The Big Lie About 'Islamic Fascism'

by Eric Margolis

The latest big lie unveiled by Washington’s neoconservatives are the poisonous terms, "Islamo-Fascists" and "Islamic Fascists." They are the new, hot buzzwords among America’s far right and Christian fundamentalists.

President George W. Bush made a point last week of using "Islamofacists" when recently speaking of Hezbullah and Hamas – both, by the way, democratically elected parties. A Canadian government minister from the Conservative Party compared Lebanon’s Hezbullah to Nazi Germany.

The term "Islamofascist" is utterly without meaning, but packed with emotional explosives. It is a propaganda creation worthy Dr. Goebbels, and the latest expression of the big lie technique being used by neocons in Washington’s propaganda war against its enemies in the Muslim World.

This ugly term was probably first coined in Israel – as was the other hugely successful propaganda term, "terrorism" – to dehumanize and demonize opponents and deny them any rational political motivation, hence removing any need to deal with their grievances and demands.

As the brilliant humanist Sir Peter Ustinov so succinctly put it, "Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich."

Both the terms "terrorism" and "fascist" have been so abused and overused that they have lost any original meaning. The best modern definition I’ve read of fascism comes in former Columbia University Professor Robert Paxton’s superb 2004 book, The Anatomy of Fascism.

Paxton defines fascism’s essence, which he aptly terms its "emotional lava" as: 1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign "contamination."

Fascism demands a succession of wars, foreign conquests, and national threats to keep the nation in a state of fear, anxiety and patriotic hypertension. Those who disagree are branded ideological traitors. All successful fascists regimes, Paxton points out, allied themselves to traditional conservative parties, and to the military-industrial complex.

Highly conservative and militaristic regimes are not necessarily fascist, says Paxton. True fascism requires relentless aggression abroad and a semi-religious adoration of the regime at home.

None of the many Muslim groups opposing US-British control of the Mideast fit Paxton’s definitive analysis. The only truly fascist group ever to emerge in the Mideast was Lebanon’s Maronite Christian Phalange Party in the 1930’s which, ironically, became an ally of Israel’s rightwing in the 1980’s.

It is grotesque watching the Bush Administration and Tony Blair maintain the ludicrous pretense they are re-fighting World War II. The only similarity between that era and today is the cultivation of fear, war fever and racist-religious hate by US neoconservatives and America’s religious far right, which is now boiling with hatred for anything Muslim.

Under the guise of fighting a "third world war" against "Islamic fascism," America’s far right is infecting its own nation with the harbingers of WWII totalitarianism.

In the western world, hatred of Muslims has become a key ideological hallmark of rightwing parties. We see this overtly in the United States, France, Italy, Holland, Denmark, Poland, and, most lately, Canada, and more subtly expressed in Britain and Belgium. The huge uproar over blatantly anti-Muslim cartoons published in Denmark laid bare the seething Islamophobia spreading through western society.

There is nothing in any part of the Muslim World that resembles the corporate fascist states of western history. In fact, clan and tribal-based traditional Islamic society, with its fragmented power structures, local loyalties, and consensus decision-making, is about as far as possible from western industrial state fascism.

The Muslim World is replete with brutal dictatorships, feudal monarchies, and corrupt military-run states, but none of these regimes, however deplorable, fits the standard definition of fascism. Most, in fact, are America’s allies.

Nor do underground Islamic militant groups ("terrorists" in western terminology). They are either focused on liberating land from foreign occupation, overthrowing "un-Islamic" regimes, driving western influence from their region, or imposing theocracy based on early Islamic democracy.

Claims by fevered neoconservatives that Muslim radicals plan to somehow impose a worldwide Islamic caliphate are lurid fantasies worthy of Dr. Fu Manchu and yet another example of the big lie technique that worked so well over Iraq.

As Prof. Andrew Bosworth notes in an incisive essay on so-called Islamic fascism, "Islamic fundamentalism is a transnational movement inherently opposed to the pseudo-nationalism necessary for fascism."

However, there are plenty of modern fascists. But to find them, you have to go to North America and Europe. These neo-fascists advocate "preemptive attacks against all potential enemies," grabbing other nation’s resources, overthrowing uncooperative governments, military dominance of the world, hatred of Semites (Muslims in this case), adherence to biblical prophecies, hatred of all who fail to agree, intensified police controls, and curtailment of "liberal" political rights.

They revel in flag-waving, patriotic melodrama, demonstrations of military power, and use the mantle of patriotism to feather the nests of the military-industrial complex, colluding legislators and lobbyists. They urge war to the death, fought, of course, by other people’s children. They have turned important sectors of the media into propaganda organs and brought the Pentagon largely under their control.

