ALLIANCE 44: October 3rd 2001

    As we write this, war in some shape or form seems very imminent now, to be directed against the peoples of Afghanistan:

    What are Marxist-Leninists to do in the wake of these events that mark a dangerous and new world situation? What do they mean?     By now all conscious members of society will know of the extraordinary events of September 11 2001. We briefly reprise them, emphasising the timing of events. These events of the day began for the world to see, when at: "8.55 am local time a jet airliner crashes into the North Tower of the World Trade Centre as thousands were arriving for work. The initial blast opens a huge hole near the top of the 110 storey office block".
The Guardian Special report on Terrorism on the web at:,5860,551275,00.html
    The flight 767 from Boston had 92 people on board. Next: "A second airliner crashes into the South Tower, causing a huge explosion. People are trapped above the fires in both towers";
The Guardian Special report on Terrorism on the web at:,5860,551275,00.html
    That Boeing plane also from Boston, had 58 passenger and 6 crew members. It was seen in video footing, to directly aim for the tower – thereby refuting hopes that the first collision had been an ‘accident’.
    By 0943 am, a third plane had: "Crashed near to the Pentagon… A portion of one side of the five-sided structure had collapsed."
The Guardian Special report on Terrorism on the web at:,5860,551275,00.html

At 09.45 the White House was evacuated;
At 0945 am airspace was shut down in the USA; and all airports closed;
At 10.07 the South Tower of the WTC collapsed.
(The Guardian Special report on Terrorism on the web at:,5860,551275,00.html

At 10.27 the North Tower collapsed.
The Guardian Special report on Terrorism on the web at:,5860,551275,00.html

At 10.30 am:

"A Boeing 757 from New Jersey to San Francisco crashes about 120 km South of Pittsburgh. There is concern about another plane en route from Boston to Los Angeles"; The Guardian Special report on Terrorism on the web at:,5860,551275,00.html     Based upon transcripts of telephone calls on mobiles, from individuals including air-crew to individuals on staff, it is known that each of the planes appeared to be under the control of men brandishing small pen knives and box-cutters. They mainly appeared to be of Middle Eastern or eastern extract. It is currently estimated (3 October 2001) that the death toll stands at between 3000 to 4000.

    The attacks must be considered as ‘Individual terrorism’, by Marxists-Leninists. Alliance has previously condemned individual terrorism, and this follows the analysis of Lenin. This was reviewed by the Communist League in 1975, and holds true to now. The analysis can be found at:
See also:

    It remains uncertain to this point, as to who was responsible for this attack.

    So far, no one has claimed responsibility for these acts of individual terrorism that targeted in essence, ordinary men and women who can be termed "innocent". Indeed the man who has been labeled as the ‘prime suspect’ by the USA – Osama bin Laden - has expressly denied responsibility for these attacks.

    Osama bin Laden is well known to have been a creature of the CIA.
    Canadian Class Struggle has previously condemned his brand of "Muslim Fundamentalism" [See: ]. Indeed there can be no support of "Fundamentalism" of any sort – whether Muslim or Christian or Jewish [See:]

    In fact, even Muslim clerics condemn the attacks on the WTC as having no Muslim religious foundations:

