alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
http://libcom.org/forums/news/riots-brazil-14062013?page=1#comment-518176 “Davi, i’m from São Paulo. Your posts were all pretty accurate untill this one. I think it’s a bit exagerated to say that the army is planing a coup. It’s true that many media channels spoke of the resemblance between the present political panorama (in Brazil) and the one just before the 1964 coup. But in spite of the similarities i really don’t believe that we should fear another dictatorship. It’s just not coming our way right now. Actually, besides that one point in common, i didn’t see any other leads to the conclusion you drew out of the facts. Perhaps you were led to it by the media: we all know that the main brazilian news papers and tv channels (GLOBO) are controlled by the elite. That being said, it’s obvious that you’re not gonna see and hear too much about the left wing arguments and propositions, even if their militants are taking them to the streets. Journalists are just not puting to much enfasis on it. That’s true. But between not hearing about the left wing’s proposals and actual participation in these riots and fearing a military coup by the extreme right wing there is a long, long way. I haven’t heard about any “authoritarian and right-wing slogans” coming from the streets. Actually i’ve heard and seen of the opposite: feminists, anti-homofobic, anti-privatization, etc.. On the other hand, though, i can understand the fear (i would like to point out that the same fear was shown not exclusively by left wing adepts): the movements have no specif leadership or cause. And that is sometihng to be feared because of its massive proporitions. Basically we’ve had a gigantic display of popular power and no banner, no specif objective attached to it. And no that its legitimate to speak in it’s behalf. Now political parties have already tried to do so (to claim and/or to take part in it) and failed. And you just cannot say that this MPL is responsible for it either. They were responsible for the first wave of protests and the (shared) organisation of a few others and can only legitimately speak on behalf of the Free Fare cause. It sounded really absurd to me when i heard on the news that the government (PT) was discussing the people’s claims (including health, education and political reform) and what measures to adopt towards them with the MPL. The other complaints that brought probably 90% of the participants in the riots to the streets just WEREN’T IN THEIR AGENDA TO BEGIN WITH therefore THEY ARE NOT LEGITIMATED TO DISCUSS THEM. Their agenda was the reduction of the increase and the gratuity of fares in spite of their clear aliegeance to the left wing parties. And that’s it. They cannot claim the whole movement. Actually, if it weren’t for the police brutality, things would have probably stayed as the were on the first day: 5 or 6 thousand people on the streets and that’s it. Again, i didn’t see any fascist or authoritarian slogans in the protests. I’m actually curious to see them, now that you’ve mentioned them. What may have “pissed of” some of the brazilian left wingers was the great amount of slogans with the word “APARTIDÁRIO”, wich means “NO POLITICAL PARTY” or “no specif political party”. But then again: nothing fascist about that. And what about this aledged “UDNist” march? Did you really see that? Please, send some pictures of that too. In my humble opinion this “fear of a military coup” is really just a few old fashioned left wingers trying to gain the attention of the press and with it, their 15 minutes of fame. There is no actual threat.”
The real reason Iran's Press TV was banned in the UK. …that it airs unpleasant to watch home-truths. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/06/28/311232/usbacked-takfiris-behead-priest-in-homs/ Strange the American right-wing evangelical Christian movement is prepared to turn a blind eye to anti-christian atrocities committed by America's allies.
In a recent blog on Socialist Courier "The Paris Commune of 1871 where French workers actually created organisations of mass control which challenged the old system for a brief space of time. The Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917, when workers and peasants developed similar structures of direct workers' control such as the workers councils and factory committees (the Bolshevik seizure of power in October 1917 eventually destroyed this, and ushered in a system of state capitalism). Similarly, in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, the workers set up workers' councils when they took on their so-called "communist" oppressors. During the May of 1968 in France, workplaces and universities were taken over and in many cases run in a way that is of immense inspiration to socialists. What happened on these occasions? Certainly they were not socialist revolutions, as some claim. But they were significant in the history of the struggles of our class. They are significant because the sort of people who dismiss the possibility of revolutionary upheavals were dismissing it shortly before these events blew up in their faces. ""http://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-year-of-revolution.html By coincidence, there is an article in AlJazeera also making this point. "…when political reality explodes in unexpected ways, pundits come along suggesting comparisons, offering hastily constructed explanations, and cite influences and antecedents. Surprise is suppressed by most ‘experts’ who do all that they can to hide these awkward exposures of how little they knew about the explosive forces in society, which erupted without any advance notice. After the explosion these wannabe gurus step forth with undiminished confidence to tell us with learned demeanour why and how it happened, why it was almost inevitable to turn out as it did, and the most arrogant and often most influential even dare tell us what to expect next, and why it is good or bad…"http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/06/201362884215605712.html Socialist Courier wrote "…What these examples show is that real change can be brought about by workers. Socialism is not a utopian dream. It is an ever-present undercurrent in working class practice and at times they erupt without warning, sparked off by something as mundane as protecting some trees or protesting a bus fare rise…." AlJazeera writes " We are habitually trained and experienced to look at politics from above, whether our perspective is that of elites or counter-elites, but revolutionary impulses come, if and when they come, almost invariably from pressures generated from below, that is, from the ‘multitude,’ pressures that materialise by suddenly bursting forth as happenings that startle and reverberate.." One of those days the eruption will keep erupting, crossing continents and won't subside until we have the world we all want. No politician, no academic, no political party , not even a socialist one, will forecast it and in the early stages many will not even recognise it happening. For the capitalists it will be a shockwave..for ourselves a pleasant surprise, that hopefully we offer some vital input.
