Democracy and Class Struggle notes the BBC talks about armed individuals not terrorists which clearly give away the BBC pro Imperialist Middle East agenda - the recent formation of a new CIA Centre to attack Iran and the recent Trump meeting in Saudi makes all this point at US and Saudis and CIA . The US and Saudis and Israeli's will be held to account.
Iran’s Parliament (Majlis) and the Mausoleum of the late founder of the Islamic Republic Imam Khomeini in the capital Tehran have come under armed attack. At least four gunmen have reportedly intruded into the premises of the Majlis, opening fire on the security guards there.
According to Tasnim news agency, at least eight people have been injured in the shooting attack on Wednesday.
Two people are said to have lost their lives in the firefight.
The assault has forced a lockdown on the legislature. Tehran MP Elias Hazrati has said that the assailants were armed with two Kalashnikovs and a handgun.
According to lawmaker Mehdi Kiaee, the situation is under control inside the parliament, while security forces are working to restore calm there.
As seen in the footage below, Anti-Terror Special Forces have been deployed to the Majlis.
Tasnim said in an update that the hostage rescue team of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) has arrested two “terrorists” in the Imam Khomeini Mausoleum. The IRGC hostage rescue forces also killed one assailant at the parliament, according to Tasnim. An Interior Ministry source said a suicide bomber has blown himself up on the fourth floor of the parliament building, where he was holed up.
Separately, Fars said in a Twitter post that three gunmen attacked the Imam Khomeini Mausoleum in Tehran, opening fire on people inside and wounding a number of them. The photo released by Jamaran News shows the moment of a blast at the western entrance of the Imam Khomeini Mausoleum, southern Tehran, June 7, 2017.
The report said one of the assailants has been killed, another has blown himself up and a third one has been injured.
Informed sources say a suicide bomber’s explosive vest has also been discovered and deactivated in the vicinity of the mausoleum. Iran’s state television quoted an Intelligence Ministry source as saying that the twin attacks in Tehran were being treated as terrorist incidents.
IRNA cited an official with the Intelligence Ministry’s Counterterrorism Department as saying that several terrorist teams had entered the capital earlier in the day. One of the terrorist teams was busted before managing to stage any attacks, while two others attacked the parliament building and the mausoleum. At the shrine, one bomber was killed bef
Democracy and Class Strugglesays there is no road to Socialism by marching through the institutions of the British Stateonly by creating counter power and yes at some point dual power. Then the question will of arise of smashing the British State and starting the process of National and Social Liberation in these "British" Islands. William Morris warned us as far back as 1888that it might take us a century of Labour reformism before we concluded on the necessity of revolution to abolish capitalism. The basic question of every revolution is that of state power. Unless this question is understood, there can be no intelligent participation in the revolution, not to speak of guidance of the revolution. The highly remarkable feature of our revolution is that it has brought about a dual power. This fact must be grasped first and foremost: unless it is understood, we cannot advance. We must know how to supplement and amend old “formulas”, for example, those of Bolshevism, for while they have been found to be correct on the whole, their concrete realisation has turned out to be different. Nobody previously thought, or could have thought, of a dual power. What is this dual power? Alongside the Provisional Government, the government of bourgeoisie, another government has arisen, so far weak and incipient, but undoubtedly a government that actually exists and is growing—the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies. What is the class composition of this other government? It consists of the proletariat and the peasants (in soldiers’ uniforms). What is the political nature of this government? It is a revolutionary dictatorship, i.e., a power directly based on revolutionary seizure, on the direct initiative of the people from below, and not on a law enacted by a centralised state power. It is an entirely different kind of power from the one that generally exists in the parliamentary bourgeois-democratic republics of the usual type still prevailing in the advanced countries of Europe and America. This circumstance often over looked, often not given enough thought, yet it is the crux of the matter. This power is of the same type as the Paris Commune of 1871. The fundamental characteristics of this type are: (1) the source of power is not a law previously discussed and enacted by parliament, but the direct initiative of the people from below, in their local areas—direct “seizure”, to use a current expression; (2) the replacement of the police and the army, which are institutions divorced from the people and set against the people, by the direct arming of the whole people; order in the state under such a power is maintained by the armed workers and peasants themselves, by the armed people themselves; (3) officialdom, the bureaucracy, are either similarly replaced by the direct rule of the people themselves or at least placed under special control; they not only become elected officials, but are also subject to recall at the people’s first demand; they are reduced to the position of simple agents; from