Posted on 09/27/2001 6:44:50 PM PDT by Neets
In any social movement there is a vanguard and a mass. On one side, the vanguard, are groups of people who are more resolute and committed, better organized and able to take a leading role in the struggle, and on the other side, the mass, are larger numbers of people who participate in the struggle or are involved simply by their social position, but are less committed or well-placed in relation to the struggle, and will participate only in the decisive moments, which in fact change history.Is there any doubt what would happen today if a group of hijackers tried to take over a plane on a flight of Americans? Would the people cooperate with the terrorists, or would the people rise up and do what it takes to stop them? There is no doubt. Not any longer. The people would act. No ifs, ands, or buts.The Marxist theory of the vanguard, in relation to class struggle under capitalism, stipulates that the working class, the mass, needs to be militantly lead through revolutionary struggle against capitalism and in the building of Socialism. - "Basic Concepts of Marxism", Marxists.org
It is now clear to all that, in such a situation, it is all in the hands of the people. We can hope and pray that our government will protect us, but eventually, it still comes back to us. We have to defend our families and ourselves. Conservatives have preached this mantra often, as it applies just as well to the debate over gun control. In the end, there will be times when the government cannot respond fast enough to protect us. We must be able to act ourselves.
As President Bush leads forward what originally was called Operation Infinite Justice, we can take comfort that our government is acting to eradicate the enemies who have struck so viciously at our nation. Yet we cannot escape the reality that, in the end, the people have the ultimate responsibility. The government cannot do it all for us. We must do our part.
Another lesson from the terrorist attacks on September 11th is that intelligence is critical in defense. Knowing and understanding what the enemy will do, if at all possible, is of the highest importance. The attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon was able to occur because we did not fully know who the enemy was, where the enemy was, and what the enemy was doing.
The men who commandeered our passenger jets and flew them into their targets, our buildings and our people, learned from us. They infiltrated our society. They learned how our security works. They learned how we do things. They came to us for instruction on how to fly our planes. They learned from us.
What about Bin Laden?
In 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. The Soviets did so for a number of reasons. They feared Islam as a threat, since communism insists on a lack of religion. The Soviets also desired a warm water port on the Indian Ocean; the Soviet Union had no seaports that were ice-free, year round. And expanding their influence upon the Middle East was an added incentive.
Concerned with the expanding Soviet threat, the United States supported the Afghan resistance to the Soviet invasion, starting with the Carter administration and continuing onward. In 1986, CIA head William Casey expanded our involvement in several manners. He persuaded Congress to provide the Afghan resistance, the Mujaheddin, with Stinger missiles. These American-made missiles worked to counter the air dominance of the Soviets. Additionally, Congress authorized and provided funding for US advisors to train the guerillas. Casey also committed CIA support to an effort to recruit Muslims from around the world to come to Pakistan and fight along with the Mujaheddin (an effort the ISI, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, had been encouraging since 1982). By 1992, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 43 Islamic countries in the Middle East, North and East Africa, Central Asia and the Far East would gain knowledge and experience with the Afghan Mujaheddin.
Among these thousands of recruits was a wealthy young Saudi, Osama Bin Laden. He learned from us.
In many ways Bin Laden is another example of blowback, which is the unintended results of covert intelligence operations that come back to haunt you. That is not to say that the right decisions were not made, however. The choice at the time was between accepting Soviet expansion and the spread of Communism, or taking action and risking unintended future consequences.
There are apologists on the left and on the right stating that America brought this on itself by its actions in Afghanistan. These apologists miss the point. Ours was not an initiating action, but rather a reaction to the moves of the Soviet Union. If one pulls the string to find the root causes, fixating on the United States involvement in Afghanistan is stopping at a mid-point. Examining the root cause heads right back to Marxist expansionism.
Bin Laden learned more than just guerrilla tactics, it would seem. To understand exactly what lessons he did learn, we should look to how the United States has endeavored to bring down hostile regimes. Our efforts generally have three prongs.
We try to foster political change within the nation by finding sympathetic people who can be organized and mobilized to attempt to bring about political change. We attempt to assist with armed resistance, providing them with financial backing and with weapons and training. And we strike economically, via sanctions and other methods.
These three prongs are intended to sow the seeds of dissention within the population, so as to make them yearn for a change in power. The intention is to make the people rise up against the regime, to not be complacent and accepting of the status quo.