The gun-runners for Jihad Central Intelligence Agency has begun moving weapons to Jordan from a network of secret warehouses and plans to start arming small groups of vetted Syrian rebels within a month… Saudi Arabia is expected to provide shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles, known as Manpads Talks are under way with other countries, including France, about pre-positioning European-procured weapons in Jordan, a country that seems immune from criticism of being a safe haven for terrorist groups. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323419604578569830070537040.html
Hanlon’s razor – “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” While the rationale behind Obama’s decision to send light arms and ammunition to the rebels is that it will level the playing field it makes the United States is now a direct participant in the war to bring down the Damascus regime, thus shedding any possibility that, along with Russia, a supplier of ams to the government, it could act as a neutral force to bring the parties together. The French and the British are hardly neutral bystanders, with long and sordid track records in the region. It was Paris and London that secretly divvied up the Middle East in the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, and who used divisions between Shiites, Sunnis, and Christians to keep their subject populations at one another’s throats. Both countries just successfully lobbied the European Union to end its arms embargo on the Syrian combatants and are considering supplying weapons to the insurgents. When Obama gives lip service to a “diplomatic solution,” albeit one whose outcome was preordained: “Assad must go,” Obama said in August 2011, a precondition that as Ramzy Mardini, a former U.S. State Department official for Near Eastern affairs, recently wrote in the New York Times, “What’s the point of negotiating a political settlement if the outcome is already predetermined?” When Obama made his famous “red line” speech warning the Assad regime that the use of chemical weapons would trigger U.S. military intervention. Didn’t he realize that his comment show that chemical weapons were being used and in come the US Marines would result in the insurgents claiming poison gas was used on them, a charge the Damascus regime has denied. “If you are the opposition and you hear” that the White House has drawn a red line on the use of nerve agents, then “you have an interest in giving the impression that some chemical weapons have been used,” says Rolf Ekeus, a Swedish scientist who headed up the UN weapons inspections in Iraq. United Nations General Secretary Ban Ki-moon said the U.S. move to arm the rebels was “not helpful,” and reiterated, “There can be no military solution to this conflict, even if the government and the opposition, and their supporters, think there can be.” The Obama administration could use that admonition to call for a ceasefire, hold off sending arms, and instead concentrate—along with Russia—on building a peace conference. The conference would have to involve all the parties, including the countries currently being destabilized by the ongoing fighting. The United States will have to step back from its “Assad must go” position and instead seek a way to integrate Syria’s 2014 presidential elections into a formula for peace. From herehttp://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/06/26-4
Sponsor your own terrorist !! “From Persian Gulf cities hundreds of miles from the battlefield, wealthy patrons help decide which of Syria’s hundreds of rebel groups will receive money to pay salaries and buy weapons and supplies for the fight against the government of President Bashar al-Assad. In practice, these donors overwhelmingly back Islamist groups whose ultraconservative views reflect their own, intelligence officials and analysts say….A few have even named themselves after a gulf benefactor, like sports teams that adopt the logo of a corporate sponsor. One rebel group in eastern Syria now calls itself the “Hajjaj al-Ajmi Brigade,” in a tribute to the Kuwaiti sheik. A YouTube video posted by the group opens with a banner emblazoned with the sheik’s name and then shows a dozen masked fighters wearing camouflage fatigues and brandishing assault rifles.” A U.S.-based Middle Eastern diplomat whose country has provided aid to some of the rebel factions opposed to Assad explained, “Non-state actors are now involved in a big way. You see different players looking to create their own militias,” said the diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss politically sensitive aid to the Syrian opposition. “It is beyond control.” http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-15/world/39993019_1_rebel-groups-united-arab-emirates-sheik
As i said you been reading pro-conspiracy books and so basing your rush of judgement purely on LHO defence case, without a cross-examinination, or even hearing the prosecution's full case or listening to their witnesses. The death of LHO deprived many of hearing eye-winess testimony and deciding their worth. How dismissive of Howard Brennan actually seeing the sniper at the 6th floor book depository should a jury have been? Or those watching the president's convoy from window directly below where LHO is alleged to have used, hearing the shots being taken? Or the witnesses who rather than those who claim seeing snipers say they did NOT see a grassy knoll shooter and would have done if there had been one. A jury decides on the credibility and reliability of witnesses from the advantage of them being questioned and re-questioned. Witness statements can, nevertheless, be unreliable and are also to be balanced against other evidence, medical and ballistic, for corroboration. Even among conspiracists, Mark Lane, has something of a reputation of being fast and loose with the facts of the case. Once again, in regards to Jim Garrison, his contribution to truth in the JFK assassination is on par with Joe McCarthy's contribution to the unbiased and objective study of communism. The Garrison charges led to the only actual legal trial into the assassination that did NOT come to a the conclusion that it agreed with and accepted his claim of his particular version of the conspiracy. They made their judgement when the heard the WHOLE case, not just Garrison's side of it in a book or movie.