a privileged group holding “jobs” remunerated on a high, bourgeois scale, they become workers of a special “arm of the service”, whose remuneration does not exceedthe ordinary pay of a competent worker. This, and this alone, constitutes the essence of the Paris Commune as a special type of state. This essence has been forgotten or perverted by the Plekhanovs (downright chauvinists who have betrayed Marxism), the Kautskys (the men of the “Centre”, i.e., those who vacillate between chauvinism and Marxism), and generally by all those Social-Democrats, Socialist-Revolutionaries, etc., etc., who now rule the roost. They are trying to get away with empty phrases, evasions, subterfuges; they congratulate each other a thousand times upon the revolution, but refuse to consider what the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies are. They refuse to recognise the obvious truth that in as much as these Soviets exist, in as much as they are a power, we have in Russia a state of the type of the Paris Commune. I have emphasised the words “in as much as”, for it is only an incipient power. By direct agreement with the bourgeois Provisional Government and by a series of actual concessions, it has itself surrendered and is surrendering its positions to the bourgeoisie. Why? Is it because Chkheidze, Tsereteli, Steklov and Co. are making a “mistake”? Nonsense. Only a philistine can think so—not a Marxist. The reason is insufficient class-consciousness and organisation of the proletarians and peasants. The “mistake” of the leaders I have named lies in their petty-bourgeois position, in the fact that instead of clarifying the minds of the workers, they are befogging them; instead of dispelling petty-bourgeois illusions,they are instilling them; instead of freeing the people from bourgeois influence, they are strengthening that influence. It should be clear from this why our comrades, too, make so many mistakes when putting the question “simply”: Should the Provisional Government be overthrown immediately? My answer is: (1) it should be overthrown, for it is an oligarchic, bourgeois, and not a people’s government, and is unable to provide peace, bread, or full freedom; (2) It cannot be overthrown just now, for it is being kept in power by a direct and indirect, a formal and actual agreement with the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, and primarily with the chief Soviet, the Petrograd Soviet; (3) generally, it can not be “overthrown” in the ordinary way, for it rests on the “support” given to the bourgeoisie by the second government—the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies, and that government is the only possible revolutionary government, which directly expresses the mind and will of the majority of the workers and peasants. Humanity has not yet evolved and we do not as yet know a type of government superior to and better than the Soviets of Workers’, Agricultural Labourers’, Peasants’, and Soldiers’ Deputies. To become a power the class-conscious workers must win the majority to their side.As long as no violence is used against the people there is no other road to power. We are not Blanqists, we do not stand for the seizure of power by a minority. We are Marxists, we stand for proletarian class struggle against petty-bourgeois intoxication, against chauvinism-defencism, phrase-mongering and dependence on the bourgeoisie. Let us create a proletarian Communist Party; its elements have already been created by the best adherents of Bolshevism; let us rally our ranks for proletarian class work; and larger and larger numbers from among the proletarians,from among the poorest peasants will range themselves on our side. For actual experience will from day to day shatter the petty-bourgeois illusions of those “Social-Democrats”, the Chkheidzes, Tseretelis, Steklovs and others, the “Socialist Revolutionaries”, the petty bourgeois of an even purer water, and so on and so forth. The bourgeoisie stands for the undivided power of the bourgeoisie. The class-conscious workers stand for the undivided power of the Soviets of Workers’, Agricultural Labourers’, Peasants’, and Soldiers’ Deputies—for undivided power made possible not by adventurist acts, but by clarifying proletarian minds, by emancipating them from the influence of the bourgeoisie. The petty bourgeoisie—“Social-Democrats”, Socialist-Revolutionaries, etc., etc.—vacillate and, thereby, hinder this clarification and emancipation. This is the actual, the class alignment of forces that determines our tasks. SEE ALSO: http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/liar-liar-by-captain-ska-in-top-10.html
Flag of the South Korean National Liberation Front
Democracy and Class Struggle says these songs, while used by communists, are general protest songs used against the many South Korean dictatorships, as being an outspoken communist in South Korea meant certain death. Even nowadays communist organizations are still illegal and being a member of one is an act punishable by death. The Hour of the Liberation of Korea and its Unification is at hand - the martyrs will be remembered and honoured they wrote a glorious chapter in Korean history Trump poses an existential threat to the Korean Nation North and South only Korean unity can prevent catastrophe. Koreans be Koreans ! 0:00 적기가 (Red Flag) 3:17 인터내셔날가 (The Internationale) 7:25 새세대청춘송가 (Anthem of the New Generation of Youth) 10:10 다시 또 다시 (Again and Again) 11:54 해방역에 닿을 때까지 (Until It Reaches the Station of Liberation) 13:28 혁명의 투혼 (Fighting Spirit of the Revolution) 15:48 들어라 양키야 (Listen, Yankees) 18:22 선언 (Declaration) 20:38 동지가 (Comrade) 22:09 농민가 (Song of the Farmers) 23:35 오월의 노래 (Song of May) 26:02 죽창가 (Jukchangga) 28:58 함께 가자 우리 (Come With Us) 31:46 민들레처럼 (Like a Dandelion) 35:51 열사가 전사에게 (To the Martyred Warriors) 40:26 타는 목마름으로 (A Burning Thirst) 42:33 민중의노래 (Song of the People) 44:56 나의 소망 (My Hope) 49:41 임을 위한 행진곡 (March of That) 53:13 어머니 (Mother)
