Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Who Were the Men Killed in Fallujah?

Expand Messages
  • ropearce_1999
    See the original (with links to the source articles) at http://www.thememoryhole.org/memoryblog/ Who Were the Men Killed in Fallujah? According to news
    Message 1 of 11 , Apr 1, 2004
      See the original (with links to the source articles) at
      http://www.thememoryhole.org/memoryblog/

      Who Were the Men Killed in Fallujah?

      According to news reports, the Americans who were killed and mutilated
      in Fallujah were "private contractors." This is a euphemism for
      "mercenaries": ex-military soldiers of fortune who operate outside the
      rules of combat.

      The Washington Post is reporting that they were employees of
      Blackwater Security Consulting, a division of Blackwater USA. The
      company's Website says: "We have established a global presence and
      provide training and tactical solutions for the 21st century." Of its
      facility: "On over 6000 acres of private land, The most comprehensive
      private tactical training facility in the United States."

      An article in the London Guardian from early March gives some detail:

      Last month Blackwater USA flew a first group of about 60 former
      commandos, many of who had trained under the military government of
      Augusto Pinochet, from Santiago to a 2,400-acre (970-hectare) training
      camp in North Carolina.

      From there they will be taken to Iraq, where they are expected to
      stay between six months and a year, the president of Blackwater USA,
      Gary Jackson, told the Guardian by telephone.

      Here's an Army Times article about a mercenary (from an unnamed
      company) in Iraq killing a gunman with a destructive new bullet that
      is illegal for the US military to use.

      He hit the man in the buttocks, a wound that typically is not
      fatal. But this round appeared to kill the assailant instantly.

      "It entered his butt and completely destroyed everything in the
      lower left section of his stomach ... everything was torn apart,"
      Thomas said.

      Thomas, a security consultant with a private company contracted by
      the government, recorded the first known enemy kill using a new — and
      controversial — bullet.

      The bullet is so controversial that if Thomas, a former SEAL, had
      been on active duty, he would have been court-martialed for using it.
    • farooq sulehria
      Comrades, I wrote a report recently about Nepal.I think an important left movement in a tiny country is going on but often neglected even by left circles.
      Message 2 of 11 , Apr 1, 2004
         

        Comrades,

        I wrote a report recently about Nepal.I think an important left movement in a tiny country is going on but often neglected even by left circles.

        Despite my own little understanding of Nepal and its politics, I have tried to collect some information. hope it serves the purpose.

         

        Fraooq Sulehria

        NEPAL: 9000 DEAD IN SEVEN-YEAR MAOIST UPRISING

        Nepal is often refereed as the home of world’s highest peak: Mount Everest.

        Of late, Nepal has also been home to the fastest flourishing and most successful Maoist movement of the world in the post-Cold War period. On March 23, media reported the authorities in Nepal claiming to have killed 500 Maoists in Bani, a town 120 kilometres from capital Kathmandu. The ’battle’ so far had been the bloodiest episode in seven year long clashes between Nepali police and Maoists. The Maoists have contradicted the death toll claimed by the government authorities. The government also has revised the figure. The fresh figure is 100.

        Following Bani event, the media reports claim 9000 deaths in Nepal in last seven years, since the insurgency mounted by the Maoists.



        Whatever the truth is, 500 or 100, the event however points out to the strength that Maoists have gained in Nepal since February 12, 1996 when the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) or shortly CPN-M started its so-called "people’s war" (jana yuddha) to cause the downfall of state power, it called reactionary, and to establish a new people’s republic.


        The CPN-Maoist is one of several splinter groups of the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN), The CPN-Maoist came to birth when the political wing of Nepal’s radical left parties, the Samyukta Jana Morcha Nepal (SJMN) or United People’s Front Nepal, split in late 1993. At that time, the SJMN had been the third strongest force in the Pratinidhi Sabha (parliament) with nine MPs.



        The Maoists in Nepal had not only survived but flourished and have extended their base of support. It seems. Reportedly, almost 70 percent of rural Nepal is under guerrilla control. The Maoists are running these districts through peoples committees and have set up people’s courts. Unlike, 1970s when Nepal was witnessing an upsurge of Maoists activity getting an active support from China, this time the Nepalese Maoists have not support from China. On the contrary, the CPN M declares China as revisionist rather new revisionist. The CPN M thinks that the China has turned to revisionism since the death of Mao Tse Tung.


