Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Everyone Seems to Be Agreeing with Bin Laden These Days
Only Obama, it seems, fails to get the message that we’re losing Afghanistan
Obama and Osama are at last participating in the same narrative. For the US president's critics - indeed, for many critics of the West's military occupation of Afghanistan - are beginning to speak in the same language as Obama's (and their) greatest enemy.
There is a growing suspicion in America that Obama has been socked into the heart of the Afghan darkness by ex-Bushie Robert Gates - once more the Secretary of Defense - and by journalist-adored General David Petraeus whose military "surges" appear to be as successful as the Battle of the Bulge in stemming the insurgent tide in Afghanistan as well as in Iraq.
No wonder Osama bin Laden decided to address "the American people" this week. "You are waging a hopeless and losing war," he said in his 9/11 eighth anniversary audiotape. "The time has come to liberate yourselves from fear and the ideological terrorism of neoconservatives and the Israeli lobby." There was no more talk of Obama as a "house Negro" although it was his "weakness", bin Laden contended, that prevented him from closing down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In any event, Muslim fighters would wear down the US-led coalition in Afghanistan "like we exhausted the Soviet Union for 10 years until it collapsed". Funny, that. It's exactly what bin Laden told me personally in Afghanistan - four years before 9/11 and the start of America's 2001 adventure south of the Amu Darya river.
Almost on cue this week came those in North America who agree with Osama - albeit they would never associate themselves with the Evil One, let alone dare question Israel's cheerleading for the Iraqi war. "I do not believe we can build a democratic state in Afghanistan," announces Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who chairs the senate intelligence committee. "I believe it will remain a tribal entity." And Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, does not believe "there is a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan".
Colin Kenny, chair of Canada's senate committee on national security and defense, said this week that "what we hoped to accomplish in Afghanistan has proved to be impossible. We are hurtling towards a Vietnam ending".
Close your eyes and pretend those last words came from the al-Qa'ida cave. Not difficult to believe, is it? Only Obama, it seems, fails to get the message. Afghanistan remains for him the "war of necessity". Send yet more troops, his generals plead. And we are supposed to follow the logic of this nonsense. The Taliban lost in 2001. Then they started winning again. Then we had to preserve Afghan democracy. Then our soldiers had to protect - and die - for a second round of democratic elections. Then they protected - and died - for fraudulent elections. Afghanistan is not Vietnam, Obama assures us. And then the good old German army calls up an air strike - and zaps yet more Afghan civilians.
It is instructive to turn at this moment to the Canadian army, which has in Afghanistan fewer troops than the Brits but who have suffered just as ferociously; their 130th soldier was killed near Kandahar this week. Every three months, the Canadian authorities publish a scorecard on their military "progress" in Afghanistan - a document that is infinitely more honest and detailed than anything put out by the Pentagon or the Ministry of Defense - which proves beyond peradventure (as Enoch Powell would have said) that this is Mission Impossible or, as Toronto's National Post put it in an admirable headline three days' ago, "Operation Sleepwalk". The latest report, revealed this week, proves that Kandahar province is becoming more violent, less stable and less secure - and attacks across the country more frequent - than at any time since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. There was an "exceptionally high" frequency of attacks this spring compared with 2008.
There was a 108 per cent increase in roadside bombs. Afghans are reporting that they are less satisfied with education and employment levels, primarily because of poor or non-existent security. Canada is now concentrating only on the security of Kandahar city, abandoning any real attempt to control the province.
Canada's army will be leaving Afghanistan in 2011, but so far only five of the 50 schools in its school-building project have been completed. Just 28 more are "under construction". But of Kandahar province's existing 364 schools, 180 have been forced to close. Of progress in "democratic governance" in Kandahar, the Canadian report states that the capacity of the Afghan government is "chronically weak and undermined by widespread corruption". Of "reconciliation" - whatever that means these days - "the onset of the summer fighting season and the concentration of politicians and activists for the August elections discouraged expectations of noteworthy initiatives...".
Even the primary aim of polio eradication - Ottawa's most favored civilian project in Afghanistan - has defeated the Canadian International Development Agency, although this admission is cloaked in truly Blair-like (or Brown-like) mendacity. As the Toronto Star revealed in a serious bit of investigative journalism this week, the aim to "eradicate" polio with the help of UN and World Health Organization money has been quietly changed to the "prevention of transmission" of polio. Instead of measuring the number of children "immunized" against polio, the target was altered to refer only to the number of children "vaccinated". But of course, children have to be vaccinated several times before they are actually immune.
