Re: Those Missiles

  • Posted on: 8 April 2017
  • By: thecollective

Last night the U.S. military launched nearly 5 dozen cruise missiles at Syria from U.S. Navy ships in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. This was a U.S. response to chemical attacks against civilians allegedly ordered by Bashar al-Assad. The Democrats and Republicans are united in their support for U.S. imperialism. Hours before the attack Hillary Clinton “came out of the woods” to say that the U.S. should conduct air strikes against targets in Syria. Today stocks in Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, war profiteers who make hellfire missiles, have been rising. The war profiteering companies U.S. officials euphemistically call the “defense industry” are full of alchemists who know the right mixtures to turn blood, horror, displacement, and human misery into profits. It is difficult to formulate an adequate response, beyond our general stance against imperialism and militarism, when there is so little information to go on beyond U.S. State Department statements and corporate media reporting based on those statements. However the following are some short initial thoughts from Black Rose – Central Illinois. This is not a definitive position paper or anything so official, but simply an initial reaction.

Re: those missiles:
1. The source of the chemical attack is still contested.
2. There’s something called the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity (in which tribunals of US officials are overdue).
3. The United States continues to support extremist militias in Syria and Saudi Arabia’s decimation of Yemen.
4. Remember that the U.S. war on Iraq produced ISIS.
5. Trump’s decision is an extension of a legacy of atrocious U.S. foreign policy in that region that continued under Obama (for example, ‘surgical’ drones) who received the Nobel Peace prize. Over the course of both of Obama’s terms as President, the U.S. dropped thousands of bombs on the people of Syria. We must see last night as a problem of U.S. imperialism and not merely a problem of any one specific president be it a Democrat or a Republican.
6. Wars are invariably never meant to secure the lives of women and children. They reinforce a global patriarchy and solidify borders.
7. Refugee populations are increasing and being refused elementary conditions of existence, while missiles get launched in the name of people suffering.
8. Before you know it, CNN politics will be debating Trump’s nomination for Nobel Prize.
9. The launching of these missiles also can’t be seen disconnected from the interests of resource extraction industries in their relentless pillaging of indigenous lands around the planet.

 

Our commitment is not to Bashar al-Assad’s murderous regime, Putin’s murderous Regime, Trump’s murderous regime, or any state. The state is terror everywhere. Our commitment is to the people who, like us, resist state violence and work to organize just, egalitarian, free societies. We fight for the abolition of state borders and for the free movement of people. It is the cruelest hypocrisy for U.S. President Trump and his ideological friends in Europe to close borders and shut doors to Syrian refugees, cutting off all options of escape, only to then launch missiles at them. Smash fortress Europe and smash fortress USA. We work toward a world without states, without imperialism, without capitalism.

category: 

Comments

Aw man Black rose, your last article on Syria was so good but this one is... so unfortunately feeble. I know it's just a quicky reaction, but it's really just a big leftist knee jerk that doesn't even seem to have a clear sense of the events its reaction to.

Like you did, I'm also going to state that I don't support any state -- fuck the american military and everything it stands for. That said, this attack didn't target 'syrian refugees' who you weirdly claim had missiles launched at them. That's true of most of the US attacks in Syria except for the one you're talking about. This attack targeted an isolated air base held by another state military. Rehashing the anti-war left's rhetoric about refugees doesn't make any sense here (though again, in almost every other US strike in Syria, it would).

And then you just sort of list off a bunch of vague intersections, most of which I don't think are worth responding to (these missiles and indigenous land? These missiles and the patriarchy? What the heck are you talking about?) But the first one, the source of the chemical attacks is contested, makes it pretty clear that you've got some old school shitbag binary anti-imperialists in your collective. Who is contesting it? The two militaries that have been bombing people in those areas. Yes, some rebel groups have used chlorine, which is technically a chemical weapon (though it's also an agricultural product, which is why they sometimes have access to it), but has nothing in common with sarine. The story about the rebels manufacturing it is a transparent lie. Add that in with your line about "supporting extremist militias", as if to imply that the people benefiting from not getting bombed by this airbase for a bit are scary islamist terrorists -- y'all should probably go back and read your own previous statement. Or maybe this article: Support for refugees means support for assad?
https://thehamiltoninstitute.noblogs.org/post/2015/09/08/support-for-ref...

And the international court? Are you joking? If you actually meant what you said about hating the assad regime and the trump regime, what the fuck would you care if one of them shot at the other? And why would you ever want some sort of super-state aparatus that could regulate between them? If the violence of one state acts as a check on the violence of another state, leaving grassroots fucking people (not "extremist militias" wtf) with a bit more space to maneuver, that's not a moment to dust off your brave anti-imperialist rhetoric.

This is by far the worst article on Syria I've seen written by anarchists in the past six years. It's especially weird because there are people in BRAF who know better.

