IWW FJU Condemns Attacks on Journalists Reporting in Iraq
On the 23rd of August 2024,
a Turkish targeted drone strike hit a car carrying three journalists in
the Seyidsadiq district of Sulaymaniyah. Gulîstan Tara and Hêro
Bahadîn, were killed and Rebin Baker was injured. Tara was a reporter
and Hêro was a video editor. Both were working for CHATR, a production
company based in Kurdistan on assignment for Sterk TV, a Norwegian
outlet, at the time they were killed.
Following the attack, various media outlets alleged the reporters were members of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)
but provided no evidence that they were members at the time of their
killing. Meeting with sources who may not be aligned with the interests
of the states we call home is an integral part of journalism and in no
way warrants the targeting of reporters.
The targeting of women who fearlessly raised their voices to document
the truth in a region where misogyny has been widespread is also
unacceptable. Targeting journalists represents an attack on the truth,
and we join numerous other unions and media organizations in condemning
this wanton act of state violence.
This is not the first drone strike on journalists in Kurdistan by the Turkish government. Murad Mirza Ibrahim,
an employee with the Kurdish media outlet Cira TV, was also killed in a
drone strike a month ago. The Jurdiustan Autonomous Region of Iraq is
becoming an increasingly dangerous region for the press, and we stand in
solidarity with our fellow workers there demanding safer conditions and
an end to targeted strikes.
Attacks on the press are unacceptable, and the pattern of targeted
drone strikes on our fellow workers constitutes an attack on all of us
and our ability to work safely and report the truth. The IWW FJU stands
in solidarity with Hero and Tara’s families in their call for justice,
and the people of Kurdistan in their calls for peace and an end to the drone war. An injury to one is an injury to all!
This is probably been a long time coming, I'll try to keep this short. Back in the day me and my mates were pretty big fans of Galloway's radio show. Hell back when I started this blog a went so far as to create a tag for the Galloway related posts I would make. Given how I and Galloway have developed, I'm pleased the last time that tag was used (till now anyway) was in 2011.
Since Galloway is now mostly well known for his pretty awful antics I think it prudent to just briefly list some of the reason's people like myself used to find him quite appealing.
His promising career in the Labour party and its affiliates came to an because he maintained public opposition to the Iraq war. His comments on the war got him expelled on charges of bringing the party into disrepute.
In addition to a long career in parliament, George has been a very active charity organiser, being the General Secretary of War on Want which lead international aid efforts to Eritrea and Tigris during the civil war in Ethiopia. [1] And was a founder and promoter of the Viva Palestina convoys that took aid to Gaza in defiance of the Israeli blockade.
Out of all the Left but not Labour political projects in the UK, and there are dozens, his vehicle RESPECT actually succeeded in getting an MP. Personally I was never really enamoured with RESPECT but this achievement was very appealing to many self described Socialists in the UK[2].
To sum up, his appeal broadly speaking lay in his reputation for saying the right things and getting things done. A mix of practical and principle if you will. I t didn't hurt that he has skill as a talker, and he got mainstream attention by appearing on Big Brother, but I never liked Big Brother so I missed his appearance until after I knew who he was.
I think looking back it was a combination of being starved of political points of view beyond the mainstream, so Blair/Brown Labour, the Tories and the Libdems, and that at the time we had just started to turn 18 so had started drinking, but didn't have much money so instead of going to a pub we just went to each others houses sharing cheap lager. Galloway's three hour weekend radio show served quite well, it introduced us to a bit more political news and gossip, and since it was a radio show we have it as background noise and pay attention to it when things started to happen.
Also I think it helped that most of the people who bothered to keep calling or texting the show to argue with him were basically terrible people. Far right types calling him a Muslim sympathiser, neoliberals calling in to defend privatisations and boardroom bonuses, Scottish nationalists annoyed that he wasn't bothered about independence, Orange Order types etc.
But overtime the skeletons in the cupboard started to get out and Galloway seems to be intent on wasting all that goodwill he built up over the years on more gaffs and revelations. I soon parted ways with Galloway, my response was to ignore the fellow as he political platforms continued to implode and he became increasingly reactionary. I'd just go about my day and feel second hand embarrassment whenever a particularly egregious event put Galloway back on my radar.
So why am I doing this now? Well partly for some closure, but mainly because I'm hoping by publicly supporting Farage the most successful far right populist at present Galloway will finally burnt his final bridges, that the small lefty undercurrent that he still taps into will give him up. If your familiar with Galloway, you'll no doubt be thinking of one of dozens of things he's said and done that should have done that already. But alas it takes a long time to build up a reputation and it takes along time to demolish it.
Now of course even in the early days, there were warning signs. His anti-war credibility was undermined by just how grovelling a lot of his comments towards Saddam Hussein were, particularly the footage of his visit to Iraq
https://youtu.be/LzWNXEtwHUc
And while looking up that visit I also found this video where Galloway endorsed Iraq's claims on Kuwait.
I think its worth mentioning that Galloway doesn't appear to reject or condemn war wholesale, but only particular wars. During his career he's supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, bizarrely lamenting the loss of a "strong and stable government" [3] A government that relied on the Soviet army while fighting a civil war and persecuting and plotting against it self is strong and stable apparently. And I do remember him getting into an argument with some callers over the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956.
Now I was aware of some of this at the time, and I didn't really agree, but I was still learning and honestly the conversation would usually move on. But, well it started adding up, I'm not actually sure where there was a breaking point for me. I just remember there being a time where Galloway was someone whose opinions I would listen to with respect, to an embarrassing joke, to a pretty awful person in general.
I do remember once he was very rude to a friend of mine, who called the show when the topic of the day was autism. But at the time we were all just baffled at how unprovoked his rudeness was, I'm pretty sure we laughed it off as an awkward moment. I suppose him working for Iran's Press TV didn't help. He'd spent years portraying himself as a principled outsider which kind of runs counter to working for the Islamic Republic of Iran's media arm. It definitely didn't help that in response to criticism of his gig and the Iranian governments actions he made ridiculous comments downplaying human rights abuses, executions of homosexuals and lauding the Republic as a model democracy.
But I'll give some credit here, I believe his weak comments on Iran's political system helped me develop my ideas and criticism of representative government. If you just look for a few seconds Iran does look like a democracy not much different from say Western Europe. They have elections, several parties compete, they do have different policy platforms and who gets to be President does have some impact on what happens. But then you look a little longer and you notice how many political parties are underground or in exile, how the religious authorities have seats in government and a veto over the President and parliament via the Guardian Council, which is chosen by the Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Khamenei), who has the power to declare war and peace, the council chooses heads of the judiciary and other state institutions, including the head of Press TV.