Now, the neoconservatives are busy whipping up war against Syria and Iran to keep themselves in power and maintain the political dynamics of this 21st century revival of fascism.

The real modern fascists are not in the Muslim World, but Washington. The neocons screaming fascist the loudest, are the true fascists themselves. It’s a pity that communist and leftist propaganda so debased the term "neo-fascist" that it has become almost meaningless. Because that is what we should be calling the so-called neocons, for that is what they really are.

August 29, 2006

Eric Margolis [send him mail], contributing foreign editor for Sun National Media Canada, is the author of War at the Top of the World. See his website.

"This is for the ones who survived the Islamic Revolution in Iran 1979 ...."
What about for all the ones who didn't survive tthe Shahs SAVAK ? Maybe you should spend more time behind your computer.
London anarchists biggest event of the year is throwing a party - fuck, that says it all. And you are proud of it. Looks a lot less revolutionary, and less fun than Rachael Bells gig, you should get yourself a MySpace website. Tony Blair can sleep safe at night if burning his effigy 'class war'. And attacking Iran , god, he'd have approved, you should invite him.

Oh, here is london
Home of the brash, outrageous and free
You are repressed
But you're remarkably dressed
Is it real ?
And you're always busy
Really busy
Busy, busy
Oh, hairdresser on fire

Fascism demands a succession of wars, foreign conquests, and national threats to keep the nation in a state of fear, anxiety and patriotic hypertension. Those who disagree are branded ideological traitors. All successful fascists regimes, Paxton points out, allied themselves to traditional conservative parties, and to the military-industrial complex.


ermmm well that sounds like the current regime in Tehran, threating war in region against the enemies of the regime (ie the usa) if aint with it your a ideological traitor. Cant you see both Iran and the USA are cunts !

The left has been to silent on this no support for Islamo Fascisit regimes !

Neither Tehran ! Nor Washington ! But the camp of the workers !

Im sure most the left doesnt support fascism in this country, dont support it
aboard neither !


Further musing:

 http://www.thirdcamp.com/

 http://libcom.org/history/1978-1979-the-iranian-revolution

class war have got it spot on. The left has no problem with shouting at homophobic Christian wallys, yet they go silent when radical islamists state far more homophobic views. but then again they're 'anti-imperialist' right??

"Fascism demands a succession of wars, foreign conquests, and national threats to keep the nation in a state of fear, anxiety and patriotic hypertension."

And who has Iran attacked - or even threatened to attack ? The States have been threatening to attack Iran with Tony Blair cheerleading. There are other regimes that need to be berated. To pick on Iran at a time when our state has been picking on them, trying to pick fights with them well, it smacks of short-sighted populism at best, and of war mongering hypocracy and class betrayal at worst.

I've an positive suggestion for your next bonfire night. Get everyone to bring along their own national flag, and then burn them themselves.

Before responding to the last comment, the Plant/Freeper should know that we are well aware that Iran never threatened to "wipe Israel off the map". This was a mistranslation of his call for a just solution of Zionism's war to wipe Palestine off the map. perpetuating this mistake is a LIE.

The Big Lie About 'Islamic Fascism'

by Eric Margolis

The latest big lie unveiled by Washington’s neoconservatives are the poisonous terms, "Islamo-Fascists" and "Islamic Fascists." They are the new, hot buzzwords among America’s far right and Christian/Zionist fundamentalists.

(...)

Now, the neoconservatives are busy whipping up war against Syria and Iran to keep themselves in power and maintain the political dynamics of this 21st century revival of fascism.

The real modern fascists are not in the Muslim World, but Washington. The neocons screaming fascist the loudest, are the true fascists themselves. It’s a pity that communist and leftist propaganda so debased the term "neo-fascist" that it has become almost meaningless. Because that is what we should be calling the so-called neocons, for that is what they really are.

 http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2006/08/the_big_lie_abo.php

...is a ridiculous word. Clerical fascism is far better.

Let's be honest here for a moment. It's not about taking sides. I support the workers, the civilians, the victims. Whether they're being oppressed by US imperialism or theocratic dictatorship in the Islamic world.......it's about time people who campaign for human rights stand up and be counted.

Let's stand against imperialism.

Let's stand against wars for corporate profit.

Let's stand against the oppression of Palestinians.

Let's stand against the stoning of homosexuals.

Let's stand against clerical fascism.