Bin Laden and his terrorist organizations learned these lessons. The strikes at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon weakened us, at least temporarily. It has cast doubts upon our ability to defend our citizens. It harmed us economically. Beyond the direct costs of the buildings and the lives, we see hundreds of thousands of Americans cast out of employment by industries struggling for their very survival in the aftermath. We see incredible amounts of paper wealth vanish as the stock markets tumble. It is not surprising that in the aftermath, we have not been on the lookout for the third prong, the political thrust.
Thankfully, we Americans are a hearty lot, and have not succumbed to the chaos that has been thrust upon us. Instead of us ripping apart, we have joined together. But just as our operations in hostile regimes have not been short term in nature, the odds are that the terrorists operations were not culminated from their end with these attacks. These were just another step on a journey, which they believe will have many more steps.
The purpose of terrorism is to create fear, as well as doubt within a populace of the government's ability to protect the people. This is just an interim purpose, however. There is a reason that the terrorists wish to create fear; they wish to enact some sort of change, to encourage the people to force some sort of political change. What is the political purpose that Bin Laden wishes to achieve in the United States?
"But I am confident that Muslims and this nation of 12,000 million Muslims, will, God willing, be able by counting on the help of God to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America. [snip]The views expressed by Bin Laden are that the United States is a nation that plunders the resources and the labor of poor Muslims. He believes that an uprising of the oppressed will eventually lead to a toppling of the world's one remaining superpower. Where will allies in this effort be found? What people and groups share enough of his views as to make an alliance possible?"The American forces should expect reactions to their actions, from the Muslim world. Any thief or criminal or robber who enters the countries of others in order to steal should expect to be exposed to murder at any time.[snip]
"But to count of these non-believers, who steal the wealth of Muslims then give back some crumbs to certain Islamic states or mini-states reflects a flawed understanding of their duties...
"...the world is governed by the law of the jungle." ABC News interview with Osama Bin Laden
One such sympathizer might be Ramsey Clark, the former Attorney General for the Lyndon Johnson administration. In 1992, Clark founded the International Action Center, which enjoys the continuing support of the ex-Trotskyist, pro-Stalinist Workers World Party. While the original teachings of Karl Marx are decidedly atheistic, Clark sees a natural alliance. "Islam has probably a billion and a half adherents today. And it is probably the most compelling spiritual and moral force on earth today. (source). "Islam is the best chance the poor of the planet have for any hope of decency in their lives. It is the one revolutionary force that cares about humanity..." (source)
The International Action Center is an umbrella group which shares its offices and its telephones with such groups as Iraq Sanctions Challenge, Peace for Cuba, U.S. Out of Korea Committee, Coalition to Stop U.S. Intervention in the Mideast, and Millions for Mumia, which works to free cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal who was convicted using evidence obtained under the powers of anti-terrorist legislation. The structure of the groups, including how frequently new ones appear and disappear, and including how much of their funding comes through charitable donations, is very similar to terrorist networks and cells.
There are ties between Clark and Bin Laden. In 1998, two American embassies in Africa (one in Nairobi and one in Dar es Salaam) were bombed. Four men were eventually captured and tried in the United States, and all were convicted. The prosecution established through phone records and wiretap transcripts that Bin Laden had direct contact with the Nairobi cell that carried out the attack.
One of the defendants, Mohamed Rashed Daoud al-'Owhali, signed a confession regarding his involvement in the Nairobi cell. This Saudi national was riding in the truck that carried the bomb to the embassy, but instead of becoming a martyr and dying in the subsequent blast, he fled on foot. He was treated at a hospital nearby, and was arrested. In addition to his confession, he was in possession of keys that fit into a padlock on the rear of the truck bomb. After his conviction, the defense presented Ramsey Clark as a witness as they argued against the death penalty. (More information regarding the trial can be found here).
How has Clark responded to the terrorist attacks of September 11th? On September 29th, there will be a demonstration in Washington, D.C. Ramsey Clark is leading the effort.
Shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Center, a website called "Beat Back The Bush Attack" (note: they have subsequently changed their name) announced that they would be organizing a demonstration. "Now is the time for all people of conscience, all people who oppose racism and war to come together. If you believe in civil liberties and oppose racism and war, join us on September 29 in front of the White House. We urge all organizations to join together at this critical time" their announcement stated.