Basically the façade quickly falls apart. But after coming to that conclusion I looked at other so called democratic states, and what do you know found that all of them keep a lot of the power in un elected institutions, the only functional difference is that unlike Iran the one(s) whom have legal access to those institutions (well most of them) get that access through elections, sometimes extremely indirectly.
So in a way despite Galloway's collapse I think he has taught me some lessons. Granted many of them were things not to say or do, but an education is to be valued.
Goodbye Mr G.
Edit:
Well it looks like we might not see the back of Gorgeous George after all
Looks like theirs still a political backwater for him to swim in.
_________________________________________________
1: I can remember hearing him recollect how he witnessed bombings by the Ethiopian air force, and another time when he talked about his time doing solidarity work in the anti-apartheid movement, which lead to at least on detainment and assault by an officer Mackenzie.
2: It might be worth mentioning though that it was RESPECT's electoral presence that introduced me to the name George Galloway. During European Elections in 2004 the RESPECT party competed, but due to a ballot error all the RESPECT lists, read as RESPECT George Galloway has received X number of votes. It sounded like a command, which is oddly fitting.
3: On the Pleasure of Hating Galloway by Chris Hitchens https://diamonddavewonfor.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/on-the-pleasure-of-hating-george-galloway/
Hello, this is the Witness History podcast from the BBC
World Service. And we started broadcasting our first-hand accounts from the
past back in 2009, and all this week ten years on we’re bringing you some of our
favourite programs from the early days.
In 2003 the US and its allies invaded Iraq and toppled
Saddam Hussein from power. For Iraqis bombardment and struggle would become the
norm. Robin Lustig heard from one ordinary Iraqi, Lubna Naji, about her experiences
of the war.
Robin Lustig:
It’s the evening of March the 19th and seventeen-year-old
Lubna Naji is at home with her relatives in Baghdad.
Lubna Naji:
Well, actually we were all in the living room, we were watching
TV. And the Iraqi TV which was like the government TV at that time, was showing
like an American movie about monkeys taking over the earth, yeah.
Robert Lustig:
Planet of the Apes.
Lubna Naji:
Exactly, exactly. We were all watching that movie and we
were really interested in it. And suddenly the program changed and they started
featuring patriotic songs. About the regime, about Saddam, so we knew something
was wrong.
But you know noting happened. We went to sleep and it was
like 5a.m. in the morning when we heard the first noises of bombardment.
[War correspondent from 2003]
About 15 minutes ago their air-raid sirens sounded across
Baghdad, anti-aircraft artillery began firing across the night sky. There were
a couple of large explosions that uh and I can see a few large plumes of smoke.
I presume that that may have been targets being hit but I can’t be certain.
Robin Lustig:
When you woke up on that first night as the first bombs fell,
can you remember what went through your mind?
Lubna Naji:
I thought I was going to die obviously. I was really worried
about me and about my family as well. You worry that you’re not going to die but
that you’re going to end up crippled or being disabled. And it would be
dreadful in Iraq because you know, healthy and well people in Iraq do not get
things right, so what’s it going to be like for disabled and crippled people?
Trust me in Iraq death is not the worst thing that could
ever happen to you, there are many far worse things that can happen. It was it was
really terrifying. It was really terrifying.
We had electricity and we had access to the radio, and we
started to search for you know international you know media, like BBC Arabic
radio, and in Monte Carlo International. Because we really wanted to know what
was going on.
We knew what was going on, but we wanted to be really sure about
it. Sometimes you would hear some really close noises.
Robin Lustig:
A few days before the invasion had begun Lubna, her sister
and their two aunts had moved in with an uncle and his family. And they’d all
set about trying to get ready for the coming onslaught.
Lubna Naiji:
We taped the windows, we bought like an enormous of food and
actually we, we had this room we called it the shelter. It was like an internal
room inside the house with no windows whatsoever, whenever there was a
bombardment all the eight of us would just sit inside the room and hide and
wait until the bombardment is over.
I was really fond of this room because it was it was more
like my safety nets really.
Robin Lustig:
Were you able to stay in touch with other members of the
family who were elsewhere in Baghdad, elsewhere in Iraq?
Lubna Naji:
No. Because they all fled Baghdad, some of them went to Kerbala,
some of them went to Najaf. Yes, in more safe places.
Robin Lustig:
For three weeks then, you did not leave the house?
Lubna Naji:
I did not leave the house. Actually my, my cousin was missing,
he went out a short while before this war started and we’ve never heard from
him. So, we spent those three weeks obsessing about his destiny. And his parents
were sick worried about him, and we were all sick worried about him. We had no
idea where he was, what happened to him. It was a very very dreadful you know
thing.
I mean I do I do remember that every night before we go to sleep,
we would say the Shahada, which is like the final prayer that a Muslim would
say if he/she were about to die. Because you never know you’re going to die, you
know while you’re asleep. I used to hug the Holy Quran because I was really
scared you know.
We tried, we tried to make conversations, we tried to laugh
to chat but it was it was impossible, not to worry.
Robin Lustig:
Every night you went to bed you didn’t know if you were going
to wake up the next morning. You did wake up; how did the day proceed?
Lubna Naji:
Well actually my uncle’s wife used to handle all of those
you know day-to-day activities; dinner, breakfast, lunch. We’ve had an enormous
amount of food in the house.
Robin Lustig:
What kind of food?
Lubna Naji:
Everything, canned food.
Robin Lustig:
No fresh bread?
Lubna Naji:
No fresh bread. The thing is that when it comes to Iraq we
cannot live without fresh bread. We love all kinds of breads. So, when there
was no bread you start to eat, and eat and eat and eat trying to compensate the
absence of bread.
It was like every
five minutes I’d go to the fridge and try to take out something in order to
eat. Because that was the only way to defuse the tension.
Robin Lustig:
What was the weather like at that time. Was it already
getting very hot?
Lubna Naji:
My God, It was this dreadful sandstorm that lasted for like
days. And actually you’ve had this smoke I believe that there were people who
were trying to burn stuff.
Robin Lustig:
There were reports at the time of ditched being filled with
oil and set alight.
Luba Naji:
Exactly, there was always smoke in the air which was really
really unpleasant combined with the sandstorm.
Robin Lustig:
You could hardly
breathe.
Lubna Njai:
Of course.
Robin Lustig:
Did you dare to open windows?