Yes, fucking thank you for patiently laying this out

The source of this chemical attack IS contested. Unless you think the US army has full monopoly of truth... But where was the investigation of these sources?

Assad's regime has zero motivations to be carrying out such an attack at this point. And while there were claims by civilian sources of an air bombing, this was just one of the claims. In such a context of intense manipulation that's been going on for years, how can you take the intel coming from any side as cash? I'd be more inclined to trust whatever the YPG's statement is on what happened, as all the other prominent factions have demonstrated to be serving foreign political interests.

And also let's talk about Erdogan's call for a regime change in Syria for a long while... now the first foreign leader to be applauding the US strike.

http://news.antiwar.com/2017/04/06/erdogan-would-welcome-us-attack-on-sy...

Once again, Hamilton Institute appears to be keeping Erdogan's regime in their dead angle. It's all about Assad's regime isn't? But what about Turkey's and Israel's little plans for Syria?

Additionally, this US attack was made without congressional approval. Which means no evidence of a probably cause behind the attack had to be made public. The only "proofs" of Assad regime's responsibility were shown to President Cheetos at his Mar-a-Lago villa during a top military briefing.

You guys weren't invited there? What a draaag.

This is all part of the pre-planned war trajectory that was set out after the 9/11 false flags in 2001 (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finally Iran). Trump is following along with the machinations of "Global Government," just as all puppet U.S. Presidents do.

I mean, hell, at one point under the Obomba Administration, the U.S. government was bombing eight different countries at the same time!

It's all a pre-planned, intentionally orchestrated scam.

Former U.S. Army General Wesley Clark whistleblew this in an interview on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman in 2007:

"CLARK: About 10 days after 9/11, I went to the Pentagon, and I saw [Defense] Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary [Paul] Wolfowitz. I went downstairs to say hello to some of the people on the joint staff that used to work for me.

One of the generals called me in and said, “Sir, you gotta come in and talk to me.” I said, “Sir, you’re too busy.” And he said, “No, no! We’ve made the decision — we’re going to war with Iraq!” This is on or about the 28th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why!?” He said, “I don’t know!” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Did they find some information connecting Saddam to al Qaeda?” He said, “No, no, there’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess its like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.”

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time, we were bombing in Afghanistan. And I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, its worse than that.” He said– he reached over on his desk and he picked up a piece of paper, and he said, “I just got this from upstairs,” meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office. And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years. Starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off Iran.”"

It's a continuum, not isolated attacks brought down by one particular President. The whole killing machine works together, and it's sickeningly, horrifyingly organized.

"Assad's regime has zero motivations to be carrying out such an attack at this point."

the story that originally came out of syria, that the sarin got released because it was in a weapons cache in rebel held territory (army of muhammed in idlib) that was blown up by a missile attack by assad forces, doesn't sound all that unreasonable.

as bbc documentary producer adam curtis ('hypernormalisation') offers, we are operating in a hypernormal reality where everybody knows it is all a game and doesn't care about 'truth' and 'reality'. politicians since thatcher and reagan have cultivated the development of a simple good and evil global political narrative, and each new development is fitted into the narrative. the narrative becomes the new (hyper) normal.

the black rose article makes the point that reality has all kinds of inter-relations and looks nothing like the simple narrative being crafted by the US and its allies. a few hours before the missile attack, Canadian PM Justin Trudeau was in New York announcing how his government was providing funds to investigate the source of the gas attack, and he had to do an abrupt about-face to support his US megapower neighbour who justified a missile attack on the basis of the US having determined the unequivocal guilt of Assad as responsible for the gas attack. Trudeau waited 8 hours and then said,"we have discovered that Assad did it; we have been told this by our trusted ally (the US), who say they have firm evidence showing that Assad is responsible".

As adam curtis suggests, the hypernormalised reality provided by an over-riding good and evil narrative has now swept Trump into it [remember when he was not so long ago saying that 'the US is not innocent'] and is in turn drawing US allies into it. There is no point in waiting for 'investigations' since hypernormalisation supersedes the old fashioned 'reality' based on trying to work things out through 'facts' and 'rational deductions' and the like. There is no longer any problem working on the basis of overt bullshit in this post-truth, fake-news era.

The days of having to disguise bullshit as seeming truth, as in the Colin Powell justification of the US attack on Iraq, are over. Trump has demonstrated that one need no longer bother with such window-dressing, ... boldly stating bald-faced lies has been proven to work. Where rational inquiry is bulldozed over, the Trudeau's of the world will back off and say; "I did not know the truth, but I have an ally who is omnipotent and as it turns out, omnipotence includes omniscience" [la raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure].