The temptation is there to dismiss this group of people as misguided kooks or irrational pacifists. This would be a mistake. The organizers of this protest are hoping for a repeat of the troubles that occurred in Seattle in November, 1999. The site's FAQ makes this clear:
Should I bring a gas mask? A helmet?The mainstream media currently is portraying the protesters of the war on terrorism as pacifists. They are not. These are the same folks that terrorized Seattle in 1999 under the umbrella group Mobilization for Global Justice, and who tried to do the same in Washington, DC in April 2000 under the name A16.Since Seattle, there have been an increasing number of major demonstrations and convergences that have been targeted with a high level of repression by the state. MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, THE DEMONSTRATIONS IN DC WILL FALL INTO THE SEATTLE CATEGORY. Everyone is advised to take this seriously and take precautions. Basically, this means ensuring that you are protected against the types of maneuvers that the cops have clearly utilized over and over against very large demonstrations. Namely, the types of things to protect yourself against are teargas, pepper spray and projectiles. So, this means you should:
- buy and learn to use a gas mask
- wear a helmet, head guard or a hard hat
- wear protective eyewear
The type of protest that occurred in Seattle in 1999 takes months of preparation and organization. Travel plans had to be made for the various anarchists. Staging areas had to be set up. Lodging for those taking place had to be arranged. The logistics behind such an endeavor would make it impossible for such an uprising to be impossible to coordinate on such a short notice.
However, the protest on September 29th was planned long ago, long before the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The domain beatbackbush.org was registered July 21, 2001. According to their website, they were going to protest the Bush administration's policies regarding the IMF and World Bank, although the phrase "Beat Back The Bush Attack" seems more fitting for the protest of the war against terrorism.
The plans for these protests hit a bit of a snag when the United States reacted with restraint not seen under the Clinton administration. To date, there has been no Bush attack to beat back; unlike Clinton, Bush has said that he has no desire "to send some $2 million missiles at a $10 tent and hit a camel in the butt" to satisfy the desire for quick retaliation. Coupled with the fact that Bush's approval ratings have soared to the 90% level, a change in approach was needed. The group behind beatbackbush.org quickly redesigned their site from leading the charge to "Beat Back The Bush Attack", to "International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism)". They registered a new domain (internationalanswer.org) to front this effort, and both websites currently have essentially the same content.
The shifting focus of this protest shows that the people involved have one goal in mind, and it is not the stated intent, which has shifted from protesting the IMF and World Bank, to protesting President Bush's retaliation to the attacks, to now protesting racism and the coming war on terrorism. The real goal is disruption, as well as to gain publicity, and to put political pressure on the government of the United States to move away from capitalism.
The front page for both of these sites currently shows no link between their efforts and the International Action Center, merely showing Clark as the first of the "initial signers" for their declaration.
One can find who is the primary contact for an internet domain by performing a whois query against the domain names databases. A whois query on beatbackbush.org shows that the organization behind the website is called "World View", and is based in Jersey City, NJ, and lists an administrative contact of Sara Flounders Kramer. The email address given for the administrative contact is gery@riseup.net. A whois query for internationalanswer.org, though, shows the organization to be the IAC, and provides the same email address for the administrative contact. Sara Flounders (sans the Kramer surname) is listed as the administrative and billing contact for the IAC's website. Both internationalanswer.org and beatbackbush.org are hosted on machines running in Boca Raton, Florida. The contact for riseup.net, as found using whois, is Elijah Saxon, who gives his email address as being from the ucsc.edu domain (University of California, Santa Cruz, where he is probably an alumni). Saxon also has registered revolt.org, which says it is part of Global Update, which also has a domain. globalupdate.org, riseup.net, and revolt.org all indicate that they operate out of Seattle, Washington.
What is riseup.net? They provide "Tech support for the revolution" according to their main page. The vanguard, it would seem, has gone high tech. riseup.net also provides hosting for "Direct Action Networks", which function like cells for activities promoting "radical social change" and "social justice", which are the new catchphrases used to hide the true nature of their activities, which is the promotion of Marxism.
Here is how riseup.net describes themselves:
riseup.net is a project of the Red Cursor Collective, a 100% volunteer effort of activists using technology for radical social change. We provide training, web hosting, listservs, email accounts, and any kind of tech support needed by the activist community.The riseup.net page says that, currently, their "costs greatly exceed the donations we have received". If donations do not currently meet costs, yet they are operating, from where are they currently getting their funding?