Anyone who uses the '....but their not fasicsts because it's their culture' is a race supremacist. Why should culture and history give nations a 'free pass' when suppressing free speech, womans, gay and workers rights? It shouldn't. Full stop.

regardless of whether Iran has gone to war or threatened to go to war, the fact still remains that people in Iran are being hanged for being homosexual, people are getting beaten for demanding equal rights for women etc etc. I wouldnt call that a peaceful democracy would you? Or are you one of those loony commies who kiss Iran's arse for 'fighting imperialism'?

Iran is far from the only country who have persecuted gays and women - until a few decades ago we did. Iran has a parliament, doesn't attack other countries, so yes, I would call that a peaceful democracy. Probably as democratic as our country but certainly more peaceful. They have a right to choose their own laws even if we find them repugnant. I think it is perhaps cultural imperialism to impose our current standards abroad. It is certainly dangerously politically shortsighted to attack Irans record during a campaign of US/UK neo-con provocation and propaganda aimed at justifying another oil-resource war. Saudi Arabia has a worse record on these issues and yet noone from government will criticise them as they are an official and valued ally - is it not more incumbent of you to do so ? I mean, look up homophobia on wikipedia, they have a map of many homophobic states you could be attacking for that reason. And sure, I have no problem with anyone criticising Iran once the US and UK have stopped threatening to attack it.

Class War are meant to be anti-war as well as anti-fascist, I presume that is why you keep reforming and resurging when wars are kicking off. So I find it strange that you indulge in anti-Iranian rhetoric at a time when US carrier fleets and UK special forces are intruding into iranian territory hoping to provoke violent response. Let the Iranian people criticise their government for now, our priority should be to attack our state. Look, Saddam was a bastard and it is good that he was killed but it wasn't necessary to kill a million Iraqis to do it. The Iranian people put the Mullahs in, let them take them out. Let us concentrate on Westminster. Blair has killed more people than anyone in Iran - more gays, more women, more children, more working class. And he is within walking distance of you.

I've been criticised by anti-war activists for 'wasting my time' fighting local fascists. I think both fights are indivisable. There is no point standing up for Iranian exiles from being killed on the streets of Glasgow and then allowing Glaswegian squaddies to be sent to Iran to kill millions more. Attacking Iran would be far more bloody than even the Iraqi genocide.

This desert cults are ruining our lives, I say death to Abrahamism! None of this the enemy of my enemy is my friend shit.

well i think a couple of points here are needed, since both 'sides' are articulating this debate with about as much tact and sophistication as a brick.

first of all, i don't really think that people think there is such a thing as islamo-fascism. as has already been pointed out, this is more to do with clerical/religious authoritarianism.

secondly, one has to tread a fine line between maintaining an anti-imperialist stance and a class struggle stance. it is not an either-or scenario here; it requires balance and tact.

in other words, the question is not of who did what and when, nor even the minutiae of what fascism 'is' (indeed one of the main problems is its vagueness and theoretical contradictions). we mustn't fetishise anti-imperialism, and should be brave enough to say that Iran is a bullshit dictatorship that is infinitely more brutal than the UK. similarly, we should be willing to accept that it is not 'Iran' or 'Islam' that are problems, it is the leadership of those institutions that inflict themselves upon their subjects, combined with the deadly coctail of capitalism and the state.

as people on the left, of whatever ilk, we should stand side by side with other members of our class, and defend and promote our collective interests. pandering to religions and fascist states is not in our collective interests as a class. however we must be careful so as not to write off others just because they live in a fascist state. there have been several really big, really progressive, positive uprisings by iranian workers in recent months that put our feeble TUC to shame.

>bullshit dictatorship that is infinitely more brutal than the UK.

Bullshit yourself. I guess you haven't heard of 'Iraq' then. How many people did Iran slaughter in Fallujah again ? None. How many people did Iran firebomb in Dresden ? None. Such fucking blinded patriotism and smug self-righteousness is killing people daily all over the world. Infinitely more brutal my arse - the UK is a torture state beyond the comparison of any state except our US corporate sponsor.

15 British soldiers were brutalised how ? By having their Ipod stolen. The Iranian diplomat kidnapped had holes drilled in his feet. Five Irnian diplomats are still 'disapeared'. You fucking British jingoist.

And the Mullahs weren't imposed on the Iranians, they were chosen by the people as a revolutionary response to the brutal, abosulte monarch imposed on them by a CIA/MI6 coup. The Iranians were able to topple arguably the most brutal regime the west has ever imposed abroad in a matter of months. If they want rid of their government they will and your Blair sponsored support is patronising and dangerous. I don't like anyone who stands between me and my god - if other people want theocracy, it doesn't threaten me.