"Most of the Muslim Ulama have condemned these terror attacks. The leaders of the Islamic Movements have also issued a statement which says, "We have un-equivocally condemned the dastardly terrorist attack on establishments in New York and Washington, whose victims belong to some forty countries and major religions of the world. Islam upholds sanctity of human life as the Qur'an declares that killing one innocent human being is like killing the entire human race. The tragedy of the 11th September is a crime against humanity and the Muslims all over the world mourn all victims of this aggression as a common loss of America and the whole world." Cited in "Attack On World Trade Centre And Its Implications"; by Asghar Ali Engineer; (Secular Perspective October 1-15, 2001); Communalism Watch and Governance Monitor October 3, 2001; at:     Osama bin Laden’s denials of involvement have not been believed. During today’s current war fever being promulgated, jingoist and racist attacks are being launched on individuals of colour and their institutions in the West already. Irrespective of Osama bin Laden’s denials, from the day of the attack the USA Government claimed these attacks emanate from Osama Bin Laden and his organisation - the Al-Qa’edah. Even the identities of the hijackers are still not fully known, though it appears that 19 were involved. Early claims of their identity by the FBI, have been discredited, since some of these individuals themselves are still physically alive. "Soon after the planes crashed, the public was told, all 19 hijackers had been identified; many of them were linked; …. Within hours of the suicide attacks, the FBI said it had made impressive progress… The FBI said it had identified all 19 hijackers. The claims of the FBI to have firmly identified each of them has been decisively refuted by men who have come forward to state that they have been wrongly identified as "hijackers".
"The Investigation, by Chris Blackhurst; In "Independent on Sunday"; p. 13.
    "Proof" of the assertions of George W. Bush, is still not apparently convincing enough to share with the world. But as long as 12 days after Bush alleged that Bin laden was to blame, the UK newspaper, the Sunday Independent said in its editorial: "Bush Has Not Yet Earned The Right To Lead Us To War": … The Independent on Sunday seeks answers too, before the offensive begins. We await conclusive evidence that Osama bin Laden was the architect of the appalling attacks in new York and Washington, President Bush has described Bin Laden as :the prime suspect", but he also promised to make public the evidence. … Where is the evidence Mr. Bush?"
Editorial Comment; the Independent on Sunday; 23 September 2001; p.20.
    It is true that by October 2nd, the USA government has briefed heads of European states and other prominent officials including NATO leaders of "evidence", but this "evidence" is shrouded in secrecy: "The US took a decisive step closer to an assault on Afghanistan on Tuesday when it presented its NATO allies with evidence of Osama bin Laden's involvement in the September 11 terror attacks, guaranteeing the alliance's support.
For the first time in its 52-year history, NATO invoked article 5 of its treaty, obliging the alliance to give the US assistance "for such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force". The article states that an armed attack on one or more of the allies in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Each of the allies will assist the parties attacked.
The decision to invoke the article was made after the US had presented to alliance members what they regarded as "incontrovertible" evidence that the al-Qaeda network, headed by Mr bin Laden, was behind the terror attacks.. . . By producing evidence - still classified - US diplomats hoped to dispel any lingering doubts over Mr bin Laden's involvement. "The facts are clear and compelling," said Lord Robertson, NATO secretary-general."
Financial Times; "NATO sees evidence of bin Laden's involvement" By Judy Dempsey in Brussels, Stephen Fidler in Washington and David White in Brighton. Published: October 2 2001.
    To repeated threats of invasion and being "bombed into the stone age", the current leaders of Afghanistan have asked for evidence of bin Laden’s involvement but this has been contemptuously denied:
"The Taliban on Tuesday called for "peaceful negotiations" to end the crisis and said it needed evidence against Mr bin Laden before it would consider handing him over. But President George W. Bush and British prime minister Tony Blair, Washington's closest ally, dismissed the move. Mr Bush said there was no timetable for the Taliban to turn over Mr bin Laden and destroy terrorist camps. "They must do so, otherwise there will be a consequence. There are no negotiations. There's no calendar."
Financial Times; "NATO sees evidence of bin Laden's involvement" By Judy Dempsey in Brussels, Stephen Fidler in Washington and David White in Brighton. Published: October 2 2001.
    Who really performed or allowed the WTC bombings to happen, appears to be irrelevant as far as NATO is concerned - at least as regards the current moves to war. But an inevitable question arises for the world’s progressives:     Even writers who wish to launch a military attack Bin Laden and Afghanistan, such as Lord Ashdown of Norton-Sub-Hamdon - the prospective High Representative to Bosnia - concede that the attack was ill-conceived from the point of view of Al-Qu’edah: "Al-Qu’edah has weaknesses. First they miscalculated. To put it brutally they over did it. A lower level strike less carnage, above all else international outrage would not have alienated even their natural supporters and avoided the world-wide coalition of revulsion against them….. They acted prematurely. Their own base Afghanistan is not yet secured. There are tensions between them and the Taliban. And outright armed resistance in some parts of the country. Above all they have not secured a fundamentalist state in Pakistan."P.Ashdown; "To Win This War, America Must go beyond Frontlines and Headlines"; ; Independent on Sunday; p. 21.     There are other somewhat strange features, that make the standard "USA Today" and "Sun" explanations of the events as purely due to ‘crazed Islamicists’ untenable.