Many of the IAC's initiatives are funded by contributions from The People's Rights Fund, a 501c3 tax-exempt, non-profit organization. A google.com search on "Peoples Rights Fund" and Flounders (for Sara Flounders, who is a co-director at the IAC) shows that the contributions have been both frequent and varied in their purpose. Many of the contributions were directly to the IAC. Others were made to other organizations that tie back to the IAC and/or Clark.
Where does the People's Rights Fund get their money? Their website makes no mention. However, at least part of their funding comes from Fidelity Investment's Charitable Gift Fund. One can only wonder how well Fidelity has screened their recipients, if the money from this fund is being funneled to Marxist advocacy groups. One can only wonder who at Fidelity realizes that their fund was used as a conduit to funnel funds for the planning and execution of the massive demonstrations-turned-riots of November 1999 in Seattle, or the similar demonstrations in Washington, DC, of April 16, 2000 that were limited in their destructiveness by police raids the night before. These raids found riot gear, gas masks, staging locations, and involved the arrest of senior IAC members. One can only wonder how Fidelity feels about their fund being used as a conduit to funnel funds for the planning and execution of the coming September 29th demonstration against the war on terror. One can only wonder how well Fidelity would react to this information becoming widespread public knowledge.
What is particularly troubling to me is the fact that none of this is getting serious attention by the mainstream media. The New York Post and the Washington Times have written a few articles mentioning the political views of Clark and his involvement at the epicenter of the coming protests. There has been little coverage beyond this, however, and that is alarming. If a part-time free lance writer can pull the strings and find the information shown here using nothing more than a web browser as his only tool, why have the mainstream media not investigated the same, using their more formidable avenues of investigation?
Maybe eventually they will, especially if the demonstrations on Saturday turn violent. The aforementioned FAQ on beatbackbush.org ominously asks the question "Will the protests be 'violent'? " but leaves it unanswered. If the media ever does get around to pulling these strings, there are some other things for them to investigate.
Proceeds from the song, which will be released by Tommy Boy, will go towards non-profit organizations working towards defending minorities from racial attacks as well as media and educational programs promoting tolerance. Additional funds will be earmarked for initiatives offering information about the events what people can do to contribute to the relief efforts.The charitable goals listed were right in line with those espoused by groups such as the IAC and International Answer. The New York Post reported on Saturday, September 22nd that Joan Rivers pulled out of the recording, because she found out that none of the money would go to the victims of the terrorist attacks.
I'm just in shock. It's a bait and switch, and no one knows it," Rivers told PAGE SIX yesterday. Rivers - one of the first to join Diana Ross, Andre Agassi and Sheryl Crow in supporting the effort - said she found out the WTC victims would get nothing yesterday when she was about to plug the event on the E! channel and asked organizers for specifics.Reports of the release of the recording issued today now indicate that the Red Cross will receive some of the funds.She received a press release which stated: " 'We Are Family' is, in part, a response to the recent outbreak of racial attacks and intolerance towards Arabs and Muslims . . . We know that the Islamic faith is not the enemy. We are all brothers and sisters. We are all family."
"I'm not intolerant toward Arabs or Muslims," Rivers said. "But now is not the time for that. I'm boycotting." (source)
The questions that remain are 1) was the Red Cross originally intended to receive funds, or was it added to prevent a backlash against the bait and switch, 2) what other charitable organizations are going to be receiving proceeds from the sales of this recording, 3) what are the real purposes of these charities, and 4) what percentages of the proceeds will be going to each group?
Many of those involved in the attacks spent months (if not years) training in Florida for their mission.
In December, 1999, United States custom officials arrested an associate of Bin Laden by the name of Ahmed Ressam (reports can be found here and here). He was heading for Seattle.
Is it a mere coincidence that Bin Laden's people were operating (or travelling to) locations tied to the efforts of Clark to exploit the attacks for political purposes, such as Florida, Jersey City, and Seattle, especially considering that Clark had testified on behalf of one of Bin Laden's operatives?