Lubna Naji:
No, no we did not, because we had the windows taped already
and one of my aunties is actually pretty old. She was the typical frightened
elderly woman, so whenever we tried to open the windows, she would beg us to
close them.
Robin Lustig:
But after three long weeks cooped up in their house not
daring to go out, American troops rolled into Baghdad, and on the 9th
of April live on television, down came that giant statue of Saddam Hussein in
the centre of the city.
[News commentator 9th of April]
[Applause]
Its making a grinding sound the armoured personnel carrier,
tightening the tension of the ropes and the chains around the neck of the
statue of Saddam Hussein. The engine of the armoured personnel carrier is
roaring- here it comes.
[Cheering and whistling]
Lubna Naji:
We knew that Saddam has gone, you know when they destroyed
the statue. To tell you the truth we hated Saddam, my entire family hated him,
I hated him. We were so relieved that he was gone. So, the 9th of
April 2003 was a very happy day for us.
But afterwards you start you know every year on the 9th
of April you start to think back about that dream that you had that’s been
taken away from you. Because on the 9th of April, you had you had a
time to think and you say “yes this is going to be a democratic prosperous
country. We’re going to be as prosperous as the United Arab Emirates or maybe even
more. “
But, as time you know went by, you started to see all of those
hopes and dreams getting crushed really really slowly and gradually. So, it was
a very big disappointment, a very very big disappointment.
Robin Lustig:
Lubna Naji returned to school in June 2003 and she went on
to study medicine.
Below is a rather interesting biopic of former President of the United States of America, George "Dubya" Bush. Despite sharing a title and main character/subject with the Oliver Stone movie, they don't share much else. No this Dubya film is a response to the Bush years from an art house Liberal, with a capital L.
As satire it seems rather poor, it retreads much of the same ground, Bush is an idiot, Iraq was unjustified and motivated by greed, rigging elections and dropping the ball with Hurricane Katrina etc. And its performance art weirdness will probably alienate most of the audience meaning there isn't really much point in making it*. Though I personally love it, I've watched this strange clown film several times, because it seems that the director and star actor (same guy) was so bitter and desperate to caricature and attack American Conservatism that he ends up caricaturing and attacking American Liberalism in the process. Bush and his party of No are basically every Republican stereotype, and yet in making a film where these stereotypes are bluntly real and accurate the Director confirms a lot of the stereotypes of American Liberalism.
The explanation for Bush the idiot getting away with all his crazy and irrational policies and stunts, is basically that the average American or "Red State" American is even dumber then the big W. The Blue Liberals like Moller have pretty much all the right answers and yet they are impotent and powerless to stop eight long years of war, corruption and incompetence. And its all because the average Joe doesn't want to listen to there fancy talk and is easily distracted.
This couldn't get more stereotypical if the Demo party of Yes HQ was in a literal Ivory tower. The whole face paint and chroma key film is just Liberal bitterness and elitism fumbling in its attempt to come to terms with its most devastating defeat in recent history. An equally appropriate title for the film would be "Impotent Rage: 2000-08" it really is quite something. The film is like a cage fight between two people I can't stand, no matter who loses I'll be happy and if they both get a mauling that's just perfect.
Oh and I'm pretty sure the film maker was an Obama supporter since he basically calls Clinton a whore in most confusing and "Artistic" way possible.
I give this film 7 WMD's out of 10.
* Personally I actually quite like it, but rather then enjoying the "deeper meanings" I find the scenes and images amusing and strange.
Another event that was closely tied to the Iranian Revolution was the first Gulf War (Iran vs Iraq) from 1980 to 1988 the war devastated both nations killed over a million (approx 1,250,000) and allowed both regimes to tighten there stranglehold upon both nations. As is usual in war their were two powerful and ruthless elites throwing thousands of young men into a bloody grinder, with frequent spill overs into cities.
And both sides received extensive support and equipment from all the major and not so major powers, to keep the war going. Most of nations proved quite capable businessmen and supplied both sides.
SWP has a bit of a tradition of supporting brutal movements.
However in lefty circles most parties and groups took a plague on both your houses approach and worked towards supporting refugees and demonstrations for cease fires and peace talks. Still a few were more partisan, unsurprisingly one of the most notable was the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) they rushed to the defence of the Ayatollah.
Leaflet produced by Wildcat in 1988 concerning
the First Gulf War (that is, Iran versus Iraq). It compares the position
of the Socialist Workers Party in the UK with that of Hezbollah. Not
unreasonable, given that the SWP supported the Iranian regime at the
time!
When it comes down to it there is little difference between the
position of the SWP on the Gulf War and that of Hezbollah. Both call for
the working class to rally to the support of the Iranian regime and
fight imperialism.
The working class has taken a different position, one of class
struggle against the war. In Iran there have been strikes,
demonstrations and riots against the war. In Iraq the struggle is much
more fierce, the army is mutinous and the workers are defending
themselves from the austerity measures which the war has forced upon
them. Conditions are certainly right for revolutionaries in Iran to call
on workers to follow the example of their class brothers and sisters in
Iraq.
So what advice has the "revolutionary party" got to give to the
Iranian workers? "We have no choice but to support the Khomeini regime",
"There will be instances when it is wrong to strike", "Socialists
should not call for the disruption of military supplies to the front...
they should not support actions which could lead to the collapse of the
military effort".
If the working class in Iran was to follow the line of the Socialist
Workers Party, it would be abandoning not only one of its most powerful
weapons (the strike) but it would also be giving up its political
independence from capital and the state. Any support for the defence of
the nation cannot help but damage the interests of the working class.
Re-enforcement of the notions of patriotism (even when cloaked in
anti-imperialism) is a clear step away from internationalism, and
another obstacle to fraternisation between conscripts.
The SWP claim to belong to the Leninist tradition of the Third
International, a section of those who broke away from social democracy
over its support for the butchery of the international working class in
the 1914-18 war. In reality however their ideas are much closer to those
of Karl Kautsky in their use of leftist language to justify a
capitalist war.
Since the end of the First World War, those who follow the ideology
of Lenin have found it necessary to support every capitalist war in the
name of workers internationalism.
From Trotsky lining up with Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill (the
perpetrators of the murder of 3 million Indians and countless other
atrocities in the colonies, the butchers of Dresden, Hiroshima and
Nagasaki...) in the name of protecting democracy from fascist barbarism;
through Korea, Vietnam, the Israeli/Arab war; to the SWP who are now
making their excuses for supporting wholesale mass murder in the Gulf,
by whimpering that because "Imperialism is not neutral in the Gulf
conflict nor can socialists be neutral. We must be prepared to back Iran
against the West."
