HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------
UNITE! Info #157en: 1/2 The Afghanistan war "success"
[Posted: 29.11.01]
Note / Anmerkung / Note / Nota / Anmärkning:
On the UNITE! / VEREINIGT EUCH! / UNISSEZ-VOUS! /
ˇUNIOS! / FÖRENA ER! Info en/de/fr/es/se series:
See information on the last page / Siehe Information auf der
letzten Seite / Verrez information ŕ la derničre page / Ver
información en la última página / Se information pĺ sista sidan
1. ONCE MORE, A DECLARATION SHOWING THE REAL MAIN
AIM BEHIND THE BOMBING OF AFGHANISTAN AND
ALSO BEHIND THE 11.09 ATROCITIES IN THE USA
Last Monday, 26.11, US president Bush made a public statement
concerning the aims of the US imperialists, who now are clai-
ming that their massive bombing of poor and distant Afghanistan
during more than a month has brought a "success" which "should
be applauded" at least by the people in the "rich" countries.
According to press reports, Bush said that "the war in Afgha-
nistan" was "only the beginning" of "the war against(!) terro-
rism". He in the same breath added war threats against two
other, likewise poor and distant, countries, Iraq in the Middle
East and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK or
"North Korea") in East Asia. He "warned" those two smaller
countries that "there would be consequences(!) [for them] for
producing weapons of mass destruction(!)".
There apparently was no attempt in that speech of the US presi-
dent's at "justifying" these war threats by a "belief" that
the governments of those countries, or forces "harboured by"
them, were somehow responsible, wholly or in part, for those
infamous attacks which killed some 4,000 people, quite in the
main innocent civilians, in the USA on 11 September.
Such an attempt would have been ridiculous too, in the present
situation. As everybody can see, nothwithstanding those nega-
tive traits which the regimes of both Iraq and the DPRK do
have - the latter of course not a "socialist" one but one of a
particular revisionist type, though it on some points rightly
opposes imperialism in the world - none of those regimes could
reasonably have found it to be in its interest to organize or
support such terror attacks in the USA as those of 11.09.
And above all of course, neither Iraq nor "North Korea" have
anything even nearly like those resources which were "needed"
for that very "sophisticated" atrocious "operation" of simul-
taneously hijacking four large passenger aircraft in the USA
and flying three of them smack into the WTC towers and the
Pentagon, all within less than two hours.
The same goes for those other distant and extremely poor coun-
tries which have recently been mentioned too by US or other
imperialist representatives as possible targets for mass de-
struction - Sudan, Yemen, Somalia - and for any forces "har-
boured" by them.
Neither could Afghanistan under that reactionary and oppressive
Taliban regime which today is being replaced by another and no
less reactionary (respectively, by conditions of warlordism
and banditry), or the so-called al Qaeda network in that coun-
try, possibly have organized those attacks. This pretext for
the continued atrocity of bombing the cities of Afghanistan is
a ludicrous one indeed, so ludicrous that it in part has been
replaced by another one, that of the US and other imperia-
lists' "wanting to end"(!) the oppression in Afghanistan and
to "develop"(!) that country. As if what they have always
been doing, all over the world, is not precisely the opposite,
and today precisely more and more so.
Who did have the technical and logistic resources "necessary"
for the terror attacks in New York and Washington on 11.09?
Who did have a very strong motive for such an atrocity against
the people in the USA, and indirectly against the people in
all other countries too, in the situation in the world at the
time?
None other than the US imperialists themselves, respectively,
some faction or other within that ruling group of people in
the USA, at any rate persons with influence and contacts at a
very high level indeed within the present US administration.
This obvious fact - of course - is being denigrated completely
by all the reactionary international mass media, whose "repor-
ting" on the most vital subjects in many different fields has
steadily become more and more completely divorced from reali-
ty, not just since a couple of months back but since many
years back. This they are not breathing one word about.
It's necessary to point out, and to repeat, who - approximate-
ly who - very obviously did organize the 11 September atroci-
ties, and why. If you don't see this, you cannot understand
even approximately what is really going on today, concerning
Afghanistan and in the whole world too.
To make out more precisely what, very "established", forces in
the USA were behind the 11.09 co-ordinated attacks is diffi-
cult of course and will continue to be so, on account of the
massive smokescreens. Some of those rather few Internet
writers who seem to be seeking the truth on this for instance
have pointed to that obviously strange continued reading aloud
by Bush of a children's goat story for half-an-hour after he
had received the news, or the "news", of the two aircrafts'
hitting both of the WTC towers, as an indication that the US
president himself at least had prior knowledge of what would
occur. Some other details of the events on that day suggest
that some "leading" persons at least were under the impres-
sion, initially, that some kind of a coup d'état was under way
in the USA.
