Κυριακή, 24 Απριλίου 2011


Article published at OAKKE’s blog “oakke.blogspot.com” and at the web page “www.oakke.gr” in the Greek language on March 23, 2011





The military attack on Libya by order of the UN Security Council is a qualitative leap, a blatant violation of the basic principle of peaceful coexistence, which means the non-intervention of a state on the internal affairs of another, that is the non-deprivation of its right to choose its government and the way of its governing. If the reasoning of this intervention were to be accepted, then every internal struggle within a country of a bloody character would enable the 5 permanent members of the Security Council to impose governing and share power according to the strength of each one of them. If this is combined with the fact that the 3 dominant out of those 5 states are the over-interventionist and arrogant US, the annexationist neo-hitlerian Russia, and the economically greedy China, one may surmise the era of savagery on international affairs that the intervention on Libya is setting off.

The facts would be even worse if more specifically examined. In appearance only, at the head of the intervention on Libya are the two non-fascist and least bullying countries of the 5 in the Security Council France and Great Britain, with the self-declared mission of defending the civilians or, for the most overt interventionist USA, working for the victory of the “all-Arab democratic uprising” over Gaddafi’s dictatorship. This image conceals the true nature of what’s happening there, which is the hegemonic entrance of the Russian-Chinese-Iranian neonazi axis into Mediterranean and the Gulf.

The Arab uprisings are not democratic ones because the fascist forces have the lead

Democrats, too, participate in the current Arab uprisings as they oppose regimes that are indeed authoritarian or/and dictatorial. But this fact is not enough to call those uprisings democratic. The sour experience of the anti-Shah uprising of Iran on 1980 has proven that. It is almost impossible today to find an Iranian democrat that didn’t consider the Khomeini’s dictatorship much worse than the Shah’s. This happens because the neo-medievalists islamofascists were from the start hegemonic in the anti-Shah front while the democrats weren’t aware of it. The political hegemony of the current Arab uprisings belongs to the darkest, mainly islamofascist and secondly pseudo-leftist socialfascist forces, too. The global minimum common platform of them is the following: “the masses cannot decide for their lives on their own because they lean toward national and social alienation, basically due to the over-consumer trends instiled in them by the international capital, which is finally personified in the conspiratorial Jew. As alienated the masses could only be liberated by an enlightened dictatorship of the incorruptible interpreters of the Islam-type old scripts, or of the dried so-called “marxism”. That’s why instead of the word “democracy”, the ambiguous “freedom” is the word that one may see in all those uprisings. Freedom for them is the freedom to oppress their population once they arrive to take political power.

The crypto-fascist islamic leaders of the “democratic movements” or “revolutions” conceal their profound political line by claiming they are in favor of a so-called democratic Islam, such as Turkey’s, with the purpose of dragging the true democrats in each country behind them and appeasing the Western imperialists who so recently backed the former secular regimes. But right after they had controlled the army and consolidated their power in Turkey, they began preparing for a fascist dictatorship by jailing democratic journalists and raising the global banner of every neonazism, which is anti-Semitism (that is today “justified” as anti-zionism). As to the crypto-fascists so called “marxist” leaders, who are all-powerful in the youth of those movements, they may wear the cover of the presented by them as eternally anti-regime Tse-Guevara but in fact, they are savage pro-state capitalism fascists. If those swindlers came to power, they would impose such brutal dictatorships that the Arab peoples would have never ever lived before.

But these are our own estimations and opinions. It is the Libyans, the Egyptians, the Tunisians etc., that have the right to choose their governing, either peacefully or forcefully, by reform or revolution. No other can deprive them of the right to revolt, nor the right to support the worse counterrevolutionary movements because of their ignorance. Especially those who cannot deprive them from that right are the fascists or arch-interventionists of the UN Security Council, or the second class European imperialists who in a not very remote past were also hegemonistic.

Those imperialistic forces do not forcefully intervene on the internal affairs of Libya for their common interest, but each one for its own.