To talk about the regime as a unified entity hasn't been accurate in a long time. It's only slightly less false than talking about "the rebels" -- Assad is currently maintaining a shaky grip on his own constellation of war lords and foreign powers. As with the 2013 gas attack, it's likely that it was a rogue local commander who carried it out. Sure, we can say it isn't proven, but who is the only party who has sarine gas and has used it in the past? There's a false flag narrative that comes out of the Assad regime for almost every attack in this war -- there were actually regime people claiming that all the hospitals bombed in Aleppo were fakes, that they bombed themselves, things like that.

And as if proof somehow makes the violence of states more or less justified? Like are we still in the vein where anarchists are going to reccomend things to the international court?

Turkey has been talking about regime change the entire time, more or less. That there is a conspiracy of western states to get rid of assad isn't a secret. That a shit bag authoritarian like Erdogan also hates Assad does't mean much. That the US bombs an Assadist base also doesn't mean much either. The weak leftist anti-war moralism is despicable and gets in the way of us actually building an anarchist practice of international solidarity. I don't shed tears for tyrants and I don't cheer for conquerers.

You human beans keep complaining that my anarcho-data-spew isn't relevant to 21st century humanoid life experience, and so here I try to be relevant.

the story that originally came out of syria, that the sarin got released because it was in a weapons cache in rebel held territory (army of muhammed in idlib) that was blown up by a missile attack by assad forces, doesn't sound all that unreasonable.

as bbc documentary producer adam curtis ('hypernormalisation') offers, we are operating in a hypernormal reality where everybody knows it is all a game and doesn't care about 'truth' and 'reality'. politicians since thatcher and reagan have cultivated the development of a simple good and evil global political narrative, and each new development is fitted into the narrative. the narrative becomes the new (hyper) normal.

the black rose article makes the point that reality has all kinds of inter-relations and looks nothing like the simple narrative being crafted by the US and its allies. a few hours before the missile attack, Canadian PM Justin Trudeau was in New York announcing how his government was providing funds to investigate the source of the gas attack, and he had to do an abrupt about-face to support his US megapower neighbour who justified a missile attack on the basis of the US having determined the unequivocal guilt of Assad as responsible for the gas attack. Trudeau waited 8 hours and then said,"we have discovered that Assad did it; we have been told this by our trusted ally (the US), who say they have firm evidence showing that Assad is responsible".

As adam curtis suggests, the hypernormalised reality provided by an over-riding good and evil narrative has now swept Trump into it [remember when he was not so long ago saying that 'the US is not innocent'] and is in turn drawing US allies into it. There is no point in waiting for 'investigations' since hypernormalisation supersedes the old fashioned 'reality' based on trying to work things out through 'facts' and 'rational deductions' and the like. There is no longer any problem working on the basis of overt bullshit in this post-truth, fake-news era.

The days of having to disguise bullshit as seeming truth, as in the Colin Powell justification of the US attack on Iraq, are over. Trump has demonstrated that one need no longer bother with such window-dressing, ... boldly stating bald-faced lies has been proven to work. Where rational inquiry is bulldozed over, the Trudeau's of the world will back off and say; "I did not know the truth, but I have an ally who is omnipotent and as it turns out, omnipotence includes omniscience" [la raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure].

How did I do?

"I don't shed tears for tyrants and I don't cheer for conquerers."

Me neither, tho I recognize there are equally lesser-constituted tyrants or conquerers, who are battling for more power, among some of the rebel groups, who are nowhere a united whole.

the social relational collective of the middle east could be understood as a caliphate and as a collection of tribes, as well as, and at the same time as, a collection of sovereign states. these multiple levels of images can be brought into focus just by adjusting the viewing lens. so it is, as well, with our global brotherhood. it is already 'in place' and simply a question of how we employ language and values to 'talk it up'.

but people continue to be suckers for nationalist hype. historians have pointed out that canada's current hyping of the battle of vimy ridge (100 year anniversary celebration in france today) had to wait until all those who fought in it had died off (they mostly thought it was bullshit). canadian politicians now hype it as a national-identity maker. just had to get the soldiers that fought in it out of the way, first, so they wouldn't rain on the parades.

canada's current nationalist commemoratory hype is being called, by some historians, 'Vimyism'

"nationalism is an infantile disease, the measles of the world" -- Einstein

I think this quote is most apt for that whole reified celebration.

"They all have an admirable time of it when they receive zealous homage. Just observe the nation that is defended by devoted patriots. The patriots fall in bloody battle or in the fight with hunger and want; what does the nation care for that? By the manure of their corpses the nation comes to “its bloom"! The individuals have died “for the great cause of the nation,” and the nation sends some words of thanks after them and – has the profit of it. I call that a paying kind of egoism." Max Stirner

I tweeted a part of that quote @ #Vimy100 https://twitter.com/SirEinzige/status/851119871073161216

the rejection of nationalism is the rejection of categories. it is so in nietzsche, perhaps also in stirner.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
9
v
F
5
9
k
h
Enter the code without spaces.