    Firstly it is remarkable that the third plane – the one that later hit the Pentagon - was still air-borne one hour after the other two planes that had been hi-jacked had actually hit the WTC. The writer Jared Israel puts it this way:

"How could the so-called third airplane stay in the air, hijacked, for almost an hour after two other hijacked planes had struck the WTC Towers, and not be seen and intercepted but US air defence forces? How could it fly to the Midwest, turn around and fly back to Washington, to the Pentagon undisturbed";
Jared Israel: "Criminal Negligence or Treason?" Commentary on a New York Times article posted on 15September 2001; at:
    As Jared Israel points out, the New York Times article makes it quite clear that for a full hour after the WTC airliner collisions, the police, the military and the air traffic control were quite aware that the plane had been taken over and anticipated the worst. (Original article by Matthew L.Ward September 15th; 2001; New York Times.

    Secondly: It is remarkable that in the midst of the conflagration that the WTC became, an intact "passport" should be "found" - a Middle Eastern suspect, with supposed links to bin Laden. This has not by the way, been releases.

    Thirdly: There are remarkable claims, that the suspects have left letters from Osama bin Laden invoking them to have faith in their missions – to be found by the police after the attack. This makes little sense. If Osama bin Laden did not wish to remain un-detected, why  should he not claim responsibility and explain their attacks? In previous attacks they accepted responsibiity.

    Fourthly: there has been no concrete evidences released for public consumption. Today, October 4th the Globe and Mail reports further on the ‘secret’ evidence linking bin Laden with the attacks. But these are somewhat sparse and flimsy "evidences". Which is why perhaps that they are not being made widely and fully available.

    Finally: In any case, a larger issue is raised for those familiar with the machinations of USA imperialism. For those who are not familiar, we suggest they follow some of the articles and evidences provided herein.

    It must be asked, "Who gains by the attacks?"(Apart from Israel):
    and "Did the CIA know what was taking place"?
    Whether or not the members of the bin Ladin organisation were indeed the hijackers, and carried out the attacks, it is certainly far from certain that the USA authorities were unaware of what was liable to be happening shortly. A clear instance in recent times of how terrorist acts have been sanctioned by arms of the USA government lies in the "Lockerbie" PanAm air disaster. [See]

    It will be argued by some that it is "impossible" that the USA government would have placed its’ own population at risk.
    We argue to these honest and well meaning persons that they should wake up. Lockerbie is just one instance where they were prepared to do just that. Perhaps more relevant and telling in the current climate that is moving to a new world war, are even larger events – Pearl Harbour and Nagasaki – the beginning and the end of the Second World War.
    Here much more seriously than in the NYC WTC disaster, ruling class American interests dictated the slaughter of thousands if not millions of "innocents".

    It is interesting that several commentators have described the events of September 11th as a "Pearl Harbour": "This week everyone has been comparing Tuesday's events to Pearl Harbour": "Wake-up call to a daydreaming country"; Commentary from The New York Times; Special report: Terrorism in the US; Frank Rich; Guardian; Monday September 17, 2001.,4273,4258457,00.html     In general these commentators mean to say that there is a clear reason and adequate grounds, for the ‘peace-loving’ USA to go to war. But the reality is that the debacle of Pearl Harbour was planned by a calculating President Franklin D. Roosevelt in order to ‘jolt’ the American people into an acceptance of war. For Roosevelt had promised during the campaign for his third term that: "Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars".
    The evidence for this interpretation of events, is overwhelming and has been recently further compiled by Robert D.Sinnett – who served in the US Navy from 1942-1946, winning ‘ten battle stars and a ‘Presidential Unit Citation’. Hardly a pinko-Pacifist it seems. [See "Day of Deceit – The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbour"; 2000; New York]. It appears that: "a plan to provoke Japan into an overt act of war against the United States … was written by Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far east desk of the office of Naval Intelligence (ONI)":
Ibid; p. 6.
    The eight component steps of this plan, as drawn up by McCollum, would ensure:
    Provoking of Japan into attack;
    ensure that the Pacific Fleet would be left in a vulnerable position in Hawaiian waters;
    and obstruction of an adequate defence.
    These steps could be accomplished by using very good USA counter-Intelligence against Japan, which ensured that all Japanese diplomatic traffic (under the rubric ‘purple’) and military intelligence (under the rubric ‘Kaigun Ango’) [Ibid; p. 21].was decoded by the USA. What were these steps?
    "McCollum advocated eight actions that he predicted would lead to a Japanese attack on the United States……. McCollum’s eight-action memo was dated October 7th, 1940.. beginning the next day, with FDR’s involvement, McCollum’s proposals were systematically put into effect. Throughout 1941, it seems, provoking Japan into an overt act of war was the principal policy that guided FDR’s actions toward Japan.";
    Ibid; pp. 8; 9.

    ii) Leaving a vulnerable force in Hawaiian waters.