And by the way, I am half working class, half peasant class by your stupid labels, and so I have no collective interest with you. I owe no loyalty to 'the left' - anarchists aren't left, anarchists are free. A blind alliance to 'the left' is what earned us this NuLab police state.

Homosexual? Why do I get the feeling that "antifa hooligan" is probably also a BNP member...

I'm not going into the whole debate. But did Danny really say, "They have a right to choose their own laws even if we find them repugnant. I think it is perhaps cultural imperialism to impose our current standards abroad." Am I being culturally imperialist to say that is wrong to hang people for being gay?

'the UK is a torture state beyond the comparison of any state except our US corporate sponsor.'

Ever been to Darfur, Danny? Kampuchea? Rwanda? Heard of the word 'gulag'?

And it was the nice Jo Stalin who asked us to bomb Dresden.

"Am I being culturally imperialist to say that is wrong to hang people for being gay?"

No it is wrong to hang anyone - only backward religious states do that - like the US. No criticism of them though eh ? Not a chip out of you on that score. Am I hypocritical to suggest Blair and Bush and his willing idiots have killed more gays in Iraq than Saddam ever did - or the mullahs ever will in Iran ? No. It is a fact. war is the greatest crime.

"Ever been to Darfur, Danny? Kampuchea? Rwanda? Heard of the word 'gulag'? "

I had a Cambodian girlfriend once, and an Iranian girlfriend. I probably know more horror stories than you do. I know the horrors in Cambodia were directly caused by US crossborder bombing aimed at destabilising the whole region and that Pol Pots was directly supported by Thatcher and the SAS. Nice of you to prove my point. And I have experienced the threats of the British state, which I doubt you have. Gulag !! are you falling back on the Red Menace threat to justify US Imperialism, that's quaint. Not convincing at all, but cute. Ah for the good old days.

Nice way to downplay barbarity - suggest that it doesn't really count because of Cold war hysteria.

Still, what do a couple of million death matter when you're trying to score political points.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

Right, now I see. Cross border bombing relieves Pol Pot of the responsibility of a few more million deaths. Conveniant that. Perhaps you could learn some history too. Pol Pot came into power in 1975. Thatcher wasn't elected until 1979. And to suggest the SAS somehow assisted him is taking paranoia a little too far.

Executions - I'll take you on that. Somehow he US is always invokes - again - in this context. But the only crime for which you can be executed in the US today is that of murder. Executing someone for being gay is what teenagers would call 'gay'.

1. Concentration camps were invented by the British to put Boer civilian prisoners into during the Boer War.

2. More gay men are killed in the US prison system than die on Iranian gallows.

3. USSR was a atheistic state but being homosexual was still a crime or proof you were mentally ill. So you religious people don't have a monopoly on bigotry you can be a homophobic atheist.

4. The BNP believe in nation and race, CW believe in class and culture. The BNP hate black and muslim people because they are the wrong colour and CW hate black and muslim people because they believe the wrong things. Spot the difference.

'Concentration camps' were indeed invented by the British, and were designed to 'concentrate' the population in one place. Their purpose was not, however, mass extermination.

Gay men in US prisons. Got any figures to back that up? I've heard a figure of 400 for hanged gays in Iran, but I've no idea of its veracity, and I imagine getting realistic figures would be well nigh impossible.

Religion certainly doesn't have a monopoly on bigotry. But quite a few Islamic regimes take bigotry to new heights.

is danny the 'president' of iran or something? he's getting very worked up about people criticising that wonderful example of capitalism and theocracy combined...

plus anarchism is not left??? get back to your ayn rand books please.

>is danny the 'president' of iran or something?
Would you vote for me if I ran ? Boom boom.
Rah rah blame those pesky Persians who are sitting on our oil

>he's getting very worked up about people criticising that wonderful example of capitalism and theocracy combined...
I also got worked up when I heard supposedly sound people slagging off Saddam in the weeks leading up to the Iraq invasion.
And when they fail to mention the state we are in.

Why can't you address the simple point I'm making ?
They live in a flawed murderous state.
We live in a genocidal state.
You do nothing about our state but criticse theirs.
Unless you are a warmonger MI5 troll stooge then why would that be ?

Understand ? Want to answer ? Need it reworded more simply ?

>plus anarchism is not left??? get back to your ayn rand books please.
I've never read Ayn Rand, I read enough pseudoanarchist fascist comments here - I barely made it to the end of yours for example. The terms Left and Right are labels applied to the seating arrangements in a French parliament where no anarchists were present. They are labels of power. The anarchists were out on the streets. So who are you personally 'Left' of ? Stalin ? Tito ? Blair ? Cos by promoting Blairs agenda for a new war then you seem to be standing directly behind Bush.

