headers
Benjamin Morgan | 1 Oct 2007 01:00
Picon
Favicon

Re: (no subject)


Comrade Ben:

  (sigh) unity for the 9/11 truth movement. I will not take such a hard line stance as Mark. However, your
assertions that the truth movement can subsume the anti-war movement are quite preposterous. As for all
conspiracy theories from the (JFK assassination to the present) there have been massive splits in
support. To believe that traditional Marxist-Leninist movements or the equivalent anti-war
counterparts will accept this as there platform seems sort of Utopian. (When I went to Atlanta for the U.S
Social Forum a tiny booth dis paying 9/11 truth was located behind a remote staircase in the outermost
corner of the convention center. I watched several (leftist) pass the booth by as the hippie looking
organizer attempted to gather support. intrigued by the response I approached the little table and
engaged in a discussion with the guy. As I talked i noticed only a few out of every 10 leftist would approach
the booth.) The point of my digression is to illustrate the divide
 in the left on this particular issue now I will attempt to debunk the more substantive debate.

  The 9/11 truth campaign raises several decent points which hardliners like Mark seem to over look with
hasty generalizations. First, a number of survivors have given testimony's claiming that they heard
explosions from the base of the buildings. The World Trade Center buildings were built to with stand plane
crashes (note the reinforces steel structures) The fires that burned in the world trade centers were very
smoky and gray indicative of a lack of oxygen or a incomplete burn which would make the collapse of the steel
structure quite ridiculous. No only has fire never historically collapsed a steel structure before 9/11
the partial burning fire some how obliterated the fire retardant and proceeded to melt the steel to the
point of collapse. Even if a few structural beams somehow collapsed the domino theory is crazy 4 or 5
stories couldn't bring down 43 non fire damaged ones in the blink of an eye; three times on the same day?
Secondly, it is quite strange that the 9/11
 commission waited an awful long time to conduct its report (well after the structural steel was removed)
Finally, No plane ever hit World Trade Center Building 7. Officials claim that the debris hit building 7
like a "volcanic eruption" and multiple fires caused it to collapse in the same fashion. Building 7 wasn't
hit by a plane this is outlandish. Also, The majority of the debris wasn't flaming (I guess the melting
structural beams did the damage) and several other buildings like the Verizon building were damaged but
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Mark Lause | 1 Oct 2007 01:31
Picon

Re: (no subject)

Call it being a "hardliner," but it's no more than a recognition of reality,
that has nothing to do with how subjectively optimistic we are.

Nor is the question addressed by whether or not there have been, are and
will be specific conspiracies.  If you can't look at a specific case and
produce substantive reasons, it's a non-starter.  We've heard all of this
and most of us find nothing inconsistent with the standard accounts.  The
real conspiracy around 9-11 is MUCH, MUCH BIGGER...the deregulation of the
airlines industry, U.S. policy in the Middle East, the funding of bin
Laden's people, etc.

In the end, though, the question raised was whether or not the Left should
unite around this "Truth Movement."  Do you think it will, Ben?  I don't.
And given what information is out there, it shouldn't.  If what you have
hasn't unified the Left around this, repeating what hasn't unified the Left
isn't going to do it.

That's why I asked for NEW information and evidence.

However, the implication of Ben's comments that I am trying to shut down the
effort to find the truth misunderstands the question raised.  The writer
posting the query is arguing explicitly that it is a waste of effort to
build a movement around THE FACT OF THE IRAQ WAR, when--they argue--we
should be united in--not a quest for truth--but the repetition of assertion
about what really happened on 9-11.

Look, lots of us believe, for very good reasons, that there were a series of
conspiracies responsible for the assassinations in the 1960s, but we had the
good sense to focus on what was then the indisputable fact of war and
racism.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Benjamin Morgan | 1 Oct 2007 02:30
Picon
Favicon

Re: (no subject)


Mark Lause wrote:

  In the end, though, the question raised was whether or not the Left should
unite around this "Truth Movement." Do you think it will, Ben? I don't..