For us as communists, there is no question of neutrality - we back
the proletariat against the bourgeoisie every time. It matters not how
leftists from Kautsky to Cliff dress up their support for bourgeois
states in revolutionary language, objectively they are the enemies of
the working class, just as much as the states they support.
The ideas that dominate the “thinking” of the SWP on this issue stem
from Lenin's theory of imperialism and his position on revolutionary
defeatism.
The theory of imperialism maintains that the world is split into big
imperialist powers (like America), and small oppressed nations (like
Iran). The workers must line up alongside the oppressed nations against
"today's main enemy" Imperialism. To this we reply that we care not if
America is the “big bully” attacking “poor little Iran”, the workers
have no country. We have no interest in propping up the reactionary
regime in Iran, of worker's corpses on the battlefield. We have no
interest in tying the workers of Iran to the Islamic war machine, or of
raising the prestige of Islamic fundamentalism throughout the Middle
East.
Luckily most workers ate not stupid enough to take any notice of this
senile strategy. Otherwise all a small state with domestic problems
would have to do, would be to ask the Americans to send in a few marines
“against them”. And the workers, urged on by the socialists, would
forget all about the class struggle and rush to the defence of the
state!
The slogan of "revolutionary defeatism" is another of Lenin's
misunderstandings. He said that revolutionaries cannot help wishing for
the defeat of “their own” country in a reactionary war. Apart from the
ambiguity in this (it could easily be taken by counter-revolutionaries,
such as the RCP, to mean supporting the opposing country), it is not
true. Revolutionaries in France in 1940, particularly Jewish ones, could
quite easily NOT "help wishing" for a Nazi victory.
The main enemy is not at home. Our rulers threaten to make us die
fighting for their interests, but the other side will kill us as well.
We don't care which side is overthrown by revolution first, and, unlike
the Bolsheviks, we do not believe in making peace with Capitalist
butchers, but in spreading civil war into their armies.
The main enemy is international capital which, like the workers, has
no country. Supporting any of its factions can only lead revolutionaries
to defeat.
While obviously we are against the capitalist war, we are also
against “capitalist peace”. The west wants peace in the Gulf, a “Pax
Americana” of unchallenged western hegemony, misery and exploitation. A
reopening of free trade, a working class peacefully putting up with its
exploitation, and a large piece of the profits.
For the working class this offers nothing. The bosses' choice of peace or war does not contain the answer we want.
In Iran and Iraq, unlike Britain, the class struggle has moved into a
higher stage than a purely economic one. Therefore when we intervene in
worker's struggles now, we should not just make the point that the only
way to win is to extend the struggle, it must also be with an
explicitly internationalist message. The working class has no interests
in common
with the bourgeoisie anywhere in the world. Whilst supporting all acts
of rebellion we should never forget that only a full scale revolution
which aims to internationalise itself will suffice. We must be prepared
to throw out the mistakes of past revolutionaries and fearlessly
criticise our own failings.
"The nationality of the worker is neither French, English or German, it is work, free slavery... to haggle over ones self.
The workers' government is neither French, English or German, it is Capital.
The home and atmosphere is neither French, English or German, it is the atmosphere of the factory.
"The ground that belongs to them is neither French, English or German... it is six feet under the ground."
Karl Marx, 1845
It is hard to believe that the gurus of the SWP are so stupid that
143 years on, they still haven't realised that this is applicable to
other countries. not. just. France. England and Germany. Wildcat, July 1988
American Autumn is a documentary about the Occupy Movement and the political situation that made the occupation of public space an absolute necessity. It can be bought here under a pay what you can/want model.
The film was financed by kickstarter and I was one of its backers. After completion Dennis made it freely available for awhile on his youtube channel. However it appears Dennis is trying to raise funds for his webshow and other projects so has switched over to this method. I'm an ardent believer in the freedom of information but its important to fund alternative research and journalism. So on the whole I find this to be an acceptable compromise. It is available and can be gotten cheaply, what really annoys me is that most documentaries after being first broadcast go back on the shelf in some media archive never to see the light of day again. Most of the time if it wasn't for a foresighted viewer recording the show and then sharing it the information they contain would only be disseminated across a fraction of the audience.
But is America's Autumn worth any amount of money? I think so, though of course being one of the guys who put money up for its completion I'd look like a fool if I said otherwise. Its a well made documentary with a lot of interesting visuals. You can see an example of the graphics it uses to illustrate its points appoint the rottenness of America's political system. It also has footage and interviews from many of the Occupy encampments across America getting a representative sample of the people involved and what mattered most to them.
As we all know by now the camps have all been broken up by the police, but the movement itself, specifically the groups that affiliated or grew out of it haven't gone away. They are still active offering support to the desperete and challenging the banks and the governments agencies that support them.
For example one area that alot of Occupy activists are strongly involved in is resistance to the foreclosure crisis that threatens thousands with the prospect of homelessness. So far they haven't successfully stopped these evil policies but they have kept dozens of families in their homes. Some would call them small victories, I'd say those who say that have never faced the prospect of losing their home because their ain't nothing small about that. But regardless the fact that the movement still exists and is having some impact, makes it worth studying in my opinion and documentaries like American Autumn help raise are understanding.
In Detroit, Michigan, the city many consider the epicenter of the nation's subprime loan and foreclosure crisis, banks continue to evict residents from their homes at an alarming pace. Wayne County has the second highest foreclosure rate in the state, according to RealtyTrac. But citizens are fighting back. Over the past year a growing grassroots movement has used community action to block evictions and keep families in their homes. Now, some of those helped by the movement are taking the reins of its leadership. FSRN's Jaisal Noor has more from Detroit.
I find this interview with the oft forgotten Iraqi Communist Party, get enlightening. Iraq has been so dominated by first Saddam and now the Sunni vs Shia Sectarian rift with Kurds popping up for an occasional skirmish that the role of non sectarian left wing groups in Iraqi politics especially in opposition a curious oversight.Arguably this blackout extends even to the only recurring coverage Communism in Iraq gets is the brief blips the Kurdish Workers Party PKK gets when it carries out attacks on the Turkish military in response to the oppression of the Kurdish minority in Turkey. And even then there usually just name checked or called Kurdish extremists/terrorists.
For anyone interested in what actual Iraqi's have to say about there nation and its future is well worth a watch, well done to the Communist Party of Britain (CPB) for arranging the interview, though I suppose I should point out that for those who don't know the CPB is the group that runs the Morning Star, thats runs not owns mind, the People's Press Society a cooperative owns it.