Pointing out that the regime in Iran is deeply nasty does not mean we are 'pushing blair's agenda'. What are we supposed to do - close our eyes and ears, look away, and whistle loudly?

" What are we supposed to do - close our eyes and ears, look away, and whistle loudly?"

Oh - so you have an effective strategy for dealing with Iran's nasty regime?

Pray do indulge us by sharing the secrets of your success .

Or do you just join Bush and Blair (nice guys what?) in creating an atmosphere where the slaughter of innocent Iranian people can become an 'acceptable price to pay'?

Cos that would seem worse than closing your eyes, looking away and whistling loudly.

Who said I'd got any great secret? I certainly didn't.

Two things.

The regime is nasty, and, to be frank, closing your eyes to that does you no credit.

Second, all the war hype comes from the like of Pravda and GlobalResearch, as it calls itself. Ten minutes looking at the logistics tells you it won't happen. Two minutes thinking how bogged down the US is in Iraq should tell you that. We had the Good Friday scare. It came and it went. And in the end, Blair does need Parliament, because one vote of no confidence and he's out. He's not like Bush, who has a fixed term of office. And Blair will be off in a month or two anyway. So take your head out of your arse and realise it's not going to happen.

"Thatcher wasn't elected until 1979. And to suggest the SAS somehow assisted him is taking paranoia a little too far. "

Oh, loony toons, poor, poor you. You think Britain is righetous I am paranoid and Thatcher couldn't possible support Pol Pot ? Well, at least you know who Pol Pot was and know him to be bad - it is sad but many young British people haven't even heard of the Khmer Rouge. But I'm about to disillusion you the same way I was disillusioned.

I remember the news footage of Cambodia. The wind blowing bank notes down empty streets - no people, just money. And Blue Peter ran an appeal. I think we all saved up milk-bottle-tops. An arcane reference perhaps, and maybe it was stamps. Anyway we all saved them up and sent them off and somehow Blue Peter turned them into money for the poor, hungry, Cambodians. I didn't realise that at that age who had carpet-bombed them into the stone age. And Simon Groom, a presenter then, had Margret Thatcher onto the show to hand over the big Blue Peter cheque. To his horror and utter bemusement Thatcher then proceeded to defend the Khmer Rouge on national kids TV. She pointed out that while they may be genocidal war-criminals , at least they weren't communists, and insisted they should be represented in government there. Nobody knew at the time that at that point she was already providing military aid and training to them, but it was obvious from her damaged and damaging rhetoric. That footage has never been repeated for it exposes our PM as as nasty a villain as any in fiction or myth. To his credit, Simon Grooms jaw hit the floor.

I also remember the first ever SAS to break ranks to the press complaining how they'd had to teach Pol Pot how to terrify schoolchildren into not attending school - by sticking pencils through their ears.

The Khmer Rouge were created by US bombing. In one of the few acts of genuine humanitarian military intervention the Vietnamese eventuanlly invaded and drove them into the jungles. US special forces then supported, equipped and trained the Khmer Rouge, simply out of spite against the Vietnamese. Then the Iran-Contra scandal broke, and Congress was embarrassed into withdrawing US special forces. So the SAS were sent in in their place.

Am I making any sense to you - do you know any of this stuff ? I can find a few links to back up what I'm saying, but you have to realsie the main point - we are a shitty murderous nation despite what it says on the TV. We are not the good guys. We stick pencils through childrens ears. We kill anyone who speaks out too much at home. We torture people and export torture equipment. you can find prrof od this but you do need to dig - and the fact it is buried tells you as much as anything you'll find.

If You are young, then I apologise for being the first adult to tell you this. Santa Claus is a coca-cola advert and nothing more.


You know what I think this thread is linked to ? A spook who posts right-wing blairite warmongering propaganda under various names on the one thread accidentally identified himself here last night. And I posted a brief what effect meeting him has had on my life.  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/04/368146.html?c=all He can't respond on that thread but he is as tenacious as he is devious..
You think I'm paranoid / come and see the CID outside my door, come and see the sole access poin to an internet connection in my town, come and read the statement i had to sign 'I will not burn down Labour party premises. It's mad, but it is the madness around me, I am 100% sane. Okay, 98%.

Now he is heavily anti-Iran, like I'd expect most ex-SAS /paras/squaddy infiltrators are. He is also heavily anti-Chavez like you'd expect.