    Roosevelt first obstructed the Pacific Fleet’s evacuation from the Hawaii Islands over the advice of Admiral Richardson in April 1940. This would in conjunction with other military build-up close to Japan serve as a provocation. But it was essential to retard the transfer of the main Pacific Fleet away from Hawaii, so that it could serve as "bait":
    "Admiral Richardson planned to send the fleet back to the West Coast. The fleet never returned. Washington slowly put the brakes on and issued specious explanations for keeping the fleet in Hawaii. Under-secretary of State Sumner Welles answered Richardson’s objections by predicting a ‘diplomatic disaster’…. Richardson quoted the President as saying:
      ‘Sooner or later the Japanese would commit an overt act against the United States and that nation would be willing to enter the war"…
    Admiral Richardson saw a disaster in the making. He was responsible for 69,000 sailors under his Pacific command";
    p. 17; 11; 18; Ibid;
    To make further sure that Richardson would not further obstruct him, President Roosevelt relived him of his command. In his stead, Roosevelt put Rear Admiral Husband Kimmel to head the Pacific Fleet, and put Admiral Harold Stark as chief of Naval Operations. Richardson had called them:
    ‘professionally negligent’ for kow-towing to FDR."
    Ibid; p. 12.

    iii) Refusing to Divulge Intelligence Reports of the Japanese Fleet’s Impending Attack