Whoever more precisely those persons in the USA are who by the
11.09 mass murder in that country itself added another item to
their already long record as international war criminals, a
silly "goat story" indeed is the one immediately cooked up and
since then constantly, concertedly, repeated by all the reac-
tionary politicians and all the media in all the "rich" coun-
tries, in all keys and at the top of their voices, that "it
was Usama bin Laden and the Taliban who done it" or "who main-
ly done it".
And now when Bush, while the bombing of Afghanistan continues,
threatens also Iraq and the DPRK with war, under another pre-
text than that of the US imperialists' own 11.09 atrocities,
he once more makes very clear what is the real main object of
that bombing and what was also the object of that earlier
mass murder, which its perpetrators themselves have advanced
as "the reason for" their present mass murder in Afghanistan,
"to begin with":
To terrorize the people everywhere, in all countries.
To terrorize the people in the many poor, internationally op-
pressed and exploited countries, very directly, by threats of
air strikes and troop interventions - "don't you dare to op-
pose our reign over you and our fleecing of you to the very
marrow".
To terrorize also the people in the USA itself and in the other
so-called "rich" countries, who in general are not under that
threat of dying of hunger in their thousands each day which is
a reality in so many regions of the world today but who have
practically no say in their country's affairs either and are
likewise subjected to an exploitation by the capitalists which
since many years back is being driven more and more to the ex-
treme, with the rulers of those countries also since long en-
gaging in destroying large parts of that, relatively, modern
industrial civilization which has existed there.
2. "SUCCESS" IN AFGHANISTAN FOR "THE FREE WORLD",
A.K.A. THE IMPERIALIST BARBARIANS?
Very much a "1984-type" war, for hitting not least at the "in-
ternal opposition" in the imperialist countries, is the one
against Afghanistan, it was pointed out in #156en of this se-
ries (of 10.10.01). This has been noted by some other writers
too. Of course it's the people of that country itself who -
once more - is getting much the worst of it.
The bombing in Afghanistan now, including carpet bombing with
B-52s, including such new methods of mass killing as sustained
artillery fire from the sides of low-flying AC-130s and para-
chute-dropped bombs of a new type, devastating large areas
around their points of impact, this coupled also with the
long-time closing of the country's borders so as to *prevent*,
contrary to the hypocritical lies of the imperialists, actual
and effective humanitarian aid to the Afghan people, already
has killed thousands of innocent civilians there quite di-
rectly and will kill indirectly nobody knows how many tens of
thousands in the near future.
Against this outrage, mass protests are continuing all over
the world. The people in the "rich" countries by no means have
been silenced completely either. In London, for instance, on
18.11 some 100,000 protested against this war, an event which
went largely unreported by the international mass media.
Now since two weeks back, the so-called Northern Alliance,
backed not least by the Russian new tsarists who also support
the US imperialists' war while attempting to further aims of
their own in it, are in control of Kabul. They entered the
city despite "directives" from the USA to stay out of it. At
the time of writing, the Taliban seem to be more or less rou-
ted, still holding on to some strongholds only around Kandahar
in the south. US Marines have been landed there to prevent
their troops from escaping. A conference is being held in
Bonn, Germany, under the tutelage of imperialism, for "for-
ming a new government" in Afghanistan.
The US and other imperialists thus have achieved - what objec-
tives in Afghanistan?
In Info #156en I wrote i.a.:
"Toppling the Taliban regime - which of course nobody else
than the Afghan people itself has any business to do - this is
not really the object of this reactionary warfare either. More
than in any previous act of aggression, the object simply is
to have a war, to engage in large-scale destruction, to terro-
rize the people everywhere."
Events have shown this to be to some part wrong. The US impe-
rialists clearly also did have the object of toppling the Ta-
liban, though not precisely in that manner in which this has
- so far - been "achieved". Some earlier media reports, poin-
ted to by other writers, also show that plans for some kind of
joint war action precisely against Afghanistan in fact had al-
ready been discussed several months before 11.09, between the
rulers of the USA and those of Great Britain at least, appa-
rently also with those of Russia, after the US imperialists
had failed to reach an agreement earlier this year with that
Taliban regime which they themselves more or less brought into
being, in the first place, some five years ago.
On the now resulting new government in Afhanistan - if there
does result one and the country is not, once more, torn apart
more or less completely by warlordism and banditry, which is
possible too - the US imperialists no doubt will have more in-
fluence than they had with the Taliban. Influence to do what?
To create bases against their semi-rivals and also partners,
the likewise arch-reactionary rulers of Russia and of China?