But anarchists ? Seriously folk, do you truly represent your groups. Cos I'm betting there is more than one MI5 infiltrator and I'd ask your groups to reexamine if the contributors to this thread truly represent them.

All states are shit, all states should be overthrown. It is our duty to overhtrow our own first. And to single out our states official enemies for abuse before that happens, that is just plain suspicious. Our state just happens to be the second largest arms exporter in the world. Our state just happens to be the second most warlike in recent years. Our state has WMD and has threatened illegally to use them. Don't you read what gets reported on IM ? Admittedly we export most of our torture, most of who will kill are foriegners, but that does not make us any better. We kill more. we do worse.

I'm not a muslim, so if you want to burn effigies of whoever, I'm not insulted. I can see how that is provocative at this time. I also realise most muslims would see it as childish. Trying to give your life meaning by demeaning others only demeans yourself.

Those of you who are genuinely pro-Iranian workers rights, genuinely pro-Iranian gay rights, genuinely pro-Iranian womens rights. Think for a moment. If the liberation of Iraq is repeated in Iran - and make no mistake your posts will contribute to that possibility - how much better off will those people be ? How many will even survive their 'liberation' ?

Would be to let the people of Iran deal with their ruling class: they are deeply unpopular

Remember: the main enemy is at home

Pol Pot's regime collapsed in ... 1979. In January 1979, Vietnam installed a new government.Thatcher ... elected April 1979. Still, don't be confused by dates .. or facts ...

"Pol Pot's regime collapsed in ... 1979. In January 1979, Vietnam installed a new government.Thatcher ... elected April 1979. "

The SAS supported the Khmer Rouge after the US special forces pulled out. Which was after Iran-Contra broke. Which was after the Khmer Rouge were driven into the jungles by the Vietnamese. Which is what I said. Look up those dates.

Now I am a heavily sarcastic mood tonight, and I am biting down on my tongue out of recognition you are not my enemy - he would know these things or know people who did. So give me some small credit for not expanding on your ...lack of research is the kindest, least patronising way I can put it.

Jeez, the internet can be a useful resource when you don't have first hand experience, or second hand testimony. Not everything that is published there is true, and not everything that is true is published there. It takes time to distinguish and todig out the rest. But to insult someone who knows more than you, and especially someone like me who can be verbally cruel, well, the most positive thing I can say is do more homework. I obviously am a patronising shite but I have hope that your next rebuttal isn't so shamefully under-researched, I will offer you one pointer if you promise to think before you publish next time.

The Khmer Rouge didn't stop their activities when they lost power. I'm not sure they have yet.

I am cringing on your behalf. If you refuse to read what I wrote then at least read some impartial history. It is slightly insulting that you won't at least take some time to learn some basics before you abuse me. I don't mean to be insulting and please forgive me being patronising. But. Really. I can't help it. This isn't a forum. You know nothing on the subject you have led us to from an argument on Iran you couldn't win. I'll give you a generous 2 out of 10 for enthusiasm.

I do hate it when the SWP have better memories than us. I am not and never was SWP before you start. I mean, millions of kids must have watched this and not understood the significance. Thousands of adults must've read the journalsitic 'Confessions of a SAS man in Cambodia' or whatever it was called. Sure, newspapers didn't have internet records back then, but the BBC still show footage of an elephant shitting on their studio floor - why do they refuse to dig up footage of Thatcher shitting on their cambodian appeal ?

Simon Groom - " But the Khmer Rouge will never be in power again will they ?"

"
The Khmer Rouge regime that ruled Cambodia between 1975 and 1979 perpetrated some of the most terrible crimes in modern history. Perhaps two million people died as a result of the attempt of the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot's leadership to create an isolated, ultra- Stalinist society in the poorest country in Asia.

Pol Pot is now dead but one of his commanders, Ta Mok, is due to stand trial next month. He is threatening to blow the gaff on the Western governments that supported the Khmer Rouge during the 1980s. According to last Sunday's Observer, "Ta Mok's lawyer, Benson Samay, said the court would hear details of how, between 1985 and 1989, the Special Air Service (SAS) ran a series of camps for Khmer Rouge allies in Thailand close to the Cambodian border and created a 'sabotage battalion' of 250 experts."

And why did Margaret Thatcher, the British prime minister of the day, along with US president Ronald Reagan, support mass murderers who were Communists to boot? The answer is simple. The Khmer Rouge was on the right side in the Cold War. In 1978-9 Pol Pot's regime was ended by a Vietnamese invasion. Vietnam was Moscow's closest ally in Asia.