And what do America's Republican hawks - the subject of bin Laden's latest sermon - now say about the Afghan catastrophe? "More troops will not guarantee success in Afghanistan," failed Republican contender and ex-Vietnam vet John McCain told us this week. "But a failure to send them will be a guarantee of failure." How Osama must have chuckled as this preposterous announcement echoed around al-Qa'ida's dark cave.
148 Comments so far
Show All"Afghanistan" Where Empire goes to die.
Afghanistan will the beginning of the end of US/Israeli imperialism.
Horrified: The beginning of the end has already begun. A precise date for that (the beginning) would be 9/11/01.
True...But that was when the US entered Afghanistan in earnest...
While I certainly agree with Fisk's assessments of the futility and illegitimacy of the war in Afghanistan, I do wonder why he buys into the shadow-play of all these dubious "statements of Bin Laden," when highly credible intelligence sources have long acknowledged the probability that the man is dead. (See, among many other things, the following piece:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212851/Has-Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-seven-years--U-S-Britain-covering-continue-war-terror.html.)
It's also curious that "Bin Laden's" latest "communiqué" is only an audio tape. I guess it was simply becoming too obvious that the videos were shams, the last truly convincing video of the handsome death-merchant dating from late 2001 (if memory serves), in which, dressed in military fatigues, Osama denies involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Whether all the subsequent "communiqués" are fabricated by the CIA, Mossad, or the jihadis themselves, or a combination of all three, what is clear is that they only serve to perpetuate these useless wars and those who have an interest in their continuation. Thus does Fisk, by taking these shams at face value, play into the very wars he deplores.
Your link doesn't work. You need to break it into several lines. A working link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212851/
Has-Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-seven-years--U-S-Britain-covering-continue-war-terror.html
Also, the UK Daily Mail is far far from being a credible paper in anyway. If the credible sources are being reported only by the Daily Mail, it is definitely understandable if Fisk won't touch them with a 10 foot pole.
From your article, there are a couple people making several claims. Even if you accept that there are inconsistencies in the videos, etc, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are fakes. Life is full of inconsistencies.
Rfloh
While the Daily Mail may not be a very credible paper, David Ray Griffin certainly makes a persuasive case that the many "messages" sent by bin Laden have been fabricated in his well written book "Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive?". Dr. Griffin quotes former CIA operative Robert Baer, among others, in an NPR interview that he did on Fresh Air in Oct. of 2008 as saying that "Of course he's dead." Baer goes on to say in the interview that:
"He hasn't shown up. I've taken in the last month a poll of CIA officers who have been on his trail, and what astounded me was not a single one was sure he was alive or dead. In other words, they have no idea. I mean, this man disappeared off the side of the earth. That has never happened before in my years in the CIA."
In his slim but informative work, Dr. Griffin writes that an article entitled "News of Bin Laden's Death and Funeral 10 Days Ago" appeared in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Waf on Dec. 26, 2001 which informed its readers that "bin Laden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death." A notable official in the Afghan Taliban movement revealed to Pakistan's newspaper The Observer that "he had attended the funeral of bin Laden and saw his face prior to burial in Tora Bora 10 days ago." The article went on to say that "30 of al-Qa'da fighters attended the burial as well as members of his family and some friends from the Taleban. In the farewell ceremony to his final rest guns were fired in the air. The official stated that it is difficult to pinpoint the burial location of bin laden because according to the Wahhabi tradition no mark is left by the grave."
Dr. Griffin writes in his book how the appearance of bin Laden appears to change in the video tapes. In a video of 2004 bin Laden somehow appears to have become younger and healthier. Even the FBI had reason to doubt the authenticity of that tape while, as Dr. Griffin makes clear, there is strong doubt as to the veracity of the audio tapes which have been purported to have been bin Laden.
Yet the mainstream American media has made no mention, as far as I can determine, of the article in the Egyptian article regarding bin Laden's funeral or how bin Laden's appearance has undergone marked changes in those video tapes that were sent to the Western media. As with Iraq's mythical weapons of mass destruction, the corporate media, including, surprisingly, Robert Fisk, have done little to question the existence of Osama bin Laden despite the fact that this man had been suffering from kidney disease and had been treated for that severe illness in American Hospital in Dubai in July of 2001.