        The success of Maoist ideas in Nepal underlines the crisis facing this impoverished country of almost 25 million, 80 per cent of them living below poverty line. Despite some democratic reforms paving the way for multiparty elections in 1990, Nepal is still a classic example of feudal state ruled by a powerful monarch.


        The King is a military-police dictator hiding behind a weak parliament.

        The social base of these parasitic degenerates is extremely small. It gets its support from a Hindu elite. Nepal is the only official Hindu state in the world. The pro-monarchy parties in the weak parliament have tiny mass support.

        The economy is heavily reliant on aid since a disastrous 'neo-liberal' experiment in the early 1990 when Nepal was opened to multinationals. The super exploitation of Nepali masses has been looking to the communists to rid them of this exploitation at the hands of cruel monarchy, its lackeys and state apparatus. The communists have been in the forefront of the struggle for democracy in Nepal.

        Finally, when limited democratic reforms paved the way for multi party elections, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Linenist) often referred to as CPN UML emerged as the largest party in 1994 general elections.

        In Asia, this was the first time a communist party was elected to power. In the post Cold War period, this was the first such election victory for any communist party. It generated a lot of enthusiasm in the Indian sub continent soon to be subsided when the CPN UML govern net headed by Comrade Adhikari was dissolved after nine months in power.


        The Adhikari government not only failed to deliver reforms it had promised, land reforms above all which are most important in this agri-based country, but also disillusioned a whole lot of cadre. Communist Party of Nepal on the other hand provided the action the Nepali masses perhaps was looking for. Though the CPN UML has not lost its electoral bases and mass support in towns, yet the Maoists have been major pole of attraction in rural areas.



        The growth of Maoists have been making neighbouring India pretty nervous. Nepal that serves as a kind of buffer zone between India and Nepal has been strategically very important. Nepal, being a Hindu state, has been a kind of Indian sphere of influence. Land locked Nepal is also desperately in need of Indian support and co-operation.

        Traditionally, the monarch has been supported by Indian and British governments, and of late increasingly the US has been supporting the monarch.

        The Bush administration added the CPN-M to the US list of terrorist organisations on April 30 in 2002. The US government also signed a five-year agreement “for co-operation in fighting terrorism and preventing possible terror attacks” with Nepal in2002.

        Washington provided $US14 million in military aid to Nepal in 2002 and announced the delivery of 3,000 M-16 rifles in January as part of a total consignment of 5,000. By beefing up the Nepalese army with political and material support, the US is also boosting the autocratic monarchy, which traditionally has rested heavily on the military.

        Washington may have concerns about the impact of instability in Nepal on the Indian subcontinent as a whole. But the major reason for growing US military ties with Nepal is the country’s strategic position—adjacent to China and Central Asia.

        Washington has a series of military arrangements with countries bordering China, stretching from its new bases in the Central Asian republics through South East Asia to its formal allies in North East Asia—Japan and South Korea. On the other hand, India, which is developing strong ties to Washington, is also backing the Nepalese monarchy and strengthening the army. New Delhi has provided substantial military aid to Nepal.


        The Maoists are clearly concerned about growing US involvement in Nepal. Deputy leader of CPN-M Baburam Bhattarai told the Guardian in May 2002: “They (government forces) can’t crush us. They can’t defeat us militarily... But the US is the world’s biggest terrorist. The US has been threatening us openly. We want to avoid that scenario.”

        The Maoists have been holding talks for truce in November 2001 when the Nepali government started branding them as terrorists and USA got more interested in Nepal. The ‘truce’ broke down. By end 2003, another round of talks was proposed between Maoists and the Nepali government but the talks could not beheld.

        Like other Maoist groups, the CPN-M is based on the Stalinist “two-stage” theory. In entering talks, the Maoists have distanced themselves from their own limited demands and indicated their willingness to embrace open market restructuring. The CPN-M chief negotiator Krishna Bahadur Mahara has indicated in the past that the party would consider retaining the king. “If the people accept the monarchy, there is no problem. If they reject it, it should go” Also, Mahara fielded questions at a big business forum entitled “Peace for Economic Revolution” organised by the Federation of Nepal Chambers of Commerce and Industry. He promised to make the party’s policies public but to reassure his audience added: “Our economic model is a free economy with sound competition and a level playing field for all the players.”



         


        ropearce_1999 <rohan@...> wrote:
        See the original (with links to the source articles) at
        http://www.thememoryhole.org/memoryblog/

        Who Were the Men Killed in Fallujah?