So China-then allied to Washington in the Cold War-invaded Vietnam, only to be defeated itself. This was followed by a guerrilla war in Cambodia in which the US, China, and Britain backed the Khmer Rouge against the regime that the Vietnamese had put in place in Phnom Penh. Thatcher-in a rapidly suppressed interview on Blue Peter, of all things-went so far as to try to distinguish between good and bad Khmer Rouge. The West's concern to punish war crimes is highly selective.

I am a simple man, uneducated and not blessed with good looks either, however I know the difference in right and wrong

Let's stand against imperialism.

Let's stand against wars for corporate profit.

Let's stand against the oppression of Palestinians.

Let's stand against the stoning of homosexuals.

Let's stand against clerical fascism.

Let's stand against Animal Abusers...


Good Look All......................Steven

"Heard of the word 'gulag'? " -Loony Tunes
I hear it more often these days

America's gulag

When Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote The Gulag Archipelago, he described a physical chain of island prisons clustered in Soviet Russia's northern seas and in Siberia. But the description was also metaphorical: the archipelago was a cluster of prisons around which swirled the sea of normal society.

Just like Solzhenitsyn's system, the American archipelago operates as a secret network that remains largely unseen by the world. Although a few of the prisons have become well-known - Guantanamo, in Cuba; the CIA interrogation centre at the US airbase in Bagram, just north of Kabul; the airbase on British Diego Garcia - there are others, hidden from view: the floating interrogation centre located on board a US naval vessel in the Indian Ocean; an unknown jail referred to only as Hotel California by the CIA. Of those operated by America's allies, the worst prisons include the Scorpion jail and the Lazoghly Square secret police headquarters in Cairo, and the Far'Falastin interrogation centre in Damascus, Syria.

The transfer to these prisons, unregulated by any law, has become known as "rendition", a term used as an alternative to lawful "extradition". Rendition was invented by Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton's national security adviser, who described it as a "new art form". After 9/11, a trickle of renditions became a flow, and became the foundation of a whole system to tackle world terrorism. J Cofer Black, former head of the CIA's counter-terrorism centre, testified in late 2002 that there were at least 3,000 terrorist prisoners being held worldwide.

Intelligence documents show the scale may be even greater. In the two years following 9/11, the Sudanese intelligence service alone claimed to have sent more than 200 captured prisoners into US custody. Of the terrorist suspects seized by America in the same period, only US citizens such as John Walker Lindh, the Californian found fighting with the Taliban, or those arrested within the US, such as Zacarias Moussaoui, accused of being a would-be hijacker in the 9/11 attack, would make it to court.

Tora Bora, Afghanistan, early December 2001. Up in the foothills of the Spin Ghar mountains on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, a British special forces soldier reaches into his pocket to find his tangle of plastic handcuffs. Grabbing his prisoner's arms, he locks them tight around the wrists. Daylight reveals the detritus of a night fight - four hours of battle that have been the SAS's biggest engagement since Yemen in 1972. On the churned-up slopes of rough grass and patches of snow, blankets, personal belongings, empty shell casings and the bodies of 38 Islamic warriors lie abandoned.

Another 22 fighters, the survivors, are kneeling on the ground. The fighters, from across Arabia, from Pakistan and even from Chechnya, are dressed in brown and grey shalwar kameez and thin sandals. Their hands are tied behind their backs, held taut with plasticuffs. Their heads are covered with canvas bags.

These arrests provided the entry point into the American archipelago. Though Britain and other allies would later criticise America's tactics and its treatment of terror prisoners (the British high court would call it "monstrous"), this operation proved how UK soldiers were involved with US activities from the beginning. New sources reveal the extent of the involvement - from Britain's participation in Task Force 11, a special forces group operating from a base code-named K2 in Uzbekistan, to a series of SAS battles in Afghanistan that resulted in the capture of large numbers of prisoners.

As a "combat zone", Afghanistan provided some legal cover for those arrests. But Britain and America also seized many others across the border in Pakistan. Operating outside the law, the CIA has established snatch squads around the world. They have allowed the arrests of suspects, including Britons, which would be illegal if they took place on home soil. For instance, Wahab al-Rawi, a Briton, was questioned, but never arrested or held by MI5 in the UK. He came to be arrested only following a tip-off from MI5 to the CIA when he visited the Gambia, in West Africa, where legal controls were more lax.

Wahab al-Rawi is Iraqi-born, but a British citizen. He is enormous, and cannot walk too far without running out of breath. "I was fat before the Americans arrested me," he quips. Wahab sits in a jail cell in the Gambian capital, Banjul, at the headquarters of the country's secret police. His questioner is an American "from the embassy", who, it is pretty clear, works for the CIA. Wahab has been answering questions about his supposed membership of al-Qaeda. He later describes his interrogator thus: "He called himself Mr Lee and was even bigger than me. He was so enormous he had these rolls of fat like breasts."