This would be difficult, in the first place, and is not all
that much of interest to the US imperialists either, after
all, in the present actual situation in the world. Events pre-
cisely after 11.09 have shown how very much all the big-time
reactionaries in the world are now seeing a need for "sticking
together", under the continued hegemony of US imperialism,
against the people all over the globe, that common adversary
of theirs whom they all so more and more desperately fear.
Influence in Afghanistan, perhaps, in order to build a pipe-
line through that country, bringing oil from the Middle East
to the Indian Ocean? By a number of "non-establishment"
writers, that theory has been advanced that the 11.09 atroci-
ties in the USA and the later war against Afghanistan with
these as a pretext were "all about oil" or "mainly about oil".
This is a wrong and misleading theory, which fails to consider
what is really going on in the world today, and since several
decades back too.
3. TODAY SINCE LONG A FANATICAL "WAR *AGAINST* OIL"
IN THE WORLD, MUCH MORE THAN ANY "WARS FOR OIL"
Several decades ago, control of the plentiful and particularly
cheap oil in, above all, the Middle East certainly was a vital
objective for US imperialism, for the other, smaller, "tradi-
tionally"-imperialist powers too and for Soviet social-imperia-
lism as well, though that power had sufficient oil of its own
also for export.
Today not only have oil extraction methods developed conside-
rably, so that an oil well today yields twice the amount a
comparable one did 25 years ago. Much more importantly, all
"real oil people", all governments for instance, today since
long know that the earlier prevalent theory about the origins
of of oil (and of natural gas, which is more or less the same
substance) is all wrong. Oil does not come from "decomposing
plants and animals of millions of years ago" - which might
mean it could be relatively scarce on earth - but from gigan-
tic amounts of hydrocarbons which exist everywhere rather
deep in the earth's crust (present already when the planet it-
self was formed) and which are contiunally seeping upwards,
in very many places around the globe not very difficult to
find and only marginally more expensive to extract than those
amounts, in e.g. the Middle East, which happen to lie quite
close to the surface.
That is, oil is enormously plentiful, practically everywhere
on earth.
This fact, of there being oil in "ordinary rock" (granite etc)
at somewhat larger depths, was conclusively proven, as it
happens, here in Sweden from where I'm writing this, around
1990, and that knowledge has since been utilized in practice
in several countries such as Russia, China and Vietnam, where
today much oil is being extracted from, say, 7000 m down.
However, neither here in Sweden nor for instance in the USA(!)
is any such oil being extracted at all - this for certain
arch-political reasons characteristic of today's long-since
obsolete social system of capitalism and imperialism, whose
rulers more and more fear the very development of industry
since this also means the development of a strong workers'
movement.
The US imperialists (for instance) today could easily get
plenty of cheap oil "at home" - only, they *don't want to*
any more. They and other "leading" reactionaries since decades
back in fact are striving to make all energy as scarce and
expensive as only they can, which is the main reason also
for their fanatical campaign against nuclear energy in the
world, and the reason why "ordinary people" still today are
being fed by all the media those, today completely bullshit,
stories about oil's "having biological origins" and "being
scarce" - "We're running out of oil!" - and also since long
are being treated to that likewise complete nonsense, to which
international big "conference" after international big "confe-
rence" has been dedicated, of a purported "manmade global
warming" - so that "now, oil use must be curtailed", with the
most catastrophic consequences of this, which in part is real-
ly taking place, for the people in all countries.
An oil pipeline through Afghanistan? A few capitalist "indus-
trialists" may want this. "Their own", incomparably more
powerful, *politicians*, in the USA and elsewhere, certainly
will have none of such things.
Of course the 11.09 atrocities in the USA were *not* planned
and executed as a pretext for "merely" such a thing as a
present-day "war for oil". The dimensions, and intentions, of
this crime were and are much bigger than that: Warfare, now
in part quite open such, for years to come, by the main ruling
reactionaries against practically everybody on earth, in order
to stem up against the rising tide of opposition everywhere
to that vile and putrifying system of society which dominates
the globe today - that was what the 11 September attacks were
intended to initiate.
Concerning oil, it also should be noted that precisely since
11.09, the international oil price has declined dramatically,
with as much as $12 per barrel, to a present relatively "low"
level of some $18 per barrel. This of course is a result of
a present "recession", of decreased air travel among other
things, and of that general lack of industrial development
in the world which is caused by the putrefaction of the
reigning social system. Consumers as all know are paying much
more for petrol than those $18 per 159 litres; the govern-
ments in the "rich" countries since long are levying enormous
taxes on all energy in order to strangulate development even
more. And now the oil-producing countries are *decreasing*
production in order to keep even the producers' price up -
another measure, impossible in any society which would re-
present development, expansion, progress in any way but
typical too of conditions under imperialism today.
[Continued in part 2/2]
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9WB2D
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