        According to news reports, the Americans who were killed and mutilated
        in Fallujah were "private contractors." This is a euphemism for
        "mercenaries": ex-military soldiers of fortune who operate outside the
        rules of combat.

        The Washington Post is reporting that they were employees of
        Blackwater Security Consulting, a division of Blackwater USA. The
        company's Website says: "We have established a global presence and
        provide training and tactical solutions for the 21st century." Of its
        facility: "On over 6000 acres of private land, The most comprehensive
        private tactical training facility in the United States."

        An article in the London Guardian from early March gives some detail:

        Last month Blackwater USA flew a first group of about 60 former
        commandos, many of who had trained under the military government of
        Augusto Pinochet, from Santiago to a 2,400-acre (970-hectare) training
        camp in North Carolina.

        From there they will be taken to Iraq, where they are expected to
        stay between six months and a year, the president of Blackwater USA,
        Gary Jackson, told the Guardian by telephone.

        Here's an Army Times article about a mercenary (from an unnamed
        company) in Iraq killing a gunman with a destructive new bullet that
        is illegal for the US military to use.

        He hit the man in the buttocks, a wound that typically is not
        fatal. But this round appeared to kill the assailant instantly.

        "It entered his butt and completely destroyed everything in the
        lower left section of his stomach ... everything was torn apart,"
        Thomas said.

        Thomas, a security consultant with a private company contracted by
        the government, recorded the first known enemy kill using a new — and
        controversial — bullet.

        The bullet is so controversial that if Thomas, a former SEAL, had
        been on active duty, he would have been court-martialed for using it.



        ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
        Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
        Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
        http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
        http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/KlSolB/TM
        ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

        Visit http://www.greenleft.org.au
        Yahoo! Groups Links

        <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GreenLeft_discussion/

        <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        GreenLeft_discussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


        WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Yahoo! Mail Internet Cafe Awards
      • farooq sulehria
        Comrades, For me, the question is: if such actions by Iraqis be supported or not? particularly there is an increased involvement of Muslim fundamentalists. It
        Message 3 of 11 , Apr 1, 2004
          Comrades,
           
          For me, the question is: if such actions by Iraqis be supported or not? particularly there is an increased involvement of Muslim fundamentalists.
           
          It remains to be seen who leads the armed resistence against occupatuion: fundamentalists, nationalists or a combination of both.
           
          In my opinion, if fundamentalsits take a lead, we as left must not give any support to such armed resistence.
           
          Farooq Sulehria

          ropearce_1999 <rohan@...> wrote:
          See the original (with links to the source articles) at
          http://www.thememoryhole.org/memoryblog/

          Who Were the Men Killed in Fallujah?

          According to news reports, the Americans who were killed and mutilated
          in Fallujah were "private contractors." This is a euphemism for
          "mercenaries": ex-military soldiers of fortune who operate outside the
          rules of combat.

          The Washington Post is reporting that they were employees of
          Blackwater Security Consulting, a division of Blackwater USA. The
          company's Website says: "We have established a global presence and
          provide training and tactical solutions for the 21st century." Of its
          facility: "On over 6000 acres of private land, The most comprehensive
          private tactical training facility in the United States."

          An article in the London Guardian from early March gives some detail:

          Last month Blackwater USA flew a first group of about 60 former
          commandos, many of who had trained under the military government of
          Augusto Pinochet, from Santiago to a 2,400-acre (970-hectare) training
          camp in North Carolina.

          From there they will be taken to Iraq, where they are expected to
          stay between six months and a year, the president of Blackwater USA,
          Gary Jackson, told the Guardian by telephone.

          Here's an Army Times article about a mercenary (from an unnamed
          company) in Iraq killing a gunman with a destructive new bullet that
          is illegal for the US military to use.

          He hit the man in the buttocks, a wound that typically is not
          fatal. But this round appeared to kill the assailant instantly.

          "It entered his butt and completely destroyed everything in the
          lower left section of his stomach ... everything was torn apart,"
          Thomas said.

          Thomas, a security consultant with a private company contracted by
          the government, recorded the first known enemy kill using a new — and
          controversial — bullet.

          The bullet is so controversial that if Thomas, a former SEAL, had
          been on active duty, he would have been court-martialed for using it.



          ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
          Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
          Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
          http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
          http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/KlSolB/TM
          ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

          Visit http://www.greenleft.org.au
          Yahoo! Groups Links

          <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GreenLeft_discussion/

          <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          GreenLeft_discussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


          WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Yahoo! Mail Internet Cafe Awards

        • Welf Herfurth
          Re:Comrades, For me, the question is: if such actions by Iraqis be supported or not? particularly there is an increased involvement of Muslim fundamentalists.
          Message 4 of 11 , Apr 1, 2004

             

            Re:Comrades,

             

            For me, the question is: if such actions by Iraqis be supported or not? particularly there is an increased involvement of Muslim fundamentalists.

             

            It remains to be seen who leads the armed resistence against occupatuion: fundamentalists, nationalists or a combination of both.

             

            In my opinion, if fundamentalsits take a lead, we as left must not give any support to such armed resistence.

             

            ·         Farooq Sulehria

            What about when Nationalists take the lead?


             

             

          • les evenchick
            The question should not be who is supporting the actions of these Iraqi s or whether one should support them. The question should be, what are the best tactics
            Message 5 of 11 , Apr 1, 2004
              The question should not be who is supporting the
              actions of these Iraqi's or whether one should
              support them.

              The question should be, what are the best tactics
              to get all foreign forces out of Iraq.

              One can understand why certain actions are
              carried out without believing them to the best or
              the right way to accomplish what is in the best
              interests of the vast majority of the Iraqi
              people.

              Why do you think the choice is between
              fundamentalists and nationalists only?

              I believe the demand we should advance is :

              Let the Iraqi's reorganize their own society.

              This implies the immediate and unconditional
              withdrawal of all foreign forces.

              If such forces were gone such events as referred
              to would not happen.

              Les Evenchick
              New orleans



              --- farooq sulehria <mfsulehria@...>
              wrote:
              > Comrades,
              >
              > For me, the question is: if such actions by
              > Iraqis be supported or not? particularly there
              > is an increased involvement of Muslim
              > fundamentalists.
              >
              > It remains to be seen who leads the armed
              > resistence against occupatuion:
              > fundamentalists, nationalists or a combination
              > of both.
              >
              > In my opinion, if fundamentalsits take a lead,
              > we as left must not give any support to such
              > armed resistence.
              >
              > Farooq Sulehria
              >
              > ropearce_1999 <rohan@...> wrote:
              > See the original (with links to the source
              > articles) at
              > http://www.thememoryhole.org/memoryblog/
              >
              > Who Were the Men Killed in Fallujah?
              >
              > According to news reports, the Americans who
              > were killed and mutilated
              > in Fallujah were "private contractors." This is
              > a euphemism for
              > "mercenaries": ex-military soldiers of fortune
              > who operate outside the
              > rules of combat.
              >
              > The Washington Post is reporting that they were
              > employees of
              > Blackwater Security Consulting, a division of
              > Blackwater USA. The
              > company's Website says: "We have established a
              > global presence and
              > provide training and tactical solutions for the
              > 21st century." Of its
              > facility: "On over 6000 acres of private land,
              > The most comprehensive
              > private tactical training facility in the
              > United States."
              >
              > An article in the London Guardian from early
              > March gives some detail:
              >
              > Last month Blackwater USA flew a first group of
              > about 60 former
              > commandos, many of who had trained under the
              > military government of
              > Augusto Pinochet, from Santiago to a 2,400-acre
              > (970-hectare) training
              > camp in North Carolina.
              >
              > From there they will be taken to Iraq, where
              > they are expected to
              > stay between six months and a year, the
              > president of Blackwater USA,
              > Gary Jackson, told the Guardian by telephone.
              >
              > Here's an Army Times article about a mercenary
              > (from an unnamed
              > company) in Iraq killing a gunman with a
              > destructive new bullet that
              > is illegal for the US military to use.
              >
              > He hit the man in the buttocks, a wound that
              > typically is not
              > fatal. But this round appeared to kill the
              > assailant instantly.
              >
              > "It entered his butt and completely destroyed
              > everything in the
              > lower left section of his stomach ...
              > everything was torn apart,"
              > Thomas said.
              >
              > Thomas, a security consultant with a private
              > company contracted by
              > the government, recorded the first known enemy
              > kill using a new � and
              > controversial � bullet.
              >
              > The bullet is so controversial that if Thomas,
              > a former SEAL, had
              > been on active duty, he would have been
              > court-martialed for using it.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Visit http://www.greenleft.org.au
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ---------------------------------
              > WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe
              > in the Yahoo! Mail Internet Cafe Awards
            • farooq sulehria
              In my opinion, if nationalists take a lead, they must be given critical support both by the Iraqi left (part of which is sitting in so caaled provisional govt)
              Message 6 of 11 , Apr 1, 2004
                In my opinion, if nationalists take a lead, they must be given critical support both by the Iraqi left (part of which is sitting in so caaled provisional govt) and by the left internationally.
                 