Wahab, a 38-year-old from Acton, west London, has been in jail for the past four days. He was arrested at the airport when he went to greet his brother, Bisher, coming in on a flight from London. A businessman whose family fled persecution from Saddam Hussein in Iraq, he had invested £300,000 after mortgaging his house to back his latest business venture: a mobile factory to process Gambian peanuts. Bisher, who is handy with anything technical, had come out to help fix up the equipment.

Like Canada's Maher Arar, Wahab and Bisher got into trouble after surveillance information was passed to the US by their domestic intelligence agency - in their case, MI5. Both Wahab and Bisher are friends with a Jordanian Islamic preacher in London called Abu Qatada who is accused of having links to terrorists. Abu Qatada is eventually locked up by the British, but there is insufficient (or no) evidence to arrest or hold Wahab or Bisher. Instead, their details are passed on to the US as part of an "intelligence exchange" in the post-11 September world.

"When I asked Lee whether I could see the British consul to protest at my arrest, he laughed," recalls Wahab. "'Why do you think you're here?' he asked me. 'It's your government that tipped us off in the first place.'" The CIA official was thereby breaching the Vienna Convention, which requires foreign detainees to get access to their nation's consulate.

Exactly what is to be gained by offending people who are already being attacked in the bosses tabloids every day? Yes all religion sucks, but why pick on people who are being vilified as well as bombed by the class enemy?

Having now done everything possible to publicise this 'outrageous' (not to mention childish) act what is the likely outcome?

Some cheap publicity for a group that barely manages to produce a (now very boring) paper two or three time a year. Big deal.

More worrying is that next year there could be a violent confrontation between the assembled the anarchists and local working class muslim youths. The same youths who are sick of being kicked about by the Police on a daily basis and are looking for something or someone to strike back at. And whose purpose would that serve?

If I was involved with Class War or the Hackney scene I would take a VERY close look at whoever came up with this bright idea....

P.S. Van Hoogstraaten, Prince Harry, Bill Gates, Bob Geldoff, Bono, Ruth Kelly, Blair (Tony and Ian), Blunkett, Murdoch, Queenie, Elton John, Naomi Campbell.....ect . The list of super rich scum who could be cremated on bonfire night is fucking endless. Or are we to believe that Mohammed and Jesus are the source of our woes? Are CW really so inept that they failed to notice that the bosses replaced religion with the media as their number one tool of control decades ago?

 http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/voices.html

 http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510792000?open&of=ENG-380

 http://www.spr.org/en/actionupdates/winter04.htm

 http://www.gay.com/news/roundups/package.html?sernum=1339

Getting HIV in a US jail is a death sentence. Hanging children is always wrong regardless if they are gay or not. Perhaps if half the effort put into exposing the persecution of gay men in Iran were put into exposing the persecution of gay men in American jails we would have some data or perhaps there is another agenda at work - like splitting the anti-war consensus before an attck on Iran?

This article from the US magazine International Socialist Review (  http://www.isreview.org/index.shtml ) on Islam and Islamophobia is well worth reading.

 http://www.isreview.org/issues/52/islamophobia.shtml

The biggest danger at the moment is US imperialism, whose 'family values' include changing the constitution in some 38 states to prevent gay marriage.
Attacks on gays, Muslims and Arabs continue in the US.
You don’t get rid of homophobia by supporting Islamophobia
.

The SWP are full of shite, especially when you apply there Anti - Imperialism, to a mainly Muslim country like Iran and even to the secular fight in England to say so.

But on the case of Iran, it shows how far the intellectuals (Callincos, Harman etc) have fallen when a so called Socialist Worker Party actually ends up supporting a clerical fascist regime in Iran against the American Imperialism.

Will the Islamists sometimes, With the state never as Chris Harman says, is bollox because the SWP doesnt extend any meaningful Solidarity to the worker movements in the Middle East especially Iran / Iraq.

It really does look like the SWP are on the side of the clerical fascists and this what most disgusts me a Socialist Worker Party on the side of the clerical fascists, it sickens me and should every right thinking person.

The problem always was, the SWP never developed a camp of the workers and this is why they dont offer solidarity / support to these developing formations in the Middle East:


www.uuiraq.org

www.thirdcamp.com

Further reading on the forth mentioned point:

 http://libcom.org/news/article.php/middle-east-islam-capitalism-240306