The British-French imperialists, rush to become the protectors of those new political powers in Arab world, with the stupid belief that the time for a democratic, and thus generally pro-Western governance in the Arab world has come. At that, it’s the French – who have for long been struggling for a Euro-Mediterranean unity led by themselves – that rush with special strength, as they have the impression that they have been caught unawares by the US, who are thought to hegemonize through the incited “democratic revolutions” even in a country of their until yesterday own dominant French influence such as Tunisia. So, England and France, both second class imperialist countries who came late in the new epoch in the Arabic world, have decided to become, at least, the protectors of the “democratic revolution” of Libya, so as to gain some strong political and economic position in the new Mediterranean scenery. As to the severely exposed in the Muslim world and at the decline American hegemonists, they have backed from the beginning the so-called “democratic movements” by considering them -because of their imperialist political liberalism- as the best remedy for islamo-fascist terrorism, while it is actually the best ally of the latter. However, hurt by their former interventions in the Arab and Muslim countries and militarily overstretched, they chose to hide a little themselves behind the British & French, especially the French which are the least exposed as interventionists in the Arab and Muslim world. Of course, the American general illusions are being channeled towards the opposite direction and with other targets by H. Clinton, as we’ll see bellow.

The Western imperialists haven’t learned from Afghanistan and Iraq

Libya, however, is not meant for the above overt interventionists, who chase her with the gun. She is meant for the more “discrete”, and for that much more dangerous, imperialists of the Russia-China neonazi axis accompanied at a lower but strategically crucial position by Iran. These ones, generally led by the Russian master of provocation Vladimir Putin, play in Libya the same dirty but victorious game they had played before in Iraq and Afghanistan. In those cases, they urged the Western imperialists to attack on the formerly independent third-world leaderships, they exterminated them and finally took power by themselves through their planted people.

In Afghanistan, the Russian social-imperialists exposed the rightfully unfriendly Taliban (due to the Soviet occupation they resisted) by sending them as an ally their political tool proper for great scale provocations named Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda perpetrated the massacre at the Twin Towers and provoked the US invasion-occupation of Afghanistan. The bonds between Al Qaeda and Russia could be deduced by political analysis and the international and regional results of the activity of the former, whereas some more concrete evidence* on those bonds have been revealed by the ex-KGB agent Litvinenko, and that’s in our opinion the main reason why he was murdered with polonium. The US has chased the Taliban from power with the “discrete” assistance of Russia. We call it “discrete” for only few remember that in 2000 Russia voted in the UN in favor of the 1333 resolution that actually meant invasion in Afghanistan, and even fewer remember that she provided – and keeps doing so – the US airplanes with military bases in her satellite countries of the ex-USSR. The afghan “Northern Alliance” easily occupied the position of the Taliban in power when in the lead of it came the ex-chief of the secret-police of the USSR occupational forces Fahim. Fahim who was in charge of the security came in power in Northern Alliance when Al Qaeda some days before the American invasion of Afghanistan murdered the historical chief of Northern Alliance and leader of the anti-Russian resistance, Massoud. We must notice that Fahim was in charge of the security of Massoud. Simultaneously the pro-Russian and pro-Iranian Karzai became then prime minister of Afghanistan. As expected the anti-Russian Taliban have become anti-Western and continued cooperating with Al Qaeda. On the contrary, the American invaders, with whom the Taliban had once tried to cooperate on the matters of energy, have become detestable in Afghanistan as open invaders and conquerrors.

In Iraq, Putin’s provocateurs made Sadam a killing target with the methodically organized lie of the pro-Russian and pro-Iranian El Baradei, then head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, that Sadam possesed nuclear weapons. El Baradei is today Mubarak’s heir presumptive. (He leads the pseudo-liberal “facebook youth” of Egypt that organized the “democratic revolution” of Egypt and was politically formed in 2008 by first protesting in favor of anti-Semitic and prorussian Hamas** during the Israeli invasion of Gaza which was mostly a Hamas provocation). The Americans made the brutal attack on Iraq and crushed the third-world and anti-iranian dictator with an invasion-occupation. The Russians, too, actively denounced Sadam for the nuclear weapons but also pretended to be his friends by voting against the invasion in Iraq at the UN Security Council. But just after the invasion, they recognized the US led occupation of Iraq in the UN and behind the scenes co-managed it, thus they were involved in the process of the dissolution of Baath party and its succession in power by the pro-Iranian Shiits. As expected, the US have once again received the overall hatred both from the Sunnis of Baath, whom they violently deprived of power, and from the pro-Iranian Shiits to whom they gave it. So the vacuum of the anti-Iranian Baath was filled by the pro-Iranian Shia and the more anti-Western of the Sunnis and Kurds. This has already been translated into good oil contracts for Russia and China too. In other words, the Western imperialists shook the oil tree in Iraq and Afghanistan, they became detestable to both peoples as conquerors, and those who picked the fruit were the Russians & the axis in general that at a moment they were friends of the invaders while on the other they became friends to the victims. So the Axis, as the alliance of Iran-Russia-China, hegemonizes today on both countries by having set new, subjugated and totally corrupted dictatorships. At the beginning of those interventions and even before them OAKKE, that has been observing the Russian strategy in Greece and the Balkans for the last 25 years and analyzing it under the light of the maoist “Strategic theory of the 3 worlds”, foresaw this process and exposed it in its newspaper “Nea Anatoli” (New Dawn).