There are serious doubts concerning the existence of bin Laden and yet journalists such as Fisk seem unwilling to challenge the belief that bin Laden is somehow alive and well in the Middle East.
"they have no idea. I mean, this man disappeared off the side of the earth"
The CIA's inability to locate an individual doesn't mean "he disappeared off the side of the earth". It means the individual remaining at large suits the interests of US elites. Such public dialogs are mere stage scripts. The real dialogs go on behind closed doors, where the elites have to acknowledge the truth somewhat to earn a sort of pseudo-trust among themselves - they need unity, though they are easily divided.
odoco
I thought it very suspicious that the last tape named the NEOCONS by name, automatically justifying their existence and legitimacy as an opposition group to Bin Laden in the minds of the uninformed - an obvious political ploy from whomever actually made and distributed the tape.
Very good point, odoco.
The fact that Bin Laden may or may not be dead is increasingly irrevelent. He made his contribution - he created in the Middle East the environment for the asymmetrical 'wars' we are now fighting - and losing. Body counts, sorties flown, munitions expended, targets struck, schools built, MREs distributed, elections held, and all the other useless metrics don't matter. They measure nothing. The cruel fact is we will not defeat Afghanistan as long as there is one Afghan left to fire a weapon. There is no victory coming for the US in Afghanistan, only a painful and embarrassing withdrawal. The sooner we admit we made a mistake in an invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq, the less painful our withdrawal will be.
People can now use Bin Laden's name like they still use the name of Jesus to offer authority to their own pet views of the world. And at least we know that Bin Laden existed.
As for the 'highly credible intelligence sources'...are these the same sources that botched the intelligence around the world trade center bombing, the destruction of the embassies in Africa, the WMDs in Iraq, the bombing of the Cole, and on and on? 'Intelligence sources' is an oxymoron.
One such source is Robert Baer, former CIA man and certainly not of the warmongering set.
I do not suggest that intelligence agencies are necessarily warmongering, only that they are generally incompetent. Reliable intelligence gathering is a difficult thing to do in the best of circumstances. But depending predominately on hi-tech intelligence gathering techniques, which we do, rather than using 'human' assets is a doomed strategy easily thwarted by, apparently among other things, guys in caves.
And again, what difference does it make if Bin Laden is dead or alive? It is no longer revelent. How many still kill, or have been or will be killed for Jesus - if he actually lived - no certain thing?
My point, which I shall repeat, is that the pretense that Bin Laden is still alive serves the war effort on all sides. It serves the Americans, who always like to have a bogeyman (Khaddafi, Saddam, Osama) against which to direct their abundant negative energies, and it serves the jihadi cause, as it provides them with a single figure to rally around. Finally, it conveniently serves the Zionist cause as well, as they have a keen interest in stoking Islamophobia worldwide.
So then do you suggest that should Bin Laden be proven to be dead change anything?
At least it would stop this ridiculous charade and lend one new element of truth, however small, to the thick skein of lies that is the "war on terror."
So then your answer is that, by any practical assessment, it would change nothing. The 'war' would go on, the 'jihadis' would still try to oust us from Afghanistan and Iraq, the government would still lie about everything else, and the American people would still be ignorant about what the government does in their name and would reflexively support the demonization and destruction of the next 'evil' one selected by the government for that role. Maybe that sounds like realistic change to you, but to me it sounds like it changes nothing.
You're free to believe what you wish, Tirebiter. I, personally, think that the fewer falsehoods there are in circulation, the less confused and cluttered the debate about things that really do matter. And since the devastating wars taking place in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan as a result of the abovementioned skein of lies are taking a terrible toll on the people of those countries and on the consciousness of people decent enough to care, I believe that the sooner this skein is unravelled, the better. And it can only be unravelled one lie at time, in the hope that at some point the unravelling will gather momentum and the whole tangle of evil will come apart.
Incidentally, I use the word "jihadis" rather loosely. Certainly the people resisting the US-led war on their lands, whether religiously inspired or not, have a far more legitimate cause to fight than do the Americans, who have none. Nevertheless, there may (and I must insist on the "may") be some in the clearly overhyped underground of radical Islam who, like their Western enemies, have a propaganda interest in maintaining the illusion that Osama still walks among us. Personally, though, I think it is far more likely that the illusion of his continued existence is manufactured by "our" side.