A very good summary of the conflict by Paul Jay of TRN.
The commentary on Libya is rather interesting to watch. In the first days of the uprising many on the "left" where all championing the people's movement and counting down the days to another dictators fall. Then a month and half into the conflict the defections within the military stemmed off the two sides constituencies where drawn up and the Libyan armed forces where free to bring there big guns to bare, (a lot of people who like to point out the superiority of NATO's armaments tend to forget that Gaddafi had most of his militaries equipment from NATO countries like the Mirage jet, or used there companies as a proxy to buy third party arms*) then of course we saw bombardments near and in settlements as the government forces try to regain control. Since most of the rebels where defectors and volunteers there arsenal was made up of what they took with them and what they could loot from the stores of bases and towns in there control, so pick up trucks and Kalashnikov's for the most part.
Those of you whom have read Ernesto "Che" Guevara or Mao Ze Dong, or Ho Chi Minh and Nguyen Vo Giap's writings on insurgency people's war will know that is a very dangerous position to be in at the start of the conflict. For those who haven't read any of there works I'll explain they all say in one way or another that if your army is weaker in terms of conventional fighting then dig in or go to ground, and play the long game of wearing down the opposing force. That is difficult to do in the terrain of a North African nation like Libya and would leave many people who openly supported them defenceless, so instead we had clash after clash and retreat after retreat.
This is were NATO comes in. At the start of the conflict Western governments where quite worried because they had a very good deal going with the "anti imperialist" Gaddafi. In addition to buying arms he was oil and gas to the Western nations and companies, in addition he collaborated with Italy and the EU to clampdown on migration from Africa and locked up refugees in his prisons before shipping them off somewhere. In fact Libya was also a key ally in the "war on terror" you know that thing that is often derided by lefties as the 21st centuries Red scare, or an Imperialist smoke screen. Who remembers this lovely photo-op?
In fact Gaddafi enjoyed such a close relationship with the West prior to the uprising that many rebels publicly criticised Western governments of collaborating in there misery; and vociferously derided any possibility of foreign intervention, worrying businessmen everywhere that Libya would be closed to them if Gaddafi toppled. The setbacks however allowed NATO to a way back into the house, the mauling they were taking forced the Rebels to change there message somewhat, no NATO became yes no fly zone no NATO ground troops and so on, as Paul Jay says when your backs to the wall you grasp for whatever out you can get. Anyone who ever criticises any group in an armed struggle who tries to get some help -and believe there are quite a few check the comments sections of the more popular (any other) left of centre blog or forum when the L word is mentioned-has there head in the clouds and should give up there dream of revolution and stick to raffles and pub debates.
Know that NATO is here though suddenly every thing's changed, the rebels are CIA employees, or Al-Qaeda. The proof? there isn't any, the only "proof" that there AL-Qaeda a claim Gaddafi made to justify bringing in military force, is that the rebels are Muslims and fundamentalists, there's no proof that they are particularly fundamentalist really either but even if it where true that does not make them Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is by choice a group of very small and secretive cells, they do not work in the open on big campaigns nor muster thousands of men to fight pitched battles. Since 9/11 the USA and others have used Al-Qaeda as a scapegoat to justify any act of repression against anyone who happens to be Muslim. just look at Iraq and Afghanistan the insurgents were almost always called or assumed to be Al-Qaeda affiliates, when was the last time Shia paramilitaries (Al-Qaeda is a Sunni Muslim movement) fighting coalition forces in Southern Iraq where correctly identified in the mainstream press? when was the group Liberation army of Iraq name dropped? the only exception in Afghanistan is the Taliban whom we are constantly reminded where and are allies of Osama's crew. For any intelligent thinking person to just make assumption on a people they know nothing about is lazy and absurd, for someone whose political colours are supposedly Red to do so is extremely pathetic, it is the exact same trick they used to justify the murder and suppression of every Peasants Revolt during the Cold War.
Let me ask a question to those who think NATO's involvement de-legitimises the rebels, where do you draw the line? The Germans attempted to give money and guns to Irish Republicans during WWI if they were successful would that have made the cause of Irish liberation fraudulent? Hell Lenin probably would have never even made it back to the Russian Empire without the Kaisers help but it would be a strange and Loonie lefty who'd suggest the October Revolt was a tool of German Imperialism. And the Indian National Congress movement and more radical groups fighting to liberate India (Including Pakistan and Bangladesh) from the yoke of the British Empire enjoyed quite a lot of support from the Axis powers in particular Japan but does that uncomfortable episode make all those who campaigned and fought for there nations freedom Counter Revolutionaries? And what about Castro, during his fight to liberate Cuba from Batista the US actually gave his July 26 movement support "The embassy even harbored an American pilot who was illegally supplying arms to Castro but whose plane had crashed on its 20th mission." When it was clear that Batista was a lame duck, and look how that turned out.
Now look I admit the situation in Libya hasn't developed along the lines that I would like, however I am not Libyan and not in Libya and my life is not at risk from the situation. However I will not hold a grudge against the people of Libya (on both sides of this conflict) who are faced with this situation and do take serious risks for coming to decisions that go against my idealistic and purely theoretical strategy. I have no idea what the new Libya will be like revolutions can go astray that is the whole reason Trotsky gets his own ism. And Iran which went from a populist overthrow of a corrupt monarch to a Theocratic movement which turned on many of its earlier allies is a good example. But I actually do consider myself to be an opponent to Imperialism and so will leave the future of Libya to the Libyans.
Oh and while were on the subject I also noticed another disturbing trend amongst some commentators, that is re-branding the conflict in Libya from a revolution into a civil war. The problem here? revolutions are conflicts between proponents of the established order and radicals who promote new political ideas within the same state some times overlapping into other states like for example in Indo-China where all three new nations (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia) had a struggle between Communist Guerilla's and West friendly governments. Meaning all revolutions are de facto civil wars. The 1917 Russian revolution that put Lenin in power took a lengthy civil war to complete. The American Revolutionaries often fought against armies comprised of fellow Colonialists, etc.
* Since the establishment of the EU it has become commonplace for non European states to use EU companies as a front to purchase weapons and other attention drawing goods in Europe because its harder to restrict trade with a member nation, even for non EU member nations.
bLIAR's (couldn't resist) return performance, as that is what the Chilcott Inquiry ultimately is a platform for Blair and co to stem criticism by repeating there talking points for a while and appearing suitably chastised and besieged, seems to have been no more than a damage control exercise after realising that saying he regretted nothing while his face was plastered with that famous cheeky little grin might of come off as a bit bloody and socio-pathic.