Al Jazeera, as if we should be surprised, is full of lick-spittle for their new ruler who was educated at Sherborne public school, Harrow, and, of course, Sandhurst. He is chairman of their sovereign fund worth a $100 billion. And in charge of the 2022 World Cup. I believe the heads of the Syrian government will be used as the footballs…and i do mean the heads.
There's always something cropping up in the study of the JFK assassination . Today, because of the recent threads i was looking at some webpages …(not obsessed by it that i constantly research it …and all my books are no longer available to do quick checks…) i came across the LHO-SLP connection. FBI found phone numbers of a fellow named Horace Twiford in Oswald’s address book. Contacting the Twiford household, they found that Mrs. Estelle Twiford remembered Oswald having called her one night, wanting to contact her husband, who was an activist in the Socialist Labor Party. Oswald had sent a request for literature to the SLP in New York, and the request was forwarded along to Horace Twiford in Houston, who duly mailed a copy of the Weekly People, a newspaper published by the Party, to Oswald. Oswald told Mrs. Twiford that he was flying to Mexico, and mentioned his membership in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Mrs. Twiford explained that her husband, a merchant seaman, was at sea. I wonder if he ever got to read a Western Socialist? Was there ever a New Orleans or Dallas branch of the WSPUS? Of course, the "leftist" credentials of Oswald are presented really as a cover story by the conspiracists to disguise his CIA links and provide a false CV and with the recent revelations about undercover cops in the McLibel case and Animal Rights and the Stephen Lawrence case , it is very easy to sympathise with that analysis.
Ed "underhand tricks and attempts to discredit me personally rather than debate the subject "Perhaps someone neutral should refer me to which elements in my posts substantiate Ed's claims. Of course saying someone is wrong and mistaken is personal but is it underhand to do so ? It is not an attempt to discredit the person but to discredit a particular idea held by the person. Perhaps he refers to my use of "not socialistic trait"…i intended that we are materialists who come to conclusions from exchange of views and we support our views on certain principles and that includes it being evidence based, not assertions.