The Clintons’ strategic role in favor of the Russian policy

This double strategic exploit of the Axis, that is to turn the two chief enemies of Russia and Iran into allies, wasn’t only the result of the stupid recklessness of the US, which is essentially rooted in that they have already lost their old strength as a superpower in strategic decline but have retained their old arrogance. It was also the result of the conscious pro-Axis line of two USA leaders, and these are the fatal Clintons.

Since the era of Khrushchev ’s USSR, the Russian neo-hitlerians have been seeking for close friends among the head of the political power of the antagonistic imperialists, by exploiting the experience of czarist diplomacy and the also over-centralized and police character of the modern Russian state. Czarism had achieved great diplomatic gains at the 19th century, grace to its cooperation with the British Foreign Minister and prime minister Lord Palmerston, for whom Marx had come to the conclusion that he was a Czar’s agent. Lord Palmerston had stepped on the narrow interests of the British commercial capital, which needed peace with Russia mainly because of its grain, but he has been practically identified with tsarist Russia in the whole political line. The Clintons have to a degree obtained the political representation of the most powerful portions of the US export monopolistic capital- basically the new technologies big capital- that need an unclouded international market, and thus a policy of cooperation with Russia, as head of the fascist Axis monopolistic capital that naturally wants to overturn the current status quo. But from this powerful position, the Clintons do things that hit every American world strategy, even the simply detente-like strategy, to the heart and that totally fit to the Russian world strategy.

The Clintons firstly came to power because of their strong friendly personal and political ties with Strobe Talbott, who has been forming the USA liberal appeasing diplomatic thought for Russia since the beginning of his career and was Clinton’s vice foreign minister during his whole presidency. Talbott himself began his career as the translator of “Khrushchev’s recollections” which is the formal book with which Russian social-imperialism has been tricking and appeasing the West for decades now. He has been denounced for his scandalous pro-Russianism and his too close ties with the Russian ambassador in the US Georgiy Mamedov. Besides, the Clintons have long been close to Gorr, Sr and Jr, who politically expressed the Hammers dynasty of great oil businessmen that had begun cooperating with the once socialist USSR from the era of leninist concessions, and continued even the more so close and intensely after the capitalist restoration in the USSR after 1960. But these data alone cannot prove the existence of any concrete dirty policy from Clintons part. They could only reveal an increased possibility that a dirty policy from their part could be sought. It is the concrete policy of the Clintons that can prove the existence of such a dirty policy.

Clintons’ interventions were decisive for the deliberately yet hidden victories of the Russian diplomacy in Afghanistan, Iraq, and to a small yet degree Pakistan, and now in the diluvial realignments in the Arab world.

In Afghanistan it were the Clintons that had for years strenuously fought with the fanatically anti-russian anti-socialimperialists Taliban as if they were them the chief enemies of the US. It were the Clintons who prevented them from constructing an oil pipeline, in cooperation with the American UNOCAL, that would pass from the Caspian to the Indian Ocean and could free the Caspian states from the geo-strategic entanglement of Russia and Iran. The Clintons isolated the Afghan Taliban diplomatically and economically and finally threw them into the clutches of Al Qaeda which rushed to financially “help” them. What Al Qaeda really did was to expose the Taliban in the USA revenge by blowing the US twin towers. So the Clintons provoked the crushing of nationalistic and ideologically reactionary Afghan Talibans and the rise of the pro-Russian and pro-Iranian political forces to power in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is, along with Pakistan, a strategic step for the terrestrial military passing of Russia towards the warm Indian Ocean. According to Mao Zedong, this was (and we believe it remains) a strategic precondition for the war the social-imperialist USSR would launch against the West. Now Hillary Clinton is aggravating the relations between Pakistan and the US by accusing it of sheltering Al Qaeda –who continue their provocative role this time against Pakistan- by bombing it inside Pakistan sometimes even without the permission of Pakistani authorities. This way Clinton strengthens the islamo- fascism in Pakistan and pushes its government to closer unity with Poutin’s Russia and China. At the same time she is politically subverting the pro-Westerners in Pakistani leading classes and lets the pro-islamists pass undisturbed.