So this time we were treated to that rarity of nature a reptile crying, unfortunately since the scaly ones are used to showing genuine emotion that routine came across as particularly sloppy and cringing " I shouldn't have said that I don't have any regrets, as you know that sounded like I didn't care about the deaths, which was..wasn't my intention I y'know deeply deeply regret the deaths of are soldiers, are allies, the civilians "helping" us in Iraq and the Iraqi's who died" which may or may not be better then child like pride at death and destruction but it's still pretty horrible, though it was amusing to clearly hear the audience murmur "too late".
We also learned that the legal case to go topple a regime just becasue you don't like them might not have been air tight,what with you know national sovereignty being the fundamental Tenant of international relations ever since a little called the Treaty of Westphalia was signed to the end the thirty years war, where otver half the population of Europe was slaughtered by mercenary forces using axes and knives becasue nearly every kingdom "republic" and Duchy collectively said to hell with everyone else's claims I want more power and influence in the world hmm.... Why does that sound so familiar?
Today we have Real News interview regarding an investigation into the glorious success of the Western way of business and how its bringing prosperity to the people after decades of evil state planning and aide from the Soviet Union, and the years of informal black economy as warlords carved up the country and drug trafficking prospered and then the final turbulent years of Islamic fundamentalism's pure business transactions.
Or rather how the Privatisation drive in the wake of the 2001 invasion as completely and utterly failed to do any of those things. In the interview (below) reporter Jonathan S. Landrey reveals that at the Ghori cement factory, the one and only Cement factory that is still running on 50 year old Soviet made machinery, making the factory the Lada of Manufacturing I guess.
The heady cocktail of ideologically driven privatisation, reliance on connections and a small state... oh I'm sorry I meant Corrupt err developing state, thats foundations are the spiders web of over a dozen rival warlords and there power plays and influence hoarding; and its cement if you'll excuse the pun is Thousands of Western troops struggling to clean up the fallout of the previous Afghan war. Given the growing resurgence of the Taliban or rather Neo-Taliban as some have such as Antonio Giustozzi call them due to some changes in behaviour tactics and ideas, they've even started making tapes with singing, though instrumentals are of course still Harem*.
Poverty is of course a serious hindrance to the campaign for "hearts and minds" I mean lets assume that those running the show in America and the West are genuine in there desire for Afghanistan to sample the fruits of "democratic" modernity, the inability to provide concrete (sorry) prove of the superiority of "their way" over the Afghan norm then theres really no hope for achieving "Victory conditions" nor a unfurling of a mission accomplished banner that actually means something. After all the proof is in the pudding.
The rest of his findings can be found here.
* Contrary to popular belief the word Harem actually refers to a code of conduct and generally means forbidden or wrong, and is not Arabic for bigamy, or short for rich lech bragging about all the women he has bought.
"not all Muslims are terrorists, all terrorists are Muslim" Who ever first came up with that quote was either very sarcastic or a moron.Though he does lose bonus points for contradicting himself, first he clearly states that all anti US terrorist are from one religion (Islam) clearly placing blame on said religion then makes that rather infamous statement above which means either all non Muslims terrorists aren't good Muslims which is quite wrong and insulting though no more then the rest of his statement or hes just trying cover his bigotry in a rather weak figleaf.
I mean to demonstrate how wrong the above statement is Cenk gave a brief list of terrorist organisations that were not Muslim, heres a slightly longer list:
The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam(Tamil Tigers): broadly Secular Nationalist though due to the Tamil's being majority Hindu it is no surprise that that is also the predominant religion within the group. Also popularised the suicide bomber, though the first confirmed case of a deliberate suicide attack was in Lebanon in the 1980's directed against US forces stationed there. The group still holds the record for number of suicide attacks. IRA and its various off shoots: Again a broadly Irish Nationalist group with a strong Catholic Support Base in both Ireland, Scotland and North America. Northern Irish Loyalist organisations: Again a broad grouping of British Unionists with a strong Protestant (mainly Presbyterian) base in Ireland and Scotland. ETA: Basque separatists operating in both Spain and France(Basque country overlaps the Spanish and French borders) Marx inspired groups: These include the West German Red Army Faction, the Italian Rosa Brigade, and the Japanese Red Army Faction sometimes called Red Fraction to avoid confusion.
That should be enough to prove the point.
Now to be fair there is a way that this severe logical fallacy can become at least technically true.You see despite having numerous books, laws and film plots on the subject no one has actually come up with a universally excepted definition of what terrorism is. For example the UN still the closest thing are world has to an international concept dictionary has passed many declarations condemning terrorism and pledges for member states to fight it both before and after 9/11 heres a list notice how very few of those links actually bother to even give a brief summary of terrorism and the more detail they give usually the less support they receive.
The reason is simple no one can agree on what terrorism is. I mean check out the comments section of that video in the top there, you'll get all kinds of nonsensical definitions more then a few that sadly back up the sentiments of the arsehole I've quoted. Though it isn't just the crackpots and bigots who are doing this. While researching the subject I came across a number of academic articles who include definitions of terrorism that enable you to include environmental groups for committing acts which I and must people would at worst deem to be vandalism by emphasising the rights of property to an absurd degree. So it isn't really that surprising to see some people have come to regard the thing as a Islamic pastime.
Then muddying the waters further we have Guerrilla movements and organised crime gangs, can they be classed as terrorists, and is the application of that label conditional on a key number of actions and features? where do we draw the line? Or to be controversial what about when state armies deliberately cause pain and suffering to a people during war time, like bombing campaigns? or drone strikes? and should the situations theses groups operate in matter? is the label still applicable when the group or the people the group claims to represent are under direct existential threat like say the situation of the Palestinians or the Tamils both of whom face either death or a lives languishing in a series of concentration camps, does desperate times and desperate measures give them some slack in this regard?
And then of course the biggest grey area of them all armed resistance against the occupiers, what is the difference between say the French Maquis and the Islamic army of Iraq? both fought against occupation with fanaticism, both regularly murdered collaborators, both could be brutal at times. Yet the two have completely different images in the world why is that?
For clarities sake the definition of terrorism that I have personally come to accept as close to the phenomena as possible is as follows "planned acts of politically motivated violence that deliberately target a civilian population or populations, with the intent to spread terror to achieve an end". But what about you? where do you think a line should drawn (if at all?)
