot like or dislike it because that does not make sense (as I said earlier, it is similar to saying that you "dislike 2+2=4".

Well, define 'race' for me here. I'll formulate a response based on the definition provided.

[Leo]

I respect Saddam Hussein for standing up to the United States corporate sector and refusing to allow Iraq's resources to be manipulated.

Sorry but I have to say this: You are an unbelievably ignorant first world chauvinist who lives in his ultra-liberal American bubble. This is what the "proud little Arab" who supposedly "challenged the Americans" you respect have done:

http://www.zionism-israel.com/Halabja.jpg

http://www.hennessy.id.au/quentingeorge/archives/halabja.jpg

http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2002/images/halabja.jpg

http://treshold.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/a562_kurds_gassed_halabja_2050081722-18673.jpg

The man who you shamelessly say that you support massacred hundreds of thousands of poor civilians horribly, he was involved in the murder of thousands of villages, nerve fucking gassing of the civilians, torture of many militant workers. Seeing anything positive or respectable about his bloodthirsty anti-working class regime is no different from seeing anything positive or respectable the bloodthirsty American invasion.

I don't think you have bad intentions but the positions you are coming up with are seriously messed up.

[Kassad]

Okay, there's a reason I said 'I respect him for standing up to corporate imperialism' and not 'I respect him for destroying villages and killing people.' In fact, the rational way we could handle this situation is by asking me if I condone that, which I never said I did. Instead, we hop onto the holier-than-thou train and assume that I condone massive genocide. I never said that.

[Leo]

Okay, there's a reason I said 'I respect him for standing up to corporate imperialism' and not 'I respect him for destroying villages and killing people.'

You can as well say you respect Hitler for standing up to American invasion and not for the holocaust.


In fact, the rational way we could handle this situation is by asking me if I condone that, which I never said I did.

Of course you didn't, the problem is that you are capable of saying you respect him, such a disgustingly bloodthirsty bourgeois politician, for anything regardless of what he had done.

[Kassad]

You can as well say you respect Hitler for standing up to American invasion and not for the holocaust.

No, you really can't, since the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor provoked an American response.


Of course you didn't, the problem is that you are capable of saying you respect him, such a disgustingly bloodthirsty bourgeois politician, for anything regardless of what he had done.

Okay? And I respect Jimmy Carter for his environmental reforms. I respect Joseph Stalin for his contributions to the national question and Marxism-Leninism in his writings. Jimmy Carter was a bourgeoisie politician and Joseph Stalin proved to be genocidal and counterrevolutionary. Just saying you respect a particular aspect of a person does not mean you've constructed this cult of personality or adoration around them. Don't be simplistic.

[Leo]

No, you really can't, since the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor provoked an American response.

Uh yes, so did 9/11.


And I respect Jimmy Carter for his environmental reforms. I respect Joseph Stalin for his contributions to the national question and Marxism-Leninism in his writings. Jimmy Carter was a bourgeoisie politician and Joseph Stalin proved to be genocidal and counterrevolutionary. Just saying you respect a particular aspect of a person does not mean you've constructed this cult of personality or adoration around them. Don't be simplistic.

I am not saying that you adore Saddam, you don't even get the thing I am trying to tell you.

[Kassad]

Uh yes, so did 9/11.

Okay... I don't know how to respond to this. I'm praying to whatever god there is that you are kidding. First off, the United States declared war on Japan after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. After this, Germany declared war on the United States. We didn't provoke them. They declared war on the United States...

9/11 was exected by predominatly Saudis with funding coming from a multitude of different groups and nations, many of which are untraceable, since we don't see what goes on behind closed doors. We then invaded Afghanistan, which top officials have said many times was a completely irrelevant war, since we didn't focus our energies on capturing those responsible for the attacks. We sent in a minimal number of troops which is why most of the Taliban escaped and is resurfacing today. We then focused our energies on Iraq; a nation that has never threatened the United States, attacked the United States or funded the terrorists who attacked the United States. I think we have a pretty big difference here.


I am not saying that you adore Saddam, you don't even get the thing I am trying to tell you.

You're trying to tell me that it's all or nothing. You either totally respect them or you despise them. That's what I'm getting, since I'm respecting him for standing up to corporate imperialism and that apparently links me to supporting his genocide.

[Blackscare]

Al Qaeda does not exist

you mean crimethinc

[ashaman1324]

Nations are ideological constructs. You can either be a nationalist or not, but you can't "dislike" a nation.
i dont know... israel doesn't seem very popular in the middle east especially.

[KC]

i dont know... israel doesn't seem very popular in the middle east especially.

Israel the country? The Israeli government? The IDF? Terms like "Israel" in instances like these are incredibly vague. Say what you mean.