Sioux Rose
CLOVIS: Although you didn't directly mention it, the unraveling of said skein would lead back to the insider involvement with 911. I always found it curious from the outset that Bush let Obama go. It seemed clear to me that was part of the agreement from the beginning. Bush and his handlers let it be known that he was never going to be the major target, they just required a diversion to sound the alarm for war, and at the time, Iraq was the preferred destination. They knew they had control of the press, and like corrupt defense attorneys, could summon enough (un)reasonable doubt to get their way. And indeed they did, truth having NOTHING to do with the diabolical result. So war ain't goin too well in that destroyed nation, thus Obama, tying his reputation to war as so many US presidents have done so before him (as ample proof that Mars indeed rules this nation, its soul in tatters) must claim another destination. Afghanistan is IT!
I've said this before in the forum, but I feel it bears repeating: All progressives should be directing their own beliefs and actions towards the ideal of removing the very PREMISE of WAR from our shared lexicon. If the senseless carnage in the form of a million martyrs instantly rendered in the Middle East with so much footage of orphan, wounded children is not enough to shift OUR sensibilities away from the thing that proves endlessly calamitous for mankind, then the hope of our nation accesing the power of the phoenix to rise from its already igniting ashes becomes remote indeed.
There is a tendency, and in my view it's in play on this thread, where energy and intellect direct egos into endless mind games. In them are formulated the best strategies, or analyses of who's the victor and who's the loser, and often a conscious or subliminal identification with the nebulous premise of WINNING said war. It is timely to divest war of the terminology of victory. A lot of dead people, broken infrastructure, and land left littered in land mines and radioactive waste does not merit the pretense that anything has been won. WE are a family of mankind, and all this ripping at the branches of its tree is succeeding in one thing alone: destroying the root structure that provides our capacity to survive, no less thrive.
Hello, Sioux. I completely agree, and you are right that in my metaphor I was implying an eventual unraveling of the entire tangle of lies, which would of course lead to the mother of all twenty-first century lies, the false narrative of the events of 9/11. Perhaps even more to the point, however, is your statement of the need to remove the very premise of war from our vocabularies. For that is a current that runs much deeper in our collective psyche and was tapped with great skill and aplomb in the multimedia horrorshow that was 9/11 and its aftermath. I was shocked, in fact, in the wake of the attacks, by how many of my friends and associates were ready to jump on the bandwagon of war even before the dust had cleared. And before any semblance of an investigation of the events had been initiated. This was in fact one of the things that convinced me to leave the country. I felt almost completely alone and unable to discuss with others what seemed to me obvious problems with the whole scenario and its possible interpretations. Now, eight years later, and almost two million dead later, I may feel less alone, but, as you say, the lexicon of war has grown very deep roots in most people's psyches, to the point that the words and images of utter savagery served up daily by the mass media seem like just so much business as usual. Unfortunately it will probably take many years for this to change and for the truth and love and kindness to prevail, but it will never happen at all if we don't first deconstruct the lies and premises underpinning the whole stinking edifice. Namaste.
Ah, I see we're on the same page now. And I agree with you on all points except the last. That is, yes, the US in its present, sociopathic military-industrial form, should be toast, and the world would be the better for it. But it would be even better, however unlikely, if there were a raising of the collective American consciousness that led to a rectification of at least some of the many wrongs.
Sioux Rose
CLOVIS: I hope for that moment of Truth and Reconciliation, but it doesn't seem to me that it will have global impact for a number of years, and that's my conservative estimate. 2020 (vision) has a balanced ring to it. I'm going with THAT year for the Aquarian humane r'evolution.
Sioux Rose
LUCKY: I guess you missed the part about the owned media and the influence of its right wing voices? I share in a sense of remorse for the lack of education evidenced in a percentage of Americans, added to those who have been influenced by authoritarian creeds that make them utterly convinced--in their ignorance--of the racial/religious supremacy of their creeds, but this hardly speaks to the CD audience and those of us who do what we can to shift awareness. You paint the brush with one color and hold all accountable regardless of their acts or deeds. And this judgmental tone does nothing to support the best in persons, nor does it add much in the way of treatment to the common calamities of our time. Somehow wagging the finger lets your ego feel good, or you wouldn't be so drawn to this forum. Mexico is yet to have at its disposal the types of weapons ordinary US police departments now possess and feel free to use. And when many of us have gone on marches, as you know, the media has not covered these "fringe group" efforts. So when you really have solutions to offer, by all means serve them if you would on your silver platter.