According to Livingstone, the addresses include:
Of particular interest, given the link between Ramsey Clark and associates of Bin Laden, and the fact that Ramsey's groups have been organizing protests to be conducted on September 29th long before the attacks, is the domain name "worldtradecenter929.com". Could there be a connection? Could one possible plan have been to have the World Trade Center attack happen in concert with the protests?"august11horror.com" "august11terror.com" "horrorinamerica.com" "horrorinnewyork.com" "nycterroriststrike.com" "pearlharborinmanhattan.com" "terrorattack2001.com" "towerofhorror.com" "tradetowerstrike.com" "worldtradecenter929.com" "worldtradetowerattack.com" "worldtradetowerstrike.com" "wterroristattack2001.com"
While I watch the news reports this weekend, with the inevitable reports of violence breaking out at a demonstration for peace, I will be wondering why the media did not see it coming, and I will be wondering what else they have not seen. I will be watching the attempt to form a vanguard, as I pray for the mass that is sufferring from the aftermath of the attacks of September 11th.
Yet a lookie peek will show that they are virtually one in the same.
LAST CALL for tomorrow's DC mega-FReep of the anti-gun, anti-American demonstrators; details here:
"Plans Announced for D.C. Chapter's Operation Infinite FReep 9-29-01 (Thread #4)"
Anyway, look at the list of sponsors on beatbackbush.com now
I've been trying to link to this that and the other thread and sites, and whatnots AND THERE IS JUST SO MUCH OUT THERE....THIS JUST TOO UNBELIEVEABLE.
(Ever notice that libs like super-thin light lettering on dark backgrounds while conservatives go for easy to read dark lettering on light backgrounds?)
Anuradha Mittal's views on China from her Food First website:
Dangerous Liaisons: Progressives, the Right, and the Anti-China Trade Campaign
***********
And if you have the stomach for it... Jay's Leftist and Progressive Internet Resources Directory:
http://www.neravt.com/left/articles.html
Yick.
AM: Let me point to the biggest potential, whether you go to India, my country, or you go to China, or you go to Mexico, we see our youth being completely captivated by increasing consumerism. You know the goals that are being put forward before our youth, is to try to get an MBA degree, try to get a job in the corporate sector, you want the latest Nike shoes, you want the latest Gap clothes.However, something is changing. We are being able to defeat these corporations the way we’ve been able to challenge tobacco companies who were trying to capture our youth. It is the youth of this country who have actually come out on the streets. If you look at corporate owned media, you would think these are young punks who were out on the streets like those fans who go for football matches who have nothing better to do than to get in trouble with the police and with law and order. This is not what is happening. The biggest potential is that we are creating the future generation of America to be good patriots, patriots who are willing to put their lives on the line, who are basically willing to even battle with the police to actually build a Democratic nation and to make it true in this country.
The other potential of that is that, as I pointed out before, whether we talk about policies of international financial institutions which work against the working people, they are the same policies that are adjusting America’s poor today. So what we are doing is we are starting to challenge these policies right in the belly of the beast. Washington consensus has been responsible for increasing impoverishment around the world. Until we fight this battle right here in this country, where people’s basic human rights to food, right to shelter, right to social security, is implemented in this country, nobody is going to give a damn about people’s right to food in Mexico or in the Phillippines.
We are building an international movement. We are building a movement where there are no leaders, everyone who participates in the streets of Philadelphia or in the streets of Los Angeles is a leader who is taking charge of his or her destiny and the destiny of this country and the world.
Now you know THE REST OF THE STORY.
As for the last part of the selection you made from the interview, there ARE leaders, though they want to claim there are no leaders to their movement.
They really aren't any different from the old marxists of bygone eras that I can tell. Some groups still have individuals from the old school embedded in them. Then, it was Communist International to whom they were beholden, but even though they hailed the same central political power, they were divided into individual cells that changed, split or rarely (if ever) merged. The cells changed with the whims of those people within who had personalities suitable for taking initiative or egos too big to permit accomodation with others. The numerous cells (or these days, web groupipes) are pretty useful since they are small enough to be focused on one or just a few issues, small enough to control like a clique to avoid infiltration, but big enough to provide emotional support to keep the cell energized enough to go out and protest.
Each cell is like a mini fan club formed around one or two people with dominant personalities and largely single-issued and therefore tightly focused and motivated.
But they do have 'leaders'- more broad-minded cells which to govern lesser cells by giving direction and by organizing similar cells together for specific events, in turn dominated by other cells formed around slightly more flexible personalities. This is the case with the two organizations that seem to dominate this DC protest; they organize and lead their little cell- republics by arranging marches and providing permits and such for the diverse cells which under other circumstances wouldn't get along that well because of diverging interests.
And everybody just keeps telling the little cells that there are no leaders.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.