[Leo]

Okay... I don't know how to respond to this. I'm praying to whatever god there is that you are kidding. First off, the United States declared war on Japan after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. After this, Germany declared war on the United States. We didn't provoke them. They declared war on the United States...

There we go with this "We" again.

In any case it is well known that "You" did indeed provoke the bombing of Pearl Harbor.


9/11 was exected by predominatly Saudis with funding coming from a multitude of different groups and nations, many of which are untraceable, since we don't see what goes on behind closed doors.

Who did it is not really that important. "You" knew that one too.


We then focused our energies on Iraq; a nation that has never threatened the United States, attacked the United States or funded the terrorists who attacked the United States.

Of course they funded some of them and gave them havens.

Other than that though your liberalism is showing up again, these are exactly the lines of the American liberals who oppose the war, you are not even paying lip service to socialism.


I think we have a pretty big difference here.

There certainly is a difference but a similarity also.

[Kassad]

Is that all your Left Communists do? Tell people who don't agree with you that they're just liberals? You're just pulling unsupported assertions about my ideology from a void. I think I'm done with this thread.

[Leo]

Tell people who don't agree with you that they're just liberals?

Your arguements against the Iraq war are exactly the same with those put forward by liberals who oppose it.


You're just pulling unsupported assertions about my ideology from a void.

What I said in the last post is not about your ideology, it is about your arguements about the Iraqi war.

[Kassad]

What's the flaw in my argument? If Saddam Hussein and the leaders of Iraq came out and claimed responsibility for 9/11, then retribution would have been justified. Regardless, that wasn't the reasoning bhind the occupation. The 'liberal' argument, as you put it, is logical. It is slightly simplistic, but there is nothing incorrect about it.

You can say what you want. I believe that the occupation of Iraq is due to corporate imperialism and the expansion of militaristic hegemony in the Middle East. It was waged against a nation that did not threaten the citizens of the United States and did not harm them, so any military actions are unjustified. The scapegoat for Iraq was terrorism and Saddam, which had no link to the 9/11 attacks. It is just a colonial occupation for the manipulation of resources and continued militarization.

[Leo]

If Saddam Hussein and the leaders of Iraq came out and claimed responsibility for 9/11, then retribution would have been justified.

You would support the Americans in that case then? Would you see the war as justified?

[Kassad]

Well, let's back up just a little bit. The bourgeoisie interest in Iraq began well before the occupation began. During the George H.W. Bush presidency, the American corporatocracy took an interest in Iraq's oil. When operatives attempted to convince Saddam to accept their offers to manage some of Iraq's resources, Hussein declined. When he declined, this is when the bourgeoisie in America attempted to have him killed or overthrown. Saddam's security, to be frank, was very good, since he had worked alongside the CIA before and knew their methods. After the first two stages failed, Bush sent in the troops.

Along with this, the United Nations imposed grievous economic sanctions. These sanctions killed over a million people and devastated the nation's resources. For assorted reasons, the military pulled out of Iraq and for one of the few times in history, the corporatocracy failed to get the results it wanted. The sanctions continued for thirteen years until Saddam was overthrown in 2003.

There had been a target on Saddam's back ever since his 'defeat', you could say, of the American imperialism. Since the sanctions failed to produce an American puppet regime, the Bush Administration jumped with joy after 9/11, since it gave them a scapegoat. They and the corporate elite did not care about retribution for the attacks of 9/11. They cared about profit and militaristic hegemony.

When I think about it, Iraq attacking the United States would have been, in a way, self-defense. I don't condone the murder of innocents and I surely wouldn't smile favorably on it. One thing you have to note is that Bin Laden's justification for 9/11 was the military presence in Saudi Arabia and support for Israel. These things should be ended, so it's like killing two birds with one stone.

Upon further pondering, no. I would not support military actions, sanctions or occupation against Iraq, even if it had been behind 9/11. The murder of our innocent civilians would have been directly caused by bourgeoisie colonialism and imperialism, thus the anger for the attack should have been directed at the wealth oligarchy that rules this nation. I retract my earlier statement.

[KC]

I express solidarity with all movements that fight against murderous imperialism.

What is your definition of "imperialism"? Because it appears we're using different definitions.

What about groups that fight against one "imperialist" and for another?


I believe that many of the Party for Socialism and Liberation did not necessarily support Saddam Hussein, but in truth, saw that the imperialism of the United States and religious disputes in the region were more significant factors to the rise of terrorism and poverty than Saddam Hussein was.

Um, that doesn't mean you should support a mass murderer. Leo covered this well enough, though, so I won't.


I respect Saddam Hussein for standing up to the United States corporate sector and refusing to allow Iraq's resources to be manipulated.

What the hell are you talking about? Saddam threw a bunch of fits but in the end complied with nearly all demands made by the UNSC. The entire country's budget was under UNSC control, ffs! That entire time he was trying to reconcile, not oppose.