    The Japanese Consulate in Hawaii had a spy Ensign Yoshikawa, code-named Morimura.  All his actions were known both to the FBI and the Naval Intelligence, who refused to divulge details to the Naval Commanders of the Pacific Fleet:     Even as the Japanese fleet was sailing, naval intelligence knew exactly what was happening since radio silence was not being followed by the Japanese fleet. Yet it – and President Roosevelt - did not alert the Pacific Fleet, or order any counter-action.
    The Body Count?
    2,400 – both military and "innocent" civilians.
    Who pulled the trigger?
    Japanese navy personnel.
    Who allowed the USA citizens to be killed?
    The USA President and his cronies of the ruling class.     The tragedy of the atomic bomb drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been usually "excused" – with the words of President Truman: "The dropping of the bomb stopped the war, saved millions of lives.";
Cited by Gar Alperowitz: "Atomic Diplomacy – Hiroshima and Potsdam. The Use of the Atomic bomb and the American Confrontation with Soviet Power"; 1985; New York; p.64; citing H.Truman "Year of Decisions"; p. 70-72; New York; 1955;
    This tragedy is much better understood by people. Most understand that the pictures of children, and adults burning – are obscene and that somehow a ‘blame’ attaches to the USA leaders for precipitating these events. But the real truth is even more bitter than what most people understand. As Eisenhower said: "It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing";
General D.D.Eisenhower; Cited by Alperowitz; Ibid; p. 1.
    As Churchill said: "It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell";
Cited Alperowitz; Ibid; p. 18.
    Why did Eisenhower and Churchill say these things? Again , is it necessary to point out that neither were exactly bleeding liberal pink-o-s?     The USA had well understood already that the Japanese militarists were searching actively for a way to surrender. The Official US Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that:
    "certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."; Cited Alperowitz; Ibid; p. 11.
    Many sections of the military were in agreement and found Truman’s insistence on the use of the bomb repugnant and military nonsense – such as Admiral Leahy, and General Curtis LeMay.
    Messages from Japanese Foreign Minster Togo, to the Soviet Union, asking to "terminate the war if possible by September" – had been received by the USA.
    Indeed, Secretary of the Navy Forrestal described intercepted cable as: Japanese officials had also approached the USA directly – via Allen Dulles head of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Laterthe USA intercepted messages from Japan to Moscow, which showed that the Emperor was urgently trying to arrange a cease-fire. (Alperowitz; Ibid; pages 12-13).     After the USA entered the war, they persistently sought the USSR’s declaration of war on Japan. The USSR, was of course the victim of the German aggression which was aided an abetted by the deliberate policy of Western "appeasement" – intended to destroy the Soviet state. Nonetheless, after the final Allied agreement against the German fascists, the USSR was bearing the brunt. It could then ill afford to start a far eastern front.
    But by 1944, the USSR had steadily won its determined fight on home ground against the fascist invasion. By May 21, 1945, Secretary of State Stinson feared that a Russian drive through Manchuria with:     The record of Truman's own diaries shows that he wanted the USSR declaration of war against Japan even as late as July 17th 1945. After his meeting with Stalin – Truman wrote gleefully:     But by a few weeks alter, the morale of the Japanese had so deteriorated that the "ally" USA, insisted that the Russians be cut out of the Potsdam Proclamation – without Stalin’s signature. As Churchill observed now:     By the agreement between the Allies, Russia was due to enter the Far eastern war theatre by August 15th.
    Hiroshima was bombed on August 6th and Nagasaki on August 9th – pre-empting any USSR participation in the liberation of the Far East. Instead of a liberation, the USA prepared an annihilation totally of their own.     Some may say – this is old history.
    However it vividly illustrates that the USA leadership has been cynical enough to play with even its own citizens’ lives.
    Thus whether the WTC tragedy has been another such cynical card of the USA ruling class is not ruled out on the grounds of impossibility.
    But what of recent history – what has driven the WTC tragedy? Even – if we are to assume that it has been committed by the followers of bin Laden?     Even some liberal journalists have pointed out – with considerable opprobrium being directed against them for doing so - that there are American roots in the tragedy at the WTC: "What a terrible person I am….. I am according to Janet Daley in the Daily Telegraph a ‘salon terrorist; who is ‘excited’ by the attacks on New York and Washington…… I hold two ideas simultaneously in my head, namely that the recent terrorist attacks are horrifying, but that the double standard of American governments may have inflamed the fanatical hatred that inspired them";
Joan Smith: "Exposed! My Shameful Life as a ‘salon terrorist’; Independent on Sunday; 23.09.2001.
    But this view of the USA,  is hardly any surprise to those who have in any way followed the real news.
    Here is a short break-down –  of the individual assassinations - sponsored by the USA and its secret services, of heads of state or leaders of states around the world.
    This does not even list the wars sponsored or initiated or continued by the USA. That is in a separate chapter of a superb compendium of the USA recent "rogueries". This distillation of the worst crimes of the USA imperialist warriors, is by William Blum and is entitled "Rogue State – A Guide To the World’s Only Superpower", Monroe Maine; ‘Common Courage Press’; 2000; ISBN 1-56751-195-5. "The following is a list of prominent foreign individuals whose assassination (or planning for same) the United States has been involved in since the end of the Second World War. (CIA humorists have at times referred to this type of operation as "suicide involuntarily administered", to be carried out by the Agency's Health Alteration Committee.) 1949 Kim Koo, Korean opposition leader
1950s CIA/Neo-Nazi hit list of more than 200 political figures in West Germany to be "put out of the way" in the event of a Soviet invasion 1950s Zhou Enlai, Prime minister of China, several attempts on his life
1950s,1963 Sukarno, President of Indonesia
1951 Kim Il Sung, Premier of North Korea
1950s (mid) Claro M. Recto, Philippines opposition leader
1955 Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India
1957 Gamal Abdul Nasser, President of Egypt
1959 Norodom Sihanouk, leader of Cambodia
1960 Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem, leader of Iraq
1950s-70s Jose Figueres, President of Costa Rica, two attempts on his life
1961 Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier, leader of Haiti
1961Patrice Lumumba, Prime Minister of the Congo
1961 Gen. Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic
1963 Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam
1960’s Fidel Castro, President Of Cuba, many attempts and plots on his life
1960s Raul Castro, high official in government of Cuba
1965 Francisco Caamafio, Dominican Republic opposition leader
1965-6 Charles de Gaulle, President of France
1967 Che Guevara, Cuban leader
1970 Salvador Allende, President of Chile
1970 Gen. Rene Schneider, Commander-in-Chief of Army, Chile
1970s, 1981 General Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama
1972 General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Panama Intelligence
1975 Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire
1976 Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica
1980-1986 Moammar Qaddafi, leader of Libya, several plots and attempts upon his life
1982 Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of Iran
1983 Gen. Ahmed Dlimi, Moroccan Army commander
1983 Miguel d'Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua
1984 The nine comandantes of the Sandinista National Directorate
1985 Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Leban Shiite leader
1991 Saddarn Hussein, leader of Iraq
1998 Osama bin Laden, leading Islamic militant
1999 Slobodan Milosevic, President of Yugoslavia";
William Blum; "Rogue State"; 2000; p. 39-40.
    It is farcical that the USA continues to deny these events as State policy, even at senate committee level: "The senate committee known as the Church Committee, in its Assassination Report in 1975, said: "The committee does not belive, that the acts [Of assassination] which it has examined represented real American character. They do not reflect the ideals which have given the people of this country and the world hope for a better, fullf fairer life. We regard the assassination plots as aberrations."; At the time the committee wrote this, it knew of about a dozen CIA assassination plots and still could call them all aberrations."
Blum Ibid; p.40-41.
    In fact the leaders of the USA state have long considered themselves at war:     There is a very real sense in which the USA aggressive chickens are coming home to roost. We here mention just one – Palestine.