Sioux Rose
CLOVIS: Thanks for the speedy response! I remember watching Bush right after 911 MANIPULATE the emotions generated from a seeming outsiders' attack on the homeland. He was very careful to push an agenda of vengeance dressing it up as a form of Wild Wild West vigilante style justice (something about going after those responsible, but it had the note of a deranged sheriff, as opposed to a mild-mannered Gregory Peck seeking to do all that could be done within the confines of centuries of agreed-upon international common law).
In any case, between sports conditioning, and so many preachers advocating for war against religious outsiders, and movies glorifying violence as if it were its own sexual aphrodisiac... the conditioning was well in place even before the MSM became saturated with general after general advocating for the how's of warfare, as opposed to the necessary why's. And here we are... every one of us wrestles with our own hard-wired desire to sometimes "get even," but anyone who's done an iota of spiritual work on themselves learns that it IS better to turn their cheek and let karma do its own full circle dance. It is difficult for the young, those raised in a national climate so hair-triggered towards what Tom Engelhardt defines as "force first" to recognize the wisdom of letting things fall into place, especially when those so guilty of such outrageous trespasses SEEM to get away scot-free. It's a TERRIBLE example; yet given the nature of the world these next generations are about to inherit--with the robotic weapons developments thanks to US taxpayers' money, and the vanishing glaciers and insecure fresh water systems, and glaring debt that's removed money from the faintest premise of worth... maybe they will need to have Rambo-style reflexes TO survive. It makes me glad I already crossed the "50 yard" line, and did at least that many revolutions 'round the glaring sun.
Sioux Rose
RAVEN/NATIVE TONGUE, etc: Obama was never earnestly pursued. It always seemed to me he was let go to be USED later, if need be; should the intended war with Iraq morph into another "theatrical" venue. Did you miss that one? I mean the US Navy Seals were probably equipped to ferret the guy out, Taliban, rebel lords or otherwise if the WILL to do so had been executed. It was not!
Sioux and lucky: I think you mean Osama, not Obama.
Sioux Rose
Wow, that was a genuine Mercury retrograde lapse! Thanks for pointing it out. Should I edit it, or let the Freudian/Mercury slip/stain remain?
Sometimes, Sioux, in my most paranoid moments, I wonder if Obama was chosen by the kingmakers, and elected by the plebs, precisely BECAUSE his name is so similar to Osama's.
Hi SR, the lexicon of Us vs. Them, the language of capitalism itself, is wrong. The religion of concentrating capitol is the religion of separating it from the weak by the strong. Ugly dualisms borne of this are racism, sexism, and the divison between us and our labors with money.
In our culture you are a winner or a loser, a have or a have not, rich man poor man beggar man or thief. We are so fragmented and fearful of one another I cry.
I broke my foot badly recently and it is a refresher course in how beautiful and shallow we are. Mars rules, but I am hoping that a smaller element than 1st indicated hijacked a latently decent majority. GM is an example, MD...
Rainbows dammit. If I must visualize them to see them then I will. Until they appear.
I don't believe in anything. I only try in my poor, subjective, way to assemble and apply facts to what I perceive as reality, and have found in a long life that one often never finds out the 'truth' of most things.
Yes, fewer lies and more truth would certainly be refreshing, but the point of my comment was the consequence of Bin Laden's life/death and whether it makes any difference in our laughable 'war on terror'. I don't think it makes any difference and you seem to think it does. Since neither of us know, and even if we did, it would be of no functional utility, I'm perfectly willing to leave it at that.
Sioux Rose
TIREBITER: Sound analysis, but few have alluded to the fact that just as crooked accountants (and the businesses they represent) utilize two sets of books, there is both the ostensible reason for the occupation of Afghanistan and its unstated, far more important strategic imperatives and motivations. In other words, there is the script/game plan/talking points the public is given as pabulum, as opposed to the hidden far more pressing interests of elites, for whom the MIC is the fist within its profit-driven glove. When Fisk puts his analysis to work on analyzing the former, all the truth equated with the latter gets lost in something that to me too closely resembles ballpark rhetoric and the sports casters announcing and/or interpreting the moves on the field, a/k/a theater of war.
The time for Afghanistan was 2001, when that country supported bin Laden's attack on the US. Instead Bush lied is into Iraq and ignored Afghanistan until now. That time is over. Lot's stop pretending to be the "world cop" and get our own country in order.