Steve, Perhaps you never noticed my remarks on the reliability of Garrison on the other thread. His claims have been proved to be false. But the quality of Garrisons case? Garrison’s scenario is “five or six shots fired at the President from front and rear by at least four gunmen, assisted by several accomplices”. He later added another shooting from the sewer manhole. In all it was a 16 man assassination team. One witness at the Clay Shaw trial would fingerprint his daughter in the morning before she went to university and again when she came back to make sure she was the same person…my, what a credible witness, Garrison produces? No wonder it didn’t take the jury very long to throw out the case. A list of lies in On the Trail http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimlie.htm If you believe Stone’s depiction of Garrison as a crusader for justice, you might as well also accept Errol Flynn’s representation of Custer as the definitive one. Citing the movie and Jim Marrs as different sources is a little bit of a cheat since the script is very much based upon Crossfire. But anyways there is plenty on the web to dispute the movie content.http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.htmlhttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jfkmovie.htm LHO – The Patsy Oliver Stone’s scenario is 3-Gunmen, 6-Shot conspiracy theory would involve the POTENTIAL final results of having the one and only target (JFK) being hit with up to SIX SEPARATE BULLETS fired from the guns of THREE different snipers (one of which was firing from the front, the exact OPPOSITE direction from where the “Patsy” was supposedly firing in the Texas School Book Depository Building, which was located to the REAR of the President’s car). So how on Earth can it be said that one man LHO was going to be used a “Patsy” for the assassination!! Didn’t anyone think…”Hmm…We’re using three different killers to all fire at JFK at virtually the same time and from different locations and angles yet somehow ALL the evidence, somehow or some wayhas to lead back to LHO and the 6the floor book depository and only to LHO’s rifle….hmmm… Are we sure this is the best plan to frame a single patsy?” Jim Marrs is a career conspiracist. He will write on any conspiracy as long as it there’s a market for the books such as he has on extraterrestrials, secret societies, psychic warfare and 9-11. See here for the link between the assassination to Kennedy and UFOs. http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1860.htm.It is perhaps unfair of me to ridicule his views on JFK/LHO by pointing out his other theories. Take all the different and conflicting theories, jumble them up into a stew and serve up as new. Marrs wrote in Crossfire that those with motives in the murder of Kennedy were “Attorney General Robert Kennedy’s attack on organized crime (Mafia motive); President Kennedy’s failure to support the Cuban exiles at the Bay of Pigs (Cuban and C.I.A. motive); the 1963 Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (military-industrial complex, or M.I.C. motive); Kennedy’s plan to withdraw from Vietnam before the end of 1965 (Joint Chiefs of Staff and M.I.C. motive); Kennedy’s talk about taking away the oil-depletion allowance (Texas oil men motive); Kennedy’s monetary policies (international bankers motive); Kennedy’s decision to drop Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson from the ticket in 1964 (L.B.J. motive) and Kennedy’s active civil rights policy (Texas racist billionaires motive). Take your pick. And of course that is not the exclusive list of other speculations on motive. As for the so-called Magic Bullet. I’ll let Wiki once again explain it all to you and you decide for yourself which represents the more scientific and evidence based theory.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-bullet_theory Steve said “Everything that I have looked at over the last 30 years says that the Italian Martini [sic] rifle could not have killed JFK in the time frame given”You’ve just not looked in the right places and who can blame you when we are swamped by misinformation. Did you go to the Wiki entry i linked to?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle
"Oswald was a trained sniper"Not at sniper level…qualified at the less proficient sharpshooter on basic training then later at the lower level as marksman, the drop in quality put down to as a new recruit he was more keen to prove himself than as a jaded serving marine just going through the motions.The tests included mandatory positions that did not suit his favoured manner of shooting and the one he is presumed to have used in the assassination. Nor are rifle rests permitted on the tests whereas LHO had a box to rest and steady his rifle. His skill at shooting was perfectly adequate for the assassination. Claims to the contrary are not based on factual evidence but hearsay. It wasn't such difficult shots to make and he had sufficient time to make them. The claims that he had no time to take them or would have been too rushed to aim accurately are not correct. Wiki offers a good short concise explanation http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifleEd, you previously said "I too have done extensive research and had many debates on the subject….The only real points that can be debated is on the weapon, the bullet and the chosen vantage point from which he supposedly shot. The fact is weapons experts have tried to recreate the shot many times over the years with the same rifle and struggled to reload as fast as Oswald supposedly did. When they have achieved it, it is with no accuracy. That is, with even less than the rifle would usually fire with. Coupled with the fact that Oswald's military record shows he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn door. Maybe he improved in the intervening years, it's possible. But not with that rifle and not from that vantage point. Unless it was a freak one in a million shot. " On this topic i find Wiki a reliable source as if confirms much of what i have myself read. Perhaps you can cite who your own extensive research was based upon. It is not meant to be uncomradely to attempt to point out to another member a mistaken view on a particular subject. I may have been tactless in the tone of my correction and i apologise, however, refusing to accept or denying another's argument without attempting to refute or defend your own differing view isn't particularly a socialistic trait. I'm convinced i am right, but i have often changed my mind about things in the past when i cannot provide an answer or know where to look for one.
The latest conspiracy and cover up. In 1996 TWA crashed now a documentary claims it was shot down by a missile and not an accident. This article wonders why the missile conspiracy is given credence?If the missile theory had originally been agreed then important but expensive safety regulations brought in after the accident would have been left on paper and we'd still be flying in potentially unsafe planes. This articlehttp://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/20/opinion/adcock-flight-800/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
The capitalist conspiracy – those who control the world…or try tohttp://www.alternet.org/occupy-wall-street/elite-business-and-think-tank-attempts-control-world?paging=off