Some Heat any Light ? Bill Curry expresses modern Russophobia ? Dan Kovalik a Russophile ? The Truth and the Reality of Russia cannot be expressed through Russophobia or Russophilia. Democracy and Class Struggle says the reality and truth of Russia is expressed in the Class Struggle in Russia in 2017 where point one percent owns sixty per cent of the wealth of Russia. Democracy and Class Struggle hates the Russian Oligarchs but loves the Russian People so are we Russophiles for the People and Russophobes for the Oligarchs ? We see Trump and the Russian Oligarchs as mirror images of each other and their overthrow the necessity of 2017
Professor Filip Kovacevic, Pye Ian and Spiro Skouras to examine the current US foreign policy strategy, and who is their next target. We take the view of Filip Kovacevic and see North Korea as the principal target and Iran as the secondary target. We do not agree with Filip Kovacevic's view of Trump - we see Trump as connected to a section of the deep State in USA. Filip Kovacevic is wrong in saying that a special CIA Iran HQ has not been established just a North Korean one - both exist.
The unsayable in Britain's general election campaign is this. The causes of the Manchester atrocity, in which 22 mostly young people were murdered by a jihadist, are being suppressed to protect the secrets of British foreign policy. Critical questions - such as why the security service MI5 maintained terrorist "assets" in Manchester and why the government did not warn the public of the threat in their midst - remain unanswered, deflected by the promise of an internal "review". The alleged suicide bomber, Salman Abedi, was part of an extremist group, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, that thrived in Manchester and was cultivated and used by MI5 for more than 20 years. The LIFG is proscribed by Britain as a terrorist organisation which seeks a "hardline Islamic state" in Libya and "is part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by al-Qaida". The "smoking gun" is that when Theresa May was Home Secretary, LIFG jihadists were allowed to travel unhindered across Europe and encouraged to engage in "battle": first to remove Mu'ammar Gadaffi in Libya, then to join al-Qaida affiliated groups in Syria. Last year, the FBI reportedly placed Abedi on a "terrorist watch list" and warned MI5 that his group was looking for a "political target" in Britain. Why wasn't he apprehended and the network around him prevented from planning and executing the atrocity on 22 May? These questions arise because of an FBI leak that demolished the "lone wolf" spin in the wake of the 22 May attack - thus, the panicky, uncharacteristic outrage directed at Washington from London and Donald Trump's apology. The Manchester atrocity lifts the rock of British foreign policy to reveal its Faustian alliance with extreme Islam, especially the sect known as Wahhabism or Salafism, whose principal custodian and banker is the oil kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Britain's biggest weapons customer. This imperial marriage reaches back to the Second World War and the early days of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The aim of British policy was to stop pan-Arabism: Arab states developing a modern secularism, asserting their independence from the imperial west and controlling their resources. The creation of a rapacious Israel was meant to expedite this. Pan-Arabism has since been crushed; the goal now is division and conquest. In 2011, according to Middle East Eye, the LIFG in Manchester were known as the "Manchester boys". Implacably opposed to Mu'ammar Gadaffi, they were considered high risk and a number were under Home Office control orders - house arrest - when anti-Gadaffi demonstrations broke out in Libya, a country forged from myriad tribal enmities. Suddenly the control orders were lifted. "I was allowed to go, no questions asked," said one LIFG member. MI5 returned their passports and counter-terrorism police at Heathrow airport were told to let them board their flights. The overthrow of Gaddafi, who controlled Africa's largest oil reserves, had been long been planned in Washington and London. According to French intelligence, the LIFG made several assassination attempts on Gadaffi in the 1990s - bank-rolled by British intelligence. In March 2011, France, Britain and the US seized the opportunity of a "humanitarian intervention" and attacked Libya. They were joined by Nato under cover of a UN resolution to "protect civilians". Last September, a House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee inquiry concluded that then Prime Minister David Cameron had taken the country to war against Gaddafi on a series of "erroneous assumptions" and that the attack "had led to the rise of Islamic State in North Africa". The Commons committee quoted what it called Barack Obama's "pithy" description of Cameron's role in Libya as a "shit show". In fact, Obama was a leading actor in the "shit show", urged on by his warmongering Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and a media accusing Gaddafi of planning "genocide" against his own people. "We knew... that if we waited one more day," said Obama, "Benghazi, a city the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world." The massacre story was fabricated by Salafist militias facing defeat by Libyan government forces. They told Reuters