Sorry that its been a bit quiet here these past couple of days; I was busy moving to a new house, so you should probably count yourselves lucky this place was dead for just nine days Kit from the Polemical reports hasn't finished moving his stuff yet and he started it months ago.
And I haven't really done much of consequence besides lift boxes, nor as anything in the news really irked me to the point of ranting. I did have time to watch a movie though and as I'm sure you can tell by that image of the films poster and that poor attempt at a joke in the title which film it was.
Unfortunately overall I was quite underwhelmed by this movie and so was very surprised to learn that it practically mopped the floor with the competition critically I mean damn 98% and six BAFTA's? etc.
Anyway I should probably clear something up straight away before I get into the actual film, I'm not going to be looking at this film from a Socialist perspective or any political perspective, nor am I going to comment on Imperialism or the actual Iraq Invasion all that much and its for a very good reason; that being that this film has absolutely nothing to say politically or even topically if it weren't for the desert motive and the Baghdad captions this could have been any conflict zone imaginable. Though it does at least touch on the psychological aspects of conflict and the tension that lie beneath the surface of any unit or team faced with extreme pressure so credit is due there I guess.
Anyway the film starts of with a literal bang as an Mobile phone detonated IED takes out are veteran bomb disposal team leader to both establish tension and set the scene for new boy and main character sergeant James to take over. And thats about it for the main plot, I actually like this part as I found quite refreshing, I was getting pretty sick of the fish out of water takes down the General Blood of the Evilanian a week out of basic training. However it does mean the film meanders a bit for the two hour run time. Thats really the main problem I have with this film and why I don't outright hate or like this film, because to me it didn't seem like the film actually knew were it was going or what type of war movie it was going to be, early on it looked like a very good demonstration of the 90% boredom 10% frightening excitement that is fairly close to the experiences of actual soldiers, a good example of this being the scene were they meet Liam Neeson and co out in the desert with the flat tire.
But then towards the end it seemed to veer of into the dumb macho-man direct to DVD action film territory as we not only have a child being murdered but also wired up to explode. In a film that has something to say about well anything a scene like this might have served as a strong condemning scene on the depths of human brutality or some other intellectual message.
But here its more like the launching pad for James descent into stupidity. James literally runs off the base to hunt down the child killer (the child in question happened to be a sort of friend to James)in a hoodie breaks in to random mans house only to be chased out by his wife and them nearly get shot when he returns to base. It then gets alot worse after being called out to the site of a potential suicide bombing involving a oil tanker decides on nothing more then a hunch that the attack was remote detonated (he has absolutley no evidence of this) decides to take the two men under his command off on a "haji hunt" despite the fact that on the scene are three platoons plus support units how do I know this? one of the men (Sanborn, hes sceptical about James abilities, follows the rules and Black) actually points this out to Sergeant James and is promptly overruled, hell they don't even bother to radio in that there leaving the scene so if trouble does occur which seems likely given the fact that their the main characters help will be several minutes away which could prove fatal.
I'm going to have a brief aside here to talk about the actual Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. You know what the main reason why Western deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are so low compared to their enemies? well it isn't that we have better training or equipment (they certainly help but there not the main reason) its because western armies have almost perfected the ability to respond to and support units in the field once they come under fire. This is why very brief hit and run tactics even wghen insurgent forces seem strong enough to overwhelm the initial force and IED's are so popular, they pretty negate the Wests main strength.
As previoulsy stated the film was fairly good on the realism aspect (as far as a film can be anyway , there'll never be a truly realistic war movie as that would be incredibly boring to watch) so to see it go from that to that scene from Star wars a new hope were Han Solo and Chewie chase those storm troopers around the death star in under ten minutes was a bit of a shock. I mean yes they did show Sergeant James rack up a few infractions before hand (removing his headset, deploying smoke for no reason) and while real military those would have been punished severely for the sake of establishing character traits (that of the balls of steel maverick) I was willing to let it go after all what real American hero plays by the rules? but even by action movie standards this is insane and stupid. They get to an area where there is three potential exits down three seperate very tight alleyways and theres only three of them of dear so of course they decide to still not inform command of what there doing and instead split up and each take a dark narrow ally on there own.
Of course realism kicks back in for a few minutes as one of the guys (that other guy Eldridge, whose going through some emotional issues and gives the film the most of the little substance it has)gets jumped and in the rescue actually gets crippled by Sergeant James in a friendly fire incident. And since this whole mad mission was done by Sergeant James over the objections of Sanborn and was not only a dereliction of his units operational orders but also the mission they were originally assigned potentially endangering those three platoons, but also got one of his men hospitalised from a friendly fire incident no less, couple this with his going AWOL to harass the local population and its no surprise that no punitive actions are taken by the Company CO or any Officer or disciplinary body. Still at least we get Eldridge calling James out on his bullshit as he gets airlifted out of there, I was actually afraid he would forgive the Sergeant for his criminal stupidity.
Its time for another little aside I think, this time about action and war movies in general, its a common theme to have the heroes violate there orders or go rogue in order to defeat the villains and say the day. usually we'll get one of those fake out scenes at the end were the hero gets chewed out by their superiors only for them to then give them a medal and drop all charges. Many films do this I've lost count of the times this happened in Star Trek In reality this couldn't be further from the truth, violating orders is and will often be punished regardless of the results of your actions, this is because heroic or not ALL armies are built on the chain of command or they cannot function, this why groups like Castro's July 26th movement was successful despite there material short comings, and any example of this not being the case regardless of the results is a direct threat to the chain of command and thus the whole structure of the armed forces. Now a successful violation of orders that ends up saving the day in real life may... may cause them to tone down there punishment but sometimes not even then as many a British sqauddie found out in World War One.
What really makes this really stupid is that Sergeant James wasn't successful it was a complete cock up and yet there was no real consequence to his actions. Anyway the film wraps up shortly after they meet a suicide bomber, okay a remorseful suicide bomber who wants the bomb to be disarmed so James marches out to save him not to redeem himself in the eyes of the men apparently they didn't mind either, its just to remind us hes a good guy. He fails miserably and then goes home the next day.The End.
So there we go another mediocre film that somehow raked in the trophies. I know I seem quite critical about this film but I don't really hate it in fact I thought the first half was very good it was full of subtlety, as realistic as Hollywood will probably ever get and a somewhat interesting psychological subplot with Eldridge. Its really the second half and its ludicrous set pieces and stupidity that drags it down for me.