                Welf Herfurth <herfurth@...> wrote:

                 

                Re:Comrades,

                 

                For me, the question is: if such actions by Iraqis be supported or not? particularly there is an increased involvement of Muslim fundamentalists.

                 

                It remains to be seen who leads the armed resistence against occupatuion: fundamentalists, nationalists or a combination of both.

                 

                In my opinion, if fundamentalsits take a lead, we as left must not give any support to such armed resistence.

                 

                ·         Farooq Sulehria

                What about when Nationalists take the lead?


                 

                 




                Visit http://www.greenleft.org.au


                WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Yahoo! Mail Internet Cafe Awards

              • Peter Boyle
                ... I think the left has to critically support the armed resistance whether it is led by nationalists, islamic fundamentalists or a combination of both, i.e.
                Message 7 of 11 , Apr 1, 2004
                  farooq sulehria wrote:

                  > It remains to be seen who leads the armed resistence against
                  > occupatuion: fundamentalists, nationalists or a combination of both.
                  >
                  > In my opinion, if fundamentalsits take a lead, we as left must not
                  > give any support to such armed resistence.
                  >

                  I think the left has to critically support the armed resistance whether
                  it is led by nationalists, islamic fundamentalists or a combination of
                  both, i.e. we have to support resistance to imperialist aggression and
                  occupation, regardless of the character of its political leadership.
                  Hence Marx and Engels supported the conservative-led anti-colonial
                  movements in the second Opium War and the Indian mutiny even when such
                  movement's resistance involved massacres and other "outrages".

                  See: <http://www.themilitant.com/2001/6542/654251.html>

                  Peter Boyle
                • Peter Boyle
                  Another relevant reading from Marx on anti-colonial atrocities :
                  Message 8 of 11 , Apr 1, 2004
                    Another relevant reading from Marx on anti-colonial "atrocities":

                    <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/04/10.htm>
                  • farooq sulehria
                    I think I would find it hard to agree with Peter Boyle on giving support to fundamentalsits in order to get rid of americans. I think giving support to
                    Message 9 of 11 , Apr 2, 2004
                      I think I would find it hard to agree with Peter Boyle on giving support to fundamentalsits in order to get rid of americans.
                      I think giving support to fundamentalists against US imperialism will have its parallel in Iran where left lent support to Khomeni against Shah.The idea was to get rid of Shah no matter what.
                       
                       In case of fundamentalists taking the lead, left should try to build an alternative with nationalists.
                       
                      Farooq

                      Peter Boyle <peterb@...> wrote:
                      farooq sulehria wrote:

                      > It remains to be seen who leads the armed resistence against
                      > occupatuion: fundamentalists, nationalists or a combination of both.
                      >
                      > In my opinion, if fundamentalsits take a lead, we as left must not
                      > give any support to such armed resistence.
                      >

                      I think the left has to critically support the armed resistance whether
                      it is led by nationalists, islamic fundamentalists or a combination of
                      both, i.e. we have to support resistance to imperialist aggression and
                      occupation, regardless of the character of its political leadership.
                      Hence Marx and Engels supported the conservative-led anti-colonial
                      movements in the second Opium War and the Indian mutiny even when such
                      movement's resistance involved massacres and other "outrages".

                      See:

                      Peter Boyle


                      ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
                      Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
                      Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
                      http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
                      http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/KlSolB/TM
                      ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

                      Visit http://www.greenleft.org.au
                      Yahoo! Groups Links

                      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GreenLeft_discussion/

                      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      GreenLeft_discussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


                      WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Yahoo! Mail Internet Cafe Awards

                    • Pip, Peter & Zoe
                      ... We might be arguing about nothing. Socialists in the imperialist countries should support the resistance to imperialist aggression in Iraq by campaigning
                      Message 10 of 11 , Apr 2, 2004
                        farooq sulehria wrote:

                        > I think I would find it hard to agree with Peter Boyle on giving
                        > support to fundamentalsits in order to get rid of americans.I think
                        > giving support to fundamentalists against US imperialism will have its
                        > parallel in Iran where left lent support to Khomeni against Shah.The
                        > idea was to get rid of Shah no matter what. In case of
                        > fundamentalists taking the lead, left should try to build an
                        > alternative with nationalists.