 Callous Trading of Palestine National and Human Rights For Imperialist Base in Israel:

     A further much larger space would be required to adequately document the travesty of USA world and UN injustice perpetuated against the Palestinian peoples – as the agents of Western imperialism the Israeli ruling class, simply terrorized and expropriated the Arabs. Jewish colonial terror against the Arab dwellers was clear witted in its goals – drive the Arab out. This lay behind the aims of the Irgun (IZL- Irgun Zvai Leumi National Military Organisation) in its attacks on Arabs including the massacre of 345 villagers in Deir Yassin on 10 April 1948.
    That the blatant support for Israeli Terror – including the facetious post-Oslo process of turning a ‘blind eye’ to continued Israeli settlement of Arab lands in the West Bank and Gaza – fuels Arab resentment, seems to have even become obvious to President Bush.
    He recently voiced his most explicit support for the creation of an independent Palestinian state, suggesting a shift in the administration's approach towards the Middle East peace process. (Financial Times; "Bush speaks up for a Palestinian state"; By Richard Wolffe in Washington and Ralph Atkins in Jerusalem; October 2 2001.

    We will not even here discuss the deaths of approximately 1 million Iraqi children caused by the callous sanctions of the USA. Madeline Albright’s chilling comment:
    "It was a difficult decision" – is put into perspective by the eloquent Arundhati Roy in her article, "The algebra of infinite justice". [Guardian September 29 2001; Saturday review page 1. Or at:,4273,4266289,00.html]

    The fact is that under imperialist capital, the war for markets spills over into physical war. This current situation is an extension of the war of words for market shares that have been going on for some time now between the USA led NAFTA and the EEC and the – now struggling ASEAN blocks. Undoubtedly the current capitalist recession has been exacerbated by the shock following September 11th. But also undoubtedly, there were objective economic factors PRIOR to September 11th, that were pushing to economic recession. The collapse of share prices is indicative of a huge over capacity in, especially, the electronics and information technology industries.
    It must be said that a world wide war has historically been very convenient to ‘mop up’ excess capacity and to ward off recessions. Anticipate big profits for the war related industries – once more. And as Martin Wolf of the Financial Times points out:     Interestingly he also points out that the previous times when the capitalist ideals were exposed so vividly, the forces of communism were prepared. He rightly points out that today’s anti-globalization movement is bereft of a correct leadership, it is "infantile":     It is very legitimate to ask, "If we really are in the early throes of a new world war, who really are the forces ranged against    the USA and the UK?"
    At this stage it is not fully clear to us at any rate, but we hazard a guess that China is one of the USA antagonists. Furthermore, it is clear that the UK – especially under Tony Blair – is the Cheer-leader of the USA within the EEC. It is unlikely that the other parts of the EEC will tolerate this situation for evermore.
    Whether or not the USA leadership is complicit in the WTC tragedy, the actions of the September 11th are to be condemned.
    But furthermore, the USA drive to extract benefit for its own super-power agenda of world domination – including a drive for war - is to be condemned and vigorously opposed.     A similar situation appears to hold today as we see the Jingoist imperialist chauvinist Coalition being prepared by Bush in a ‘crusade’.
    A ‘Crusade’ against what?
    Against anyone who dares to stand up against USA imperialism is the answer.

Alliance Marxist-Leninist (North America); October 3rd 2001.