We are not now, and never have been, killing people in Afghanistan because "that country supported bin Laden's attack on the U.S."
Afghanistan did not support bin Laden's attack on the U.S. The Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over to a third country if the U.S. would show them evidence that bin Lader was behind Sept. 11. But Bush refused the offer, saying "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty." Bush was not interested in the truth of anything; he was interested in attacking Afghanistan. Despite the enthusiasm of many liberal Democrats for attacking Afghanistan, there was never any justification for what we have done and are continuing to do there.
From The Guardian newspaper in London, on Sunday 14 October 2001:
President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.
Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty". In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country".
Well done, petrkrop. Unfortunately one needs to keep repeating the facts, since they keep conveniently falling down the memory hole.
I don't think the people supported the attack on the WTC.
I get the feeling that they lived such a primitive life, few even heard about the U.S. except for our involvement against Russia.
The average Afghan farmer might not have known about the U.S. but I'd guess members of the Taliban were pretty savvy. And it would be in a poppy grower's interest to know about his customers, namely the United States and Europe.
Whoa everybody. Osama bin Laden's strategic goal was the destruction of our economic power. Bush obliged and Obama twisted the knife. Look around! We're broke top to bottom; Federal deficits, states broke, and citizenry all tapped out. No jobs, no investment in productive capacities, just interest payments on war making.
Not only did bin Laden successfully help bring us down economically, he exposed just how weak we are militarily.
We had absolutely no defense on 9-11. None. Zilch. Z-E-R-O. And it wasn't just one attack, but four.
Simply stunning.
"We had absolutely no defense on 9-11" Cave dwellers with box cutters,? Ha!
Just wait till the clamp down when some Chinese gamer starts sinking aircraft carriers with his new super weapon of urine and canned peas.
Clarence Beeks - " Just wait till the clamp down when some Chinese gamer starts sinking aircraft carriers with his new super weapon of urine and canned peas."
You win the belly laugh of the day. That one I have to remember.
;-) cm
Glad to have brought a laugh to the day.
Aha! This explains the Navy's emergency request for a billion dollars to reinforce all aircraft carriers with plastic sheeting and duct tape!
They'll get it, too.
· Yr Obd't Servant
"We had absolutely no defense on 9-11." Yes, Dick Cheney made sure of that with his "war games" and stand-down orders.
No one is being too hard on Fisk or any of his ilk, as long as he continues peddling the charade that Osama bin Laden is still alive - as clovis mentions below.
OBL has been dead since Dec. 2001. He's just as dead as Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa, but just as resurrected as them. THAT'S where Fisk and others should be starting from, and the whole lie of A'stan and the War on Terra™ would then be better exposed.
Anything less is at best ignorance and gross negligence; at worst, complicity.
And just like Elvis and Hoffa, IT DOESN'T MATTER.
Yes George, it DOES matter, to as much of an extent that OBL and "Al Qeada" continue to be used to justify the Mid-East wars.
When did you get a franchise on the Truth, O Master? I disagree with your "Truth" about the ONLY solution being "international communist revolution". There are other models out there that work. It amuses me that so many communist/Marxist types are married to the idea that when the Revolution comes all struggle will cease and we will enter some sort of Shangri-la. As if the human impulse toward aggression will just disappear.
Or perhaps Fisk knows his history, and is well aware that communists engaged in imperialism and imperialist wars too.
Perhaps Fisk should indeed have the balls to enrage the left, and speak the truth, and write an article about the imperialism that communist regimes have engaged in.
"Communism" is a body of theories and concepts, it has never been practiced on earth except certain forms in tribal societies, or perhaps for a while on a limited basis, in certain kibbutz communes.
The Soviet Union was not communist neither is China or any other country. According to Marx, communism would come as a final stage of human development, after a stage of socialism, according to his Hegelian dialectic progress. Certain countries have achieved elements of socialism, however that can be argued as well.
So, there can be no "communist revolution" because we have not even reached the stage of socialism yet. If one believes in linear progress, that is.
You forgot the earliest 'Christians' in your list of communistic societies. It didn't last long, because it was artificial.
Complete Socialism (communism) cannot be brought about consciously. It has to develop as a reaction to capitalism. Marx did not map out a plan, he simply revealed an historical process. If the United States persists in its barbaric capitalism, it will be wiped out by the process of social and economic evolution. Capitalism simply cannot compete.
Unfortunately, the human world will be destroyed long before this process can happen. Marx did not foresee that.