Just a quick one, looks like someone on the inquiry must have been asleep and only just woke up to realise that Blair story was a bit dodgy, especially on details,
"The panel are concerned in particular about his evidence relating to the legality of the invasion, the Guardian has learned. Blair's evidence seemingly contradicted that given by Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general at the time, about the number of discussions the pair had about issues of law between 7 March and 17 March 2003, three days before the attack on Iraq."
Also it appears Clare Short will be called to the panel,
"In most of the runup to the war Gordon and Tony were in one of their fallen-out phases and Gordon was marginalised, not included and not in the inner group.
"He was saying to me, 'They think they're going to have a quick and successful war and then they'll be very powerful and they'll have a reshuffle.'"
Short added: "He thought they wanted him out of the Treasury, because there was tension about how you spend the money of the government, and they were going to offer him the Foreign Office and he was saying, 'I won't accept it. I'll go and join you on the backbenches'."
This could be good news for Gordon depending on Clare's appearance and how Number 10 play it. take from that what you will.
Talk about a fizzle rather then a bang.Rather unsurprisingly the Inquiry not only let Blair off the hook but let him get on his soapbox for some last minute proselytizing from the book of Bush. It was unsurprising though really. A Government does not indict its old leader, especially when most of the cabinet where in close to the centres of power during the events in question, especially not publicly.
And here's an account from the protest outside on the streets by Harpy Marx.
I didn't expect much from Chilcot and his colleagues but I didn't expect this:
He starts off by trying to link Iraq with 9/11 again by association. Though this clip is only a sound bite, this accusations is so false that I'm going to spend quite sometime pointing it out as some people do still believe it, and thats very dangerous for future foreign affairs. This time he appears to imply that Iraq's weapon capabilities could be used by terrorists, Umm how exactly? ignoring the exhaustion of Iraq's military and technology -They couldn't even buy North Korean Rodong missiles- how exactly would groups like Al-Qaeda supposed to get hold of them? was Saddam going to sell them some old Scuds? thats the only possible link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, and its not a very good one for a number of reasons. Saddam's Ba'athist regime was a Secular movement, his regime was also plague by Islamic terrorism of the Shi'a community who in response to Saddam's oppression had begun to ally with Ayatollah Khomeini and Iran, one of the reasons for Iraq's invasion of Iran in 1980 was to remove the Islamic Republics as a threat to his regimes stability. So it seems unlikely that Saddam would ally in any capacity with radicals,
Further Al-Qaeda itself is a Saudi Wahhabi branch of Islamic extremists many of the senior members including Bin Laden opposed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the Ba'athist movement as a threat to there interpretation of Islam.
Its true that AL-Qaeda would love to acquire much deadlier weaponry, but why would they go to an enemy with a crumbling military when they could go to Pakistan, where they have many supporters and fellow travellers in the military and intelligence services, and where their armaments program has not been curbed and where they do have nuclear weapons, which Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan has been more then generous in sharing. The only countries he hasn't tried flogging his secrets to are India, and Israel, probably has something against the letter I, a bit like the KKK and loathing for the lower case t.
And perhaps the most important reason why Saddam and Al-Qaeda wouldn't work together is that it would have no benefit to Saddam. Arming Al-Qaeda would be a direct provocation to the Americans, who remember monitor everything going in and out of the country. Al-Qaeda can't inflict lasting damage on the Americans, nor could they advance Iraq's geo-political interests. Saddam couldn't gain influence over Afghanistan Iran is in the way, all of Saddam's other enemies are also very close to the West(Saudi Arabia, Israel, Kuwait etc.) again provoking American response and so on.
"In the course of these discussions do you think you gave him any commitments?"
Oh come on, could you have phrased that any more softly? I could rest my head and fall a sleep on that sentence, unsurprisingly he rebukes that by saying that he only committed to dealing with Saddam's removal, which they don't bother questioning, Thats understandable I mean pursuing that line of questioning only has the potential to prove or disprove definitively whether Britain and America manipulated events to achieve the needed justifications for there commencement of the invasion. You'd think and Inquiry into the conduct of said conflict would be interested in finding settling that question once and for all. Its not a trial so they can't demand evidence, but at least ask, if not that then for some elaboration.
They also manage to muck up the issue of regime change (which is illegal) After he makes the claim that the UK/USA were united on dealing with Saddam, to let him divert it back onto WMD disarmament. Which if you remember Fern Britton managed to catch him out on that one. Yes Fern Britton was a tougher interviewer than Chilcot and Co.
Then there's the constant references to Iran which has many disturbing implications. I also quite like this little gem "Nobody, but NOBODY, thought that Iran would end up supporting Al-Qaeda because they both wanted to destabilise Iraq." There are two extremely glaring flaws here. First what do you mean Nobody thought Iran would support Al-Qaeda? They aren't supporting Al-Qaeda. There supporting the Iraqi government which is headed by the Pro-Iran Islamic Dawa party which first came to prominence in Iraq as an anti Saddam insurgent group during the Iran-Iraq war. Why would it support a radical Sunni Islamist movement that has relatively little following in Iraq and is an enemy of its regime? The answer is simple it doesn't, what it does do is lead onto the second problem, Western laziness in identifying the "enemy". Time and again you will hear references to a growing number of Al-Qaeda groups all over the world, as if it is some sort of vast monolith sitting atop a global web of stockpiles and fanatics. When it isn't for example lets take a look at the most recent example, the Yemeni "Al-Qaeda" Lenin s Tomb does an excellent job of debunking this myth. In short just because your enemies share the same broadly defined religion does not make them the same organisation. If what Blair says is true and isn't just him being lazy, then this is a galling admission of the sorry state of our actual planning or lack thereof in regards to the invasion. In short if you can't even be sure who it is your actually fighting then how can you anticipate anything? like there goals and there capabilities? simple you can't. Again why didn't the inquiry pick up on this or correct him?
I could go on but really whats the point? all this did is confirm my and I suspect your suspicions of what would actually happen a white washing so Blair can move on to his trying work as an after dinner speaker once and for all.
Well here its folks, the master of deception and the father of all lies himself as been summoned before the Chilcot inquiry, he will asked some potentially tough questions though unless he slips up he'll no doubt manage to turn his testimony into a piffy series of soundbites for the afternoon news.
So with it being a whole seven years since the invasion I though it would be best to remind are selves of what all this thus is about, and thought it best to so in song. Fortunately for your ears a young group of radical musicians by the name of Convict/dead centrefold beat me to it by several years. So without further ado I give you Send the Troops by Convict
Posts
.jpeg)