Iraq was invaded because it refused to comply with the corporate demands

Which corporate demands were those? Do you know anything about the sanctions or the period between the gulf war and the 2003 invasion?


There had been a target on Saddam's back ever since his 'defeat', you could say, of the American imperialism.

How the hell did he "defeat" American imperialism? He was funded and brought to power with the assistance of the US government, and they only turned on him after he attempted to invade Kuwait, which he actually asked for permission first. Then the sanctions were implemented and the country was essentially under the control of the UNSC.

So perhaps you could elaborate on what the hell you're talking about when you say that "Saddam defeated American imperialism".

[Kassad]

What is your definition of "imperialism"? Because it appears we're using different definitions.

What about groups that fight against one "imperialist" and for another?

I believe imperialism to be a product of the capitalist system, due to the fact that the desire for profit and colonialistic hegemony fuel military domination, corporate oppression and manipulation my the bourgeoisie in other countries. Now, if you can throw me examples instead of broad scenarios of "Imperialist vs. Imperialist", I will try to formulate a proper response.


Um, that doesn't mean you should support a mass murderer. Leo covered this well enough, though, so I won't.

I never said I did. You're putting words into my mouth, and I've explained the position multitple times.


What the hell are you talking about? Saddam threw a bunch of fits but in the end complied with nearly all demands made by the UNSC. The entire country's budget was under UNSC control, ffs! That entire time he was trying to reconcile, not oppose.

I don't like to throw massive quotes at people, but it's easier than me just rephrasing it. The following quotes are from John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hitman. Perkins worked for the American corporate sector and attempted to


we try to corrupt governments and get them to accept these huge loans which we then use as leverage to basically own them. [...] the second line of defense is we send in the jackals. And the jackals either overthrow governments or they assassinate, and once that happens then a new government comes in and boy, it`s going to tow the line, because the new president knows what will happen if he doesn't.
Source: http://zeitgeistmovie.com/transcript_add.htm
John Perkins, www.DreamChange.org (http://www.DreamChange.org)

Now, from the same source, here's him explaining the situation in Iraq.

In the case of Iraq, both of those things failed-economic hit men were not able to get through to Saddam Hussain, we tried very hard, we tried to get him to accept a deal very similar to what the house of Saud had accepted in Saudi Arabia, but he wouldn`t accept it, and so the jackals went in to take him out…they couldn`t do it, his security was very good…after all, he at one time worked for the CIA. he`d been hired to assassinate a former president if Iraq, and failed…but he knew the system. So in '91 we send in the troops, and we take out the Iraqi military. So we assume at that point that Saddam Hussain is going to come around. We could have taken him out, of course, at that point in time, but we didn`t want to, he`s the kind of strong man we like. He controls his people, we thought he could control the Kurds and keep the Iranians within their border, and keep pumping oil for us, and that once we took out his military, now he`s going to come around. So the economic hit men go back in in the '90s, without success. If they`d had success, he`d still be running the country.

I don't know how to explain it any clearer. Saddam likely complied with the United Nations in some of their demands, in the hopes that he could maintain power, but if he was truly giving in to corporate demands and bourgeoisie demands, do you really think we would have taken him out? The only reason we took him out is because he refused to cooperate with the American bourgeoisie and because of it, he was destroyed.


Which corporate demands were those? Do you know anything about the sanctions or the period between the gulf war and the 2003 invasion?

Refusal to allow them to manipulate the oil in Iraq? Refusal to accept the economic stiupulations that had been accepted in other nations, in which the corporate elite manipulate developing nations? Yes, I am very informed and aware of what happened during that time.


How the hell did he "defeat" American imperialism? He was funded and brought to power with the assistance of the US government, and they only turned on him after he attempted to invade Kuwait, which he actually asked for permission first. Then the sanctions were implemented and the country was essentially under the control of the UNSC.

So perhaps you could elaborate on what the hell you're talking about when you say that "Saddam defeated American imperialism".

He was only sanctioned because he refused to comply with the American private sector. If you read through Perkins' quotes on the Zeitgeist transcript I gave above, you can see his description of the process and the process that the corporations used in countries across the world. Perkins is a primary source to this atrocity, since he worked for these private groups and attempted to get things situated for them. Saddam, by refusing to allow American corporations to handle Iraq's resources, like they had taken over in Ecuador and Guatemala, stood defiant against the bourgeoisie demands. This is simple logic. If Saddam had complied with everything, why would the Bush Administration have toppled his regime? Why would the United Nations have sanctioned Iraq? Invaded them twice? Do you think the corporatocracy and the elite care about the Iraqi people?

[BearBreakingEaglesNeck]

I call bullshit