there would be "a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda". The Commons committee reported, "The proposition that Mu'ammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence". Britain, France and the United States effectively destroyed Libya as a modern state. According to its own records, Nato launched 9,700 "strike sorties", of which more than a third hit civilian targets. They included fragmentation bombs and missiles with uranium warheads. The cities of Misurata and Sirte were carpet-bombed. Unicef, the UN children's organisation, reported a high proportion of the children killed "were under the age of ten". More than "giving rise" to Islamic State - ISIS had already taken root in the ruins of Iraq following the Blair and Bush invasion in 2003 - these ultimate medievalists now had all of north Africa as a base. The attack also triggered a stampede of refugees fleeing to Europe. Cameron was celebrated in Tripoli as a "liberator", or imagined he was. The crowds cheering him included those secretly supplied and trained by Britain's SAS and inspired by Islamic State, such as the "Manchester boys". To the Americans and British, Gadaffi's true crime was his iconoclastic independence and his plan to abandon the petrodollar, a pillar of American imperial power. He had audaciously planned to underwrite a common African currency backed by gold, establish an all-Africa bank and promote economic union among poor countries with prized resources. Whether or not this would have happened, the very notion was intolerable to the US as it prepared to "enter" Africa and bribe African governments with military "partnerships". The fallen dictator fled for his life. A Royal Air Force plane spotted his convoy, and in the rubble of Sirte, he was sodomised with a knife by a fanatic described in the news as "a rebel". Having plundered Libya's $30 billion arsenal, the "rebels" advanced south, terrorising towns and villages. Crossing into sub-Saharan Mali, they destroyed that country's fragile stability. The ever-eager French sent planes and troops to their former colony "to fight al-Qaida", or the menace they had helped create. On 14 October, 2011, President Obama announced he was sending special forces troops to Uganda to join the civil war there. In the next few months, US combat troops were sent to South Sudan, Congo and the Central African Republic. With Libya secured, an American invasion of the African continent was under way, largely unreported. In London, one of the world's biggest arms fairs was staged by the British government. The buzz in the stands was the "demonstration effect in Libya". The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry held a preview entitled "Middle East: A vast market for UK defence and security companies". The host was the Royal Bank of Scotland, a major investor in cluster bombs, which were used extensively against civilian targets in Libya. The blurb for the bank's arms party lauded the "unprecedented opportunities for UK defence and security companies." Last month, Prime Minister Theresa May was in Saudi Arabia, selling more of the £3 billion worth of British arms which the Saudis have used against Yemen. Based in control rooms in Riyadh, British military advisers assist the Saudi bombing raids, which have killed more than 10,000 civilians. There are now clear signs of famine. A Yemeni child dies every 10 minutes from preventable disease, says Unicef. The Manchester atrocity on 22 May was the product of such unrelenting state violence in faraway places, much of it British sponsored. The lives and names of the victims are almost never known to us. This truth struggles to be heard, just as it struggled to be heard when the London Underground was bombed on July 7, 2005. Occasionally, a member of the public would break the silence, such as the east Londoner who walked in front of a CNN camera crew and reporter in mid-platitude. "Iraq!" he said. "We invaded Iraq. What did we expect? Go on, say it." At a large media gathering I attended, many of the important guests uttered "Iraq" and "Blair" as a kind of catharsis for that which they dared not say professionally and publicly. Yet, before he invaded Iraq, Blair was warned by the Joint Intelligence Committee that "the threat from al-Qaida will increase at the onset of any military action against Iraq... The worldwide threat from other Islamist terrorist groups and individuals will increase significantly". Just as Blair brought home to Britain the violence of his and George W Bush's blood-soaked "shit show", so David Cameron, supported by Theresa May, compounded his crime in Libya and its horrific aftermath, including those killed and maimed in Manchester Arena on 22 May. The spin is back, not surprisingly. Salman Abedi acted alone. He was a petty criminal, no more. The extensive network revealed last week by the American leak has vanished. But the questions have not. Why was Abedi able to travel freely through Europe to Libya and back to Manchester only days before he committed his terrible crime? Was Theresa May told by MI5 that the FBI had tracked him as part of an Islamic cell planning to attack a "political target" in Britain? In the current election campaign, the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has made a guarded reference to a "war on terror that has failed". As he knows, it was never a war on terror but a war of conquest and subjugation. Palestine. Afghanistan. Iraq. Libya. Syria. Iran is said to be next. Before there is another Manchester, who will have the courage to say that? Follow John Pilger on twitter @johnpilger SOURCE: http://johnpilger.com/articles/terror-in-britain-what-did-the-prime-minister-know