  Comrade Ben:

  Truthfully, as I said before I doubt that it will, since it hasn't already done so with all the evidence
previously asserted. My problem is that there lies this ambiguity between 9/11 and all the extremist
policies passed afterwords. Mark rises a valid point with his example of the WMD's and the veil of
ignorance which lies over the peoples eyes. I think the writer misses the telos of the anti-war movement.
There are no WMD's,  they are stealing their oil, and innocent people are dying daily. Mark's stance is
understood and a lot of the left is taking that stance. My previous post was merely a failed attempt to open
up a discussion of any new articulations or analysis which may be relevant now (it is clear there is not) I do
however think that adding the 9/11 truth movement as a tier to the anti-war movement will help demystify
some of the misconceptions held by modern liberals who believe 9/11 happened as is but maybe the war is
wrong. Beyond that the truth campaign has
 limited usefulness it won't end the war and it shouldn't be our main focus. In short keep on working with the
9/11 truth to break down the governments construct in peoples minds and raise public awareness; but
understand the truth of how the war in Afghanistan started won't be enough to end or challenge U.S
intervention in the middle east specifically Iraq; and the left shouldn't rally around such misconceptions

  Ben   

“Whenever death may surprise us, let it be welcome if our battle cry has reached even one receptive ear and
another hand reaches out to take up our arms.”

  ~ Ernesto "Che" Guevara
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Benjamin Morgan | 1 Oct 2007 02:30
Picon
Favicon

Re: (no subject)


Mark Lause wrote:

  In the end, though, the question raised was whether or not the Left should
unite around this "Truth Movement." Do you think it will, Ben? I don't..

  Comrade Ben:

  Truthfully, as I said before I doubt that it will, since it hasn't already done so with all the evidence
previously asserted. My problem is that there lies this ambiguity between 9/11 and all the extremist
policies passed afterwords. Mark rises a valid point with his example of the WMD's and the veil of
ignorance which lies over the peoples eyes. I think the writer misses the telos of the anti-war movement.
There are no WMD's,  they are stealing their oil, and innocent people are dying daily. Mark's stance is
understood and a lot of the left is taking that stance. My previous post was merely a failed attempt to open
up a discussion of any new articulations or analysis which may be relevant now (it is clear there is not) I do
however think that adding the 9/11 truth movement as a tier to the anti-war movement will help demystify
some of the misconceptions held by modern liberals who believe 9/11 happened as is but maybe the war is
wrong. Beyond that the truth campaign has
 limited usefulness it won't end the war and it shouldn't be our main focus. In short keep on working with the
9/11 truth to break down the governments construct in peoples minds and raise public awareness; but
understand the truth of how the war in Afghanistan started won't be enough to end or challenge U.S
intervention in the middle east specifically Iraq; and the left shouldn't rally around such misconceptions

  Ben   

“Whenever death may surprise us, let it be welcome if our battle cry has reached even one receptive ear and
another hand reaches out to take up our arms.”

  ~ Ernesto "Che" Guevara
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David McDonald | 1 Oct 2007 03:57
Picon

October 27 demos (was Yesterday's TONC antiwar demonstrations in DC and LA)

Pat Costello:

Perhaps you did not mean to imply that this is a new
strategy for ANSWER but just for clarity's sake, it
should be noted that ANSWER has NEVER rejected working
within a major coalition. ANSWER calls for a united
front and has done so since its inception.

David McDonald replies:

Where are you from, the fucking MOON? I have lived through four years of 
a divided antiwar movement, most of the blame for which lies at the door 
of the ANSWER organization. I participated in the meeting in 2004, for 
the second anniversary demonstration, when ANSWER captured itself and a 
couple of other ultraleft organizations with its "correct" politics, 
leaving the movement divided and in disarray for three years. They have 
come to their senses. Well and good. I despise beyond all despising 
political liars and history re-writers.

I am very VERY happy that the ANSWER coalition has changed its tune. It 
has made it possible for the first time in four years for Seattle to 
have a united front. I have accepted ANSWER's new approach with no 
cavilling, told-you-so's or anything like that. We are simply partners 
in a coalition and I have respect for the role ANSWER is playing now, 
which I would summarize as a a leading, responsible left wing role.