Clintons’ role in Iraq was even more decisive. They positioned George Tennet at the head of CIA. This guy managed to incriminate with no evidence the chief enemy of Iran, Saddam Hussein, for the development of nuclear weapons and for anti USA terrorism and to methodically trick the US by paving the way for the catastrophic invasion in Iraq. (It was the same Tennet who had assisted the fall of pro-Western Berisha in Albania in favor of pro-Eastern Fatos Nano in 1997, and who was also behind the bombardment of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999 that helped the Chinese leaders widen the anti-Americanism in China). Clinton voiced for the invasion in Iraq louder than anyone else within the Democratic Party of the US, but was the first to request withdrawal of the US army from Iraq when the power of Iran inside it had been stabilized! The man that organized the purge of the Iraqi state from Baath party and Sunnis and its handling to pro-Iranians was the governor L.P. Brenner, also positioned before by B. Clinton at the seat of the head of counter-terrorism in the US.

The combined Russian provocation in Libya

An even more complicated venture is now in process in Libya and the rest of Arab world as well, with Russia playing the following dirty trick. In alliance with Iran, and using as its propaganda tool Al Jazeera, the TV Channel of her friendly emirate of Qatar, she backed all Arabic uprisings, also the Libyan one, but pretended to be neutral or against them as a considered intermediary, hesitant, almost friendly to Gaddafi force. She played the same trick in Tunisia and Egypt. It is true that a clear victory of every islamo-fascist political current couldn’t satisfy Russia because many of them have strong nationalistic but also strong pro-Iranian trends inside them. Russia better wins her own hegemony through the pseudo-left and pseudo-internationalist social-fascism who are less nationalistic and less pro-Iranian. At her “intermediary” role, Russia could purge the Gaddafists by the use of the Benghazi islamo-fascists, could purge the disobedient Benghazi islamo-fascists by the use of the Gaddafists, and the narrow-minded democrats who followed the reactionary uprising in Libya and other countries by using both the above mentioned and the so called “anticapitalists”, in reality social-fascists .

Russia herself has actually urged the Western imperialists to “shake the oil tree”, that is to brutally crash the Third-World dictator Gaddafi and the Libyan army that has so far remained loyal to him. This army refused to unconditionally give power to the masked as democrats islamo- and social-fascists as did Ben Ali’s and, less, Mubarak’s armies under the political pressure of the Obama-Clinton presidency, and always under the most secret “discrete” pressure of “intermediary or friendly” Russia. We must notice that the last foreign diplomat who met with Mubarak before his resignation was Alex. Saltanov, a special envoy of president Medvedev.

However, “kind” Russia and China didn’t exercise their veto power at the Security Council, as they had done in Iraq, where the Americans were eager to proceed even alone, but only abstained so as to decisively urge the West – which is very reluctant due to their bitter Iraqi experience – to bombard Libya and kill Gaddafi. Yet so long as the 10-5 majority has been formed, any abstention equals to saying “yes” to the bombardment. Besides, this majority of 10-5 became possible because two countries, whose governments have so close ties with Russia, have voted “yes” at the Security Council, that is the South African one and the already subjugated to the Axis Lebanon of Syria-Hezbollah. But the West had made an additional international condition for striking Libya: that the Arab countries stayed by their side to prevent them from being exposed again before the Muslims as crusaders after the lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq. So Russia compelled even the most anti-Western countries of the Arab League- with her also friendly Amr Moussa as its all-powerful leader – to take a resolution in favor of the bombardment of Libya meant by the imposition of a “no-fly zone” in the 1973/2011 decision of the UN Security Council. A few days before, Russia had also voted along with the whole Security Council the first UN SC resolution (1970/2011) that provisioned an arms embargo on Libya and its reference to the Hague International Court. This first resolution politically paved the way for the decisive 1973/2011 SC resolution on the bombardments.

When Britain-France-US got in the trap and began “shaking the oil-tree” the double-faced Russia, the subjugated to her Arab League as this incident alone has proved, as well as the equally double-faced China, protested at once, that they didn’t consent to such a shake but to a subtler one, that is they claimed that the bombardments shouldn’t have caused dead civilians (who actually were at that moment very few). This is especially ridiculous when been heard from Putin’s company that slaughtered 200,000 civilians in no time by flattening Grozny and the whole Chechnya. Generally, one may get angry with all those hypocrites interventionists that have pity on the hundreds of dead civilians Gaddafi has caused (if we suppose that the opposition is not to blame at all for them) but left Chechnya, Darfur, Bosnia and Rwanda with two million dead civilians and millions of others who suffered from unheard of suffering without moving their little finger. For if there were a democratic UN, it should intervene in those cases from the first moment, because in these cases it is about either invasions of a country from another country or about real and brutal genocides.

From now on, the Axis countries will keep condemning the Anglo-French as butchers and invaders, and so long as Gaddafi resists and the more the westerners will be descending on the ground for terrestrial operations, the peoples will more and more hate them as interventionists. But at the same time Gaddafi will also be militarily vulnerable as the invaders won’t stop until they gain something that could prevent them from being humiliated. So Russia will start more actually playing the role of the peace-maker intermediary between Gaddafi, the British-French, and Bengazi, by taking upon herself the “anti-imperialistic unification and independence of the Libyan nation” through a so-called intermediary solution that would be neither Gaddafi nor West, and neither Tripoli nor Bengazi.

But this is dangerous for Russia as the British and French may someday stop doing the dirty job, in front of an outcry in Europe, and in this case Gaddafi could triumphantly stay in power. In this case Russia could lose everything. That’s why we think that she will keep urging the British and-French to carry on with the bullying. On the other hand, she needs to have an active interventionistic role in the UN Security Council, and thus in Libya, as did during the bombardments in Iraq. For the sake of this double game, the KGB arch-agent Putin has created two Russias a long time now. The first is the formal so-called “liberal Medvedev’s Russia”, through which the true nazi Russia of Putin appeases the West by saying she is peaceful. This one is the so-called patriotic anti-imperialist Russia, led by Putin himself, that always affectionately takes care and fanaticizes the third world victims of the Russo-Western interventions against only the West. In other words, Medvedev will participate more or less in the shaking of the tree, while the more “strategic” Hitler- Putin, will till the end specialize in picking the fruit. Each agent of Russia on earth has already been playing basically one of those two roles. For example, in Greece, Papandreou (PASOK) and Samaras (ND) present themselves as pro-Westerners, play the role of the tree shaker, while Papariga (KKE) and Tsipras (SYRIZA) always and easily play the role of the fruit collector. That means they channel the discontent among the people, caused by the policy of the pro-Russian shakers, against the EU and the US. Especially they channel the discontent among the “popular” ND party base and the “socialist” PASOK party base to this direction.

However, the picking-of-the-fruit process has begun in Libya, (though Russia may gain some global profits in the third world for her so-called anti-Western role in Libya, though this time a lot of people will discover her dirty and aggressive deviousness). So Gaddafi, even before the 1973/2011 resolution and after 1970/2011, that is after Russia had countersigned the reference of Libya to the International Court of Hague, invited Russia, China and India in order to give them the Libyan oil that the West had just lost. The equally double-faced Erdogan has been appointed as mediator between Gaddafi and the West, or better between Tripoli and Bengazi, so that the “picking of the fruit” be better organized. Recently Erdogan mediates at the most crucial for the future international diplomatic front, the one between Iran and Saudi Arabia over the conflict in Bahrain. He, too, exercised a veto of only a political and not substantial significance in NATO, after the UN resolution on the attack, so as to avoid to fight openly by the side of the alarmed Brits-French and USA. On the other hand, he keeps calling upon Gaddafi to resign and give his position to a commonly approved by both sides leader. Commonly approved means today approved by the neonazi Russian-Chinese Axis which always apparently plays at the center of every global bipolar conflict.

If some political entity belongs to one of two very opposite poles and lets Russia play at the center of that bi-pole, it will be eliminated. Which means that unless Gaddafi urges Russia to clear her position, that is to say whether she is with him or with France-Britain-USA, there is no chance that he wins the “medieval war” as Putin, who has approved it, audaciously keeps saying. For outside the West would strike him, while inside Russia would be constantly stabbing him and meeting his endlessly bombarded headquarters until a traitor be found to become his commonly approved “heir”. This is the villainy of the whole so-called anti-imperialistic pseudo-left of the so called CPG, SYRIZA, NAR etc. type. The point that exposes them as non-open Putin’s supporters, or the proof that they participate as Kremlin’s dogs at the hunting of the Libyan fox is that they refuse to recognize Gaddafi’s government as the only real government of Libya because it is the only one attacked by the UN Security Council imperialists -interventionists and the only one that resists them. On the contrary these pseudo-left say: “neither imperialist invaders-nor dictator Gaddafi”. That means they are with the invaders. It is as if the Greeks in 1940 antifascist war said “neither Italian fascist invaders - nor dictator Metaxas”, that would be equal to taking the Italian fascist aggressors’ side. As we all know Greek people and Greek communists resisted in 1940 the Italian fascist invaders under the leadership of Greek dictator prime-minister Metaxas. But these arguments doesn’t touch the Greek offsprings of the 1940 trotskyites.

We take this position despite Gaddafi’s internal crimes and especially international crimes – such as to kill hundreds of innocent citizens of foreign countries by blowing up passenger airplanes or to intervene seeking annexations against foreign countries like Chad – crimes that we have for decades and usually against pseudo-left denounced. But he has never been bombed for those crimes, because when he did them the neonazis of the Kremlin were protecting him as, at the final analysis, those crimes served their objectives. On the contrary, he is now being bombed by the UN because the specific dictator has tried and managed to release himself from Russia’s embracement, to a large degree during the last 6 years. The UN bombards and wants to exterminate him exactly because he went closer to the undoubtedly more democratic EU and basically because he has loosened up the mortal energy millstone Russia is recently being tightening around his neck. Russia is so angry with Gaddafi mainly because he refused to give Gazprom the management in channeling the natural gas towards EU via Italy, that is he refused to turn his country into an energy strangler of the EU.

The bankrupt middle-sized European imperialists cannot of course imagine, out of their holy greed, that they are playing the dirty trick of Russia and so they become stranglers of their own countries. At least inside the leadership of US, which is still a superpower, there is a political current smelling that something’s got wrong with this “democratic flash-revolution” in Libya and wants to turn tail (represented at that moment by the USA minister of Defense Robert Gates). But Clinton is still there to play the most central and decisive role in favor of Russia.

Clinton’s critical role in the pseudo-democratic revolutions and the UN attack on Libya

It was Clinton that named, at the beginning of her term of office, not so much Iran and Syria, that is the providers of genocidal Hamas and Hezbollah, nor the islamo-fascist oppositions of the pro-Western Muslim states inspired by Al Qaeda, but all the pro-Western states of the muslim world and especially S. Arabia and Pakistan (that are being fought more than any other by the islamo-fascists), as the birthplace of Al Qaeda. Hillary Clinton, the same as Russia and every neo-nazi and anti-Semite, argue that the pro-Western governments of those states create Al Qaeda through their own counter-democracy, corruption and wealth. So according to them, Al Qaeda is not an invention of the worst neo-hitlerian monopolists of the East but a creation of the spontaneous rage of the oppressed masses in Arab states. The neo-hitlerian monopolists of course manipulate the rage of the toiling masses in order to strengthen the brutal Al Qaeda. But it is them and them alone that create, organize, arm and ideologically brutalize the enraged masses so much that these can take delight in executing civilians women and innocent children. So, whoever today targets basically against Ben Ali, Mubarak, and S. Arabia Abdullah in accordance with the friends of Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah, is supporter of the true monsters.

With this line, on January 13 from Qatar, which is the most pro-Russian and pro-Iranian emirate and hosts the central offices of Al Jazeera, the political-ideological leader of the whole muslim world, Clinton called upon those pro-Western leaderships to change course and be democratized. That is, while she did nothing last year to support the genuine democratic uprising of the Iranian people against its much more corrupted and rich islamonazi leaders who crushed it in blood and tortures, she has now called the islamofascists and the “leftist” anti-Semites to arms against the less fascist governments of the muslim world and against the West. The ideological-political propagandistic grounds has been well cultivated in the whole muslim world during the last 10 years by Al Jazeera. The latter added, at the appropriate time, in its seminars some month-long intensive courses with selected and at the right pace leaks of the American diplomacy papers, the Wikileaks for which Clinton herself is responsible as USA’ s foreign minister. Those leaks have convinced the appropriately manipulated from Al Jazeera Arab masses that all non pro-Russian Arab leaders are wealthy parasites, agents of the West and of Israel, that is they confirmed what they’ve been heard one million times by the islamo- and social-fascists. At the same time, the foreign minister of USA, the most anti-uprising and anti-popular superpower until recently, sent the slogan that the uprising against the pro-Western autocratic leaderships in the Muslim Third world was allowed. So all discontented fascists and many democrats and oppressed and exploited people lacking a profound political criterion and experience went down the streets with the islamofascists. At the same time, official agents of the American Foreign Ministry urged some chief cadres of the military at the backstage to make a coup against their political leaders. So did they in Tunisia against Ben Ali, with a bit more pressure they overthrew Mubarak, while Gaddafi has resisted with his army and didn’t surrender to the uprising that has afterwards proved its reactionary, anti-patriotic and pro-imperialistic character. Then Clinton, along with the American ambassador to the UN S. Council, took two all-important jobs upon herself. The first one was to gather every necessary vote so that the resolution for the attack on Libya in S. Council be passed by the UN, and the other, the most important, was to minimize the objections of a portion of the American political and military leadership on the involvement. These objections, as expressed by defence minister Gates, were political and at the core of the question because they raised serious doubt over the true intentions of the Bengazi opposition and concern for the danger of partition of the country.

Resisting the open and hidden invaders of Libya means resisting a threatening tragedy for the peoples of Europe and the whole world

The democrats and anti-imperialists in the whole globe must support Libya’s resistance so long as it continues to be objectively a resistance against all invaders of the S.C of UN, that is also against neo-hitlerians of the Axis. It is concerning that Gaddafi has already made the serious political mistake, inborn to his reactionary ideology, of seeking a strategic alliance with the more brutal Russian and Chinese axis against a French and British government, that deal with their internal and the rest international matter in a much more democratic and much less aggressive-interventionist way, but this doesn’t change our position in favor of him for the time being. This position could only change if Gaddafi and his regime bow to the Axis and send the war outside Libya against civilians or against countries that aren’t to blame for it, with actions of Al Qaeda type as Gaddafi himself some time threatened to do.

In each case, our stance as communists internationalists will always be determined in Libya and everywhere else in this whole tempestuous period that is coming by one thing: the global interests of the world proletariat and of the states and peoples of the world. Those interests are now being at stake mostly in the small Libya. If she were subjugated to the Axis, the charge of the latter would be devastating from south Mediterranean to the oil Gulf and from there up to Pakistan. In such a case Europe would be driven in the future to an energy starvation and from that point to a political split and would finally be militarily attacked from the Russian-Chinese military Axis. That’s why we should right now demand cease of the attack against Libya, as well as cease of any other interference on its internal affairs and respect towards this small country. All permanent members of the UN Security Council must definitely stay away of her. Especially the superpowers must stay away of all Arab and muslim countries. It is better for the last ones to make their mistakes than the superpowers and the other disgusting imperialists make their armed sermons to them.

Athens 3/23/2011

*Wikipedia: In a July 2005 interview with the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita, Litvinenko alleged that Ayman al-Zawahiri, a prominent leader of al-Qaeda, was trained for half of a year by the FSB in Dagestan in 1997 and called him "an old agent of the FSB.[49][52]Litvinenko said that after this training, al-Zawahiri "was transferred to Afghanistan, where he had never been before and where, following the recommendation of his Lubyanka chiefs, he at once penetrated the milieu of Osama bin Laden and soon became his assistant in Al Qaeda." [53] Former KGB officer and writer Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy supported this claim and said that Litvinenko "was responsible for securing the secrecy of Al-Zawahiri's arrival in Russia; he was trained by FSB instructors in Dagestan, Northern Caucasus, in 1996-1997.".

**One of the very few political entities in the world who recognized the division of Georgia and the annexation of Abhazia from Russia



Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:

Δημοσίευση σχολίου