                        We might be arguing about nothing.

                        Socialists in the imperialist countries should support the resistance
                        to imperialist aggression in Iraq by campaigning for the immediate
                        withdrawal of the occupation troops and the relentless exposure of the
                        reactionary character of the imperialist intervention. We should do this
                        irrespective of the political character of the leadership of the armed
                        and/or unarmed resistance in Iraq to that occupation.

                        That is the support I am talking about, nothing else.

                        We should not hide our political opposition to the reactionary
                        fundamentalist political forces or for that matter reactonary
                        nationalist forces, such as the Baathists.

                        So do we really have a difference on this?

                        During the imperialist invasion of Afghanistan, the Labour Party
                        Pakistan organised demonstrations against the invasion, despite the fact
                        that the imperialists were fighting the fundamentalist Taliban.

                        Some crazy far left sects demanded that LPP for a "united front" with
                        the fundamentalists in Pakistan. That would have been crazy and
                        suicidal, of course. The left had to march separately, even if those
                        fundamentalists were also opposing the invasion. Even crazier sects
                        (some from far away in Europe and Latin America) said that the left
                        should send in partisan units to fight alongside the Taliban. Again this
                        was crazy.

                        On the other side of the spectrum there are some crazy "lefts" or
                        perhaps ex-lefts who argue that the left should have a united front
                        together with US imperialists against the Islamic fundamentalists
                        because the latter are more backward (see for example
                        <www.lastsuperpower.net/>). The ex-Maoists on that site are crazy, but
                        there are a few other socialists in Australia and other imperialist
                        countries who shame-facedly and more indirectly would support
                        "democratic" imperialism against Islamic fundamentalism.

                        Peter Boyle
                      • farooq sulehria
                        I think this is eactly what I meant. Pip, Peter & Zoe wrote: ... We might be arguing about nothing. Socialists in the imperialist
                        Message 11 of 11 , Apr 3, 2004
                          I think this is eactly what I meant.

                          "Pip, Peter & Zoe" <ppz@...> wrote:


                          farooq sulehria wrote:

                          > I think I would find it hard to agree with Peter Boyle on giving
                          > support to fundamentalsits in order to get rid of americans.I think
                          > giving support to fundamentalists against US imperialism will have its
                          > parallel in Iran where left lent support to Khomeni against Shah.The
                          > idea was to get rid of Shah no matter what. In case of
                          > fundamentalists taking the lead, left should try to build an
                          > alternative with nationalists.

                          We might be arguing about nothing.

                          Socialists in the imperialist countries should support the resistance
                          to imperialist aggression in Iraq by campaigning for the immediate
                          withdrawal of the occupation troops and the relentless exposure of the
                          reactionary character of the imperialist intervention. We should do this
                          irrespective of the political character of the leadership of the armed
                          and/or unarmed resistance in Iraq to that occupation.

                          That is the support I am talking about, nothing else.

                          We should not hide our political opposition to the reactionary
                          fundamentalist political forces or for that matter reactonary
                          nationalist forces, such as the Baathists.

                          So do we really have a difference on this?

                          During the imperialist invasion of Afghanistan, the Labour Party
                          Pakistan organised demonstrations against the invasion, despite the fact
                          that the imperialists were fighting the fundamentalist Taliban.

                          Some crazy far left sects demanded that LPP for a "united front" with
                          the fundamentalists in Pakistan. That would have been crazy and
                          suicidal, of course. The left had to march separately, even if those
                          fundamentalists were also opposing the invasion. Even crazier sects
                          (some from far away in Europe and Latin America) said that the left
                          should send in partisan units to fight alongside the Taliban. Again this
                          was crazy.

                          On the other side of the spectrum there are some crazy "lefts" or
                          perhaps ex-lefts who argue that the left should have a united front
                          together with US imperialists against the Islamic fundamentalists
                          because the latter are more backward (see for example
                          ). The ex-Maoists on that site are crazy, but
                          there are a few other socialists in Australia and other imperialist
                          countries who shame-facedly and more indirectly would support
                          "democratic" imperialism against Islamic fundamentalism.

                          Peter Boyle





                          Visit http://www.greenleft.org.au
                          Yahoo! Groups Links

                          <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GreenLeft_discussion/

                          <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          GreenLeft_discussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                          <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


                          WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Yahoo! Mail Internet Cafe Awards
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.