But please don't tell me that this does not represent a change of 
position, very much for the better. I suppose you could say, stretching 
reality well beyond the breaking point, that ANSWER has always been for 
united front coalitions, IF AND ONLY IF the other members of the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Ethan Young | 1 Oct 2007 04:23
Picon
Favicon

One description of the MLP


David: you stated: "the Marxist Leninist Party" - can I ask you to clarify 
which party you mean in your note?
Hari Kumar

from http://reds.linefeed.org/past.html

Marxist-Leninist Party USA: Formed in the 1960's as the US wing of Hardial 
Bain's Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), the MLP was originally 
known as the American Communist Workers Movement (Marxist-Leninist). 
Strong anti-revisionists, the ACWM(M-L) originally worshipped Mao Zedong 
and followed the idea of the "Third Period" — calling any other left group 
"social fascist." Around 1970, the ACWM(M-L) was renamed Central 
Organization of US Marxist-Leninists (COUSML), and actively became 
violent against police and fascists, as well as those other left organizations. 
As Mao became mild in his old age and established friendly relations with 
Richard Nixon, COUSML and the CP(M-L) Canada declared Maoist China 
"state capitalist" and began to follow the orthodox views of Enver Hoxha's 
dictatorship in Albania. COUSML managed to form fraternal relations with 
groups in Nicaragua, Sweeden, Spain and Colombia, but many of these 
groups would end up adopting the course of "revisionism." In 1980, 
COUSML became the Marxist-Leninist Party and publicly broke with the 
Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist). The MLP cadre published 
Workers Advocate and sought to unite all anti-revisionists under the slogan 
"Marxist-Leninists Unite!", and hoped to create a People's Army out of 
minority groups and workers. However, in late 1983, due to internal 
struggles, the MLP dissolved and the last issue of Workers Advocate was 
published in November of that year. Several shards of the MLP formed local 
groupings, including the Chicago Workers Voice Group and Communist 
Voice Organization. Bizarrely, Communist Voice has moved to a position
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jon Flanders | 1 Oct 2007 04:42

Re: Historic Peace Rally in Syracuse, NY

>>>>>The demonstration here in Los Angeles was quite
disappointingly small. Just a few hundred total,
perhaps more if you count people who were coming
and going, but very small. All of the activist 
groups were present, but not much else.

Walter Lippmann
Los Angeles, California<<<<<

So we had more people out in Syracuse, in upstate NY,  than in San
Francisco! This is what comes of not paying attention to the "national
anti-war coalitions" we are stuck with for the moment, I guess.

I think that the organizing by the upstate cities peace groups
in this case was exemplary, and shows what can be done when factional
considerations are put aside.

Jon Flanders

Syracuse March and Rally photos below

http://picasaweb.google.com/jonflan/SyracuseAntiWarRallyInSupportOfIVAW

On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 14:26 -0400, Andy wrote:
> Yesterday in Syracuse, NY (see forwarded message from Joe below) -
> 
> This rally, initiated by active duty US Army soldiers stationed at Ft.  
> Drum, had 3-4,000 participants from all of upstate New York and NYC  
> (the latter including an SEIU busload.  Buffalo, Rochester, Geneseo,  
> Cortland, Elmira, Binghamton, Ithaca, Potsdam, Massena, Albany,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 502 comments |
headers
Jon Flanders | 1 Oct 2007 04:58

Re: Historic Peace Rally in Syracuse, NY

On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 22:42 -0400, Jon Flanders wrote:
> So we had more people out in Syracuse, in upstate NY,  than in San
> Francisco! This is what comes of not paying attention to the "national
> anti-war coalitions" we are stuck with for the moment, I guess.

Further investigation indicates we had more people out in Syracuse than
in Washington DC, San Francisco and  Los Angeles combined.

To blame the low turnouts elsewhere on "apathy" as someone did in the
article about the Washington protest is disingenous.

The problem is factionalism and sectarianism.

Jon Flanders

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism <at> lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Eli Stephens | 1 Oct 2007 05:03
Picon
Favicon

Re: Historic Peace Rally in Syracuse, NY


Jon F. wrote: "So we had more people out in Syracuse, in upstate NY, 

than in San Francisco!"

I know from the East Coast, all parts of California are more or less 

equidistant, but let me assure you that Los Angeles and San Francisco 

are not the same. ;-)

There will be a demonstration in San Francisco on Oct. 27. And I can 

pretty much assure you it will be larger than 4,000 people. :-)

_________________________________________________________________
Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy!
http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism <at> lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Jon Flanders | 1 Oct 2007 05:20

Re: Historic Peace Rally in Syracuse, NY

On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 20:03 -0700, Eli Stephens wrote:
> There will be a demonstration in San Francisco on Oct. 27. And I can 
> 
> pretty much assure you it will be larger than 4,000 people. :-)

I hope so, but my point stands.

Jon Flanders

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism <at> lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane